LArticle 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provides the possibility for any state to assert its interpretation of a multilateral convention to which it is a party. When this agreement is in dispute. A so-called “intervening” state can, by doing so, influence the interpretation of the Convention by the Court: it will then be binding on it as it is in principle for the parties to the dispute.
This process has been very successful, with a rich and recent litigation initiated by the application of the December 9, 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Seven states have intervened in the case. Gambia Vs. Myanmarand thirty-two in the case Ukraine vs. Russia.
For a convention in which this number should not be surprising “Contracting States have their own (but) only, each and every, common interest, which is to preserve the higher end which is the reason for the existence of the Convention” (Advisory Opinion of May 28, 1951, “Reservations to the Genocide Convention”). France is among the intervenors, in the first case jointly with five other states, in the second case individually.
Like Germany, which announced on January 12, France will also intervene on December 29, 2023 in the proceedings brought by South Africa against Israel regarding the application of the Convention in the Gaza Strip. It is required for the continuity and rationale of its legal policy, especially since it will participate, like many states, in a consultative process regarding “the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, only one through the United Nations General Assembly. Activated years ago.
But first of all because “Words Have Meaning”As announced in the National Assembly on January 17, the Foreign Minister (Stefan Sejourn) During questions to the government, that France should intervene to echo these words in strict terms of law.
Other reasonable conclusions
The acts recorded by the 1948 Convention and inflammatory declarations by agents and supreme organs of the State of Israel, which South Africa cites to provide evidence of genocide, are part of a very specific context. Different from the Rohingya of Burma: namely the massive military response launched by Israel on the basis of its right to self-defense against the full-scale armed offensive launched against it by Hamas on October 7.
You have 60% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
