Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Frederic Musisi
Published on 2024-01-28 06:52:07
Uganda’s Judge Julia Sebutinde has made headlines around the world for her dissenting vote on the emergency measures in response to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. Judge Sebutinde, who is serving her second and final term on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) bench, cast the only dissenting vote against the six measures proposed by the 17-judge panel. Alongside her, Israel’s appointed ad-hoc judge, Aharon Barak, voted in favor of two measures and ruled against four, in a case that has captured global attention.
The ICJ, known as the world’s highest court, provides advisory opinions on legal disputes between countries and also adjudicates legal disputes between states. The case brought before the ICJ by South Africa accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian people, in violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This accusation came in response to the Israeli government’s retaliatory campaign against the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) following an attack on a music festival and other areas in which many civilians were killed, injured, and taken as hostages.
After oral hearings in January, the panel of judges found that the legal conditions for pronouncing provisional measures were met. They ruled that it is plausible that genocide is being committed in Gaza and issued six measures Israel must undertake. The court voted in favor of these measures with a small dissenting vote from Judge Sebutinde.
The judge’s position has led to confusion and bewilderment both in Uganda and around the world. Her dissenting opinion has sparked outrage from those who feel she should have voted in favor of the measures. In her 11-page dissent, Judge Sebutinde argued that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a political matter that requires a diplomatic or negotiated settlement, rather than a legal issue for the court to decide.
The Friday ICJ ruling has elicited mixed reactions from global leaders and organizations, with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa expecting Israel to abide by the measures, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently rejected the charge of genocide.
Despite the ICJ ruling, there is a lack of mechanisms to enforce its decisions, particularly when the big world powers are on opposing sides. The ruling remains binding on all parties, but enforcing it will be a significant challenge.
