International Court of Justice · General List No. 192
South Africa v. Israel
Courtroom View
The room, one moment at a time
The same case as the Chronological View, drawn as the room it happened in. Move the line along the bar, or step with Previous and Next, and the room changes with the moment: who was in it, and which parts of it stood empty.
- In the room
- By video
- In the case, not recorded in the room
- ?About this part of the room
In the room
-
President of the court
Joan E. Donoghue
United States. President of the court until February 5, 2024. She presided at both January hearings and read the first order. Later, on the BBC, she said the court “didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.”
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3 · BBC HARDtalk, Apr 25, 2024
-
Vice-president
Kirill Gevorgian
Russia. Vice-president until February 5, 2024, when his term ended.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Peter Tomka
Slovakia. A former president of the court, on it since 2003. He didn’t sit for the May 2024 hearings or the Rafah order, “for reasons made known” to the president.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Ronny Abraham
France. A former president of the court. Voted with the majority on every measure.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Mohamed Bennouna
Morocco. His term ended on February 5, 2024.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf
Somalia. A former president of the court. Added a declaration to the March 2024 order. He resigned from the court in September 2025.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Xue Hanqin
China. A former vice-president. In January 2024 she wrote a declaration on why South Africa has standing to bring the case.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3 · Xue declaration ¶ 4
-
Judge
Julia Sebutinde
Uganda. The only judge to vote against all six measures in January 2024. She wrote that the conflict is “essentially and historically a political one.” Vice-president of the court since February 2024.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3 · Sebutinde dissent p. 1
-
Judge
Dalveer Bhandari
India. Wrote a declaration in January 2024 on how low the test for emergency orders is.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3 · Bhandari declaration ¶ 7
-
Judge
Patrick Robinson
Jamaica. His term ended on February 5, 2024.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Nawaf Salam
Lebanon. President of the court from February 2024 to January 2025, when he resigned to become Lebanon’s prime minister. He presided at the May hearings and read the Rafah order.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Yuji Iwasawa
Japan. President of the court since March 3, 2025.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Georg Nolte
Germany. Voted for the measures but wrote in January 2024 that he didn’t find it plausible the military operation itself was being carried out with genocidal intent. He put the only question from the bench, about the evacuation zones, in May 2024.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3 · Nolte declaration ¶ 15 · CR 2024/28 p. 30
-
Judge
Hilary Charlesworth
Australia. Added a declaration to the March 2024 order.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant
Brazil. Joined the joint declaration of four judges on the March 2024 order.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge ad hoc
Aharon Barak
Judge ad hoc chosen by Israel. A former president of Israel’s Supreme Court who survived the Kaunas ghetto as a child. Voted for the measures on aid and incitement in January 2024 and against the rest. He resigned in June 2024.
Barak opinion ¶¶ 4, 44 · CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge ad hoc
Dikgang Moseneke
Judge ad hoc chosen by South Africa. A former deputy chief justice of South Africa. He stopped sitting when Judge Tladi, a South African, joined the court.
CR 2024/1 p. 12 · Order of May 24, 2024 ¶ 6 · CR 2024/1 p. 2 · Order of Jan 26, 2024 p. 3
-
President of the court
Nawaf Salam
Lebanon. President of the court from February 2024 to January 2025, when he resigned to become Lebanon’s prime minister. He presided at the May hearings and read the Rafah order.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Vice-president
Julia Sebutinde
Uganda. The only judge to vote against all six measures in January 2024. She wrote that the conflict is “essentially and historically a political one.” Vice-president of the court since February 2024.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · Sebutinde dissent p. 1
-
Judge
Peter Tomka
Slovakia. A former president of the court, on it since 2003. He didn’t sit for the May 2024 hearings or the Rafah order, “for reasons made known” to the president. The record of May 17 lists him as present all the same, so this page doesn’t mark him either way for that day.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · CR 2024/27 p. 8 · CR 2024/28 p. 2
-
Judge
Ronny Abraham
France. A former president of the court. Voted with the majority on every measure.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf
Somalia. A former president of the court. Added a declaration to the March 2024 order. He resigned from the court in September 2025.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Xue Hanqin
China. A former vice-president. In January 2024 she wrote a declaration on why South Africa has standing to bring the case.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · Xue declaration ¶ 4
-
Judge
Dalveer Bhandari
India. Wrote a declaration in January 2024 on how low the test for emergency orders is.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · Bhandari declaration ¶ 7
-
Judge
Yuji Iwasawa
Japan. President of the court since March 3, 2025.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Georg Nolte
Germany. Voted for the measures but wrote in January 2024 that he didn’t find it plausible the military operation itself was being carried out with genocidal intent. He put the only question from the bench, about the evacuation zones, in May 2024.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · Nolte declaration ¶ 15 · CR 2024/28 p. 30
-
Judge
Hilary Charlesworth
Australia. Added a declaration to the March 2024 order.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant
Brazil. Joined the joint declaration of four judges on the March 2024 order.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo
Mexico. Joined the court in February 2024.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Sarah H. Cleveland
United States. Joined the court in February 2024.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge
Bogdan Aurescu
Romania. Joined the court in February 2024. Voted for the Rafah order but called its wording “somehow unclear.”
