ISRAEL-PALESTINE

OPENING STATEMENTS
MODERATOR: discuss case – refers to both ICC and ICJ cases
ICC/ICJ REP: Honourable Chair, respected panel, and distinguished
participants,
I stand before you today as a representative of the International Court of Justice
and the International Criminal Court : two institutions that together form the
backbone of modern international justice.
This discussion is not confined to a single courtroom or a single legal question. It
brings together two parallel proceedings : one concerning state responsibility, and
the other individual criminal accountability. While they operate under different
mandates, both courts are ultimately guided by the same objective: to uphold
international law in moments when it is tested the most.
Before the ICJ, the issue is state responsibility , whether the legal threshold of
genocide, including specific intent, is met.
Whereas Before the ICC, the focus shifts to individual criminal responsibility:
questions of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the principle of complementarity.
Here, the Court must consider whether it has the authority to act, and whether
national systems are both willing and able to genuinely investigate and prosecute
alleged crimes.
At the same time, we must recognise a critical reality: while courts deliberate, the
situation on the ground continues to evolve. This creates a tension between the
pace of law and the immediacy of human need.
Therefore, the task before these institutions is not only to interpret the law, but to
ensure that the law remains meaningful — that it does not become distant from
the very people it is meant to protect.
With that, I invite the panel to engage with these questions carefully, critically,
and with the seriousness they demand.
ISRAEL: Honourable Chair and distinguished members of the panel, it is an
honour to appear before you on behalf of the State of Israel.
On the 7th of October 2023, Hamas murdered 1,200 people: the largest massacre
of Jewish people since the Holocaust. Two hundred and fifty-four were taken
hostage. We did not choose this war. It was declared on us.
What followed is Israel's exercise of its inherent right of self-defence under
Article 51 of the UN Charter, a right recognised by every state at this table. What
it is not, and what it cannot legally be called, is genocide or a war crime
perpetrated by its leadership.
Before the International Court of Justice, the legal threshold for genocide is
exceptionally high. It requires specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a
protected group as such. That intent is absent here. Israel’s operations are directed
at Hamas, an armed non-state actor. Alongside its military efforts, Israel has
facilitated humanitarian corridors, coordinated aid delivery with United Nations
agencies, and engaged with the Court’s provisional measures process through
compliance reporting.
Before the International Criminal Court, the jurisdictional foundation is
contested. Israel has not signed the Rome Statute. The Court has no jurisdiction
over our nationals. Palestine's accession cannot manufacture that jurisdiction, and
even if jurisdiction were assumed, the principle of complementarity remains
decisive. Israel possesses a robust and independent judiciary, as well as
established military investigative mechanisms, fully capable of examining
allegations of misconduct in good faith.
Two courts, two flawed jurisdictional foundations. We will address both.

SOUTH AFRICA: apartheid hence knows consequences – why it brought this

case?
PALESTINE: Honourable Chair and respected panel,
I stand here not just to present a legal position, but to speak for a people who have
endured continuous suffering and uncertainty. This is not merely a debate about
jurisdiction or technical rules of law — it is about the protection of human life
and dignity.
For years, Palestinians have faced displacement, loss, and fear. Today, the scale
of destruction and civilian harm has reached a point where silence is no longer an
option. When entire communities are affected, when access to food, water, and
basic necessities is restricted, these are not just consequences of conflict — they
raise serious concerns under international law.
We come before the international community not because we seek to politicize
the law, but because the law is meant to protect those who cannot protect
themselves. The question is not only whether these acts fit within strict legal
definitions, but whether the world is willing to recognise the reality on the ground
and respond to it.
Even if there are debates about jurisdiction or procedure, they cannot overshadow
the urgency of the situation. Justice delayed, in such circumstances, is justice
denied.
What we seek is accountability, recognition, and above all, protection for
civilians. Because at the heart of this case are not just legal principles, but human
lives that deserve to be safeguarded.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: As a human rights journalist, my focus is not

