8 or more judges vote in favour = resolves YES
*Abstension votes count as a vote against
All the 15 judges at the International Court of Justice:
More details here:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/11/a-quick-guide-to-south-africas-icj-case-against-israel
****It seems that the judges might be 17, as they'll have an additional one for each South Africa and Israel. In that case the majority of votes would need to be 9 out of 17. Nothing change re the title of the market btw.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ395 | |
| 2 | Ṁ334 | |
| 3 | Ṁ321 | |
| 4 | Ṁ117 | |
| 5 | Ṁ93 |
@AlexanderSharpe This is just a very bad market because the market creator was super ambiguous about what it meant.
I think you resolved early. The recent release was on provisional measures. I don't think they have ruled on the case one way or the other
@Shump judges voted in favour of South Africa claim. For the final decision it will take years...
@Quadrifold No they didn't. South Africa's claim was to call for an end to the war. The judges voted against that.
@Shump No, the court cannot stop the war. In this phase can only recognise that the claim is plausible and the risk of genocide taking place is high, and Israel need to take measures to prevent it to happen.
@Quadrifold SA specifically asked for the court to issue a decree that says Israel should stop the war. It's not enforceable, but so is anything else the court asks for. The court did not grant SA's request.
As for the claims of genocide, these will be decided years from now. It hasn't been voted on. The court also hasn't stated that the risk of genocide is high. See the markets about that decision and you'll see they are still as low as before after the current decision.
@Shump South Africa requested nine provisional measures, as summarized by Wikipedia
At least measures 3, 6, and 7 were substantively granted (maybe more, I didn't listen to the full decision). South Africa's request was not just about ceasefire.
ICJ interim ruling on genocide case against Israel - Live - YouTube 37:43:
The Court indicates the following provisional measures:
By 15 votes to 2, the State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within Article 2 of the Convention. In particular, (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part, and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
…
By 16 votes to 1, the State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement of genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
@galaga never mind, I just read it more closely. SA is moving the court to order Israel to cease. The court could do this without explicitly declaring genocide. I think.
you're correct that the ICJ indicating provisional measures does not require a judgement one way or another on guilt of genocide.
it's a little ambiguous if this question in particular refers to the initial request for provisional measures or to the full case, except by timeline (it's very unlikely that any decision on the final case would be made by the end of this year)
@Quadrifold That doesn't answer thr question. What qould they need to vote for for this to resolve YES/NO? Is this about thr provisional measures of the final decision? If the judges do not grant SA's request to call for an end to the war, as they did, does that mean a NO resolution?
@Shump Yeah voting that Israel should do XYZ and allow humanitarian aid, but not charging Israel with genocide or demanding that it cease military operations should NOT resolve a yes.