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · Aurescu declaration ¶ 3
-
Judge
Dire Tladi
South Africa. Joined the court in February 2024, so South Africa’s own judge ad hoc stopped sitting. He wrote in May 2024 that self-defense can’t justify genocide.
CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · Order of May 24, 2024 ¶ 6 · Tladi declaration ¶ 15
-
Judge ad hoc
Aharon Barak
Judge ad hoc chosen by Israel. A former president of Israel’s Supreme Court who survived the Kaunas ghetto as a child. Voted for the measures on aid and incitement in January 2024 and against the rest. He resigned in June 2024.
Barak opinion ¶¶ 4, 44 · CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
Judge ad hoc
Ron Shapira
Judge ad hoc chosen by Israel in July 2024, in Judge Barak’s place. A law professor and the rector of a college near Tel Aviv. No hearing has been held since he joined.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · CR 2024/27 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3
-
President of the court
Yuji Iwasawa
Japan. President of the court since March 3, 2025.
-
Vice-president
Julia Sebutinde
Uganda. The only judge to vote against all six measures in January 2024. She wrote that the conflict is “essentially and historically a political one.” Vice-president of the court since February 2024.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Sebutinde dissent p. 1
-
Judge
Peter Tomka
Slovakia. A former president of the court, on it since 2003. He didn’t sit for the May 2024 hearings or the Rafah order, “for reasons made known” to the president.
-
Judge
Ronny Abraham
France. A former president of the court. Voted with the majority on every measure.
-
Judge
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf
Somalia. A former president of the court. Added a declaration to the March 2024 order. He resigned from the court in September 2025.
-
Judge
Xue Hanqin
China. A former vice-president. In January 2024 she wrote a declaration on why South Africa has standing to bring the case.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Xue declaration ¶ 4
-
Judge
Dalveer Bhandari
India. Wrote a declaration in January 2024 on how low the test for emergency orders is.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Bhandari declaration ¶ 7
-
Judge
Georg Nolte
Germany. Voted for the measures but wrote in January 2024 that he didn’t find it plausible the military operation itself was being carried out with genocidal intent. He put the only question from the bench, about the evacuation zones, in May 2024.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Nolte declaration ¶ 15 · CR 2024/28 p. 30
-
Judge
Hilary Charlesworth
Australia. Added a declaration to the March 2024 order.
-
Judge
Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant
Brazil. Joined the joint declaration of four judges on the March 2024 order.
-
Judge
Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo
Mexico. Joined the court in February 2024.
-
Judge
Sarah H. Cleveland
United States. Joined the court in February 2024.
-
Judge
Bogdan Aurescu
Romania. Joined the court in February 2024. Voted for the Rafah order but called its wording “somehow unclear.”
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Aurescu declaration ¶ 3
-
Judge
Dire Tladi
South Africa. Joined the court in February 2024, so South Africa’s own judge ad hoc stopped sitting. He wrote in May 2024 that self-defense can’t justify genocide.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Order of May 24, 2024 ¶ 6 · Tladi declaration ¶ 15
-
Judge
Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud
Jordan. Took Judge Salam’s seat in May 2025.
-
Judge
Phoebe Okowa
Kenya. Elected in November 2025 to the seat Judge Yusuf left.
-
Judge ad hoc
Ron Shapira
Judge ad hoc chosen by Israel in July 2024, in Judge Barak’s place. A law professor and the rector of a college near Tel Aviv. No hearing has been held since he joined.
Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2 · Order of May 21, 2026 p. 2
-
Registrar
Philippe Gautier
The head of the court’s staff, who sits with the judges and keeps the record. He read the operative part of each order aloud in French after the president read it in English.
