ICJ genocide case provides important lessons in both law and journalism

The South African case of genocide brought against the state of Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one that stands to set precedence way beyond international  humanitarian law independent of the ruling.

As a journalist, and one who has covered international conflicts and disputes (the latter marking the daily schedule of the ICJ), I see a precedent set that provides learning for journalists and impetus for change for reporting and the training of journalists in  fundamental ways.

Primary and central to this is the role of court reporting. Court reporting constitutes the basics of reporting and is an unrivalled training ground for journalists. 

The idea of reporting basic facts, and the who, where, what, when and why and, importantly, how, meaning by what means and with what intention events are or have taken place, provides the basic elements of any news story and any justification of such. 

In this instance, the case is of international relevance and stature, and it stands to provide precedence for international law, and hence we need to pay heed, particularly as journalists.

The idea and ideal of the reporting of facts and their counter arguments stand at the centre of journalism and its claim to represent the truth. 

In this case, we are even going beyond the idea of presenting or representing the truth, as the coverage of war and conflict is considered a litmus test for journalism, testing its ability to abide by ethical codes of conduct.

Here, we have an international humanitarian case argued by both the applicant and the respondent on grounds that draw on the law and application of the law, while at the same time doing so in a highly emotional and sensor-filled environment.

For the applicant, this is done with the ultimate end to stop the Israeli war on Gaza, by the

applicant labelled as genocide, and in the process change international human rights law. The way that this has been done is a journalist’s dream.

 We have been presented with the released submission to the court, later argued in front of the ICJ, with the respondent given equal opportunity to present counter arguments.

The clarity of the process, as well as the way in which the case and argument has been presented in front of the court, conform to good reporting, i.e. focus, clarity, presentation of facts, logical structure and balance of views and opinions. 

Of course, it is still for journalists to see through the rhetoric and to understand the    broader political environment in which the court case is embedded.

The case also provides a fantastic opportunity for journalists to pose questions in aid of

building a good story centred around relevance, the actors, the event, and the context in which the event takes place, and its actors exist.

In terms of the actors, the case has actors leading the proceedings in court but also actors for whom the lawyers appearing in court are acting and/or speaking for. 

For journalists, the most important question to ask for any story is who the actors are and what drives and motivates them — and do they have an agenda informing their actions and even their decision to talk to the media. 

What is at stake for the actors involved, what do they stand to gain and how has, or will,

the event in question change their lives. All of this comes through clearly in the ICJ case.

In journalism, the event is often equated with news itself, i.e. an event, unknown or unusual enough to merit coverage takes place and it is covered by asserting the actors involved and the context in which an event has taken place. 

Of course, the idea of “news” or something being “new” or unknown is a bit of a misnomer as many events are known long before they take place, and even though many might be new in the sense that nothing of the same nature has taken place before, news stories are often built on previous events and the contextualisation of these.

In this instance, and in the case brought by South Africa to the ICJ, the court case presents a clear event, that is newsworthy, relevant beyond the immediate actors and stakeholders, but to a world community.

Context is everything for a news story and for the audience the way in which a story is

contextualised provides clarity as well as credibility. 

In covering a court case, context is often given due consideration, particularly in citing and cross-referencing other cases and disputes ruled on by a recognised court or legal institution, and as in the case of the South African ICJ case, the context has been presented and laid bare by both the applicant and respondent.

Journalists, particularly those who are covering war and conflict, are used to covering and

having to make sense of the incomprehensible. 

We don’t know the outcome of the case before the ICJ, and as much as journalists and journalism educators stand to learn from this and other court cases, it should not, and does not take away from the ultimate duty of journalists to always question, triple-check information and mitigate against bias as well as indifference couched as neutrality. 

The task of seeking the truth and telling it is not easy, and in the words of George Orwell, “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Journalism remains one of the most crucial vehicles for understanding the world we live in, the people and creatures that inhabit it and, by extension, ourselves.

As such, we need to take all opportunities to learn, improve and advance the profession. The ICJ presents but one such opportunity — an important one on so many levels and in so many ways. 

Ylva Rodny-Gumede is the Head of the International Office and Professor in the School of Communication at the University of Johannesburg.