Lebanese-born Judge Nawaf Salam has been elected as the new President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He will hold this prestigious position for a three-year term, taking over from Judge Joan E. Donoghue of the United States, who was elected on February 8, 2021.

In related news, Judge Julia Sebutinde from Uganda has been elected as the Vice-President of the ICJ, also serving a three-year term. These announcements were made by the ICJ via press releases issued on Wednesday, February 6. Judge Salam has been a Member of the ICJ since February 6, 2018. Prior to his tenure on the Court, he served as the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations in New York from July 2007 to December 2017.

Of particular note, Judge Sebutinde gained attention recently for delivering a dissenting opinion in a case brought by South Africa before the ICJ. The case alleges violations of the Genocide Convention by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

In a ruling issued on January 26, the majority of the ICJ bench decided to extend provisional measures aimed at safeguarding the rights of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. This decision was made following the court's determination that there was a credible basis to believe that Israel may be violating the rights of Palestinians under the Prevention of Genocide Convention.

Judge Sebutinde expressed her opinion that the Israel-Palestine conflict necessitates a diplomatic or negotiated resolution rather than being a matter suitable for adjudication by the Court. She argued that the conflict did not constitute a legal dispute within the jurisdiction of the court.

Furthermore, Judge Sebutinde concluded that South Africa had not provided sufficient evidence, even on a preliminary basis, to demonstrate that Israel's actions exhibited "genocidal intent." Consequently, she believed that there was no basis for the Court to grant provisional measures in this case.

Judge Sebutinde characterized South Africa's case as a "desperate bid" to compel the Court to intervene in a matter that would be more appropriately resolved through diplomatic channels or negotiations, rather than seeking judicial settlement based on the relevant treaty.