just on legal arguments, but on the real people affected. This issue is not only
about courts like the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal
Court — it is about civilians who are suffering every day.
Behind every legal debate, there are families losing loved ones, people being
displaced, and communities struggling to survive. Concepts like starvation or
excessive force are not just legal terms — they reflect real human suffering
happening right now.
At the same time, legal debates about jurisdiction and responsibility can slow
down action. When countries say they will handle justice themselves, we must
ask: is that justice actually reaching the victims?
International law exists to protect people, but if decisions are delayed or not
enforced, it loses its meaning. The gap between what the law says and what
people experience becomes bigger.
So the real question is not just what the law says — but whether it can act fast
enough, fairly enough, and strongly enough to actually protect human lives.
ISSUES
1) ICJ Jurisdiction & South Africa’s Standing
Moderator: The first issue that arises for consideration is whether South
Africa has the legal standing to bring this application before the Court. It
has been argued by Israel that South Africa is not a directly aggrieved
party—no South African nationals were killed in Gaza, nor is any South
African territory affected by the alleged acts. From this perspective, the
application appears less as the assertion of a legal right and more as a
political intervention articulated in the language of international law. This
therefore raises a fundamental jurisdictional question: in the absence of
direct injury, territorial interest, or individualized harm, on what legal basis
does South Africa claim the right to appear before this Court?

COURT REP: As the representative of the International Court of Justice and the
International Criminal Court, the issue of standing must be seen through the
framework of the Genocide Convention. The Convention creates obligations that
are erga omnes partes, meaning every state party has a shared duty to prevent and
punish genocide. Because of this, a state does not need to show direct injury,
territorial damage, or loss of its own nationals to approach the Court. The
obligation is collective, and any state party can raise concerns if it believes the
Convention is being violated.
This approach has already been accepted by the ICJ in cases like The Gambia v.
Myanmar, where a state with no direct connection to the conflict was allowed to
bring a claim. Therefore, South Africa’s standing is not based on personal harm,
but on its legal interest in ensuring compliance with the Convention. The key
issue for the Court is not whether South Africa is directly affected, but whether
the obligations under the Convention permit such a claim — and existing
jurisprudence suggests that they do.

Israel: The erga omnes partes principle is not unlimited. Article IX of the
Genocide Convention requires a genuine dispute between parties regarding the
Convention's interpretation or application. Before filing in December 2023, South
Africa had no meaningful diplomatic exchange with Israel on this matter. You
cannot manufacture a dispute by drafting an application. The ANC government
has a documented, decades-long political alignment with the Palestinian cause,
this is not neutral legal enforcement. It is political litigation using the Court as a
platform.
South Africa:
Israel:

2) The Genocide Threshold

Moderator: The second issue strikes at the very legal core of these
proceedings: the threshold for establishing genocide under international law.
To sustain such an allegation, it is not sufficient merely to demonstrate large-
scale violence or civilian casualties; the applicant must establish the existence
of specific intent (dolus specialis)—that is, the deliberate intention to destroy,
in whole or in part, a protected group as such. South Africa therefore bears
the burden of proving that the acts alleged against Israel were accompanied
by this special genocidal intent. The central question before the Court, then,
is this: what concrete and compelling evidence does South Africa present to
establish the existence of such intent?

South Africa:
Israel:
Palestine: Honourable Chair, the requirement of proving specific intent under the
Genocide Convention is indeed strict, but intent is rarely proven through direct
statements alone. It can be inferred from patterns of conduct. When we see large-
scale civilian harm, repeated targeting of essential infrastructure, and restrictions
on food, water, and medical aid, these are not isolated acts — they may
collectively point towards an underlying intent. Palestine submits that such
patterns, along with statements made by officials and the scale of destruction,
provide a basis from which genocidal intent can reasonably be examined.
Therefore, the argument is not that every act automatically proves genocide, but
that the cumulative effect of these actions raises serious legal concerns. The
Court’s role, much like in past interpretations of the International Court of Justice,
is to assess whether these facts, taken together, meet the threshold where intent
can be inferred. At the very least, Palestine argues that the evidence is sufficient
to warrant urgent attention and careful judicial scrutiny.
Human Rights Activist: From a human rights perspective, intent should not be
seen separately from what is actually happening on the ground. Under the
Genocide Convention, proving genocide requires specific intent, but this intent is
often shown through patterns of actions and their predictable effects.
When civilians are repeatedly displaced, face shortages of food and water, and
experience large-scale destruction, it raises serious concerns that go beyond
normal conflict.
Institutions like the International Criminal Court and the International Court of
Justice must carefully examine evidence, but they also need to respond to
urgency.
Even if proving genocide takes time and a high level of proof, the current situation
may already show serious violations of international law. The main concern is
that waiting for complete proof should not delay protection and accountability
when people are already suffering on a large scale.

