Critically compare the majority and the minority judgments in the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel. With reference to the judgments, choose three (3) critical issues that both judgments dealt with and compare them. explain them in details
give me the exact words on the article
In the "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" case, there were two key judgments - the majority judgment and the minority judgment.
Three critical issues that were dealt with by both judgments include:
1. Interpretation of the Genocide Convention: Both the majority and minority judgments delved into the interpretation of the Genocide Convention in the context of the situation in the Gaza Strip. The majority judgment focused on the definition of genocide as outlined in the Convention, emphasizing the requirement of specific intent to destroy a protected group. The minority judgment also considered the definition, but placed more emphasis on the actions of the state of Israel in relation to the alleged genocide.
2. State responsibility: Both judgments discussed the issue of state responsibility in the context of genocide. The majority judgment examined the responsibility of the state of Israel under the Genocide Convention, highlighting the need for individual criminal liability for genocide to be established. The minority judgment also touched on state responsibility but placed more emphasis on the actions of Israel in the Gaza Strip as potentially constituting genocide.
3. Proving genocide: The question of proving genocide was another crucial issue addressed by both judgments. The majority judgment discussed the burden of proof required to establish the commission of genocide, emphasizing the need for clear and convincing evidence. The minority judgment also addressed the burden of proof but focused more on the broader context of the situation in the Gaza Strip and the actions of Israel as evidence of potential genocide.
Overall, while both judgments considered similar issues such as the interpretation of the Genocide Convention, state responsibility, and proving genocide, they differed in their emphasis and analysis of these issues. The majority judgment focused more on legal definitions and standards of proof, while the minority judgment placed greater importance on the specific actions and responsibilities of the state of Israel in the Gaza Strip.