The International Court of Justice has urged Israel to take all possible measures to shield Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and to act with urgency in ensuring that South Africa receives the required assistance under interim measures adopted after the case was brought before the court.
Public remarks from Justice Joan E. Donoghue confirmed the court’s jurisdiction over the matter and indicated that South Africa may pursue claims that Israel violated the Genocide Convention. The judge highlighted a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and noted serious concern about the rising death toll. The disclosure of reported figures from local authorities, even though independent verification was limited, underscored the severity described by United Nations agencies about the situation in Gaza for more than a hundred days. The impact on children in Gaza was described as particularly dire.
Key points from the court’s initial analysis include the finding that certain allegations against Israel fall within the Genocide Convention and that Palestinians as a group deserve protection under that framework. The injunctions also require Israel to inform the court within a month of steps taken to comply with the emergency orders issued on the date of the ruling.
Claims of the parties
South Africa presented its case late last year, asserting that a possible genocide could be taking place in the Gaza Strip, where casualty figures have reached tens of thousands according to authorities in Gaza. While awaiting a ruling on the merits, the court granted interim protections, acknowledging the risk that the humanitarian situation could worsen before a final decision is made.
South African lawyers, supported by a broad diplomatic coalition, focused not only on the death toll and the weapons involved but also on comments from Israeli leaders that described certain actions as genocide rhetoric. They condemned the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the forced displacement of residents.
Israel, on the other hand, argued that the complaint is unfounded and shares this view with its allies. The defense contended that the case misrepresents the situation and that the actions taken by the government were aimed at countering what it described as an existential threat.
Legal representatives for Israel stated that the conflict is not a war against the Palestinian people as a whole but against Hamas, which controls Gaza. They argued that harming civilians can occur in conflicts and that some consequences may be unavoidable in the context of a fight against a designated militant group. A legal advisor for the Israeli Foreign Ministry framed the case as an attempt to stop an organization pursuing a genocidal agenda under the cover of genocide allegations.
Judicial outlook and timing
The International Court of Justice, as a UN organ, issues rulings that are binding on member states. Compliance, however, depends on each state’s willingness to follow through, since the court lacks direct enforcement tools. History shows instances where states did not implement ICJ orders promptly, underscoring the gap between judicial direction and real-world action.
Unlike the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals, the ICJ settles disputes between states. The current matter with South Africa and Israel remains in its early stages, with the final verdict potentially taking years and without an avenue for conventional appeals on the merits. The process emphasizes the legal framework of state responsibility and the mechanisms available to address alleged violations through judicial channels.
Observers note that interim measures serve to prevent irreparable harm while the court assesses the case. These measures aim to create a safer environment for civilians and to facilitate the delivery of essential aid. The evolving proceedings will continue to test the balance between national security concerns and the protection of civilian life within a protracted crisis.
Overall, the proceedings illustrate the role of international courts in addressing grave humanitarian claims. They reflect ongoing debates about accountability, the interpretation of the Genocide Convention, and the practical steps needed to protect vulnerable populations in areas of armed conflict.