Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gives each State the right to assert its interpretation of a multilateral agreement to which it is a party. if a dispute involves this Agreement. The so-called “intervening” state can influence the interpretation of this agreement by the Court of Justice: it is then just as binding for it as it is in principle for the parties to the dispute.
This procedure has had great success in the extensive and recent litigation triggered by the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948. Seven states intervened in the Gambia v Gambia case. Myanmar and 32 in Ukraine vs. Russia.
This figure should not be surprising for a Convention in which “the States Parties have no interests of their own, but rather each has a common interest, namely, that of safeguarding the higher objectives which constitute the reason for the existence of the Convention.” (Report from May 28, 1951, “Reservations to the Genocide Convention”). France is one of these interveners, in the first case together with five other states, in the second case individually.
Also read | War in Gaza: South Africa accuses Israel of “genocide”.
As Germany announced on January 12th, France must also intervene in the proceedings initiated by South Africa against Israel on December 29th, 2023 regarding the application of the Convention in the Gaza Strip. The continuity and logic of its legal policy require this, especially since, like many States, it will take part in the consultation process on the “legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem”. activated only a year ago by the United Nations General Assembly.
But above all because “words have meaning,” as the Foreign Minister explained to the National Assembly on January 17th [Stéphane Séjourné] When asked questions to the government, he stressed that France must intervene to ensure that these words are reflected in the strict provisions of the law.
Other reasonable conclusions
The acts recorded in the 1948 Convention and the inflammatory statements of the agents and supreme bodies of the State of Israel, which South Africa cites as evidence of genocide, are part of a very specific context, different from that of the Rohingyas in Burma: namely, the massive Israel's military response based on its right to self-defense against the open armed aggression carried out by Hamas against Israel on October 7th.
You still have 60% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.