A judge from Uganda, Julia Sebutinde, was the only on the 17-member International Court of Justice (ICJ) to vote against all six measures adopted by the court last Friday in a ruling in the case initiated by South Africa concerning the Application of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip.
She uniquely voted against all proposed provisional measures, standing out as the sole permanent judge to do so, in contrast to Ad hoc Israeli Judge Aharon Barak, who opposed most but supported two.
Sebutinde was criticized by Adonia Ayebare, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations. “Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine,’’ she said on X.
The ICJ ruled on Jan 26. that while South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is under review, Israel must “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide” as well as immediately allow for humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip. But the judges did not approve the request to stop military action in Gaza nor did they order a ceasefire.
Sebutinde explained her dissent votes by saying that “the dispute is essentially and historically a political one” between Israel and Palestinians and should be resolved through “a diplomatic or negotiated settlement” and an “implementation in good faith” of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions.
“Unfortunately, the failure, reluctance or inability of States to resolve political controversies such as this one through effective diplomacy or negotiations may sometimes lead them to resort to a pretextual invocation of treaties like the Genocide Convention, in a desperate bid to force a case into the context of such a treaty, in order to foster its judicial settlement: rather like the proverbial ‘Cinderella’s glass slipper,’” she wrote.
The judge added that she didn’t believe South Africa’s provisional measures, as requested under the U.N. genocide law, were plausible because “the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent.”