What has the International Court of Justice ruled so far in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel?
Executive summary
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has so far ruled that it has prima facie jurisdiction to hear South Africa’s case alleging Israel violated the Genocide Convention in Gaza, found that South Africa has standing, and indicated binding provisional measures requiring Israel to take steps to prevent genocidal acts, preserve evidence and facilitate humanitarian assistance while the full merits are considered [1] [2] [3]. The Court has not decided whether genocide has occurred — that merits judgment will take far longer and is distinct from the provisional orders already issued [4] [5].
1. What the Court formally decided in January: provisional measures and jurisdiction
In an Order dated 26 January 2024 the ICJ concluded, at the provisional stage, that it could prima facie exercise jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention and that South Africa had standing to bring the dispute against Israel, and accordingly indicated provisional measures aimed at preventing irreparable harm to the rights invoked by South Africa [1] [2]. Those measures include, among others, an instruction that Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts prohibited by the Convention — killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting life conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction, and imposing measures to prevent births — and to prevent and punish incitement to genocide [3] [2].
2. Practical orders: evidence preservation, humanitarian access and reporting
Beyond the legal framing, the Court ordered Israel to preserve evidence relating to alleged genocidal acts and to take measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza; it also required Israel to submit a report to the Court on measures taken to comply within a set timeframe (one month in the initial order) [3] [4] [1]. The ICJ emphasized urgency and the risk of irreparable harm to Palestinian rights while the case proceeds [4] [2].
3. What the Court explicitly did not do — and what that means
The ICJ’s January order did not determine whether genocide had been committed; provisional measures are protective and interlocutory, not final findings on the merits, and the Court noted the need for detailed proof of specific intent before any ultimate genocide finding [4] [6]. The Court also initially declined to order an immediate, full suspension of Israel’s military operations across Gaza, a decision that drew intense attention and debate about the scope and limits of provisional relief [7] [6].
4. Subsequent procedural steps and contested compliance
After January the case continued procedurally: states sought to intervene or file observations, the Court set deadlines for memorials and counter-memorials, and South Africa sought further or modified provisional measures as the situation evolved, which the Court considered [8]. In public and diplomatic reactions Israel has rejected the genocide allegation and signaled resistance to some orders, while human-rights groups urged compliance and said the measures recognized a risk to Palestinians’ survival [9] [10] [11]. The Court, however, lacks independent enforcement mechanisms; its orders are binding but rely on state compliance and international pressure [5].
5. The biggest legal and political takeaways so far
Legally, the ICJ has pushed the question of “genocide” from rhetorical debate into a judicial process by accepting jurisdiction and indicating protective measures based on a prima facie assessment that some alleged acts could fall within the Genocide Convention [2] [4]. Politically, the order has heightened scrutiny on Israel’s conduct, prompted intervention filings by other states, and exposed tensions between international legal obligations, battlefield realities, and the Court’s limited capacity to enforce rulings [8] [5]. The ultimate determination on whether genocide occurred remains a future, evidence-driven adjudication that could take years to resolve [5] [8].