Towards a greater universality of international law?
2023 was a landmark year for international justice, with the historic appeal judgement on the Alieu Kosiah case handed down in June by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court. The beginning of 2024 continues on this note, as the trial of Ousman Sonko – former Gambian Interior Minister accused of crimes against humanity – is currently taking place at the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona. He is the highest-ranking political dignitary tried in Europe for extra-territorial international crimes.
But it does not stop there: international law was louder than ever, on a global scale, this January. On the 11 and 12 of January, people all over the world logged on to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) website to follow hours of live hearings where the legal representatives of South Africa and Israel pleaded against each other.
On December 28, 2023, South Africa filed an 84-page motion and almost 600 footnotes to the ICJ. The motion accused Israel of multiple violations of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. South Africa also asked the ICJ to order urgent provisional measures in view of the situation in Gaza. Less than 2 weeks later, the 17 ICJ judges, including 2 ad-hoc judges appointed by the parties, met at the Peace Palace in The Hague to hear the legal arguments of the lawyers on the provisional measures.
The ICJ, the principal judicial body of the United Nations, began its work in April 1946 and hears disputes between states, unlike the International Criminal Court (ICC), which judges the actions of individuals. In operation for almost 80 years, the ICJ was mainly used by States for their bilateral disputes: now things are changing, and the consequences could be far-reaching.
7,000 kilometers separate Israel and South Africa, two countries that are not on the same continent. However, South Africa’s leaders feel there are historic ties with Palestinians and consider that, because of the Genocide Convention, they have a duty to “prevent and punish” genocide, notably by taking to the ICJ any state they consider to be committing genocide – in this case, according to South Africa’s assessment – Israel.
In this sense, South Africa is following the clear jurisprudence of the ICJ, which considers that there is, if not an obligation, at least a specific right for each State to bring a case before the Court if it considers that genocide is taking place, even thousands of kilometers away.
Thus, state actors, particularly in Africa, have recently started applying the law and judicial practice developed by the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and are calling for the universal application of this law.
Before South Africa, another African country, Gambia, took Myanmar, which is over 11,000 kilometers from Banjul, to the ICJ, again for violation of the Genocide Convention, allegedly committed against its Rohingya population.
The law and jurisprudence on the question of genocide have been in part developed before the ICJ in cases which are, or were, viewed positively by the United States and most European countries (the case brought in 1993 against Serbia and Montenegro by Bosnia-Herzegovina, or more recently the case against Russia brought by Ukraine). This same case law could very soon lead the ICJ ordering provisional measures against Israel based on the Genocide Convention.
Before the ICJ, South Africa has managed to do the two things it had to do at this stage of the provisional measures: firstly, to describe the situation experienced for several months by civilians in Gaza using, among other things, hundreds of reports from numerous United Nations agencies. And secondly, to produce numerous statements by Israeli officials, both political and military, in order to argue that Israel’s genocidal intent in Gaza is at least plausible. This would be considered sufficient for provisional measures in the light of ICJ jurisprudence.
Like South Africa, Israel is obviously taking this procedure very seriously, and is also represented by highly experienced lawyers. They put forward two main arguments in court: all civilian victims in Gaza are the direct consequence of Hamas’ military tactics – and that it is this armed group is the one with the genocidal intention of annihilating the Jewish people. And that Israel, which is merely defending itself, has a sufficiently robust legal system to ensure compliance with its international obligations and, if necessary, punish abuses.
Will the Israeli arguments convince the judges at this preliminary stage not to order provisional measures? The most knowledgeable observers of the ICJ predict that the Court will, before the beginning of February (when its composition will change) – grant at least one of the urgent requests made by South Africa. This could, for example, concern measures that would compel Israel to immediately halt any measures in Gaza that restrict civilian population’s access to humanitarian assistance.
However, it is also agreed that, barring a huge surprise, the ICJ will not provisionally order a halt of Israeli military operations, as requested by South Africa. Indeed, Hamas, which is not bound by the international obligations of States, is still holding many Israeli hostages, and has indicated no intention of laying down its arms.
Any decision ordering provisional measures of any kind would have a major impact: it would mean that, according to the ICJ, it would be plausible at this stage to consider that Israel has somehow violated the Genocide Convention in Gaza. From that point onwards, any military support for Israeli operations from allied states could have legal consequences and would undoubtedly give rise to complaints.
A decision on the merits of the case – did Israel commit or incite genocide in Gaza? – will probably take another 3 or 4 years. The ICJ’s current jurisprudence on the notion of a State’s intent to commit genocide is restrictive and not in South Africa’s favor: this intent has to be the only possible explanation for the conduct in question.
This particular jurisprudence may still evolve, and we’ll know in the meantime whether the ICJ considers Myanmar guilty of committing genocide against the Rohingya, and whether Russia had reasons, under international law, for invading Ukraine.
Today, more than 100 States are parties to cases pending before the ICJ – an unprecedented number, about half of the States recognized by the United Nations. The Court is also called upon to rule or give an advisory opinion on the most burning issues for our common future, such as the obligations of States under international law in relation to climate change.
Coupled with the determination of certain countries, notably in Africa and the Pacific, to not allow international law to be a Western States’ prerogative, this could well be the decade of greater universality of international law.
The article first appeared in French on Le Temps on the 22nd of January, 2024.
Photo: International Court of Justice. Wikimedia Commons.
