←  South Africa v. Israel

International Court of Justice · General List No. 192

South Africa v. Israel

Chronological View

  1. Before the case

    What the case is about, and how the two governments ended up on opposite sides of a courtroom.

  2. Applicant The country that brought the case

    South Africa

    Brought the case in December 2023

    South Africa joined the Genocide Convention in 1998, four years after the end of apartheid. It brought this case without having been harmed itself, under a rule that lets any member of the treaty take another to court to make it keep the treaty, and the court accepted in 2024 that it can. It says it condemned Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, and that no attack can justify genocide.

    Its ambassador to the Netherlands, Vusimuzi Madonsela, is its agent in the case, and its lawyers are a team of South African, British and Irish advocates. Ronald Lamola, its justice minister at the time, opened the first hearing. Officials of the State of Palestine and the heads of three Palestinian rights groups sat with its delegation.

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 18, 33–34 · CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8, 19

    Respondent The country answering it

    Israel

    Denies the accusation

    Israel ratified the Genocide Convention in 1950, about two years after the state was founded and soon after the treaty was written in answer to the Holocaust. It says its war in Gaza is self-defense against Hamas and other armed groups, which killed more than 1,200 people in Israel on October 7, 2023 and took about 240 hostages. It says it has tried to limit harm to civilians and to let aid in, calls the accusation false, and has asked the court to throw the case out.

    Its case is run by government lawyers from the justice and foreign ministries, led in court by Tal Becker and Gilad Noam. Its first judge on the case, Aharon Barak, a former head of Israel’s Supreme Court who survived the Holocaust as a child, stepped down in June 2024. Ron Shapira, a law professor, has sat in his place since.

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 13, 18 · CR 2024/2 p. 75 · Barak opinion ¶ 4 · Order of May 21, 2026

    Oct 7, 2023

    Hamas leads an attack on Israel

    Hamas and other armed groups from Gaza kill more than 1,200 people in Israel and take about 240 hostages, in the court’s figures. Israel goes to war in Gaza.

    The court’s first order describes the attack and what followed in one paragraph. Israel “launched a large-scale military operation in Gaza, by land, air and sea, which is causing massive civilian casualties, extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure and the displacement of the overwhelming majority of the population in Gaza.”

    Everything in this case happens against that war, and the case isn’t about the attack itself. This court can only judge countries, and Hamas isn’t a country or a party here. The court said in each of its orders that the hostages should be released “immediately and unconditionally.”

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 13–14, 85

  3. Oct 9 – 13, 2023

    Israeli leaders speak about Gaza

    The defense minister orders a “complete siege” of Gaza. The president says “an entire nation out there” is responsible. These words later become South Africa’s main evidence of intent.

    Three statements the court itself quoted in January 2024. Yoav Gallant, then defense minister, on October 9: a “complete siege” of Gaza City with “no electricity, no food, no fuel.” The next day, to troops: “We are fighting human animals.” Isaac Herzog, Israel’s president, on October 12: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Israel Katz, then energy minister, on October 13, of Gaza’s civilians: “They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”

    South Africa says words like these show an intent to destroy. Israel says they were “random quotes” that don’t reflect government policy, and that its cabinet decisions show what its policy really was.

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶ 52 · CR 2024/2 pp. 31–32

  4. Dec 12, 2023

    South Africa tells the UN Israel is breaking the treaty

    At the UN General Assembly. Nine days later it writes to Israel’s embassy saying the same.

    South Africa’s representative said that “the events of the past six weeks in Gaza have illustrated that Israel is acting contrary to its obligations in terms of the Genocide Convention.” The note to the embassy went on December 21.

    These steps mattered later. This court can only hear a case if there was a real dispute between the two countries before it was filed, and the court pointed to this statement when it found one.

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 21, 26

  5. Dec 27, 2023

    Israel answers South Africa’s note

    It offers to meet. Its foreign ministry had already called the genocide accusation “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant.”

    Israel’s answering note proposed a meeting to discuss what South Africa had raised. Israel later told the court that South Africa ignored the offer and filed two days later, so there was never a real dispute between the two governments.

