As the ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel came into effect on Sunday, bringing an end to the devastating violence that has plagued Gaza for 467 days, many around the world have turned their attention towards the International Court Justice (ICJ) as it hears the high-stakes case brought forward by South Africa against Israel for allegedly committing genocide—a case that could have profound implications for international justice and all its promises.
Nearly a year ago, as violence in Gaza reached catastrophic levels, the ICJ ordered urgent emergency measures to protect all civilians, demanding Israel prevent genocide and further atrocities and enable the delivery of humanitarian aid. Of the seventeen ICJ judges, only one voted against all emergency measures: Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda.
She is now positioned to become President of the International Court of Justice, carrying significant implications for the ongoing genocide case against Israel and the prospect of justice for millions of Palestinians.
Feminist icon gone wrong?
Judge Sebutinde made history when she became the first African woman to sit at the International Court of Justice. Her appointment to the ICJ was celebrated as a victory for feminist inclusion and diversity in the international legal field, which is often criticised for race and sex inequality.
Her judicial legacy on international benches, before the ICJ, reflected the importance of having a female and minority perspective on international law. This was evident from her separate opinion on ‘forced marriage’ in warzones during proceedings at the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone as well as her pivotal opinion on self-determination in the context of decolonisation. She famously noted: ‘’The right to self-determination within the context of decolonisation, has attained peremptory status (jus cogens), whereby no derogation therefrom is permitted.’’
It is this very legacy which makes her dissent in the genocide case against Israel particularly disappointing. As the only judge in the international legal field to contextualise the right to self-determination within the struggle for decolonisation, it is striking that there is no mention in her dissenting opinion of the continued Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. It is also equally striking that, despite being a female jurist who has consistently highlighted the plight of women in war zones, she makes no mention of the horrors faced by Palestinian women in her dissent.
Her vote against the emergency measures, including those calling for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, raises questions about the hopes we place on representation and diversity to be an all-encompassing solution to the lack of a ‘global-south’ perspective in international law.
The genocide case
On December 29, 2023, following three months of relentless bombing of Gaza, South Africa filed a case with the International Court alleging that Israel is violating the 1948 Genocide Convention through the indiscriminate killing of civilians. In its 84-page submission, South Africa highlighted the mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza, particularly children, as well as the destruction of homes, forced displacement, and a blockade preventing access to food, water, and medical supplies, alongside a request for the indication of ‘’provisional measures’’.
Under international law, provisional measures are urgent orders designed to protect the rights of parties —or, in this case, to prevent further killing and destruction in the Gaza Strip—while awaiting the final decision in a dispute.
In the case of Gaza, the decision represented much more than just an international law issue, it was a decisive moment for the Court to demonstrate its ability to act promptly in the face of what appeared to be an utter and blatant violation of international law. For many, it put the very legitimacy of the international legal order at stake.
It is particularly noteworthy that the American, French, and German judges of the ICJ also voted in favour of the emergency measures, digressing from the positions taken by their own governments at that point
Emergency measures order
After two weeks of deliberation, the Court issued immediate provisional measures to protect civilians in Gaza, demanding that Israel must prevent genocide against Palestinians, enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance, and prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide.
While it came as a disappointment to many that the Court failed to order a ceasefire measure as it had previously ordered in the case of Ukraine v Russia, the near-unanimity with which the judges decided on the emergency measures sent a powerful message, carrying significant weight in the realm of international politics.
It is particularly noteworthy that the American, French, and German judges of the ICJ also voted in favour of the emergency measures, digressing from the positions taken by their own governments at that point. It is this very unanimity of voting that makes the position of the two dissenting judges even more stark.
The dissent
The first dissenting judge was ad-hoc judge Aharon Barak, appointed by Israel. He voted in favour of two provisional measures while voting against four. The measures he voted in favour of included those concerning the delivery of humanitarian aid and demanding Israel to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide. In doing so he digressed from the position taken by his own government, much like his American and French counterparts.
