Critically compare the majority and the minority judgments in the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel. With reference to the judgments, choose three (3) critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them. (Detail)

Answer 1

In the case of "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel," the majority and minority judgments approach the issues differently. The majority judgment found that Israel had not committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, while the minority judgment argued that Israel's actions did amount to genocide.

One critical issue that both judgments dealt with was the legal definition of genocide as outlined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The majority judgment focused on the strict interpretation of the Convention's definition, requiring evidence of specific intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The minority judgment, on the other hand, took a more expansive view, arguing that the cumulative effect of Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip amounted to genocide.

Another critical issue addressed in both judgments was the application of the principle of proportionality in international law. The majority judgment stressed the importance of considering the proportionality of Israel's actions in relation to the threat posed by militant groups in the Gaza Strip. The minority judgment, however, argued that Israel's disproportionate use of force against civilians in the region was evidence of genocidal intent.

A third critical issue that both judgments grappled with was the role of political considerations in the interpretation of international law. The majority judgment emphasized the need for a clear legal standard for determining genocide, free from political influence. The minority judgment, on the other hand, highlighted the importance of considering the broader political context in assessing Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip.

Overall, the majority and minority judgments in the "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" case differed in their interpretations of the legal definition of genocide, the principle of proportionality, and the role of political considerations. These differing perspectives highlight the complexity and subjectivity of applying international law in cases of alleged genocide.