Belgium joins South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at ICJ

3 comments

1. While their intervention only appears in French at this point, it appears the point of their intervention is very similar to Ireland’s as well as the joint intervention from Germany, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and the Maldives. Para. 19 says (translated using google translate):

   > Belgium wishes to set out for the Court its interpretation of the concept of genocidal intent, as set out in Article Il of the Convention, when the acts in question are committed in the context of an armed conflict and/or related to the conduct of military operations. In so doing, Belgium intends to support a reasonable interpretation of the Convention, one that avoids making it impossible or virtually impossible, in practice and especially during armed conflict, to establish the existence of the crime of genocide. In this spirit, Belgium respectfully submits that: (A) the existence of an armed conflict cannot preclude the identification of genocidal intent; (B) the allegation of the pursuit of a military objective cannot, as such, preclude the identification of genocidal intent; and (C) considerations of international
   humanitarian law cannot preclude the identification of genocidal intent.

   Quoting from (C):

   > Belgium’s view, two main consequences follow from [considerations of international
   humanitarian law cannot preclude the identification of genocidal intent.]

   > 41. First, in certain cases, the same act (for example, murder) can constitute both a crime of genocide and a serious violation of international humanitarian law, that is, a war crime. This dual classification is perfectly conceivable in law, and frequent in practice, provided that the various constituent elements of each of the two crimes-including, in the case of the crime of genocide, genocidal intent-are present

   > 42. Secondly, since the rules governing armed conflict and the crime of genocide are distinct and autonomous, the conformity of certain acts with international humanitarian law does not preclude those same acts from constituting, where appropriate, a violation of the Convention.49

   Para. 42 is very reminiscent of an article I read from Lawfare called *Can Armed Attacks That Comply With IHL Nonetheless Constitute Genocide?* To quote a relevant section from it:

   > Evacuation orders that would remove civilians from an attack zone but also force them into desperate conditions likely to result in deaths and injuries could be perceived as precaution but could also be perceived as evidence of “[d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” for purpose of the act requirement in Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention.

2. Nice.

   That’s three countries actively pursuing the case. South Africa, Belgium and brazil

   I wonder if Belgium joining was caused by israel daily bombing of the strip post “ceasefire” and continued bloackade of humanitarian aid.

   For now it looks like the theory that European countries are waiting for the next israeli elections to take permanent action against Israel is comfortably behind us.

3. For those who know how this works: ks this meaningful, like a declaration of support for the South African case, or just neutral commentary from States on how the law should be interpreted? Given Germany intervened on behalf of Israel if I remember correctly, I’m assuming those interventions from States do support one side?

Comments are closed.