    The court disagreed. It pointed to a document Israel’s foreign ministry published on December 6, 2023, and updated later, which said the accusation was “not only wholly unfounded as a matter of fact and law, it is morally repugnant.” The court said that showed the two countries held “clearly opposite views.”

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 23, 27–28

  6. The first order

    Filed, argued and answered in four weeks.

  7. Dec 29, 2023

    South Africa takes Israel to the world court

    Its application says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and asks the court to order Israel to stop its military operations at once.

    South Africa says Israel’s “acts and omissions” are “genocidal in character” because they’re done with the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of the wider Palestinian group. It also says Israel failed to prevent genocide and failed to punish public calls for it.

    It asked for nine emergency measures, and the first was that Israel “shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.” The court can only hear the case because both countries are in the Genocide Convention, and its Article IX sends disputes about it to this court.

    Application ¶ 1 · Press release 2023/77 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶ 5

  8. Jan 11, 2024

    South Africa makes its case

    Two hours at the Peace Palace in The Hague. Its lawyers say the killing, the siege and the words of Israel’s leaders together show genocide.

    Its justice minister, Ronald Lamola, opened. Then Adila Hassim on the acts, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi on intent, John Dugard on the court’s power, Max du Plessis on the rights at stake, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh on urgency and Vaughan Lowe on what the court should order.

    Ngcukaitobi said Israel’s leaders had “systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent” and that soldiers repeated it. The two judges ad hoc, Dikgang Moseneke for South Africa and Aharon Barak for Israel, were sworn in that morning.

    CR 2024/1 pp. 12–13, 20, 33

  9. Jan 12, 2024

    Israel answers

    Its lawyers say South Africa told “a profoundly distorted” story, that civilian suffering in war isn’t genocide, and ask the court to throw the case out.

    Tal Becker opened for Israel and said that “if there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel,” meaning by Hamas on October 7. Malcolm Shaw said there was “little beyond random assertions” to show an intent to destroy. Israel’s lawyers said the right rules for judging the war were the law of war, not the genocide treaty.

    Galit Raguan went through what Israel says it does to protect civilians and get aid in, Omri Sender argued there was no urgency, and Christopher Staker took South Africa’s nine requests one by one. Gilad Noam closed by asking the court to reject the request and to remove the case from its list.

    CR 2024/2 pp. 13, 15, 31, 75

  10. Jan 26, 2024Granted in part

    The court orders six measures, and no ceasefire

    Israel must take every measure in its power to prevent genocide in Gaza, let aid in, and punish public calls for genocide. The court doesn’t order the military operation to stop.

    The first two measures passed 15 to 2 and the ones on aid and incitement 16 to 1, because Israel’s own judge, Aharon Barak, voted for those two. Judge Sebutinde of Uganda voted against all six. Israel also had to report back within a month.

    This is the order most often misquoted. The court found that the Palestinians’ right to be protected from genocide was plausible, which is the test for emergency orders. It said in the same order that it was “not required to ascertain whether any violations” had happened, and that such a finding comes only at the end of the case.

    Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶ 86 · ¶¶ 30, 54 · Barak opinion ¶ 44

  11. Rafah and hunger

    South Africa came back three times in four months, and the court answered three different ways.

  12. Feb 6, 2024

    A new bench

    Five judges join the court and Nawaf Salam becomes its president. One of the new judges is South African, so South Africa’s judge ad hoc steps down.

    The new judges were Dire Tladi of South Africa, Sarah Cleveland of the United States, Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo of Mexico and Bogdan Aurescu of Romania, and Hilary Charlesworth of Australia was elected again. Judges Donoghue, Gevorgian, Bennouna and Robinson left.

    A country only gets a judge ad hoc if no judge of its own is on the court, so Dikgang Moseneke stopped sitting. Israel’s, Aharon Barak, stayed.

    Order of May 24, 2024 ¶ 6 · Order of Mar 28, 2024 p. 3

  13. Feb 12, 2024

    South Africa asks about Rafah

    Israel is preparing an offensive on Rafah, at Gaza’s southern edge, where more than a million displaced people are sheltering.

    South Africa wrote to the court asking it to use its power to act on its own initiative, without waiting for a new formal request.

