Judge Julia Sebutinde is set to assume the presidency of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), marking another milestone in her groundbreaking career as well as a significant shift for the court.
The Ugandan jurist, who recently made headlines for her robust defence of Israel against South Africa’s genocide allegations, will take the helm following current President Nawaf Salam’s departure.
Salam has been appointed Prime Minister of his native Lebanon by new president Joseph Aoun, whose election, backed by the US and Saudi Arabia, represents a major blow to Iran and its proxy Hezbollah.
Sebutinde’s recent ruling on the Israel-Hamas War has particularly resonated in international legal circles. She dismissed South Africa’s requests for temporary injunctions to halt the Gaza war, asserting that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is fundamentally political rather than legal in both its nature and historical context, and therefore falls outside the court’s purview.
You must log in or register to comment.
I resent the outlet’s labelling of the judge as “pro-Israel”, because that implies that the other judges are “anti-Israel”. The job of the judges is not to be pro or anti whatever country. It is to be judges and interpret the law to the best of their ability.
One more thing that the article fails to do is explain what the ICJ president, giving the impression that the president has the power to shift the opnions of the court in this or that direction. For those interested, here is what the president does.
In effect, the article, as written, politicizes the ICJ and pushes a narrative that legal proceedings against Israel’s conduct have nefarious “anti-Israel” motivations. Fuck. That. When the ICJ ruled against Ecuador, it was not “anti-Ecuador”. Israel is not special.
The judge is very obviously extremely biased in favor of Israel.
I think you are misusing the word “bias”. Has she shown any systematic partiality for Israel? Has she expressed over and over again that she is willing to bend the rules for Israel? Is there an inclination?
One opinion does not indicate bias. It is one opinion for a specific issue at a specific time. Bias would be something that happens over and over and shows some kind of inclination. US policy is biased in favour of Israel, while Iranian policy is biased against it. Irish policy, for example, is neither.
Because be very careful here: the same logic applies for the judges who argued to accept South Africa’s case. If “bias for/against” means “they took a favourable/disfavourable position”, then by that definition, the ICJ majority is …anti-Israel. Which is of course exactly the line that the Israeli Apartheid establishment is pushing, that the world is somehow out to get Israel.
Yes she voted in favor of Israel for every resolution. Even when the Israeli judge voted against Israel. She is more biased than the Israeli ICJ judge.
In the article you posted elsewhere in the thread she is quoted as saying:
“In my respectful dissenting opinion the dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political one. It is not a legal dispute susceptible to judicial settlement by the Court,”
I think we would both agree with Mark Kersten, cited in the article, that she’s wrong about that.
It explains however why she would vote the way she did. She is of the opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction, and the rest of her behaviour follows from that. That again does not constitute bias, it constitutes a consistently held (albeit wrong, according to Mark, me, you, and the court majority) opinion.
Listen, I am standing up for her not because she’s right, but because I think that politically this narrative of pro- and anti- Israel justices serves the Israeli Apartheid establishment in undermining the authority of the court.
Every conflict is a political conflict. And in such a conflict it is possible for involved parties to break international criminal law or international law. By her logic no genocide can be subject to the ruling of the ICJ and the laws to prevent genocide are worthless, because genocide will always be an escalation of a political conflict.
Then I am of the opinion she is biased
Lol, you aren’t engaging with my argument at all. What even is the point of this interaction?
You had no argument. Calling her bias an opinion changes nothing.
If Trump can get off, why not the zios too? Let’s be real about the true purpose of “judges”.
“zios”?
Mood.
its shorter than writing out “war criminals, murderers, thieves, religious zealots and terrorists”. Even I’m sick of listing out the zionists list of atricities.
Indeed, the basis on which she dismissed the provisions is quite important. She highlights that one of the fundamental parts that according to the ICJ are necessary to constitute a genocide (intent) is not present. For all of you interested, her full opinion is available to read here. In short, she stated that because of the lack of intent there is no genocide in Gaza (as defined by the ICJ).
I will note that she hadn’t before this ruling been considered “pro-Israel”. Though it has historically been the opinion of some moderators in this community that statements like hers constitute “Pro-Israel propaganda”.
The relevant part from the genocide convention:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical…
Here are some excerpts from the opinion of judge Sebutinde:
… Some of the preconditions for the indication of provisional measures have not been met — South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention — Similarly, since the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the rights it asserts and for which it seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures are plausible under the Genocide Convention — The provisional measures indicated by the Court in this Order are not warranted.
