Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 7 March 2024
23. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs for a status update on Ireland's plans to support South Africa's case against Israel under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11057/24]
Amharc ar fhreagra31. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland, in light of Belgium’s move to support South Africa’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, has plans to shift its position to one of support; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3821/24]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 23 and 31 together.
I have been closely monitoring developments in the case taken under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’) by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
I welcomed the Court’s order of provisional measures in this case on 26 January, particularly the direction that Israel take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza. Ireland has been consistent in calling for this from the start of this conflict. I know that Israel filed a report to the Court on foot of the Order on 26 February, but this has not been made public.
My officials continue to analyse the legal and policy aspects of this case, and we are in contact with South Africa and other like-minded partners in this regard. However, as I have stated before, the Government will make a final decision on intervention once South Africa, as the applicant state, files its written memorial.
The reason for awaiting the filing of the applicant state's memorial in such cases is to enable third states to make informed decisions on whether to intervene, based on as complete as possible an understanding of the matters in question before the Court. This allows a state considering intervention the time to undertake detailed and rigorous analysis of those matters in advance of intervention. In turn, this means that any intervention is more likely to be permitted by the Court, or be deemed admissible by it (depending on the intervention’s legal basis). It also means that interventions are more likely to be relevant, comprehensive and helpful to the Court in its consideration of the legal issues before it.
This is exactly what Ireland did in respect the Ukraine v Russia case, which was also taken under the Genocide Convention. Our intervention in that case was deemed admissible.
To date, no state has ever successfully intervened in an International Court of Justice case before the applicant filed its memorial. I note that only one state, Nicaragua, has requested permission to intervene in the South Africa v. Israel case to date. The Court has not yet decided upon that request.
It is important to note that when third states seek to intervene in International Court of Justice cases, they do not ‘join’ or 'support' one side or another. Rather, they submit a statement that asserts their interpretation of the provision of the Convention at issue, or they must identify a specific legal interest affected by the proceedings.
