Provisional measures

OBSERVATIONS Of THE STATE OF ISRAEL ON THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA'S "URGENT
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 75(1) OF THE RULES OF COURT"
DATED 12 FEBRUARY 2024
1. Israel regrets that South Africa seeks once again to misuse the Court's provisional
measures procedure, this time by a highly peculiar and improper request that makes reference
to Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court.
2. At the outset, Israel again places on record its principled position that South Africa's

APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP (SOUTH AFRICA V. ISRAEL)
URGENT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 75(1) OF THE
RULES OF COURT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1. By way of an order dated 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice ('IO') indicated
six provisional measures against Israel (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 26 January

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2024/6
26 January 2024
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) The Court indicates provisional measures

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC BARAK

- 5 -
addressed soldiers involved in hostilities in the Gaza Strip, I cannot plausibly exclude that such statements contribute to a potential failure by Israel to prevent and punish acts of public and direct incitement to genocide. Indeed, South Africa has provided evidence, not contradicted by Israel, that inflammatory parts of relevant statements have been echoed in a threatening way by members of the Israeli armed forces

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Humanitarian situation in Gaza — Present request for the indication of provisional measures — Court not deciding merits — Requirement for the existence of plausible rights — Consideration of factual evidence on the record — Relevance of conduct for plausibility finding.
1. I agree with the Court’s reasoning supporting its Order. I make this declaration to add an additional element to this reasoning.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE
1. In the present case, I concur with my colleagues in upholding South Africa’s standing, on a prima facie basis, in instituting proceedings against Israel for breach of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”). I feel obliged to give a short explanation of my position at this stage.

26 JANUARY 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)
26 JANVIER 2024
ORDONNANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-12
I. INTRODUCTION 13-14
II. PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTION 15-32
1. Preliminary observations 15-18