Judge Julia Sebutinde is set to assume the presidency of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), marking another milestone in her groundbreaking career as well as a significant shift for the court.
The Ugandan jurist, who recently made headlines for her robust defence of Israel against South Africa’s genocide allegations, will take the helm following current President Nawaf Salam’s departure.
Salam has been appointed Prime Minister of his native Lebanon by new president Joseph Aoun, whose election, backed by the US and Saudi Arabia, represents a major blow to Iran and its proxy Hezbollah.
Sebutinde’s recent ruling on the Israel-Hamas War has particularly resonated in international legal circles. She dismissed South Africa’s requests for temporary injunctions to halt the Gaza war, asserting that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is fundamentally political rather than legal in both its nature and historical context, and therefore falls outside the court’s purview.
Indeed, the basis on which she dismissed the provisions is quite important. She highlights that one of the fundamental parts that according to the ICJ are necessary to constitute a genocide (intent) is not present. For all of you interested, her full opinion is available to read here. In short, she stated that because of the lack of intent there is no genocide in Gaza (as defined by the ICJ).
I will note that she hadn’t before this ruling been considered “pro-Israel”. Though it has historically been the opinion of some moderators in this community that statements like hers constitute “Pro-Israel propaganda”.
The relevant part from the genocide convention:
Here are some excerpts from the opinion of judge Sebutinde:
Later in the document there are more detailed explanations, but I will spoiler them to avoid a huge wall of text:
spoiler
…
…
Previous moderation has indicated that discussion of this topic is ban-worthy in this community. As such I will not be responding to any comments unless a moderator in this community actively says otherwise. Those interested in a civil discussion can however send me a DM instead, as I find the topic important and worthy of discussion.
Her claiming there is no evidenc of intent seems quite out of place. In partivular as the court has ruled as provisional measures that Israel needs to prevent and criminally prosecute genocidial incitement from high ranking politicians and arny officials.
There is plenty of statements from the Israeli president, prime minister, multiple ministers and army officials, which reflect in the chants and celebrations of soldiers in the IDF who celebrate the murder and destruction as they live out their intended and explicitly stated annihilation of Palestinians.
For an exhaustive description see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Genocidal_intent
It is implausible that this judge sees all of this differently than a huge majority of legal, historical and human rights experts in the world without this being motivated by a political bias.
the charges were not dismissed, this judge wrote a dissenting opinion, which essentially amounts to her personal position on the matter, not the ICJ’s findings. The ICJ found that it was plausible that Israel had committed genocide, but that more consideration was needed. So you’re just being misleading in your comment. Your argument amounts to nothing at all.
South Africa subitted 80 pages of evidence proving Israeli genocidal intent and statements.
Explain why the other judges all judged Israel was plausibly committing genocide whereas Sebutinde denied it.
This statement is incorrect.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf
Seems like that extra $150 million extra in hasbara money is already in good use judging from your genocide denial and post history.