The Peace Palace in The Hague will host a rare historical legal confrontation this Thursday and Friday, featuring a high-stakes geopolitical argument. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing a case brought by South Africa against Israel, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. South Africa seeks an urgent order to pause Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip. The ICJ’s ruling is binding on all member states, including the United States, Spain, and Canada, and it signals a moment where international law and urgent humanitarian concerns intersect on the world stage.
Francis Boyle, born in Chicago in 1950, is an American civil rights lawyer and a professor at the University of Illinois. He previously argued a Bosnia–Yugoslavia case in 1993. He notes that he was the first attorney to win a case at the World Court under the Genocide Convention, a claim he discusses via video conference from Chicago. Boyle recalls receiving explicit orders to halt acts of genocide and recalling his representation of the mothers of those who were killed in Srebrenica. His reflections frame the hearing as part of a broader history of international accountability for mass atrocities.
Do you think South Africa has a chance at success in the case?
Based on the information available, the expectation is that South Africa could prevail and secure an order directing Israel to cease any acts that could be construed as genocide against Palestinians. Such an outcome would hinge on the ICJ’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention and the immediacy of the threats described in the proceedings.
What would such an order compel member states to do?
For instance, Spain, as a participant in the case, would participate under Article 1 and wider obligations shared by the 153 states involved to prevent genocide. A historical reference comes from an earlier decision in 1973, when a court ruling against Yugoslavia spurred media and public reaction, and the United States and NATO responded with a no-fly zone to prevent further atrocities. While this is offered as context rather than a promise of action, it illustrates how major powers might respond to international legal findings. The current situation, however, involves a more complex geopolitical landscape where direct military action against a contemporary state remains unlikely, yet serious consequences beyond war could follow.
What are the deadlines in this process?
The proceedings began with the initial presentation on a set of dates, followed by a decision within days in a prior instance. A second filing was made later, with another decision issued within weeks. This suggests that, in theory, a nearby timeframe could see the court issuing interim measures and continuing hearings in a matter related to Israel that could unfold over a short period in the region. The exact timetable, of course, depends on the court’s schedule and the submissions of all sides involved.
Can a court order be ignored by countries?
Interim and final rulings from the ICJ are binding on the states that recognize the court’s jurisdiction, but compliance varies in practice. The Yugoslav precedent demonstrates that states may resist or reinterpret findings, though the international system provides mechanisms to pressure compliance through UN bodies and other diplomatic channels. In this round, Israel’s compliance would factor into a broader dynamic that could include regional diplomacy, sanctions, or other measures coordinated by allied nations.
Israel appears to approach the case with a robust legal team. The country reportedly placed a high-level judge on loan to participate in the proceedings and engaged respected legal counsel to shape its argument. The opening phase of the case has carried significant weight and is seen by observers as a heavy blow to Israel’s position in the genocide charge. The Genocide Convention originated from the historical record of crimes against the Jewish people, a reminder of the enduring sensitivity surrounding this topic in international law and history.
There is speculation about whether Israel will present video evidence of the October 7 events as part of its defense. The court is expected to decide on whether such footage can be admitted into the record and whether the hearing will remain accessible to media. The broader question remains: will the court allow the documentary material while maintaining the integrity of the genocide claim? Observers note that even if such material is shown, it may not overturn or erase the genocide charge, though it could influence perceptions of intent and proportionality in the conflict.
What could Spain do if the decision is favorable to South Africa?
The response is not to be taken as legal advice for any government but rather as a possible course of action within the framework of international law. If a favorable ruling emerges, Spain and other states might consider reinforcing safeguards to monitor and limit actions that contribute to genocide or mass atrocities, ensuring that commitments under international law are upheld and that safeguarding measures remain in place to deter violations in the future.
About the 15 judges of the court. Are they reliable and independent?
The court’s presidency is held by an American jurist affiliated with the U.S. State Department. This is part of a longstanding, nuanced debate about balance and independence among international courts. South Africa would appoint its own judge for the proceedings, who could serve as a full judge. The aim is to ensure a degree of independence that can counterbalance other influences and keep the process fair and credible for all parties involved.
Despite these concerns, there is a sense that there are avenues for movement and resolution within international law. The process could lead to further steps within the United Nations system, including potential discussions in the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. The Security Council may consider how to respond, though any action could be subject to vetoes. The General Assembly could, in theory, initiate measures such as suspending participation in some activities or recognizing a state in a manner that reflects the broader international legal order. There is also the possibility of establishing a special tribunal to review the situation further. The Assembly could, under certain resolutions, recommend economic measures designed to deter future violations, though the practical application of such measures depends on many factors and political realities. The intent behind these possibilities is not to guarantee outcomes but to highlight the range of legal pathways that international bodies might explore in addressing mass atrocity concerns. [Citation: ICJ hearing records and international law jurisprudence]