3) ICC Jurisdiction : Rome Statute + Palestine’s accession

Moderator: We now turn to the proceedings before the International
Criminal Court. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and has not
accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the ICC asserts jurisdiction
on the basis of Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute in 2015, as well as
the Court’s 2021 ruling affirming territorial jurisdiction over crimes
allegedly committed in Palestinian territory. This raises a foundational legal
question: why does Israel contend that Palestine’s accession and the Court’s
territorial ruling are insufficient to vest the ICC with lawful jurisdiction over
its nationals and conduct?
Israel:
Court Representative: Under the Rome Statute, the Court can exercise
jurisdiction not only based on nationality, but also based on the territory where
the alleged crimes took place. Palestine joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and this
was accepted by the Assembly of States Parties, making it valid for the Court’s
purposes. In its 2021 decision, the ICC clarified that it does not need to decide
full statehood under general international law — it only needs to see whether
Palestine is recognised within the Statute system, which it is. Therefore, the
Court’s position is that if alleged crimes occurred on Palestinian territory, it can
claim jurisdiction, even over nationals of a state that has not joined the Court.
Israel:
Palestine: The objection raised by Israel focuses more on technical questions of
consent and statehood, but the International Criminal Court operates on a broader
principle — that accountability should not be avoided simply because a state has
not joined the Rome Statute. Palestine’s accession in 2015 was formally accepted,
and the Court in its 2021 ruling confirmed that it can exercise jurisdiction over
alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory. From a human rights
perspective, the key concern is this: if serious violations are alleged, should
questions of technical jurisdiction prevent victims from accessing justice? The
focus should remain on ensuring accountability, rather than allowing legal gaps
to shield possible violations.”

4) Starvation Charges
Moderator: Assuming, arguendo, that the ICC does possess jurisdiction, the
inquiry does not end there. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the Court
must defer to national jurisdictions where the state concerned is genuinely
“willing and able” to investigate and prosecute the alleged crimes. Israel
maintains that its domestic legal system satisfies this standard, thereby
rendering ICC intervention inadmissible. At the same time, the allegations
before the Court include the grave charge of employing starvation as a
method of warfare, prohibited under Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome
Statute. The issue therefore becomes twofold: whether Israel’s domestic
mechanisms genuinely meet the threshold of complementarity, and whether
the evidence substantiates the accusation that starvation was used as an
unlawful instrument of war.

Israel:
Human Rights Activist: Just having a legal system is not enough under the Rome
Statute. The real question is whether that system actually works — are
investigations fair, independent, and fast, and can victims truly access justice?
If justice is delayed or limited, then the International Criminal Court must step
in.
At the same time, the allegation of starvation as a method of warfare is extremely
serious. It is not just a legal issue — it reflects the real suffering of civilians who
are struggling to get food, water, and basic necessities.
Even if the Court is still examining evidence, such claims need urgent attention,
because justice that comes too late loses its meaning for people who are suffering
right now.

South Africa:

