Stop the attack on Gaza
A long-running dispute has entered a formal stage at the International Court of Justice. A panel comprising judges from different regions will review the matter. The case centers on whether the ICJ should intervene while tensions flare in Gaza. South Africa argues that urgent measures are needed to halt the fighting, citing widespread casualties since October 7 and describing the events as potential crimes under the Genocide Convention. Israel counters that dialogue and proper process were not allowed to unfold before any unilateral action was demanded.
The Genocide Convention provides a framework for addressing disputes about its implementation. When countries disagree on interpretation or application, they should seek a formal explanation and, if necessary, court intervention. In this instance, Israel maintains that South Africa did not grant an opportunity for direct discussion before moving toward a judicial route. This stance suggests there was no clear interpretive conflict between the parties prior to the court’s involvement.
Two procedural paths exist under ICJ practice. One path involves bilateral submissions by the parties, detailing the dispute and identifying the parties without labeling one side as plaintiff or defendant. The other path lets the claimant state file a unilateral application, outlining the relevant treaty provisions and the facts supporting the request. South Africa chose the unilateral route after informing Israel in December 2023 of an intent to discuss the dispute, a conversation that never materialized.
The court has begun the process, recognizing it will likely span years. Last week, hearings explored whether urgent interim measures should be imposed, such as orders to halt the military campaign in Gaza. The request highlights the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians since October 7 and the broader concerns about deliberate damage to a protected civilian population in the context of armed conflict.
The court will act quickly on urgent requests, much like interim relief issued in other legal systems. Meanwhile, four judges face a transition in February, with a North American judge taking over the presidency. The composition of the bench underscores the international nature of the proceedings and the weight carried by each ruling.
During the hearings, Israeli representatives emphasized the nature of the security threat posed by Hamas and outlined plans to target Hamas leadership and infrastructure. They argued that military actions are guided by assessments of decisive necessity, while also stressing efforts to minimize civilian harm through warnings and protective measures. They acknowledged some actions that have drawn international scrutiny, including the use of heavy munitions in specific operations, and stressed that such choices are shaped by battlefield realities and proportional considerations.
Observers heard a strong emphasis on distinguishing legitimate military objectives from harm to civilians. Critics noted that warnings to civilians do not automatically absolve the duty to protect noncombatants, particularly when heavy weapons and densely populated areas intersect. The dialogue explored how proportionality, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, is interpreted in the heat of conflict and how it shapes strategic decisions on targeting and tactics.
Defenders of the policy argued that Hamas presents an existential challenge in the region and that swift actions are necessary to degrade its capabilities. They urged the court to consider the broader strategic context and the potential consequences of inaction. The discussion included historical references intended to illustrate long-standing security concerns and the complex dynamics that influence both sides of the conflict.
Testimonies featured vivid accounts from military and legal experts, including statements about battlefield realities and the collaboration between military commands and legal advisers. These narratives were presented to help the court assess the proportionality and necessity of the force used, while acknowledging the heavy human cost on civilians and urban infrastructure. The proceedings underscored the challenge of balancing urgent security needs with the obligation to protect civilian lives.
One of the most scrutinized moments involved an historical figure whose legacy is controversial. The testimonies highlighted how past actions and rhetoric can shape present-day perceptions and influence the moral and legal evaluation of current conduct. The court faces a demanding schedule in the coming days as experts provide insights that will influence provisional decisions and the broader interpretation of applicable law.
Observe “proportionality”
The dispute also tests how proportionality is applied in modern warfare. Critics argue that some operations have moved beyond what is necessary to degrade the armed threat, raising concerns about civilian harm and long-term consequences for the region. Proponents counter that military targets must be confronted decisively to prevent ongoing danger and that protective measures, while important, cannot always prevent all harm in a fluid battlefield context.
Guidance on proportionality comes from international law, including protocols that shape how states assess the expected military advantage against potential civilian harm. The debate emphasizes that while aiming to degrade an armed group, military actions should not cause disproportionate suffering to noncombatants or damage essential civilian infrastructure beyond what is necessary for security gains.
The discussion also touches on the broader accountability framework. Critics of the state argue that leaders and military personnel must consider the consequences of their orders and actions, while supporters emphasize the complexity of decision-making in active combat zones. The ICJ’s role is to interpret the applicable rules, weigh competing arguments, and determine whether interim measures are warranted to prevent irreparable harm while the case proceeds.
In parallel, voices from other regional conflicts have informed this case. Legal scholars have noted that parallel situations in different countries have shaped customary law and reaffirmed that humanitarian protections remain essential even amid intense military campaigns. The goal is not simply to critique but to establish a lawful pathway that minimizes harm and clarifies responsibilities for all parties involved.
The court’s forthcoming decisions will be observed closely by governments, international organizations, and affected civilians. The outcome will influence not only this dispute but also the broader framework for addressing alleged atrocities and the mechanisms by which states seek relief under the Genocide Convention. The path ahead remains uncertain, but the central question remains: how can legal principles effectively curb violence while respecting security realities on the ground?