    South Africa, Feb 12, 2024 · Order of Mar 28, 2024 ¶ 6

  14. Feb 15, 2024

    Israel calls the case an abuse of the court

    Its written answer says the accusation is “wholly unfounded” and that it is meeting its obligations whatever the court does.

    Israel wrote that the case “is wholly unfounded in fact and law, morally repugnant, and represents an abuse both of the Genocide Convention and of the Court itself,” and that its commitment to the law “is unwavering and applies” to the war “independently of any proceeding before the Court.”

    Israel, Feb 15, 2024 ¶¶ 2–3, as quoted in the US declaration ¶ 13

  15. Feb 16, 2024Denied

    No new orders, but Rafah is covered

    By letter, with no hearing. The January measures apply “throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah,” the court says, and Israel has to carry them out.

    The court quoted the UN Secretary-General, who had said the developments in Rafah “would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare.” It said this “perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation” of the January order.

    Press release 2024/16 · Order of Mar 28, 2024 ¶ 7

  16. Feb 26, 2024

    Israel files its first report

    On what it has done to carry out the January order. Like all its reports since, it isn’t public.

    South Africa sent the court its comments on the report on March 11. Israel filed a second report on April 29, 2024, after the March order, and its lawyer told the court in May that Israel had been “forthcoming” in both.

    Order of May 24, 2024 ¶¶ 9, 12 · CR 2024/28 p. 21

  17. Mar 6, 2024

    South Africa says Gaza is starving

    It asks for new orders without a hearing, saying children are dying of hunger because of what Israel is doing.

    South Africa wrote that “Palestinian children are starving to death as a direct result of the deliberate acts and omissions of Israel,” including Israel’s efforts to cut off UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

    It asked the court to decide without a hearing, because of “the extreme urgency of the situation,” and the court did.

    South Africa, Mar 6, 2024 ¶ 8 · Press release 2024/21 · Order of Mar 28, 2024 ¶ 16

  18. Mar 15, 2024

    Israel says the hunger isn’t its doing

    It rejects “in the strongest terms” that children are starving because of what it has done, and asks the court not to order anything new.

    Israel said food insecurity in Gaza, especially in the north, was “a serious challenge,” but that the fighting and the hunger were both already there when the court ruled in January. It pointed to a sea route and floating pier, air drops and aid by land, and to its work with UN agencies.

    It said the challenges of getting aid in were “inherent to any theatre of active hostilities, particularly one that is densely populated and heavily dependent on international aid.”

    Israel, Mar 15, 2024 · Order of Mar 28, 2024 ¶¶ 17, 29, 33

  19. Mar 28, 2024Granted in part

    “Famine is setting in”

    The court orders Israel to let aid in “at scale” and open more land crossings. That one is unanimous, and Israel’s own judge votes for it.

    The court said Palestinians in Gaza “are no longer facing only a risk of famine,” and that at least 31 people, 27 of them children, had died of malnutrition and dehydration, in UN figures.

    It ordered Israel to ensure “the unhindered provision at scale” of food, water, fuel, medical care and more, and to make sure its military doesn’t block aid. It said it couldn’t order a ceasefire by everyone, because Hamas and other countries aren’t parties to the case. This order came by letter, with no hearing.

    Order of Mar 28, 2024 ¶¶ 21, 44, 51 · Press release 2024/26

  20. Apr 5, 2024

    Deadlines for the written case

    South Africa’s full case is due by October 28, 2024, and Israel’s answer by July 28, 2025.

    From here the main case runs mostly on paper. The two full written arguments are called the memorial and the counter-memorial, and both are confidential until the court decides otherwise. Colombia asked to join the case the same day.

    Order of Apr 5, 2024 · Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Press release 2024/27

  21. May 7, 2024

    Israel’s army moves into Rafah

    After ordering about 100,000 people out of eastern Rafah the day before. By May 18 the UN counts nearly 800,000 displaced from the city.

    These are the court’s own figures, taken from UN reports. Israel told the court these were “specific, limited and localized operations prefaced with evacuation efforts,” not a large-scale assault, and that Rafah was also “a military stronghold for Hamas.”

    Order of May 24, 2024 ¶¶ 28, 25 · CR 2024/28 p. 11

  22. May 10, 2024

    South Africa asks the court to stop the Rafah offensive

    Its fourth request. It calls Rafah the “last refuge” in Gaza and asks for Israel to withdraw.