CR 2024/1 p. 2 · CR 2024/27 p. 2 · ICJ photographs, Jan 26, 2024 · ICJ photographs, May 24, 2024
-
Agent
Vusimuzi Madonsela
South Africa’s ambassador to the Netherlands, its agent in the case, and the first and last to speak at both of its hearings. The court’s photographs of both readings show him.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/27 pp. 4–6 · ICJ photographs, Jan 26, 2024 · ICJ photographs, May 24, 2024
-
Co-agent
Cornelius Scholtz
Legal counsellor at South Africa’s embassy in The Hague.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/27 pp. 4–6
-
Minister of Justice
Ronald Lamola
Made South Africa’s opening statement on January 11, 2024. Not in the delegation in May.
CR 2024/1 pp. 18–20
-
Counsel
John Dugard
Emeritus professor at Leiden and the University of the Witwatersrand. Argued the court’s power over the case at both hearings.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/1 p. 42 · CR 2024/27 p. 16
-
Counsel
Vaughan Lowe
Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law at Oxford. Spoke on the measures South Africa wanted, and on self-defense.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/1 p. 73 · CR 2024/27 p. 13
-
Counsel
Max du Plessis
Spoke on the rights South Africa wanted protected.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/1 p. 48 · CR 2024/27 p. 21
-
Counsel
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi
Argued intent: that Israel’s leaders “in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent.” In May he called Rafah “the last stand.”
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/1 p. 33 · CR 2024/27 p. 42
-
Counsel
Adila Hassim
Argued the acts: the killing, the harm and the conditions of life in Gaza.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/1 p. 21 · CR 2024/27 p. 32
-
Counsel
Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh
Irish barrister. Argued urgency, and said Gaza was “the first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time.”
-
For the presidency
Nokukhanya Jele
Special adviser to South Africa’s president, listed among the national officials at all four hearings.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/27 pp. 4–6
-
For the foreign ministry
Zane Dangor
Director-general of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/27 pp. 4–6
-
For the presidency
Phindile Baleni
Director-general in the presidency. In the January delegation only.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8
-
For the justice ministry
Doctor Mashabane
Director-general of the justice department. In the January delegation only.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8
-
State of Palestine
Ammar Hijazi
Palestine’s assistant foreign minister for multilateral affairs, sitting as a member of South Africa’s delegation. Palestine later asked to join the case itself.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8
-
State of Palestine
Omar Awadallah
Palestine’s assistant foreign minister for the UN, sitting as a member of South Africa’s delegation.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8
-
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
Raji Sourani
Its director, from Gaza, sitting as a member of South Africa’s delegation at all four hearings.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/27 pp. 4–6
-
Al-Mezan
Issam Younis
Director of the Gaza rights group Al-Mezan, sitting as a member of South Africa’s delegation.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8 · CR 2024/27 pp. 4–6
-
Al-Haq
Shawan Jabarin
General director of the Palestinian rights group Al-Haq, in the January delegation. The record spells his name Jabreen.
CR 2024/1 pp. 4–8
-
Co-agent
Gilad Noam
Deputy attorney general for international law. Closed Israel’s case in January and led it alone with Tamar Kaplan Tourgeman in May. The court’s photographs of the January reading show him.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10 · CR 2024/28 p. 8 · ICJ photographs, Jan 26, 2024
-
Co-agent
Tal Becker
Legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry. Opened Israel’s case in January 2024: “if there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel.”
-
Co-agent
Tamar Kaplan Tourgeman
A senior lawyer in Israel’s foreign ministry. Argued the second half of Israel’s case on Rafah in May.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10 · CR 2024/28 p. 21
-
Counsel
Malcolm Shaw
British international lawyer, emeritus professor at Leicester. Argued in January that there was “little beyond random assertions” to show intent.
-
Counsel
Christopher Staker
British barrister. Took South Africa’s nine requested measures one at a time in January.
-
Counsel
Galit Raguan
Of the justice ministry’s international justice division. Set out Israel’s aid and civilian-protection efforts.
-
Counsel
Omri Sender
Tel Aviv lawyer. Argued in January that there was no urgency.
-
Deputy agent
Avigail Frisch Ben Avraham
Legal adviser at Israel’s embassy in The Hague, at all four hearings.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10 · CR 2024/27 p. 6
-
Ambassador
Modi Ephraim
Israel’s ambassador to the Netherlands, in the January delegation.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10
-
Counsel
Eyal Benvenisti
Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, in the January delegation.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10
-
National Security Council
Daniel Geron
From the prime minister’s office, in the January delegation.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10
-
Foreign ministry
Amit Heumann
Head of the foreign ministry’s international law department, in the January delegation.
