 |
| Pix Credit here |
South Africa's Justice Minister, Ronald Lamola, said Israel “dismally failed to disprove” it has violated the 1948 Genocide Convention during its carpet bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip. “We remain confident we have presented a compelling case, forensically detailed by our lawyers, and the State of Israel has dismally failed today … The court has compelling facts from South Africa, and the law is on our side,” Lamola told reporters following the presentation of Israel's defense at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 12 January.
“No matter what some individual within the group of Palestine and Gaza may have done, and no matter how great the threat to Israel citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza … with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified at all,” he added. (Israel 'dismally failed' to refute genocide charges at ICJ: South Africa)
Perception is deeply rooted in the historical context from which it arises; sometimes that produces lamentable contradiction (consider here). Sometimes it may produce something else. Even as the South Africa state and its supporters congratulated themselves on their presentation before the ICJ; and even as staff within the American federal government planned an employment action in solidarity with the thrust of the sentiments that drive South Africa's intervention (here), the German state has taken a different position.
Erklärung der Bundesregierung zur Verhandlung am Internationalen Gerichtshof
Der Sprecher der Bundesregierung, Steffen Hebestreit, teilt mit:
per E-Mail teilen, Erklärung der Bundesregierung zur Verhandlung am Internationalen GerichtshofPressemitteilung 10
per Facebook teilen, Erklärung der Bundesregierung zur Verhandlung am Internationalen Gerichtshof
Freitag, 12. Januar 2024
Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung (BPA)
Am 7. Oktober 2023 haben Terroristen der Hamas unschuldige Menschen in Israel brutal überfallen, gequält, getötet und entführt. Das Ziel der Hamas ist es, Israel auszulöschen. Israel verteidigt sich seitdem gegen den menschenverachtenden Angriff der Hamas.
Angesichts der deutschen Geschichte und des Menschheitsverbrechens der Shoa sieht sich die Bundesregierung der Konvention gegen Völkermord besonders verbunden. Diese Konvention ist ein zentrales Instrument des Völkerrechts, um das "nie wieder" umzusetzen. Einer politischen Instrumentalisierung treten wir entschieden entgegen.
Wir wissen, dass verschiedene Länder die Operation Israels im Gazastreifen unterschiedlich bewerten. Den nun vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof gegen Israel erhobenen Vorwurf des Völkermords weist die Bundesregierung aber entschieden und ausdrücklich zurück. Dieser Vorwurf entbehrt jeder Grundlage.
Die Bundesregierung unterstützt den Internationalen Gerichtshof in seiner Arbeit, so wie sie es seit vielen Jahrzehnten tut. Die Bundesregierung intendiert, in der Hauptverhandlung als Drittpartei zu intervenieren.
Statement by the Federal Government on the proceedings at the International Court of JusticeThere is not much that can be said here for the moment. Though it is far too early to say much; two things might be considered even at this early stage. The first is that the decision of the German state to intervene as a third party in this case is much more important than one might think. In terms of moral claims, and historical connection, with the foundations of the modern normative concept of genocide, the German State's position will likely (or certainly ought to be with the preservation of the legitimacy of the ICJ apparatus in mind) carry some substantial weight. The second is the substantive point, which the German state has already disclosed: Whatever criminal activity might be surmised from the conduct of belligerents in this conflict (including the complicity of organs of the United Nations and its officials, asserted but as yet unproven), that activity, when solely focused on a narrative curated from selected speech/acts of a number of individuals acting through the organs of the State of Israel, that activity does not rise to genocide within the meaning of relevant text. That is so even if some may fervently hope to bend text, by whatever means and for whatever reasons, toward those ends.
The spokesman for the federal government, Steffen Hebestreit, said:Share by email, Federal Government statement on proceedings at the International Court of Justice
Share via Facebook, Federal Government statement on the proceedings at the International Court of Justice
Press release 10
Friday, January 12, 2024
Press and Information Office of the Federal Government (BPA)
On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists brutally attacked, tortured, killed and kidnapped innocent people in Israel. Hamas' goal is to wipe out Israel. Since then, Israel has been defending itself against the inhumane attack by Hamas.
In view of Germany's history and the crime against humanity of the Shoah, the Federal Government sees itself as particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide. This convention is a central instrument of international law to implement "never again". We firmly oppose political instrumentalization.
We know that different countries assess Israel's operation in Gaza differently. However, the Federal Government firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This accusation has no basis whatsoever.
The Federal Government supports the International Court of Justice in its work, as it has done for many decades. The federal government intends to intervene as a third party in the main hearing.
