Genocide Convention: UK Compliance Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Christine Jardine
Main Page: Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat - Edinburgh West)Department Debates - View all Christine Jardine's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
Christine Jardine Excerpts(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On 29 December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding the application of the convention on the prevention of and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip. South Africa argued that Israel’s deliberate denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians could constitute one of the prohibited acts under the genocide convention by
“deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued an interim response, which recognised a “plausible risk” that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. The president of the ICJ at the time subsequently stated that the purpose was to declare that the Palestinians had
“plausible rights to protection from genocide”,
which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.
The ICJ’s ruling was very clearly not intended as a determination of whether a genocide had occurred; rather, it was intended to indicate that if some of the acts that South Africa cited in its case were proven, they could fall under the United Nations convention on genocide. Those acts were military operations in and against Gaza; killing, injuring or destroying life and preventing births; displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life; incitement and encouragement to genocide; the destruction of evidence; and genocide itself. At the same time, the ICJ called for “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services.
Today, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond imaginable. Oxfam summarises it as follows—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House on the Crime and Policing Bill—the first of a number. We will suspend the sitting for 45 minutes.
Ellie Chowns
For clarification, since the Minister is not in his place and no one from the Government is here, is it correct that I continue?
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
The Parliamentary Private Secretary is here, and the Minister has just arrived.
Mr Falconer
I am about to hand over to the hon. Member. Our commitment to international law is firm. It applies everywhere without exception, and our record reflects that.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
The Question is—[Interruption.] Order. The Member in charge does not have the right to wind up a 30-minute debate.
Question put and agreed to.