I have just been reading all the recent interventions in International Court of Justice (ICJ) case #192: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
Namibia's (pdf) is far and away the best. It is good to read from a perspective of understanding the concept of genocide, beyond gut feeling. It's better to read it backwards unfortunately.
Here is a news article about it. It is quite good as a very brief summary. But there is more in there.
full text
Namibia intervenes in ICJ Gaza genocide case
Allexer Namundjembo
Namibia has formally intervened in the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
The court confirmed that Namibia submitted a declaration of intervention last week under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute.
The article allows states that are party to a treaty being interpreted in a case to take part in the proceedings.
The case concerns the interpretation of the Genocide Convention.
The United States, Hungary and Fiji also filed declarations of intervention on the same day.
The ICJ said states that are party to a convention being interpreted in a case have the right to intervene.
“Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, each of these States has the right to intervene in the proceedings,” the court said.
Namibia’s submission focuses on the interpretation of genocidal intent under the convention.
According to Namibia, the court may infer genocidal intent from the scale, systematic nature, intensity, duration and repetition of acts listed under Article II of the Genocide Convention.
Namibia also contended that the assessment of genocidal intent should take into account acts such as forced displacement, starvation of civilians, and repeated killing of children.
The country further said genocide can occur through both actions and omissions, including failing to provide life-sustaining necessities or withholding humanitarian assistance.
The court said any interpretation adopted in the case will be legally binding on states that intervene, including Namibia.
The case was filed by South Africa in December 2023. South Africa argues that Israel has violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. Israel has rejected the allegations.
Since the case was filed, the ICJ has issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent acts that could amount to genocide and to allow humanitarian assistance into Gaza.
The first measures were issued in January 2024, with further orders in March and May 2024.
Namibia has previously raised concerns about the situation in Gaza at the ICJ.
In February 2024, its then justice minister, Yvonne Dausab, addressed the court during hearings related to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
“The parallels between Namibia and Palestine are striking and painful. Both peoples experienced occupation, loss of land, and restrictions on self-determination.”
Other countries that have previously intervened or requested to intervene include Colombia, Mexico, Spain, Türkiye, Chile, Ireland, Brazil and Belgium.
Earlier last week, the Netherlands and Iceland also filed declarations of intervention.
The Netherlands asked the court to lower the threshold for “serious bodily or mental harm” when the victim is a child. Iceland warned that the requirement to infer genocidal intent should not be interpreted in a way that makes it impossible to prove.
The court has invited South Africa and Israel to submit written observations in response to the declarations of intervention.
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and is responsible for resolving disputes between states under international law.