We grew up learning that justice is symbolised by a blindfolded woman, the blindfold suggesting absolute fairness, seeing nothing and knowing nothing apart from the irrefutable facts. This entrenched knowledge always gave us the understanding that judicial platforms are sacred in our country, in the world and in international institutions entrusted with establishing justice and upholding the law. Along the way, however, there have been unfortunate cases in which justice floundered at the hands of some of these platforms for the benefit of some rogue political regime. But to defeat justice or to embrace double standards in the backyard of international independent justice platforms, is shocking even when it does occur in rare instances. Today I present a flagrant example of double standards in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague was caught red-handed, according to a speech given by an Irish lawyer at the end of last January. The lawyer is Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh; she specialises in human rights and international law. Ms Ghrálaigh represented South Africa in the lawsuit it filed against Israel with ICJ, and presented the members of the judicial body with a detailed analysis of the human tragedy inflicted upon the Palestinians in Gaza, decrying the reluctance of ICJ to take a firm stance regarding it. Ms Ghrálaigh presented in contrast examples that she described as less severe and horrific, that pertained to other conflict areas around the world, remarking that in these cases the court did not hesitate to take firm stances and issue deterrent rulings. Following are the most important features of her speech, which was duly described as a “historic, compelling speech”.
“There is an urgent need for provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the irreparable prejudice caused by Israel’s violations of the Genocide Convention,” Ms Ghrálaigh said addressing ICJ. “The United Nations Secretary General and its chiefs,” she said, “described the situation in Gaza variously as a crisis of humanity, a living hell, a bloodbath, a situation of utter deepening and unmatched horror.” Ms Ghrálaigh proceeded detailing the calamities, terror, displacement and devastation that Palestinians are subjected to, in their cities, villages, basic needs or sanitary facilities. She said that Palestinians are facing ethnic cleansing and existential threats, as Israel obstructs the flow of urgent human aid to them; this includes food, drugs, relief, and medical supplies, all of which could act as a lifeline rescue from the despair, scarcity and losses that engulf them. No effective, tangible international intervention was done in their favour, nor did the ICJ take any firm deterrent stance against their suffering.
“For decades now,” Ms Ghrálaigh said, “the Court has repeatedly expressed its satisfaction with the certainty of situations where serious risks threatened human life or other fundamental rights. In the cases of Georgia, Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, the court ordered provisional measures having found a serious risk of irreparable prejudice for hundreds of thousands of people who have been forced from their homes.. In Gaza, nearly 2 million people, over 85 per cent of the population, have been repeatedly forced to flee their homes and shelters.. They continue to be bombed and killed. This is a population that Israel had already made vulnerable through 16 years of military blockade and crippling development.
“The court issued a provisional order where harm to approximately 150 students was an issue, [in Qatar]. In Gaza, 625,000 school children have not attended school for three months.. Almost 90,000 Palestinian university students cannot attend university in Gaza. Over 60 per cent of schools, almost all universities and countless bookshops and libraries have been damaged or destroyed, and hundreds of teachers and academics have been killed.
“Notably, the court has found provisional measures to be justified in all three cases where they were previously sought in relation to violations of the Genocide Convention. It did so in Bosnia Serbia in 1993, finding on the basis of evidence that there was ‘a grave risk of acts of genocide being committed’. The court found positional measures to be justified in the Gambia Myanmar case on the basis of a risk of irreparable prejudice to the Rohingya.. More recently, [in the case of Ukraine and Russia], the Court considered that Russia’s military activities ‘resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries and caused significant material damage, including the destruction of buildings and infrastructure’.. This is occurring in Gaza on a much more intensive scale.
“The court ordered provisional measures based on its findings on the territory of the Congo, particularly in the area of conflict.. Similarly, in Costa Rica, Nicaragua.. in Gambia, Myanmar.. Guyana, Venezuela.” Ms Ghrálaigh explained that in all of these cases, the court ordered provisional measures to protect civilians that are subjected to attacks or acts of genocide. These all pale out, she said, in front of the genocide crimes being committed against Palestinians in Gaza.
“If the indication of provisional measures was justified on the facts in those cases I have cited,” Ms Ghrálaigh said, “how could it not be here in a situation of much greater severity where the imminent risk of irreparable harm is so much greater?”
Ms Ghrálaigh concluded: “South Africa now, respectfully and humbly, calls upon this honourable court to do what is in its power to do, to indicate the provisional measures that are so urgently required to prevent further irreparable harm to the Palestinian people in Gaza whose hopes for their very survival are now vested in this court.”
Watani International
29 March 2024
This article is a valuable resource for anyone seeking a comprehensive overview of the topic.