• 6 Posts
  • 100 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: August 12th, 2024

help-circle
















  • That is just one of the reasons the ICC, the organization literally with the legal authority to determine of some thing is genocide or not determined that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.

    That is a misrepresentation of what the ICJ ruled. You can’t even tell apart the ICJ and the ICC, it seems. You can’t even get the organization right.

    Here you can hear the President of the ICJ explain what is meant by plausible.

    “At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist,” said the ICJ. “It need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible. “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances… are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

    Plausible only refers to the right of South Africa to bring this case to the ICJ.

    the ICJ had only ruled that Gaza Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide - in other words, that it had been dealing with a complex and somewhat abstract legal argument.

    A day later, Joan Donoghue - now retired from the ICJ - appeared on the BBC’s HARDtalk programme and explicitly tried to end the debate by setting out what the court had done. “It did not decide - and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media… that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge. “It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”