    South Africa said Israel now controlled every way in and out of Gaza, and that the assault on Rafah was “deliberately inflicting on Palestinians conditions of life” meant to destroy them. It asked for access for investigators and journalists too.

    The court called a hearing for the following week. Israel asked for it to be moved a week later, because its lawyers couldn’t get there in time, and the court said no.

    South Africa, May 10, 2024 ¶ 11 · Order of May 24, 2024 ¶¶ 23, 15

  23. May 16, 2024

    South Africa: “a new and horrific stage”

    Its second hearing, an afternoon session. One judge, Peter Tomka, isn’t on the bench for either day.

    The same team as in January, minus the minister. Its agent, Vusimuzi Madonsela, said Israel’s genocide “has just reached a new and horrific stage,” and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi called Rafah “the last stand.”

    The court’s president opened by saying that “for reasons made known to me, Judge Tomka is unable to be present on the Bench for the duration of these hearings.” He didn’t sit for the May order either.

    CR 2024/27 pp. 8, 12, 42

  24. May 17, 2024

    Israel: “limited and localized operations”

    Two government lawyers and no outside counsel. Israel says its chosen team couldn’t come on four days’ notice.

    Gilad Noam said Israel’s lead counsel was “shipborne this week” and that the short notice hurt “the fundamental principle of equality of arms.” He called the case “an inversion of reality” and said: “Calling something a genocide, again and again, does not make it genocide.”

    At the end Judge Nolte asked Israel about conditions in the zones it was sending people to, especially Al-Mawasi, and how it would get them food, water and shelter. Israel answered in writing the next day, and South Africa commented on the answer.

    CR 2024/28 pp. 8–9, 30 · Israel’s answer, May 18, 2024 · South Africa’s comments, May 20, 2024

  25. May 24, 2024Granted in part

    The Rafah order

    Israel must “immediately halt its military offensive” in Rafah, in a sentence its own judges read in different ways. Thirteen to two.

    The full measure reads: “Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Israel was also told to keep the Rafah crossing open and to let UN investigators into Gaza.

    Judge Aurescu, who voted for it, called the wording “somehow unclear.” He and Judge Nolte, who also voted for it, read it as stopping the offensive only as far as it risks those conditions of life, and the two judges who voted against read it the same way. Israel’s national security adviser said the next day, “We did not commit genocide and we will not commit genocide,” and its army kept operating in Rafah.

    Order of May 24, 2024 ¶ 57 · Aurescu declaration ¶ 3 · Nolte declaration ¶ 25 · Barak dissent ¶ 1 · Reporting: Times of Israel, May 25, 2024

  26. Others step in

    Other countries ask to join, Israel’s judge changes, and the same court rules on the occupation in a separate case.

  27. Jun 3, 2024

    Palestine asks to join

    The State of Palestine asks to take part, both as a country with its own stake in the case and to argue how the treaty should be read.

    A country that isn’t a party can ask to intervene. Palestine invoked both routes the court’s Statute allows. Nicaragua had been the first to ask, in January 2024, and withdrew in April 2025. Officials of the State of Palestine sat with South Africa’s delegation at the first hearing.

    Palestine, Jun 3, 2024 · Press release 2024/52 · Press release 2024/14 · Press release 2025/15

  28. Jul 1, 2024

    A new judge for Israel

    Aharon Barak steps down for personal reasons, and Israel names Ron Shapira, a law professor, in his place.

    Barak, a former president of Israel’s Supreme Court, had written in January about surviving the Kaunas ghetto as a child, and that “I was appointed by Israel; I am not an agent of Israel.” He resigned in early June 2024, citing family reasons. Shapira, the rector of a college near Tel Aviv, has sat on the case since and was on the bench for its 2026 order.

    Barak opinion ¶¶ 4, 49 · Reporting: Times of Israel, Jun 6, 2024 · Reporting: Times of Israel, Jul 1, 2024 · Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2

  29. Jul 19, 2024

    A separate opinion on the occupation

    The same court, in a different proceeding, says Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful. It isn’t part of this case.

