The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Friday refused to dismiss South Africa’s genocide case against Israel and ordered Israel to take more measures to protect civilian lives, but the justices stopped short of calling for an immediate cease-fire.
The case before the ICJ, prompted when South Africa submitted a complaint to the United Nations body on December 29, hinges on claims that Israel’s actions as it retaliates against Hamas for the October 7th attacks as well as its holding of hostages and rocket fire, “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group.”
While not ruling on the merits of whether Israel committed genocide — which would require the high bar of showing intent and take years to adjudicate — the court concluded that “at least some acts” taken by Israel in response to Hamas’s October 7 attack “appear to be capable of falling within the Genocide Convention.”
The court ordered Israel to “ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts” that would meet the definition of genocide, including killing and injuring members of a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group” with “intent to destroy.” It included additional orders to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid and to require Israel to preserve any evidence that could be relevant to the ongoing genocide case.
Ultimately, it’s unclear whether the ruling will have any actual affect on the ground, as Israel will continue to argue it is taking sufficient steps to contain civilian deaths while its critics will argue it is violating the court’s order.
The ICJ also has no enforcement mechanism; if parties do not comply with its rulings, the matter is meant to be presented to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States holds a veto.
Much of the Muslim world has supported South Africa’s claims, with countries like Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria signaling their approval of the case — alongside the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — as well as traditionally anti-Western states including Cuba and Venezuela.
Opponents of the accusation of genocide include Australia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, while Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau has said that, though he does not personally believe Israel has committed genocide, his country will accept the ICJ’s ruling.
Critics of South Africa’s case have noted that the definition adopted at the United Nations’ 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — itself prompted by the Holocaust — describes intentional acts rather than the inadvertent killing of civilians during armed conflict.
Tal Becker, a lawyer on the team charged with representing Israel in front of the ICJ, argued in his opening statement that “the Genocide Convention was not designed to address the brutal impact of intensive hostilities on the civilian population, even when the use of force raises ‘very serious issues of international law and involves enormous suffering and continuing loss of life.’ The convention was set apart to address a malevolent crime of the most exceptional severity.”