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”, before the International Court of Justice,- on three critical points.With reference to the judgments, choose three (3) critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them. explain thouroughly

Answer 1

One critical issue that both 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 addressed was the interpretation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The majority judgment focused on a narrow interpretation of the Convention, emphasizing the specific elements of the crime of genocide and the need for clear evidence to prove that genocide had occurred. In contrast, the minority judgment took a broader interpretation, arguing that the ongoing violence in the Gaza Strip could be considered genocide based on the overall context and patterns of behavior by Israel.

Another critical issue that both judgments dealt with was the application of the principle of state responsibility for genocide. The majority judgment emphasized the need to establish a direct link between the actions of the state and the commission of genocide, requiring clear evidence of intent and direct involvement by state officials. The minority judgment, on the other hand, took a more expansive view of state responsibility, arguing that a state could be held accountable for genocide if it failed to prevent or punish acts of genocide committed by non-state actors within its jurisdiction.

A third critical issue that both judgments addressed was the role of the International Court of Justice in adjudicating claims of genocide. The majority judgment emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the Court and the importance of adhering to strict legal requirements in proving a case of genocide. In contrast, the minority judgment called for a more proactive approach by the Court in addressing allegations of genocide, arguing that the Court had a duty to uphold the principles of international law and protect vulnerable populations from mass atrocities.

In conclusion, while both 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 grappled with similar issues related to the interpretation of the Genocide Convention, state responsibility, and the role of the International Court of Justice, they ultimately diverged in their respective approaches to these critical points. The majority judgment favored a more cautious and strict interpretation of the law, while the minority judgment adopted a more expansive and proactive stance in addressing claims of genocide.