The second dissenting judge was Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda, the only judge to vote against all emergency measures. In her dissenting opinion, Judge Sebutinde rejected South Africa’s arguments that Israel was committing genocide and expressed that the situation in Gaza is ‘’essentially and historically a political one’’ and does not amount to a legal dispute susceptible to judicial settlement by the Court.
Many legal experts pointed out that in doing so, Judge Sebutinde undermined the very essence of the Genocide Convention and entirely ignored the gravity of the situation in Gaza, including the extensive evidence of mass civilian casualty and destruction.
The government of Uganda was quick to distance itself from the stance of Judge Sebutinde, expressing that her ruling at the ICJ does not in any way represent the position of the government of Uganda on Palestine.
Acting President of the ICJ
Shortly after her dissenting opinion on the genocide case, Sebutinde was elected as the Vice President of the ICJ by her very peers who had all ruled in favour of the emergency measures. Subsequently, on January 14, 2025, the incumbent President of the Court, Nawaf Salam, resigned from the presidency to assume the position of Prime Minister of Lebanon, paving the way for Sebutinde to step into the presidency. It is without a doubt that as vice president, her chances of being elected the new president are quite high.
Following Salam’s resignation, the ICJ released a statement that as per the provisions of court statute, it will be for the UN Security Council to fix a date for the election of a new President by the General Assembly. For the time being, Sebutinde will serve as interim president until elections for the new president take place.
History will remember her tenure for how she can navigate external pressures and personal affiliations to uphold the rule of law and accountability for the millions of Palestinian in Gaza, especially the 18000 dead Palestinian children
Implications of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
As president of the ICJ, she will preside over and massively influence South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. With considerable power over court scheduling, time allocation, admissibility, and the entire conduct of the proceedings, the president could impact the whole trajectory of the case.
To those who have followed Judge Sebutinde’s judicial legacy, particularly her strong stance on the implications of war for women, her stance on Gaza is disappointing, to say the very least. Most importantly, it is not consistent with her own judicial reasoning when she previously adopted a radically different stance by voting in favour of a ceasefire in the similar case of Ukraine v Russia.
It is these very inconsistencies that raise serious concerns about her ability to lead the Court impartially and deliver justice in what is perhaps the worst humanitarian crisis of our times. The timing of her elevation to vice-president right after her controversial dissent, followed quickly by the sudden resignation of the former president, created the ideal circumstances for her to take the presidency. While it could be a mere coincidence, many have raised serious concerns about backroom pressure on judges and the growing influence of global geopolitics on the operations of the International Court.
The False Promise of Representation
As an African woman from the global south, her staunch support of Israel at the expense of her judicial track record makes one question the false promise of representation. For many who celebrated Sebutinde’s elevation to the International Court as a win for women of colour, her outright denial to even acknowledge the plight of Palestinian women - who have been brutally killed, sexually assaulted, and starved to death - comes as a harsh reality check. It is also reminiscent of the haunting images of Linda Thomas, the African-American woman ambassador of the US, repeatedly raising her hand at the UN to veto ceasefire resolutions as violence in Gaza escalated at alarming levels.
It begs the question: what good is a representation of women of colour in international institutions when they cannot even condemn the murder and starvation of a besieged population? What good is a representation of people from the global south in global politics when they become complicit in the very oppression of marginalised people?
As Judge Sebutinde steps in as interim President of the International Court of Justice, history will remember her tenure for how she can navigate external pressures and personal affiliations to uphold the rule of law and accountability for the millions of Palestinian in Gaza, especially the 18000 dead Palestinian children. While the future of international justice seems bleak, one can only hope.
As the political philosopher Frantz Fanon famously wrote, "The unifying force of decolonisation lies in its ability to change the order of things’’. While cynicism towards international justice is warranted, hope lies in the collective efforts of free people of the world to challenge these systems and demand true accountability.