essay on human rights violation in south africa

South Africa has failed to champion human rights in the world. But that’s changing

Associate Professor of Politics, Rhodes University

Disclosure statement

Eduard Jordaan has received funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa.

Rhodes University provides funding as a partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

The story of democratic South Africa and its approach to human rights in the rest of the world is a tale of woe. For two-and-a-half decades, its foreign policy mostly failed to defend internationally – and quite often contradicted – the human rights principles contained in its constitution .

An assessment in the Washington Post more than a decade ago still rings true:

South Africa remains an example of freedom while devaluing and undermining the freedom of others. It is the product of a conscience it does not display.

Why has South Africa behaved this way?

Surprisingly, it is not the case of the country feeling compelled to make common cause with African states, many of which have poor rights records , as is often claimed. In fact, many African states weaker than South Africa are more committed to international human rights. A 2018 report on the voting records of the 13 African members of the UN Human Rights Council ranked South African eighth on this score in terms of international commitment to human rights.

A more convincing explanation of South Africa’s actions is that it sees the world in terms of a conflict between the West and the developing world. When this ‘anti-imperialist’ struggle and human rights conflict, the latter must be sacrificed. This has resulted in a foreign policy The Economist described as ‘clueless and immoral’ .

While the overall picture remains bleak, the good news is that there have recently been signs that South Africa is becoming more willing to stand up for human rights. Evidence for this comes from its recent final year of a six-year term on the UN Human Rights Council.

A disappointing record

In 2006, the Human Rights Council replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights. The commission had become, according to then secretary-general of the United Nations Kofi Annan , so dysfunctional that it was damaging the reputation of the entire UN . The plan was that the council would retain the commission’s good parts and shed the bad.

It is hard to find proof that South Africa, during its 2006 to 2010 council membership, did anything to improve the new organisation. Rather, it voted to shield the rights-abusing regime in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the genocidal one in Sudan. It helped the Sri Lankan government to evade international pressure to ensure accountability for war crimes committed during the final months of the country’s civil war.

South Africa tried to curtail the independence of the UN’s human rights investigators. It prominently attacked free speech by supporting the Islamic bloc’s demand that speech lacking in “respect for religions and beliefs” be made illegal under international human rights law.

When South Africa returned to the Human Rights Council in 2014 for a tenure that ended in 2019, it often made common cause with the authoritarian regimes in China and Russia. Perhaps most shocking was when South Africa represented these states in attacking a 2014 resolution on the right to peaceful protest.

On the council, South Africa often invokes its democratic constitution and history. Yet, in a recent book and in reports for the South African Institute of International Affairs, I show that apart from a vote for a 2016 resolution on human rights defenders and two votes against hostile amendments on a 2014 resolution on civil society, South Africa not once, out of more than 100 such votes, voted to support human rights related to the democratic process.

Rights violations in specific countries

The Human Rights Council is notorious for singling out Israel. Frequent resolutions criticise Israel and support incisive investigations into its violations against Palestinians , its settlement-building in occupied Palestinian territory or its international aggression . South Africa has backed council resolutions on Israel without fail.

While South Africa has been willing to support hamstrung country-specific investigations, such as the African Group’s 2017 resolution on Burundi , it either abstains or votes against resolutions that authorise incisive investigations into the human rights problems of countries other than Israel.

A welcome change

In 2019, however, an improvement became detectable. South Africa, for the first time ever, supported imposing Human Rights Council investigations on countries that did not want them, Israel excluded.

It backed two resolutions on Myanmar , both of which urged criminal prosecution of alleged perpetrators of human rights crimes . Then, after an abstention on a similar resolution in 2018 , it supported extending an investigation into human rights violations related to the Yemeni Civil War.

South Africa’s actions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, an issue on which it has been inconsistent, offer further proof of change. In March 2011, it tabled a resolution to confine discussion of sexual orientation throughout the UN to a committee that would meet for only 10 days a year.

Opponents of LGBTI rights did not want to discuss sexual orientation. Proponents of LGBTI rights wanted to discuss worldwide violence and discrimination against LGBTI people. Isolated, South Africa withdrew its draft resolution.

Three months later, South Africa went from skunk to saviour when it led the council to adopt the first ever UN resolution on sexual orientation. But the glow faded as the country, weighed down by African opposition and its own confusion, failed to lead on the issue.

As patience with South Africa ran out, Latin American states took over and in 2014 sponsored a new sexual orientation resolution. South Africa and others successfully lobbied to weaken the text .

In 2016, Latin America tabled a follow-up resolution. South Africa denounced the resolution’s sponsors for being arrogant, reckless, confrontational, divisive and causing acrimony. More importantly, it refused to support a resolution authorising reports on violence and discrimination against LGBTI people for the subsequent three years.

But in 2019, the country came in from the cold. It wholeheartedly supported Latin America’s resolution asking for three more years of reporting on the persecution of LGBTI persons. It countered numerous attempts to distort or weaken the text.

