On Friday, January 26, the International Court of Justice in The Hague will hold a formal session at 13:00 local time. The hearing will feature a solemn reading of the interim order crafted in response to South Africa’s urgent request alleging genocide by Israel for actions after October 7, 2023. The panel consists of 15 judges, with two additional representatives appointed to speak on behalf of South Africa and Israel. Deliberations had already taken place during hearings on January 11 and 12.
South Africa’s motion calls for immediate measures: halt IDF operations in Gaza, stop the killings of Palestinians, prevent forcible displacement, and lift the blockade that restricts access to food, water, fuel, housing, and healthcare. The court will assess the case to determine whether the described acts relate to an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people, as defined by the Genocide Convention of 1948, a treaty signed by both claimant and respondent. The court will not adjudicate the entire conflict at this stage, but it will examine whether the facts align with acts aimed at the destruction of a protected population and whether there is an ongoing risk of genocide.
Past cases involving possible Genocide Convention violations, such as The Gambia v. Myanmar, show that interim measures can be issued. In that dispute, Myanmar did not comply with such measures, arguing that the acts did not constitute genocide. In the present matter, questions persist about the binding nature of ICJ orders. While the court’s decisions are binding in principle, adherence depends on states’ willingness to implement them. Israel has publicly asserted that it does not intend to halt military actions, a stance that complicates the practical impact of any interim order.
The focus extends to the status of occupied territories, with the West Bank frequently highlighted. In 2004, the court issued an advisory opinion on the construction of a barrier around parts of the occupied territories. The opinion stated that the wall and its construction violated international law and called for measures to remedy material harms suffered by Palestinians. The advisory nature of such opinions differs from binding rulings, prompting debate about their enforceability. The forthcoming ruling remains relevant to whether interim steps can curb violence while the case proceeds.
The question of whether the court’s recommendations are binding or advisory has influenced discussions at domestic levels. Critics have argued that advisory opinions carry limited force, while supporters emphasize the moral and legal weight they carry in shaping state behavior. The anticipated decision on January 26 is intended to set a legally binding standard, though practical enforcement can vary depending on political circumstances. If the court orders a halt to Gaza operations, it remains uncertain how states will respond, given competing strategic considerations.
Observers have noted a broader debate about the interpretation of international humanitarian law and the status of antisocial acts in conflict situations. Debate also centers on whether a state can frame its actions as legitimate self-defense under Geneva stipulations while facing allegations of grave violations against civilians, including women and children. The complex relationship between military operations, civilian protection, and political rhetoric continues to shape interpretations of the applicable legal framework.
Since the October events that sparked the current crisis, reports describe extensive damage to cities and infrastructure. Casualty figures have risen steadily, with many Palestinians reported dead and wounded. The international community has pursued ceasefires through United Nations channels, but those efforts have faced stalemate, influenced in part by differing positions in major powers. The situation remains volatile, with ongoing humanitarian concerns and a focus on protecting civilians in the line of fire.
In parallel, commentary has drawn attention to political dynamics in the region and beyond. External actors have been scrutinized for their roles in arming or supporting particular sides, and calls have grown for robust restraint and adherence to international law. While the ICJ ruling will provide a formal legal perspective, it could be limited in immediate practical impact if states choose to resist compliance. Yet the legal framework and precedent remain essential references for future actions and negotiations that seek to prevent further harm.
Ultimately, the case emphasizes the tension between legal obligations and real-world conduct in international conflicts. The court’s forthcoming decision will highlight the limits and potentials of interim measures as tools to halt violence while the broader dispute is resolved. Observers and affected communities continue to await clarity on what actions are legally required, how they would affect civilian protection, and what steps might realistically reduce harm on the ground, even as political calculations continue to play a decisive role in the region.
Notes to readers: The content reflects ongoing legal proceedings and public statements from various actors. Citations are provided for context and attribution to primary sources such as court documents and official statements. These references help explain the legal framework, historical precedents, and the evolving interpretation of international law in this complex dispute.