    This was an advisory opinion, which is the court’s answer to a legal question from the UN General Assembly, not a ruling in a dispute between two countries. It was about the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza since 1967. It doesn’t decide anything about genocide, and it isn’t binding the way a judgment is. The two proceedings are separate.

    ICJ, case 186

  30. The written case

    The arguments go in on paper, and stay private until the hearings.

  31. Oct 28, 2024

    South Africa files its full case

    Its memorial: more than 750 pages, it says, with over 4,000 pages of evidence. Under the court’s rules nobody else can read it yet.

    South Africa’s government said the memorial shows Israel “promoting the destruction of Palestinians living in Gaza,” by killing them, depriving them of aid and imposing conditions of life aimed at their destruction, and defying the court’s orders. That is South Africa’s description of its own filing. The court hasn’t published it.

    DIRCO, Oct 28, 2024 · Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2

  32. Nov 21, 2024

    Arrest warrants at a different court

    The International Criminal Court issues warrants for Israel’s prime minister and former defense minister. That court tries people, and it isn’t part of this case.

    Judges there found reasonable grounds to believe Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant were responsible for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and for crimes against humanity. The warrants don’t charge genocide. A warrant was also issued for Mohammed Deif, a Hamas commander.

    This court, the International Court of Justice, judges countries and can’t try anyone. The two courts are both in The Hague and are often confused.

    ICC, Nov 21, 2024

  33. Mar 3, 2025

    The court’s president changes

    Nawaf Salam leaves the court in January to become Lebanon’s prime minister. The judges elect Yuji Iwasawa of Japan in his place.

    Two more seats changed hands in 2025. Mahmoud Hmoud of Jordan took Salam’s seat in May, and Phoebe Okowa of Kenya took Abdulqawi Yusuf’s in November. Julia Sebutinde, who voted against every measure in this case, has been vice-president since February 2024.

    Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2

  34. Apr 14, 2025Granted

    More time for Israel

    Its answer, due in July 2025, is pushed to January 12, 2026. In October the president extends it again, to March 12, 2026.

    Israel asked both times, and the second extension was given by the court’s president. Altogether Israel’s answer came about seven and a half months after the first deadline.

    Order of Apr 14, 2025 · Order of Oct 20, 2025 · Order of May 21, 2026 p. 3 · DIRCO, Mar 2026

  35. Aug 22, 2025

    Famine confirmed in Gaza City

    The global hunger monitor the UN relies on finds famine in Gaza City. Israel rejects the finding. It isn’t a ruling in this case.

    The monitor, called the IPC, is a partnership of UN agencies and aid groups. It was the first famine it had confirmed in the Middle East. Israel’s foreign ministry said, “There is no famine in Gaza,” and its prime minister called the report “an outright lie.” In December 2025 four UN agencies said famine had been pushed back, and warned the gains could be reversed.

    Whether hunger in Gaza was caused on purpose is one of the questions this court will have to answer. This finding is about how bad it was, not who caused it.

    UN monthly bulletin, Aug 2025 · FAO, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, Dec 19, 2025 · Reporting: Al-Monitor, Aug 22, 2025

  36. Sept 16, 2025

    A UN commission says genocide

    An inquiry set up by the UN Human Rights Council concludes Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Israel calls the report fake. It isn’t part of this case.

    The commission, chaired by the South African judge Navi Pillay, found that Israeli forces committed four of the five acts the treaty lists, and that statements by officials and a pattern of conduct showed an intent to destroy. Israel didn’t cooperate with it, and its ambassador in Geneva called the report “scandalous” and “fake.”

    This court isn’t bound by what the commission found and will weigh the evidence itself.

    UN Commission of Inquiry, Sept 16, 2025 · Reporting: Geneva Solutions, Sept 16, 2025

  37. Oct 10, 2025

    A ceasefire in Gaza

    Israel’s army pulls back to a line inside Gaza, and the hostages still alive there are released three days later. The killing goes on at a lower level.

    A year later the UN human rights office had verified more than 1,000 deaths in Gaza since the ceasefire was announced, and Gaza’s health ministry counted more than 1,400. Israel’s forces still hold about half of the territory or more.

    The ceasefire doesn’t end the case. South Africa says the court’s orders still bind Israel, and that it isn’t complying with them.