Later in the document there are more detailed explanations, but I will spoiler them to avoid a huge wall of text:
spoiler
A. There are no indicators of a genocidal intent on the part of Israel
…
What distinguishes the crime of genocide from other grave violations of international human rights law (including those enumerated in Article II, paragraphs (a) to (d), of the Genocide Convention) is the existence of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Accordingly, the acts complained of by South Africa, as well as the rights correlated to those acts, can only be capable of “falling within the scope of the said Convention” if a genocidal intent is present, otherwise such acts simply constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and not genocide as such.
…
-
… Having examined the evidence put forward by each of the Parties, I am not convinced that a prima facie showing of a genocidal intent, by way of indicators, has been made out against Israel. The war was not started by Israel but rather by Hamas who attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 thereby sparking off the military operation in Israel’s defence and in a bid to rescue its hostages. I also must agree that any “genocidal intent” alleged by the Applicant is negated by (1) Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza; (2) its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks; and (3) its facilitation of humanitarian assistance. A careful examination of Israel’s war policy and of the full statements of the responsible government officials further demonstrates the absence of a genocidal intent. Here I must hasten to add that Israel is expected to conduct its military operation in accordance with international humanitarian law but violations of IHL cannot be the subject of these proceedings which are purely pursuant to the Genocide Convention. Unfortunately, the scale of suffering and death experienced in Gaza is exacerbated not by genocidal intent, but rather by several factors, including the tactics of the Hamas organization itself which often entails its forces embedding amongst the civilian population and installations, rendering them vulnerable to legitimate military attack.
-
Regarding the statements of Israeli top officials and politicians that South Africa cited as containing genocidal rhetoric, a careful examination of those statements, read in their proper and full context, shows that South Africa has either placed the quotations out of context or simply misunderstood the statements of those officials. The vast majority of the statements referred to the destruction of Hamas and not the Palestinian people as such. Certain renegade statements by officials who are not charged with prosecuting Israel’s military operations were subsequently highly criticized by the Israeli Government itself. More importantly, the official war policy of the Israeli Government, as presented to the Court, contains no indicators of a genocidal intent. In my assessment, there are also no indicators of incitement to commit genocide.
-
In sum, I am not convinced that the acts complained of by the Applicant are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention, in particular because it has not been shown, even on a prima facie basis, that Israel’s conduct in Gaza is accompanied by the necessary genocidal intent…
Previous moderation has indicated that discussion of this topic is ban-worthy in this community. As such I will not be responding to any comments unless a moderator in this community actively says otherwise. Those interested in a civil discussion can however send me a DM instead, as I find the topic important and worthy of discussion.
Her claiming there is no evidenc of intent seems quite out of place. In partivular as the court has ruled as provisional measures that Israel needs to prevent and criminally prosecute genocidial incitement from high ranking politicians and arny officials.
There is plenty of statements from the Israeli president, prime minister, multiple ministers and army officials, which reflect in the chants and celebrations of soldiers in the IDF who celebrate the murder and destruction as they live out their intended and explicitly stated annihilation of Palestinians.
For an exhaustive description see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Genocidal_intent
It is implausible that this judge sees all of this differently than a huge majority of legal, historical and human rights experts in the world without this being motivated by a political bias.
the charges were not dismissed, this judge wrote a dissenting opinion, which essentially amounts to her personal position on the matter, not the ICJ’s findings. The ICJ found that it was plausible that Israel had committed genocide, but that more consideration was needed. So you’re just being misleading in your comment. Your argument amounts to nothing at all.
South Africa subitted 80 pages of evidence proving Israeli genocidal intent and statements.
Explain why the other judges all judged Israel was plausibly committing genocide whereas Sebutinde denied it.
the other judges all judged Israel was plausibly committing genocide
This statement is incorrect.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf
Seems like that extra $150 million extra in hasbara money is already in good use judging from your genocide denial and post history.
-
I didn’t know that the current president of the court is Lebanese and that he was elected to that role in 2024, after the start of the most recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. (He was elected to the court in 2017.) I don’t think any human being could be impartial in those circumstances.
Edit: Sebutinde was elected to the court in 2011 and then elected as the vice president in 2024, but there was no vote now for her to become president. She does so by default when Salam resigns.
Lebanon is khesbola confirmed?!
Who is Julia Sebutinde? The judge against all ICJ rulings in Israel’s case
In the anticipated decision, made by a panel of 17 judges, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered six so-called provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza. Those measures were approved by an overwhelming majority of the judges. An Israeli judge voted in favour of two of the six.
But Uganda’s Judge, Julia Sebuntinde, was the only judge who voted against all of them.
That sure looks unbiased…
She cashed a check. Saying the zionists engage in rampant bribery (they also call it “lobbying”) is not exactly controversial. They brag about how much they pay to “influence opinion” and buy results.
