Provisional measures

1
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Response of the State of Israel to the question posed by Judge Nolte at the oral
hearing of 17 May 2024 on South Africa’s fourth request for provisional measures
18 May 2024
“Can Israel provide information about the existing humanitarian conditions in the
designated evacuation zones, in particular Al-Mawasi, and how it would ensure safe

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AURESCU
Proper interpretation of the second provisional measure regarding the halt of the military offensive  provisional measures already indicated address the current situation  the ordered provisional measures do not affect the right to protect civilians or free hostages  developments of the “change in the situation” requirement regarding the degree of an already examined situation  missed opportunity to include a reference to resolution 2728 (2024) of the Security Council

DECLARATION OF JUDGE NOLTE
Function of the International Court of Justice  Conditions for the modification of provisional measures  Extraordinary situation resulting from the Israeli military offensive in Rafah.

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT SEBUTINDE
Table of Contents
Paragraphs
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-3
II. The broader context of the war in the Gaza Strip ....................................................................... 4-8
III. The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip .......................................................................... 9-19

24 MAY 2024
ORDER
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP (SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL)
___________
APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE DANS LA BANDE DE GAZA (AFRIQUE DU SUD c. ISRAËL)
24 MAI 2024
ORDONNANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-19
I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 20-30
II. CONDITIONS FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES 31-47
III. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED 48-55

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AURESCU
The paramount importance of upholding and strongly defending the norms and principles of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE CLEVELAND

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GÓMEZ ROBLEDO
[Translation]
1. I voted in favour of the Order on the indication of provisional measures because I recognize the importance of the assurances provided by Ecuador to Mexico. These unilaterally expressed assurances are binding on Ecuador and create legal obligations, as stated in paragraph 33 of the Order. In that same paragraph, the Court further noted that the assurances were “formulated in an unconditional manner” and that Ecuador’s “good faith in complying with [them]” is to be presumed.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE NOLTE
Prima facie jurisdiction as a precondition for the examination of “circumstances” under Article 41 of the Statute  Logical and substantive priority of certain conditions  Limits of flexibility and judicial economy.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Two kinds of application, to be treated differently — test for the indication of provisional measures under Article 41 of the Court’s Statute — binding assurances before the Court — the Court is required to examine only one element of the test, i.e. prima facie jurisdiction — unnecessary to examine other elements of the test.