Mai Rl- Sadany: “one of the key arguments Israel made at the @CIJ_ICJ for case dismissal is that there is no “dispute” between the two countries and that Israel wasn’t given opportunities to engage with S Africa’s concerns prior to ICJ.
Here’s why this argument is a weak one.
The Genocide Convention, under which jurisdiction for this case was established, does not require escalatory measures before a “dispute” is referred to the @CIJ_ICJ. Some treaties like CAT do, but this does not.
Here’s the relevant article establishing jurisdiction. (2)
@israel@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe El- Sadany: South Africa has taken numerous steps to show Israel that there is a dispute between the two countries around the genocide in Gaza. The application to the @CIJ_ICJ documents these escalatory steps beginning in October well before an application was ever filed (photo of application)
Instead of engaging, Israel either fully ignored S Africa’s actions indicating a dispute or refused to meaningfully respond. Furthermore, Israel continued the aggression at the heart of this application.
Thus South Africa going to the @CIJ_ICJ is the natural next step.
@israel@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe According to the @CIJ_ICJ’s own case law and definitions, there is a clear dispute between South Africa and Israel (in fact more than one) and this is precisely the type of issue the world’s highest court was created to resolve.
The ICJ has jurisdiction (El-Sadany)