CR 2024/2 pp. 4–10
-
Israel’s table
Three government lawyers
Israel was notified of the hearing on a Monday for the Thursday, asked for it to be moved a week, and was refused. Its co-agent told the court that its lead counsel was “shipborne this week” and that Israel “is not represented today by its chosen team of counsel and advocates.”
CR 2024/28 pp. 8–9 · Order of May 24, 2024 ¶ 15
-
Israel’s table
Not named
The court’s photographs of this sitting show members of Israel’s delegation, but don’t name them, and there is no transcript to hand that lists them.
-
South Africa’s table
Only the agent is named
There is no transcript to hand for this reading. The court’s photographs name South Africa’s agent and show the rest of its delegation without naming them.
ICJ photographs, Jan 26, 2024 · ICJ photographs, May 24, 2024
-
Israel’s table
Only the co-agent is named
The court’s photographs of this reading name Israel’s co-agent, Gilad Noam, and show the rest of its delegation without naming them.
-
The bench
In order of precedence
Judges are drawn in the court’s order of precedence: the president in the middle, the vice-president beside, the others by seniority alternating outward, and the judges ad hoc at the end. That is the rule, not a chart of where each judge sat on the day. There is no jury at this court. The judges decide everything, by majority.
CR 2024/1 p. 12
-
The bench
Deciding on paper
The judges are in the case, but they took this step in writing, or it happened outside the court. Nothing was heard in court on this date.
-
The Registrar
Not in use
Where the Registrar sits at a public sitting, beside the bench. Nothing was heard in court on this date.
-
The lectern
For the lawyers
Where each side’s lawyers stand to speak, facing the bench. No witness has testified in this case: the 2024 hearings were argument only, and the court decided on documents and argument.
-
The lectern
Not in use
Where the lawyers speak at a hearing. Nothing was heard in court on this date.
-
South Africa’s table
Empty
Where South Africa’s delegation sits at a hearing. Nothing was heard in court on this date. Since May 2024 the case has gone on in writing, and nobody has argued it in court.
-
Israel’s table
Empty
Where Israel’s delegation sits at a hearing. Nothing was heard in court on this date. Since May 2024 the case has gone on in writing, and nobody has argued it in court.
-
The public
Not recorded
The verbatim records list the bench and the two delegations and say nothing about who watched, so these seats are drawn empty. The hearings were public and were also streamed by the court.
-
The public
Not in use
Seats for the public, the press and diplomats at a public sitting. Nothing was heard in court on this date.
-
The bench
Empty: no case yet
Where the judges sit, along one long bench. Fifteen judges sit on every case here, joined by a judge ad hoc for a country that has none of its own. On this date there was no case yet.
-
The Registrar
Empty: no case yet
Where the head of the court’s staff sits at a public sitting. On this date there was no case yet.
-
The lectern
Empty: no case yet
Where the lawyers stand to speak. On this date there was no case yet.
-
South Africa’s table
Empty: no case yet
Where the country that brings the case sits. It is always drawn on the left here. On this date there was no case yet.
-
Israel’s table
Empty: no case yet
Where the country answering the case sits. On this date there was no case yet.
-
The public
Empty: no case yet
Seats for the public and the press. On this date there was no case yet.
Days in court
- Jan 11, 2024 South Africa’s day. A public sitting at the Peace Palace from 10 a.m., President Donoghue presiding. The two judges ad hoc were sworn in first. CR 2024/1 pp. 1–2, 12–13
- Jan 12, 2024 Israel’s day, from 10 a.m. CR 2024/2 pp. 1–2
- Jan 26, 2024 The first order read out at a public sitting at 1 p.m., the operative part by President Donoghue in English and by the Registrar in French. Press release 2024/4 · ICJ photographs, Jan 26, 2024
- May 16, 2024 South Africa’s day on Rafah, an afternoon sitting from 3 p.m., President Salam presiding. Judge Tomka was unable to sit. CR 2024/27 pp. 1–2, 8
- May 17, 2024 Israel’s day on Rafah, from 10 a.m. Judge Nolte put a question to Israel at the end. CR 2024/28 pp. 1–2, 30
- May 24, 2024 The Rafah order read out at a public sitting at 3 p.m., by President Salam and then in French by the Registrar. Order of May 24, 2024 p. 3 · ICJ photographs, May 24, 2024
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.
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.
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.
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.