nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/f73c5a32e69f6d1c DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 240111s2024||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/f73c5a32e69f6d1c doi eng 342 23 Mann, Itamar Author aut The Missing Party - On South Africa’s Legal Strategy in its Genocide Application before the ICJ Mann, Itamar Verfassungsblog 2024-01-11 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier South Africa’s argument today was historic and extremely important. If you missed it, I recommend that you go back and look for the recording. For the Israeli viewer, at least, the South African argument was a real service because at last, we could connect to a very dominant narrative in world politics, which is completely concealed by Israeli media. However, the hearing also exposed a problem in South Africa's argument, which was also apparent in the written application. The South African case brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is highly selective. Prof. John Dugard, in an impressive performance, described how observers watched the events of October 7th “with horror”. But people reading the documents and listening to the oral arguments, without otherwise following the events, might think that before and after October 7, Palestinian forces did not shoot a single bullet. CC BY-SA 4.0 Genocide ICJ Israel-Gaza War Israel-Hamas War Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/the-missing-party/ raw object