5) Enforcement, Sanctions & The collapse of international order

Moderator: Finally, we confront a broader institutional concern—one that
extends beyond the facts of this dispute to the credibility of the international
legal order itself. Neither the International Court of Justice nor the
International Criminal Court possesses an independent enforcement
mechanism. Orders of the ICJ ultimately rely upon the United Nations
Security Council, where political realities—including the veto power of states
such as the United States—may obstruct enforcement. Likewise, the ICC
depends upon member states to execute arrest warrants, yet high-profile
figures such as Benjamin Netanyahu remain beyond its reach, while
measures such as U.S. sanctions on ICC officials further complicate the
Court’s authority. This leads to a pressing and fundamental question: do
these limitations reveal that the architecture of international justice is
eroding under political pressure, and if so, what does that mean for the
enforceability and legitimacy of international law?
Court Representative: It is true that these courts do not have their own
enforcement power and depend on states and bodies like the United Nations
Security Council, where political factors, including veto powers, can delay or
block action. This creates real challenges, such as arrest warrants not being
executed or decisions not being fully implemented. However, this does not mean
the international legal system is collapsing — it reflects how the system is
designed, based on state cooperation. Even without direct enforcement, these
courts play an important role by setting legal standards, shaping global behaviour,
and putting pressure on states to act responsibly. The real issue, therefore, is not
the failure of law, but the need for stronger commitment from states to ensure that
international justice is actually carried out in practice.

Israel:
Palestine: These limitations seriously affect the credibility of international
justice. When decisions of the International Court of Justice depend on bodies
like the United Nations Security Council, where veto powers can block action,
and when the International Criminal Court relies on states to enforce arrest
warrants that may never be executed, it creates a gap between law and reality.
This does not mean international law has failed, but it shows that without proper
enforcement, justice risks becoming selective. For Palestine, the concern is
simple — legal decisions must lead to real accountability, otherwise their
legitimacy is weakened
Human Rights Activist: Israel — I want to put a direct challenge to you. You
say you engage with the international legal system. But Israel has refused to
cooperate with the ICC, rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction on merits, and relied on the
US veto to block Security Council enforcement. If every state with powerful allies
takes that approach, what international legal system remains?
Israel:

HOT SEAT/ RAPID FIRE ROUND

Moderator: We now move to our Hot Seat round. The rules: A panellist puts a
question directly to another panellist. They have 30 seconds. Anyone may be
called on to respond. No long legal arguments — direct answers only. We start
with Israel.
Human Rights Activist: Yes or no — do Palestinian civilians have a right not to
be starved?
Israel:
South Africa: If genocide requires specific intent, and your own ministers
publicly called Palestinians 'human animals' — what word would you use for that
language?
Israel:

Human Rights Activist: If the ICJ ultimately finds genocide — will Israel comply
with the ruling?
Israel:

Moderator: We now turn towards South Africa

Israel: Did South Africa file any similar application against Russia for its conduct
in Ukraine? Against China for its treatment of the Uyghurs?
South Africa:

Human Rights Activist: Is there any Israeli military action you would consider
lawful self-defence against Hamas?
South Africa:

Moderator: Palestine’s turn now

CLOSING STATEMENTS
MODERATOR:
COURT REPRESENTATIVE: This panel reflects the complexity of balancing
law, politics, and human reality. The International Court of Justice and the
International Criminal Court provide legal frameworks for state and individual
accountability, but their effectiveness depends on state cooperation. The way
forward lies in respecting legal processes, ensuring genuine national
investigations, and strengthening enforcement through international cooperation.
A practical resolution requires compliance with court decisions, support for
humanitarian measures, and a commitment by all parties to uphold international
law — because only then can justice remain credible and effective.
ISRAEL:
PALESTINE: Honourable Chair, this discussion has shown that beyond legal
debates, the reality on the ground cannot be ignored. For Palestine, the priority is
simple — protection of civilians, accountability for violations, and recognition of
rights under international law. Legal processes before the International Court of
Justice and the International Criminal Court must lead to real outcomes, not just
statements. As a way forward, we call for an immediate ceasefire, unhindered
humanitarian access, and impartial investigations to ensure accountability. Only
when law is enforced in practice can justice be meaningful and lasting peace
become possible.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: This discussion shows one clear truth — while
the law debates technical issues like jurisdiction and intent, people are still
suffering.
Institutions like the International Criminal Court and the International Court of
Justice must go beyond just giving legal judgments. They must help ensure timely
protection of human life.
The focus should be on three things: urgent humanitarian relief, accountability
for all violations, and stronger global cooperation to make sure decisions are
actually enforced.
Because in the end, international law is not successful just because judgments are
made — it is successful only if it can truly reduce suffering and protect human
dignity.
SA: