Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lapucelle

(18,451 posts)
15. People are free to disagree with the President of the ICJ about what she clearly says
Mon Apr 29, 2024, 06:05 AM
Apr 29

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2024, 06:41 AM - Edit history (1)

the ruling she wrote and released actually states.

From the ruling:

The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.

The Court then turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested.

The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.


==================================

From Ms. O'Donoghue's interview:

Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide and SA has a right to present that claim in the Court.


--------------------------------------------------------

"The Court did not decide, and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible."





Right. The ruling was that their right not to be genocided is plausibly being violated. David__77 Apr 27 #1
That's exactly the takeaway that Ms O'Donaghue said was incorrect. lapucelle Apr 27 #3
A relevant section. David__77 Apr 27 #5
A section relevant to the right of SA to bring charges. Beastly Boy Apr 27 #6
Yes, I know. Ms O'Donoghue explained what that the means for those who don't understand the finding. lapucelle Apr 27 #7
It pertains to Israel's actions David__77 Apr 27 #8
The President of the ICJ disagrees with your interpretation of the ruling she authored and released. lapucelle Apr 27 #9
And none of their decisions pertains to plausible violations of anyone's rights. Beastly Boy Apr 27 #11
Disagree. AloeVera Apr 28 #13
People are free to disagree with the President of the ICJ about what she clearly says lapucelle Apr 29 #15
I was disagreeing with you. AloeVera Apr 29 #16
"Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected" is how Ms. O'Donoghue stated it. lapucelle Apr 29 #17
I'll try to explain it differently. AloeVera Apr 29 #18
I'm not sure what or why you're arguing. The Court preserved rights, as it saw fit. lapucelle Apr 29 #19
I was debating a point I think is fair and correct. AloeVera Apr 29 #20
I am assuming you read the summary you cited. Beastly Boy Apr 27 #4
Not even close. It was closer to the concept of "standing" FBaggins Apr 28 #12
Yes, another way of saying what the ICJ President said. AloeVera Apr 28 #14
What does SHE know ? Who is she to keep college sophomores from speaking truth to power? Beastly Boy Apr 27 #2
Here's the analog: Suppose Democracy Now! wanted to bring a case at the ICJ lapucelle Apr 27 #10
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»President of IJC confirms...»Reply #15