    UN Human Rights, Oct 2026 · UN Secretary-General, Oct 2025

  38. Mar 12, 2026

    Israel files its answer, and objects to the court’s power

    Its counter-memorial. Israel says it shows the court has no power over the case and South Africa’s claims should be dismissed in their entirety.

    The court’s own summary says the answer is “voluminous,” and that besides the main case it contains “objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application.” Israel put those objections in its main answer and didn’t file them early as preliminary objections, so they’ll be decided together with everything else.

    Israel’s foreign ministry called the case a “fabricated and politicized blood libel” and said Israel had “affirmed, through words and deeds, that it was targeting Hamas and its accomplices, not Gaza’s civilian population.”

    Order of May 21, 2026 p. 3 · Israel MFA, Mar 14, 2026

  39. Mar 12, 2026

    The United States joins on Israel’s reading

    One of 22 countries, plus Palestine, to ask to intervene. It calls the genocide allegations “false.”

    Countries can join to argue how the treaty should be read. The US asked the court to keep its strict test for intent and said that “civilian casualties, even widespread civilian casualties, are not necessarily probative of genocidal intent.” Namibia, filing the same day, argued that intent can be read from the scale and repetition of the acts. Hungary, Fiji, Paraguay, the Netherlands and Iceland filed that month too.

    In all, 23 asked to join between January 2024 and March 2026: Nicaragua, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, Türkiye, Chile, the Maldives, Bolivia, Ireland, Cuba, Belize, Brazil, the Comoros, Belgium, Paraguay, the Netherlands, Iceland, Namibia, the United States, Hungary and Fiji. Nicaragua and Colombia have since withdrawn. The court hasn’t yet ruled on whether the others are let in.

    United States ¶¶ 5, 21 · Namibia · Press release 2026/5 · Press release 2026/6

  40. Apr 29, 2026

    The sides meet the court’s president

    South Africa wants a second round of writing and at least 18 months to prepare. Israel says one round is enough.

    South Africa pointed to how big Israel’s answer was and to the objections in it. Israel’s deputy agent said a second round wasn’t necessary, but that if there was one, Israel wanted the same 18 months for its own reply.

    Order of May 21, 2026 p. 3

  41. May 21, 2026Granted

    A second round of writing

    South Africa’s reply is due November 22, 2027, and Israel’s rejoinder May 22, 2029. Hearings come after that.

    The order gave each side the 18 months it had asked for. South Africa will have to answer Israel’s objections to the court’s power in its reply. Nothing in the order sets a date for hearings or a judgment.

    Order of May 21, 2026 p. 3

  42. Aug 25, 2026

    South Africa says Israel is defying the orders

    It sends a “substantial dossier” to the three judges who watch whether the court’s emergency orders are followed. It isn’t public.

    The court set up this monitoring committee in 2023. South Africa’s government said “Israel has not complied with the Orders,” and gave the death toll as at least 73,407 Palestinians killed and 174,335 injured by August 2026, figures from Gaza’s health authorities.

    The committee works in private, and the court hasn’t announced anything about the dossier.

    DIRCO, Aug 28, 2026

  43. Sept 18, 2026

    Colombia pulls out

    Its new government withdraws the declaration Colombia filed in April 2024. The court announces it on September 22.

    Colombia had filed to join under the previous president, Gustavo Petro. The government of Abelardo de la Espriella, which took office in August 2026, withdrew it. Leaving doesn’t change Colombia’s membership of the Genocide Convention.

    Press release 2026/24 · Colombia One, Sept 21, 2026

  44. Next · Nov 22, 2027

    Where it stands

    • Nov 22, 2027South Africa’s reply is due. It has to answer Israel’s objections to the court’s power.
    • May 22, 2029Israel’s rejoinder is due.
    • Not setHearings on the whole case, then a judgment. The court will decide whether it has power over the case and, if it does, whether Israel broke the treaty.
    • Not setWhether the 20 countries and Palestine still asking to take part are let in.
    • PendingThe court’s judgment in a different genocide case, The Gambia v. Myanmar, heard in January 2026. It may say more about how intent is proved. ICJ, case 178

    The court has not decided whether genocide happened. Its three orders from 2024 still bind Israel, and whether Israel is complying with them is disputed.

Every card comes from the court’s own record, or says where it comes from when it doesn’t. The full written arguments are confidential, so the cards from October 2024 on describe filings the public can’t read yet.

Notes

How this was made, and what it leaves out

Source

Built from the court’s own public record of the case: South Africa’s application, the three orders of 2024 and every judge’s opinion on them, the verbatim records of the four hearings, the written requests and answers the court has published, its press releases, and its orders since. Every characterization of a side comes from that side’s own words in court or in a published filing, and every finding is quoted from the order it’s in.

Each citation opens the court’s own document, at the page where one is given. The court’s website sometimes checks a browser before it hands over a file, so a link can take a moment.

ICJ, case 192

What isn’t public

Most of the case. The full written arguments, South Africa’s memorial of October 2024 and Israel’s counter-memorial of March 2026, are confidential under the court’s rules until it decides to publish them, which usually happens when the hearings on them open. So are the reports Israel has filed on how it’s carrying out the orders, and the evidence South Africa sent the court in August 2026 about whether it is.

South Africa has said its memorial runs to more than 750 pages, with more than 4,000 pages of evidence behind it. Israel has said its answer shows the court has no power over the case. Beyond that, these pages can’t say what either one argues, and the Side by Side View quotes each side from what it said in court in 2024.

DIRCO, Oct 28, 2024 · Order of May 21, 2026

Names and numbers

Numbers here come with whose numbers they are. The court’s first order used United Nations figures that came from the health authorities in Gaza and said they “cannot be independently verified”: 25,700 Palestinians killed by January 24, 2024. The same authorities’ count passed 73,000 by August 2026, which is the number South Africa gave the court that month. For October 7, 2023, the court’s figures are more than 1,200 people killed in Israel and some 240 taken hostage.

People are named here when they spoke in court, wrote an opinion, or were quoted by the court. The statements by Israeli officials quoted on these pages are the ones the court itself quoted in January 2024.

Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 13, 46, 52 · DIRCO, Aug 28, 2026

What this is not

Not legal advice, not a finding, and not a verdict. The court has not decided whether genocide happened. Its 2024 orders found that the rights South Africa wanted protected were plausible, which is a much lower test. Joan Donoghue, who was president of the court when it gave the first order, said afterward that “the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”

Other bodies have looked at the war in Gaza in other ways: the International Criminal Court, which tries people, the same court’s advisory opinions, and a United Nations commission of inquiry. None of that is part of this case, and where these pages mention it they say so. Where the record doesn’t reach, these pages say so and stop.

Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 30, 54 · BBC HARDtalk, Apr 25, 2024

Tell me what I got wrong

If something here is missed, misrepresented or unfairly portrayed, let me know. Point me at a filing or record and I will verify it on my end. I actively look to correct, improve and remain unbiased.

Type of issue

No account, no name, no email. The submission stores what you typed, your address and your browser string, to make abuse traceable and for nothing else.

Record reviewed through October 14, 2026. Nothing filed after that date is reflected here.

Terms

Plain English

Words these pages use because the court uses them. A few are special to this court, which judges countries and not people, and to the treaty the case is about.

The court

International Court of Justice
The United Nations’ own court, in The Hague. It settles disputes between countries, not cases against people. It has 15 judges elected by the UN for nine years at a time, and it’s sometimes called the World Court.
Genocide Convention
The 1948 treaty that defines genocide and makes the countries that join it promise to prevent it and punish it. Israel joined in 1950 and South Africa in 1998.
Article IX
The clause of the Genocide Convention that lets one member take another to this court over a dispute about the treaty. It’s the only reason this court has the case.
Judge ad hoc
A judge a country picks for one case when no judge of its nationality is on the court. They sit and vote with the other judges.
President of the court
The judge the others elect to run the court and chair its hearings, for three years at a time.
Registrar
The head of the court’s staff. Keeps the record, sits with the judges at hearings, and reads out the French text of a ruling.
Agent
The official who speaks for a country in a case at this court, usually a diplomat or a government lawyer. A country can have co-agents who share the job.
Intervention
Another country asking to take part. Any member of the treaty can come in to argue how the treaty should be read, and is then bound by how the court reads it. It doesn’t become a party to the case.