That intervention may serve as a caution for those engaging in an orgy of collective accusation that reflects everything from the good to the bad to the ugly, the letter usually so deeply embedded and unconscious that it remains imperious to deeper reflection and self awareness. It is, in that sense, perhaps, a caution about the weight of such elaborate (collective) accusations when they emerge from collectives whose own historical historical connection with genocide, generally brushed aside on the basis of any number of quite fascinating tropes, and also their effect on those forced to hear it (again). But it is also a caution for all parties to the current conflict and to others now underway, or threatened in other parts of the world. It is this: even if the situation as it has evolved to date does not amount to genocide does not mean that, giving way to passions and losing self control (on the part of he Stae of Israel at least--no one seems interested in considering the responsibilities and consequences of the objects of Israeli belligerence--again an ancient trope), it may not evolve in that direction if, indeed, an unlawful passion is substituted for a clear eyed responsibility. This is a caution, however, that is equally applicable to the Russians, and others, as it is for the belligerents in the context of the ICJ proceeding. For the moment, the Israelis fall far short of that mark; the case of the organs functioning as the political and military establishment in Gaza remains to be explored. In any case, this last caution is one that ought to stand at the heart of the belligerence protocols of every state.
There will be much more to consider in the next weeks. Following below is a reposting of a quite valuable post authored by Christian Walter, Professor of Public Law and Public International Law at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, which, whether one agrees or not with its particulars, is worthy of serious attention. It was originally published in the Verfassungsblog 12 January 2024, and the original may be accessed HERE.
Why Germany Should Join Sides with Israel before the ICJ in its Defense against South Africa’s Accusation of Genocide
Yesterday and today, the ICJ heard an application for provisional measures brought by South Africa, in which Israel is accused of the particularly serious crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza due to its reactions to the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. Leaving aside specific questions of “provisional measures”, the proceedings raise fundamental questions of the determination and attribution of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” (Article II of the Genocide Convention). In proceedings initiated by The Gambia against Myanmar concerning the genocide of the Rohingya in 2019, similar questions of attribution and evidence arose. In November 2023, Germany, together with Denmark, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Canada, took a position on these issues by way of an intervention under Article 63 para. 2 of the ICJ Statute and supported The Gambia’s position as applicant. This participation in the proceedings, as well as other reasons to be explained below, speak in favor of also declaring an intervention in the proceedings between South Africa and Israel – in this case, however, with the aim of supporting Israel as defendant and countering the South African argumentation.
Characteristics of intervention before the ICJ
The ICJ Statute provides for intervention by third states in two different forms. First, there is the possibility of intervening if a state considers that its own legal interests may be affected by pending proceedings (Art. 62 para. 1 ICJ Statute). This is unlikely to be an option for Germany in the current proceedings, even considering the special historical connections between Germany, Israel and the Genocide Convention. Ultimately, Germany is not differently affected than any other party to the Genocide Convention.
Apart from this, a state may also intervene if a pending case concerns the interpretation of a multilateral treaty to which the intervening state is also a party (Art. 63 para. 2 ICJ Statute). The interpretation of a multilateral treaty has a high precedential effect for all other contracting parties, regardless of the judgement merely having a bilateral binding effect between the parties to the dispute (Art. 59 ICJ Statute). Therefore, all other contracting states are being given the opportunity to participate without having to assert a specific legal interest of their own. This general purpose of an intervening party under Article 63 para. 2 ICJ Statute can be regarded as largely consented, despite many other unresolved issues in the law of intervention. It also formed the basis for the declaration by Germany and its partners in the proceedings between The Gambia and Myanmar mentioned at the beginning of this post. This purpose also explains why – in contrast to the notion of intervention in many domestic settings – the intervention does not have to be declared explicitly in favor of one of the parties to the dispute. The focus is rather on protecting one’s interest in a particular interpretation of the treaty than on supporting one of the parties to the dispute. Notwithstanding this, the decision on a declaration of intervention naturally also has a considerable political dimension – as is the case with much of international law. This becomes very clear in a press release by the Federal Foreign Office on the declaration of intervention in the proceedings between The Gambia and Myanmar, in which, on the one hand, basic questions of the interpretation of the Genocide Convention are addressed, but on the other hand, a clear position is taken in favor of The Gambia and thus against Myanmar. The political positioning is even clearer in Germany’s declaration of accession in a third current case based on the Genocide Convention, namely the one between Ukraine and Russia (see, for example, the analysis in German here).
Why should Germany declare an intervention in the proceedings between South Africa and Israel?