Uncertain future

In recent decades, South Africa has continued to find creative ways to disappoint those who share its former president Nelson Mandela’s belief that human rights should be a light that guides the country’s foreign affairs.

It is too soon to become optimistic, but some of South Africa’s recent actions on the Human Rights Council are small but significant breaks from a dismal past.

• Free speech
• Sexual orientation
• Gender discrimination
• Peacebuilding
• Religious conservatives
• Mass killings
• International human rights law
• Human rights violations
• Sharpville2022

Compliance Lead

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Human Rights, the Rule of Law, and COVID-19 in South Africa

Read an update to this post published april 13, 2021: “one year later: covid-19, human rights, and the rule of law in south africa”.

By Mark Heywood

South Africa’s first case of COVID-19 was confirmed on March 5 th , 2020. Ten days later, on March 15 th , 2020, the government utilized the Disaster Management Act (2002) to declare a State of National Disaster. Under this Act, the government set up a National Command Council (NCC) made up of Cabinet Ministers and restricted certain rights necessary to prevent SARS-Cov-2 transmission and “flatten the curve.”

A national lockdown started on March 27 th . It was relaxed slightly (to level 4) on May 1 st , and was further relaxed (to level 3) on June 1 st . The lockdown severely restricted freedom of movement, closed all but essential companies and schools, banned the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and introduced a night-time curfew between 8pm and 5am. By May 22 nd , the Minister of Police reported that 230,000 people had been arrested for violating lock-down regulations .

The most affected constitutionally recognized rights are freedom of movement, assembly, and trade. However, on paper at least, care has been taken to ensure that political rights and rights to freedom of expression and association are not limited, and the President has couched the country’s response in terms of the Constitution, particularly the rights to life, dignity and access to health care services. He has also frequently referred to the right to equality and promised that in the post COVID-19 period South Africa will do much more to tackle the inequalities that have been exposed by the coronavirus.

The Disaster Management Act empowers the President to appoint a Cabinet Minister (in this case the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs) to issue special regulations, which have been released on an almost weekly basis.

Civil society lawyers and activists have analyzed these regulations in an on-line (and regularly updated) guide to the law that identifies the numerous human rights risks and possibilities for abuse created by the regulations. In addition, civil society organizations set up a legal support hotline where violations can be reported, and developed a wide range of human rights resources .

Though many of the ordinary functions of the Courts were suspended from March 27 th onward, a n umber of matters challenging the lawfulness of regulations and their implementation have been brought to courts, sometimes successfully. Political parties and social justice organizations have challenged their rationality and the lawfulness of the NCC.

People have also questioned the deployment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to affected communities. There have been a significant number of cases reported of police and army brutality, including at least 11 deaths. A sucessful legal challenge was brought concerning the murder of Collins Khosa by members of the SANDF in the township of Alexandra in Johannesburg. On May 15th 2020, in a detailed and far-reaching judgment, the Court made it clear that members of the security forces must respect and protect rights to dignity and life, not commit torture, and only resort to minimum force to enforce the law. The SANDF was instructed to publicize the Court’s order, investigate the death properly, warn its members against criminality, and develop a code of conduct “in giving effect to the state of disaster.”

The anti-repression working group of the C-19 People’s Coalition Civil — an alliance of over 300 organizations — and the SA Human Rights Commission have been involved in monitoring cases of police and army brutality. There have also been a number of illegal evictions of people occupying municipal land, despite a legal prohibition on evictions during lockdown. In one instance a court application halted evictions in a community outside Cape Town.

President Ramaphosa has welcomed the use of courts to challenge unlawful conduct.

Unfortunately, South Africa has not respected its legal obligations either in terms of constitutional or international law towards the millions of people who are asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants. People without a South African identity document or permanent residence do not qualify for various forms of social relief (support to small and informal business ; a special COVID-19 relief of distress grant; a topped-up Child Support Grant) that were introduced in April 2020. This, too, is the subject of legal challenges.

The lockdown has had a particularly negative effect on women , especially with respect to vulnerability to domestic violence. Until recently, women were not allowed out of homes to report violence; nonetheless, reports of domestic violence have risen sharply.

Another group that is particularly vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic is prisoners. Inspecting Judge of Correctional Services Edwin Cameron and the Detention Justice Forum called on the government to release certain categories of prisoners. As a result, in early May, the President announced early parole for certain categories of prisoners, leading to the release of nearly 19,000 inmates.

Measures taken to prevent COVID-19 have also had a profound effect on socio-economic rights, overwhelmingly of black people. There has been a massive increase in food insecurity and hunger (which was already very high). The closure of schools risks disadvantaging a generation of learners and increasing inequality in educational outcomes, and the phased re-opening of schools has been highly contested. There are over 70 water-stressed communities, and generally sanitation and access to water are suboptimal in poor communities. Livelihoods and food systems have been disrupted, and there is growing evidence that other health care services and programs, including HIV, TB, sexual and reproductive health care are being adversely affected.

Nonetheless, until recently there was overwhelming support for the country’s measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. A survey by the Human Sciences Research Council (released on April 26 th ) revealed high levels of compliance. An informal and undeclared social contract came into effect: although there have been multiple violations of rights, initially there was a high degree of trust in the government response.

However, South Africa is now entering a very difficult phase of the epidemic: infections and deaths are increasing rapidly and chronic hunger, malnutrition , and unemployment are making themselves felt. Reflecting this, there are a growing number of legal challenges to the Constitutionality of regulations issued via the Disaster Management Act. For example, two important judgments in early June struck down certain regulations on grounds of rationality and their impact on fundamental human rights.

Compared to other countries in Southern Africa , South Africa’s response to COVID-19 has mostly respected the rule of law. But whether it ultimately comes out on the right or wrong side of human rights remains to be seen.

Mark Heywood is the editor of Maverick Citizen , an online news publication focusing on human rights, social justice and civil society activism. He was previously the founder and Director of SECTION27 , as well as a co-founder of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC).

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff

The Petrie-Flom Center staff often posts updates, announcements, and guests posts on behalf of others.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Sign up for our newsletter

The Role South African Women Played Against the Violation of Human Rights from the 1950s to 1960s

The pivotal role South African women played against the violation of human rights from the 1950s to the 1960s under the apartheid regime cannot be understated. Their collective actions and the resultant legacy serve as a beacon of resistance and empowerment, illustrating the profound impact of female solidarity and bravery against systemic oppression.

Table of Contents

Historical Background of Apartheid and Human Rights Violations

Apartheid, a policy of racial segregation and discrimination, inflicted widespread violations of human rights, particularly against black South Africans. The government’s repressive policies posed a direct threat to all people of color, sparking mass political action and resistance.

Pioneering Female Figures and Movements

The role of South African women in this era was marked by significant protests and the establishment of movements aimed at combating these human rights violations. Women’s organizations like the Black Sash, founded by white women in 1955, and the ANC Women’s League, formed in 1948, were crucial in mobilizing opposition against the apartheid regime.

Tactics and Contributions

Women employed various tactics from grassroots organizing to participation in national protests. Notable was the 1956 march of nearly 20,000 women to Pretoria, protesting the pass laws. This march is celebrated annually on August 9th, South African Women’s Day, acknowledging their significant role in the struggle​​​​​​.

Impact and Legacy

The activism of South African women not only challenged the apartheid laws but also laid the groundwork for future generations in the fight for equality and justice. The legacy of their resistance is visible today in the political and social landscape of South Africa, where women continue to hold significant positions of power and influence.

Unlock Your Career Potential with a Professional CV!

Unveiling the Negative Impact of Droughts on the Farmers of South Africa

Modern Reflections

The bravery and resilience of these women continue to inspire current and future generations in South Africa and around the world. Their fight against apartheid and for human rights is a testament to the strength and impact of organized women’s movements.

FAQ Section:

Q1: Who were some notable South African women activists during the 1950s and 1960s?

A1: Key figures include Albertina Sisulu, a political activist, and Lilian Ngoyi, an ANC leader who played significant roles in anti-apartheid activities and the 1956 women’s march.

Q2: What was the significance of the 1956 women’s march to Pretoria?

A2: The march was a pivotal moment in South African history, showing the strength and solidarity of women from diverse backgrounds uniting against the oppressive pass laws.

Q3: How did the activism of South African women in the 1950s and 1960s impact the apartheid regime?

A3: Their activism brought international attention to the injustices of apartheid, significantly contributing to the mounting pressure that eventually led to the regime’s downfall.

The role South African women played against the violation of human rights from the 1950s to the 1960s remains a powerful example of how collective action can lead to significant social change. Their courage and unity continue to inspire movements for justice and equality worldwide.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

Women and the struggle against Apartheid

Introduction Full feature on the  History of Women’s struggle in South Africa  will give a broader view of the role played by women in the struggle for freedom.

It is often overlooked that women played a very important role in the struggle against apartheid. Today when we think of the leaders of the struggle we tend to think about Nelson Mandela , Walter Sisulu , Oliver Tambo , Albert Luthuli and other prominent men. It is not often that people remember to look at not only the wives of some of these men, but also other women who got deeply involved in fighting apartheid. Black women faced three forms of oppression in South Africa during apartheid - racial, social and sexual. For this reason they had more to struggle against, and many women are still resisting oppression as a result of their gender today, either in the workplace or at home. In this unit we will look at:

• some specific instances where women took a stand against apartheid
• some women's organizations and
• some prominent women.

Women take a stand against passes

A pass was a document that black people were forced by the government to carry with them at all times. If somebody did not have a pass they would not be allowed out of the area where they lived (and into an area designated for whites only) to seek or do work. With a pass they could move around and look for a job for a defined period. If they had not found a job by the time the pass expired, the law compelled them to go back home. A black person without a pass was by law unemployable. People moving around without passes could be and were often arrested on the spot, and were often harassed by the police. For more information and an image of an actual passbook, click here .

Before apartheid began in 1948 there were cases of women fighting racial oppression in South Africa. One important such process was on 23 September 1913 (see our Women's Chronology) when women in the Free State, organized by Charlotte Maxeke, fought against carrying passes. At this time women in the rest of South Africa did not need to carry passes, but because there were many black women working in the Bloemfontein area, the government ordered them to do so. As they were not prepared to accept this, they started protests and marched to the offices of the mayor and the administrator. When this resolved nothing they drew up a petition and sent it to the Prime Minister. The pass laws on women were subsequently relaxed in 1914, but could still be re-introduced. The women continued to protest until 1920 when it was specified that only men need carry passes. This was a huge victory for women.

Over the years immediately following the pass protests, women did not play a prominent role in struggle politics. This was not really out of choice, but also because the African National Congress (ANC) was reserved for male membership. This began to change when in 1943 the ANC decided to allow women to join, but they had to wait another 5 years for the ANC Women's League (ANCWL) to be created in 1948. This means that in the same year that apartheid was introduced, women members of this significant black political opposition organization began to play an active role in the struggle in South Africa.

The first campaign where many women were involved was the Defiance Campaign of 1952. This was a campaign against apartheid laws, and people were asked to publicly break these laws, thus offering themselves for arrest. The idea was to so clog the apartheid criminal-justice system that reform would be inevitable. An example would be for a black person to use a 'white' bus, bench or toilet. White people who took part would, for example demand to travel in the section of a train reserved for blacks only. Women all over South Africa joined in the campaign and many ended up in prison as a result of their actions.

In 1955 the apartheid government again brought up the issue of passes for women. Once again women decided that they would not just accept the pass laws without resisting, and in October about 2000 women demonstrated against passes. The government continued to introduce the law and it was decided to hold a march to the Union Buildings in Pretoria and meet the Prime Minister. The march was held on 9 August 1956, and about 20 000 women participated. This makes it one of the largest political protest marches in South African history. 

The second march was not successful in stopping the pass laws, but did give women a voice and show how strong they were. We still remember the role of women today, and 9 August is South African Women's Day. Women continued to play an important role after this day, and many joined the ANC in exile, others died in detention and still others continued to lead women's organizations inside South Africa.

Women's organizations

Women had a choice to join open organizations (often still controlled or dominated by men) or those specifically for women. In some cases women formed their own organizations so that they could articulate and deal with their views on issues (not necessarily only those that impacted on women) and thus facilitate greater say in the methods of the organization. Examples of these can be found in the Women's organizations section of our Imbokodo special project.

A very important women's organization formed to fight apartheid was the ANC Women's League (ANCWL). This was formed in 1948 and resulted in women becoming much more actively involved in the ANC and its campaigns. The first official president of the ANCWL was Ida Mntwana. In 1955 the ANCWL made sure that women's demands were included in the Freedom Charter and in 1956 it organized the march on the Union Buildings. In 1960, when the ANC was banned, the ANCWL was also affected as many leaders went into exile. It continued to function inside South Africa for the next few years through regional branches and under different names.

In 1991 the ANCWL moved back into South Africa and set up a National Women's Coalition to draw up a Women's Charter. The Charter was completed in 1994 and influenced the Bill of Rights. It is largely thanks to this group that women in South Africa today are so well protected by the law and play an important role in politics.

An interesting organization to look at is the Black Sash. Six white women formed the Black Sash in 1955 and were against the government's attempts to take the vote away from Coloured people (black people had always been excluded). The organization got their name after they started wearing black sashes (pieces of material) over their shoulders during marches and demonstrations to symbolize mourning. They were mourning the death of the constitution that was meant to protect people and their franchise. Members of the Black Sash also became involved in opposition politics and humanitarian issues such as unemployment and poverty. The Black Sash still exists today, but now it focuses only on poverty and helping the poor.

Specific women

Although many women played an important role in South Africa, there are some women who stand out for the role they played. We are only going to look at two women, although there are many more who you can find out about.

Albertina Sisulu married ANC leader Walter Sisulu in 1944 soon after moving to Johannesburg and becoming politically active. In 1948 she joined the ANCWL, and in 1954 she was a founding member of the Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW). From 1958 onwards she moved in and out of prison and faced banning orders, while her husband was sentenced to life imprisonment and two of her children went into exile. She however carried on with political work inside South Africa. While in jail in 1983 Albertina Sisulu was elected president of the newly formed United Democratic Front (UDF). In this capacity she supported people during rent and consumer boycotts and visited the American president George Bush in 1989. After the unbanning of the ANC she again became involved with the ANCWL.

Helen Suzman grew up in Johannesburg and studied and lectured in Economic history. In 1953 she decided to move into politics, and chose to fight apartheid from within the system. She initially joined the United Party, but later formed the Progressive Party and for decades was the only representative of the party in parliament. Here in the whites-only parliament Suzman fought for all South Africans' rights and the freedom of expression. She criticized apartheid policy, gave her support to those fighting apartheid and even visited Robben Island. She was awarded the United Nations Human Rights Award twice and was given other honorary awards. In 1989 she retired from politics.

Many other women; Black, White, Indian and Coloured, also played an important role in changes in resisting apartheid, changing the system and in developing post-apartheid South Africa. 

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history

Press ESC to close

Or check our popular categories....

Laws that protect citizens from human rights violations in South Africa

Laws that protect citizens from human rights violations in South Africa:

In South Africa, the primary laws that protect citizens from human rights violations are:

• The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 : Specifically, the Bill of Rights within the Constitution safeguards various fundamental rights.
• The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (PEPUDA) : Addresses discrimination and enforces equality.
• The Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (POPIA) : Protects the privacy of personal information to prevent misuse.
• Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 : Enhances the justice system’s ability to deal with sexual offenses effectively.
• The Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 : Protects workers from unfair labor practices.

In South Africa, the protection of human rights is primarily underpinned by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 , which is regarded as one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. Here are some of the key laws and mechanisms in place to protect citizens from human rights violations:

• The Bill of Rights : This is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa, enshrined in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. It ensures the rights of all people in the country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality, and freedom. The Bill of Rights includes the right to equality, freedom of expression, access to information, and rights regarding arrest and detention.
• The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (PEPUDA) : This act strengthens the provisions of the Constitution by providing practical avenues to fight discrimination. It ensures that individuals can seek redress against discrimination and harassment in both public and private sectors.
• The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) : Established by the Constitution to support constitutional democracy, it is tasked with monitoring, both proactively and by the handling of complaints, violations of human rights and seeking redress for such violations.
• The Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (POPIA) : This act is designed to protect individuals from violations related to the handling of their personal information, ensuring privacy and limiting abusive practices in the collection and management of personal data.

These laws are designed to ensure that human rights are respected and that citizens have mechanisms through which they can seek protection and redress in case of violations.

Why protect citizens from human rights violations in South Africa?

The laws protecting human rights in South Africa have been implemented for several important reasons:

• To Redress Past Injustices : South Africa’s history, particularly during the apartheid era, was marked by severe human rights violations, including systematic discrimination, violence, and disenfranchisement based on race. Post-apartheid, it was essential to establish a legal framework that would prevent such abuses from recurring and to promote equality and justice for all citizens.
• To Establish a Fair and Just Society : The Constitution and subsequent laws aim to create a society where all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their background. This legal framework helps to ensure that everyone has equal access to opportunities and protection under the law.
• To Strengthen Democracy : Protecting human rights is fundamental to strengthening and maintaining a democratic system. These laws help ensure that the government and other entities are accountable to the people, fostering transparency and trust in public institutions.
• To Promote Social Cohesion and Stability : By ensuring that all groups in society feel respected and protected, these laws help to promote social cohesion and reduce conflict. This is particularly important in a diverse country like South Africa, where disparities and historical grievances can lead to tension.
• To Comply with International Standards : South Africa is a signatory to various international treaties and conventions on human rights. Adopting comprehensive human rights laws helps to ensure that the country meets its international obligations and maintains its standing in the global community.

Overall, these laws are crucial for safeguarding the rights of individuals and promoting a stable, inclusive, and democratic society in South Africa.

Categorized in:

Like what you read?

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to our email newsletter to get the latest posts delivered right to your email.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Four negative social effects of human rights violation for communities, assessing the treatment of women in predominantly male sports and recreational activities in south africa, how posting or forwarding humiliating and offensive material to other people may affect the person who is posting, the harmful effects of poverty on personal health, previous article, which two european countries had the most colonies, next article, name the plate on either side of the plate boundary that runs along the west coast of south america.

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

South Africa’s Case Against Israel

I. Introduction

On December 23, 2023, South Africa filed an application to the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) to institute proceedings against Israel. [1] The application alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the “Genocide Convention”) due to Israel’s ongoing military campaign in the Gaza Strip. [2] These allegations include claims that acts and omissions by Israeli officials are genocidal in nature as they are “committed with the requisite specific intent…to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of a broader Palestinian national, racial and ethical group.” [3]

This blog will explore the ICJ’s history and purpose. It will analyze South Africa’s filing against Israel and discuss the ICJ’s assertion of Israel’s plausible genocide in Gaza as well as its implications.

A. The International Court of Justice

Following Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939, the League of Nations, a collective of Allied powers founded in response to World War I, struggled to develop a judicial framework to address the shifting international political order at the time. [4] With a novel conflict facing the globe, China, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States, issued a joint declaration addressing the urgent necessity of establishing a general international organization based on “the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states for the maintenance of international peace and security.” [5] Following these declarations, a new judicial body was created to replace the League of Nations and serve as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. [6] The court became what is known today as the ICJ, the only permanent court of the United Nations.

The Court’s mission is to bring peaceful dispute resolution through adjudication between States in conflict. [7] The ICJ can hear two types of cases: contentious cases, which are legal disputes between States, and advisory proceedings, which are requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organizations or agencies. [8] Membership in the United Nations requires compliance with any ruling made by the ICJ. [9] The ICJ has decided landmark cases including the Iranian/United States hostage crisis, the United States’ complicity in the Nicaraguan Contras, and more recently, the genocide in Myanmar and the war in Ukraine. [10]

It is important to note that the ICJ is a separate entity from the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), which is also based in The Hague in the Netherlands. [11] The ICC investigates and tries charges of individual violations of international law and order by state officials and judges have the authority to issue arrest warrants. [12] So far, the ICC has tried thirty-one cases and has issued forty arrest warrants. [13] ICC prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC has already announced that an investigation has started into Israeli violations in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank. [14]

Although the ICJ is the highest court in the United Nations and its decisions are considered binding, there are no direct enforcement mechanisms. [15] Potential enforcement mechanisms range from financial sanctions and trade restrictions to emergency security force deployment. ICJ decisions are subject to enforcement by the United Nations Security Council, the enforcement arm of the United Nations. [16] However, these enforcement efforts can easily be vetoed and deliberation on taking action often takes years. [17] Due to the lack of enforcement, countries have defied ICJ orders with no foreseeable consequences. [18]

If the mission of the ICJ and the Genocide Convention is to prevent genocide both now and in the future, enforcement mechanisms must be established to stop acts of genocide in real time. When bad actors can ignore ICJ rulings and continue to violate the Genocide Convention, the ICJ is essentially a spectator shaking their head in disapproval. The highest court in the world, tasked with preventing crimes that “shock the conscience,” should be able to hold bad actors accountable before situations unravel further and more lives are placed in harm’s way.

Despite this lack of enforcement, these decisions still carry significant weight as they can influence geo-political decisions. States do not want to support bad actors that violate international law and rulings from the ICJ provide a formal public declaration of any violations. [19] This can provide a sound justification for States to desist support for violating parties, even influencing States to provide support for the victims of these violations in the form of humanitarian aid and international advocacy.

B. South Africa’s Case

South Africa requested the ICJ immediately require necessary provisional measures of Israel to protect against further harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention. [20] Under Article I of the Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group by:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [21]

South Africa provided evidence showing that Israel has violated each of these factors following the October 7, 2023 attack. [22] The application also included a significant amount of evidence pointing to violations that occurred before the attack. [23] At the time the application was drafted, more than sixty percent of Gaza’s housing stock had been damaged or destroyed, 1.9 million Palestinians (eighty-five percent of the population) had been displaced, and over 21,110 Palestinians were reported to have been killed, at least seventy percent of whom were women and children. [24]

The application also details the Palestinians suffering from starvation, dehydration, the destruction of hospitals, refugee camps, and infrastructure for aid distribution, and the rampant spread of disease caused by the ongoing Israeli siege. [25] The population density has become unsustainable as United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) shelters, which are considered the safest locations to be, had an average of 486 people using a single toilet. [26]

The destruction of Gaza’s cultural and educational sites erased Gaza’s ancient history as ancient mosques, churches, schools, archives, and archeological sites fell victim to the Israeli shelling. [27] The application also details Israel’s use of evacuation orders, telling Palestinians in northern Gaza to flee their homes and travel to southern Gaza within twenty-four hours to avoid the violence. [28] As Gazan families fled to the south, Israel continued to shell areas that were designated as safe main traffic arteries. [29]

South Africa’s application also used direct statements from Israeli government officials to demonstrate expressions of genocidal intent against the Palestinian people. [30] Most notably, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, made a televised statement describing their military campaign as “a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle,” dehumanizing the Gazan populace. [31] The application also showed that soldiers on the ground were expressive of their genocidal intent as it presented a video showing Israeli soldiers chanting that “there are no uninvolved citizens” in Gaza and that they will “wipe off the seed of Amalek.” [32]

On January 26, 2024, the ICJ issued its order, requiring Israel to take provisional measures in accordance with the genocide convention. [33] These provisional measures equate to an emergency injunction, instructing a party to cease acts the ICJ views to violate the Genocide Convention. [34] The ICJ has issued provisional measures in the past, but without enforcement measures, they are often ignored. [35]

C. Israel’s Defense

Israel petitioned to have the ICJ dismiss the case based on a failure to demonstrate the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. [36] Israeli and United States officials have publicly called South Africa’s claims “baseless” with no legal merit. [37] Prime Minister Netanyahu even went as far as to say South Africa is acting as the “legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organization.” [38]

This defense was ultimately rejected as the ICJ ruled that it was plausible that Israel committed acts of genocide in Gaza. [39] Per the ruling, Israel must take six provisional measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. [40] These include (1) taking all measures within its powers to prevent genocide; (2) ensuring that its military does not commit genocide; (3) taking all measures within its power to prevent and punish incitement to genocide; (4) preserving all evidence relevant to potential violations of the genocide convention; (5) reporting back to the court with their progress in thirty days; and (6) enabling humanitarian aid. [41]

Israeli officials have already dismissed the ICJ’s ruling. They have continued their bombing campaign and continue to block humanitarian aid. [42] Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir reacted to the ruling by mockingly posting “Hauge Schmauge” to X. [43] There has been no indication they intend to abide by the ICJ ruling yet.

The same day Israel was ordered to make provisional measures, Israel alleged that twelve UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7th attack and that at least 190 employees were Hamas militants. [44] As a result of these allegations, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others suspended their funding to UNRWA, which is the largest humanitarian group providing aid to the 2.2 million residents of Gaza. [45] This puts millions of Palestinian lives at risk of starvation and lack of medical care and attention. [46] Even worse, there has been no public release of any evidence to support Israel’s claims and they have not been independently verified.

            This ruling from the ICJ is historic and it is significant. Even though the ruling did not call for a ceasefire and Israel is refusing to comply with the provisional measures, it illustrates the facts as they are to the world. This information can influence trade partners and those providing aid to Israel to reconsider their involvement and complicity with potential violations of international law. For now, Israel’s reporting to the world’s highest court will surely be scrutinized as international public support for ending this humanitarian crisis continues to grow. [47] The ICJ ruling can make an impact and build more support as the world learns about what is truly happening on the ground.

While this may be a step in a positive direction, there are still grave concerns that require immediate intervention. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire and urgent. The Palestinian death toll is rising rapidly and more than eighty percent of the population has been displaced with no home for them to return to. [48] Israel recently began a bombing campaign in Rafah, the most densely populated area in Gaza. [49] Rafah is where many families fled as Israel’s military moved them further and further south. [50] With Egypt refusing refugees and Israel’s military pushing in from the north, there is nowhere else to go. Even worse, Israeli officials have declared an intent to conduct a ground invasion of Rafah regardless of any potential ceasefire, which the UN warns would lead to a slaughter. [51]

Without immediate intervention, the human suffering in Gaza will continue to be unimaginable. The ICJ needs to demand a ceasefire and implement an immediate humanitarian corridor to provide aid to those suffering in Gaza. The effects of this bombardment will be seen and felt for decades. We cannot hesitate to end this atrocity and do anything we can to keep it from getting any worse.

[1] South Africa v. Israel , Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, (Dec. 23. 2023)

[3] Id. at 1-2.

[4] International Court of Justice, History, https://www.icj-cij.org/history .

[5] Protocol, Singed at Moscow, November 1, 1943, Declaration of Four Nations on General Security , Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, General, Volume I (1943).

[6] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations , 1 UNTS XVI (Oct. 14, 1945).

[7] International Court of Justice, How the Court Works , https://www.icj-cij.org/how-the-court-works .

[10] United States of America v. Iran, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, International Court of Justice . (May 12, 1981).; Nicaragua v. United States of America, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, International Court of Justice (November 26, 1984).; The Gambia v. Myanmar, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. International Court of Justice (January 23, 2020).

[11] International Court of Justice, supra note 7.

[14] Press Release, International Criminal Court, Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC from Ramallah on the Situation in the State of Palestine and Israel . ( December 6, 2023).

[15] United Nations, supra note 6, at Article 41. “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.” (June 26, 1945).

[17] RadioFree Europe, Kremlin, As Expected, Rejects ICJ Ruling to Halt Ukraine Invasion . March 17, 2022. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-rejects-icj-war-ruling/31757644.html

[19] Oona Hathaway & Scott J. Shapiro, Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law, 121 Yale L.J. 252 (2011). (Disobedience need not be met with the law’s iron fist- enforcement may simply involve denying the disobedient the benefits of social cooperation and membership). at 258.

[20] Id. at 73.

[21]   South Africa v. Israel , Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. (December 23. 2023).

22   Id. (The October 7, 2023, attacks conducted by Hamas targeted 20 communities and a music festival in Israeli territory. Hamas abducted more than 230 people and killed more than 1,200 people in this attack.)

[23] Id. at 72-73. (providing a summary of notable events including: in 1948 known as the Nakba, that 95% of the drinking water from Gaza’s sole aquifer was already unsuitable for consumption before Oct. 7.)

[24] Id. at 31.

[25] Id. at 34-36.

[26] Id. at 46. (Describing that those sheltering in UNRWA sites are considered to be the “lucky ones” as these conditions are supposed to be better than surrounding areas.)

[27] Id. at 55.

[28] Id. at 37.

[29] Id. at 38.

[30] Id. at 59.

[32] Id. at 65. (This is in reference to a biblical account of the nation of Amalek attacking Israelites that were leaving Egypt: “You shall remember what Amalek did to you…your God, gives to you as an inheritance to possess, that you shall obliterate the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens.” Devarim (Deuteronomy) 25:17-19).

[33] South Africa v. Israel , Order Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. January 26, 2024. at 10

[34] The Gambia v. Myanmar, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. International Court of Justice (January 23, 2020).

[35] Human Rights Watch, “An Open Prison Without End”: Myanmar’s Mass Detention of Rohingya in Rakhine State . October 8, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/08/open-prison-without-end/myanmars-mass-detention-rohingya-rakhine-state#7926

[36] Supra, note 33.

[37] Id. at 10

[38] Mohammed Salem, Nidal Al-Mughrabi, Anthony Deutsch, Netanyahu condemns ICJ Genocide Case; Gazans Return to Wasteland in North. REUTERS. January 11, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-face-gaza-genocide-charges-world-court-2024-01-11/ .

[39] Supra, note 33.

[41] Id. at 23.

[42] Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Question. January 31, 2024. https://www.aplusforpeace.ch/sites/default/files/2024-01/240131-new-york-statement-MEPQ-cad.pdf.

[43] Itiamar Ben-Gvir (@itiamarbengvir), X/Twitter. (Jan. 26, 2024, 7:53 AM),  https://twitter.com/itamarbengvir/status/1750864446807794046.

[44] Press Release, UNRWA, Serious Allegations Against UNRWA Staff in the Gaza Strip (Jan. 26, 2024), https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/serious-allegations-against-unrwa-staff-gaza-strip# . (noting that no evidence of these claims has been made public as of March 25, 2024).

[45] Ben Samuels and Reuters, U.S. Pauses UNRWA Funding Amid Claims 12 Workers Involved on Oct 7 Attack on Israel, Haaretz (Jan. 26, 2024), https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2024-01-26/ty-article/u-s-pauses-unrwa-funding-after-claims-12-workers-involved-in-oct-7-attack-on-israel/0000018d-463e-dc44-a5bf-cebe1b080000?v=1711985305357 .

[46] Press Release, UNRWA, UNRWA’S Lifesaving Aid May End Due to Funding Suspension (Jan. 27, 2024), https://www.un.org/unispal/document/unrwas-lifesaving-aid-may-end-due-to-funding-suspension-27jan-2024/#:~:text=OVER%202%20MILLION%20PEOPLE%20IN,AS%20WAR%20AND%20DISPLACEMENT%20CONTINUE&text=AMMAN%20%2D%20“Nine%20countries%20have%20as,especially%20in%20the%20Gaza%20Strip.

[47] Lydia Saad, Democrats’ Sympathies in Middle East Shift to Palestine, GALLUP (Mar. 16, 2023), https://news.gallup.com/poll/472070/democrats-sympathies-middle-east-shift-palestinians.aspx.

[48] State of Palestine Ministry of Health,  Daily Report on the Effects of the Israeli Aggression in Palestine. April 1, 2024.  https://site.moh.ps/Content/File/JUIrdYZDvbdoFyFmHE72muun_MEOH7HZJu1BUFvrtp5A2tJk5.pdf . (Estimates more than 30,000 Palestinians have died so far [these numbers are likely underreported as some areas are not safe to reach and communication has been lost between major hospitals in Northern Gaza]).

[49] United Nations. World News in Brief: Rafah Escalation Fears, Gaza War’s Unprecedented Death Rate. Press Release. February 9, 2024. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146412 . (Rafah is in Southern Gaza, along the Gaza/Egypt border. Rafah’s population exploded from 250,000 to over 1 million. The population is so dense that normal routes are being blocked by tents as families are running out of flat, clean space.)

[51] Michelle Nichols, UN Warns Israel: Rafah Invasion Could ‘Lead to Slaughter’, REUTERS. February 13, 2024.  https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-warns-israel-rafah-invasion-could-lead-slaughter-2024-02-13/.

You may also like

American birth on american earth – does that make you american.

Among the top agendas of the current Trump administration is the implementation of a series of reforms to conventional immigration law and […]

Rapid DNA Testing at the Border: Immigration Privacy Concerns

With the increase of immigrants entering the United States at the southern border in the past two years, the Department of Homeland […]

Millions of Black Americans are Stripped of the Right to Vote Each Year

Section One of the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution plainly states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote […]

It is Time for the U.S. to Overhaul its Agricultural Child Labor Laws

Introduction You may be surprised to discover that your twelve-year-old child could get a job on a farm, working virtually unlimited hours […]