The paperwork

General List
The court’s numbered list of its cases. This one is No. 192.
Application
The document that starts a case at this court. South Africa’s runs to 84 pages.
Memorial
The full written case of the country that sued, with its evidence. South Africa filed its in October 2024.
Counter-memorial
The full written answer of the country being sued. Israel filed its in March 2026.
Reply and rejoinder
A second round of writing. The country that sued answers the counter-memorial, and the other side answers that.
Confidential pleadings
The court’s rules keep the written arguments out of public view until the court decides to publish them, usually when the hearings on them open.
Verbatim record
The court’s word-for-word record of a hearing, numbered like CR 2024/1. Cited here by page.
Order
A written decision of the court on one step in a case. It isn’t the final judgment.

How a case moves

Provisional measures
Emergency orders the court can give while a case goes on, to stop harm that couldn’t be undone before the final ruling. They’re binding, but the court has no way of its own to enforce them.
Plausible
The test for emergency orders. The court asks if the rights a country wants protected plausibly exist and could be at risk. It isn’t a finding that the accusation is true.
Prima facie
At first sight. Before giving emergency orders the court only has to see, at first sight, that it may have power over the case.
Jurisdiction
The court’s power to hear a case at all. Here it comes only from Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
Dispute
A real disagreement between the two countries about the treaty. It has to exist when the case is filed. Israel argued in 2024 that there wasn’t one yet.
Admissibility
Whether a case the court has power over is still one it should hear, for example because of how it was brought.
Preliminary objections
A challenge to jurisdiction or admissibility filed early and decided on its own, before the main case. Israel didn’t file one. It put its objections in its counter-memorial instead, so they’re decided with everything else.
Standing
The right to bring a case. Every member of the Genocide Convention has a stake in it being kept, so any member can sue another without having been harmed itself.
Merits
The main question in a case, as opposed to steps along the way. Here, whether Israel broke the Genocide Convention.
Judgment
The court’s final decision. It’s binding on the two countries and there is no appeal.
Opinions and declarations
What a judge writes alongside a decision to explain a vote or add a point. A dissent explains a vote against. None of them changes the result.
Monitoring committee
Three judges the court set up in 2023 to follow whether its emergency orders are being carried out and suggest to the court what it could do.

The stamp on a ruling

Granted
The court said yes to the request on this card, whichever country made it.
Granted in part
The court ordered some of what was asked for and not the rest. It words its own orders, so they can differ from what either country asked for.
Denied
The court said no to the request on this card and ordered nothing new.

What the treaty says

Genocide
Under the treaty, any of five acts done with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such: killing its members, seriously harming them, imposing conditions of life meant to destroy it, preventing births, or taking its children.
The listed acts
The five acts in Article II of the treaty. On their own they aren’t genocide. They become genocide when an intent to destroy the group is behind them.
Specific intent
The intent to destroy the group as such, also called dolus specialis. It has to be there on top of the intent to do the act itself, and it’s what sets genocide apart from other crimes.
Only reasonable inference
The court’s test from its earlier genocide cases. Where no plan is proved, intent can be read from a pattern of conduct only if it’s the only conclusion that could reasonably be drawn from it.
Substantial part
The part of the group targeted has to be big enough to matter to the group as a whole. The court said in 2024 that Palestinians in Gaza, over 2 million people, are.
Direct and public incitement
Openly urging people to commit genocide. It breaks the treaty on its own, whether or not a genocide follows.
Duty to prevent
Each member has to do what it reasonably can to stop a genocide once it knows, or should know, of a serious risk of one. It’s only broken if a genocide actually happens.
State responsibility
This court judges countries, not people. It can find a state responsible for breaking the treaty. Putting individuals on trial is for criminal courts.
Law of war
The rules for fighting a war, also called international humanitarian law. They allow some harm to civilians but forbid targeting them or causing harm out of proportion to the military aim. This case isn’t about those rules.
Self-defense
A country’s right to use force when it’s attacked. Israel says its war in Gaza is self-defense. South Africa says self-defense can never excuse genocide.
Famine
The worst level on the hunger scale UN agencies and aid groups use, called the IPC. It means extreme lack of food, acute malnutrition and deaths from it, each past a set line.