Firstly, because of continuity. The proceedings between South Africa and Israel are the third to be brought before the ICJ within a comparatively short period based on the jurisdiction clause in Art. IX of the Genocide Convention. As just mentioned, Germany submitted a declaration of intervention in the two previous proceedings. In the proceedings between Ukraine and Russia, Germany expressly justified its declaration of intervention with its own history (para. 14). If Germany’s own history was part of the motivation for the declaration at that time, in order to be consistent, this must apply even more regarding an accusation of genocide brought against Israel. This does not mean that, for historical reasons, Germany must defend Israeli positions unconditionally or in a one-sided manner. But Germany’s historical responsibility does mean that it must make every effort to ensure that the Genocide Convention is interpreted and applied appropriately, especially in the Middle East.
Although intervening parties do not become parties to the dispute, they acquire their own procedural position, which includes, for example, the possibility to submit written statements and participate in oral proceedings (Art. 86 Rules of Court). These opportunities for participation are an important instrument for exercising responsibility for the Genocide Convention.
Moreover, an intervention gives Germany the opportunity to clarify and further develop its own position formulated in the declaration of intervention in the proceedings between The Gambia and Myanmar. In this intervention, a strong emphasis was placed on sexualized violence, violence against women and children, and the creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. In view of the terrible humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, these aspects become once again of fundamental importance in the present proceedings. South Africa’s application argues with an extensive list of measures described as “genocidal acts” (paras. 43 et seq.), which are closely linked to Israel’s massive use of military force and demonstrate the unbearable current living conditions. However – and in this respect the situation in the Gaza Strip differs fundamentally from that of the Rohingya in Myanmar – the military conflict between Israel and Hamas must be taken into account when conclusions about a possible genocide are to be drawn from the extent of the use of military force and from the extent of destruction of civilian infrastructure. South Africa completely ignores Israel’s self-defense situation. This is not to say that all of Israel’s actions are covered by the right to self-defense and are therefore justified. However, even excessive self-defense does not automatically constitute genocide, but “merely” a violation of international law. Thus, the alternative “Self-defense or Genocide?” (see the heading of an article in German linked here) is a simplified and incorrect description of the situation. The same also applies to possible violations of international humanitarian law or human rights guarantees. Even if they exist, they do not automatically establish genocidal intent.
One of the central legal questions in the ongoing proceedings will be how and when the “intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious, as such” can be inferred from a combination of the massive use of military force and statements made by political leaders and other officials during an ongoing military conflict (some of which are difficult to bear…). In that regard, plausible alternative interpretations must not be completely ignored. The ICJ expressly declared this in connection with the Yugoslavia conflict: “[…] in order to infer the existence of dolus specialis from a pattern of conduct, it is necessary that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question.” (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 2015, p. 3, para. 148). Regarding the measures taken by Israel, such a plausible alternative interpretation does exist. The military measures could be understood as aiming at the destruction of the Hamas terrorist network and not to annihilate the Palestinian population. Thus, even though the high number of civilian deaths and the enormous material damage are appalling, they do not automatically prove the intention of genocide. The repeated requests to the civilian population to leave certain parts of the area or the observance of the duty to warn and set a deadline before withdrawing protection from a civilian hospital when it is “used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy” (see Art. 19 IV Geneva Convention) are two concrete examples of precautionary measures taken by the IDF which may speak against such an intention.
Unfortunate focus on the accusation of genocide
By way of conclusion: It is, of course, to be welcomed in principle that the South African application leads to the emotionally and politically highly charged conflict between Israel and Palestine being channeled into arguments of law, which by its nature promises a rational and structured form of dealing with disputes. As the “principal judicial organ” of the United Nations (Article 92 of the UN Charter), the ICJ is also the appropriate forum. However, it must not be overlooked that the scope of the ICJ’s jurisdiction depends on prior consent by the parties to the dispute. Under the Genocide Convention, the contracting parties declared their consent to the jurisdiction of the ICJ as early as 1948. Unfortunately, however, this does not apply to most of the other rules applicable to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Therefore, the ICJ lacks jurisdiction with regard to international humanitarian law, international human rights guarantees and, above all, the UN Charter and the right of self-defense. This limitation leads to a very unfortunate focus of public attention on the accusation of genocide and, at the same time, limits the ICJ’s options regarding its decisions. It is not foreseeable whether the overly narrow focus on genocide will trigger a dynamic of its own at later stages of the present proceedings and, if so, in which direction such a dynamic will point. This uncertainty in further development is another reason for Germany to participate in the proceedings.
I am indebted to Narin Nosrati for her support in translating the German version of this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment