South Africa v. Israel:
The Genocide Case at the
International Court of Justice

Basic Information

What the Court Actually Found

On 26 January 2024, the Court concluded that, prima facie, it had jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention and could not accept Israel’s request to remove the case from the General List.

The Court also found that at least some rights claimed by South Africa were plausible and that there was a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights. This was the legal basis for provisional measures. It was not a final merits judgment determining that genocide had been proven.

Why the Distinction Matters

This page separates three different things: allegations made by South Africa, responses made by Israel, and findings actually made by the Court. That distinction keeps the documentation legally accurate while making the record of Palestinian suffering and the allegations against Israel clear.

2023 – 2024: The Case Begins

• 29 Dec 2023 Application filed — South Africa institutes proceedings against Israel and requests provisional measures.
• 11–12 Jan 2024 Public hearings — The Court hears South Africa and Israel on the request for provisional measures.
• 26 Jan 2024 First provisional measures — The Court finds prima facie jurisdiction, plausible rights and a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice, then orders six measures.
• 12 Feb 2024 Rafah request — South Africa asks the Court to act urgently over the developing situation in Rafah.
• 16 Feb 2024 Court response — The Court says the January measures already apply throughout Gaza, including Rafah, and stresses full compliance.
• 28 Mar 2024 Additional measures — The Court records that famine is setting in and orders large-scale humanitarian assistance and further compliance measures.
• 24 May 2024 Rafah order — The Court reaffirms earlier measures and orders Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah insofar as it may inflict prohibited conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza.

2024 – 2025: Written Proceedings & Intervention Filings

• 28 Oct 2024 South Africa Memorial — Deadline fixed by the Court for the Memorial, which South Africa filed within the time-limit.
• 2024–2025 Interventions expand — Multiple States file declarations or applications to intervene, including Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, Türkiye, Chile, Maldives, Bolivia, Ireland, Cuba and others.
• 14 Apr 2025 Counter-Memorial extension — The Court extends Israel’s deadline to 12 January 2026.
• 20 Oct 2025 Further extension — The deadline is extended to 12 March 2026.

2026: Current Procedural Position

• 11–12 Mar 2026 New intervention filings — The Netherlands, Iceland, Paraguay, Namibia, United States, Hungary and Fiji file intervention submissions under Article 63, according to the ICJ case record.
• 12 Mar 2026 Israel Counter-Memorial — Israel files its written Counter-Memorial within the extended deadline. The filing also raises objections to jurisdiction and admissibility.
• 21 May 2026 Second round ordered — The Court directs a Reply by South Africa and a Rejoinder by Israel.
• 22 Nov 2027 South Africa Reply due — Deadline fixed by the Court.
• 22 May 2029 Israel Rejoinder due — Deadline fixed by the Court. The subsequent procedure remains reserved for further decision.

Important: There is no final merits judgment yet. Any page suggesting a 2026–2028 final judgment date is outdated.

What South Africa Alleges

South Africa’s case is built around alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. Its application alleges conduct affecting Palestinians in Gaza and argues that the pattern of conduct must be assessed together with statements and policies relevant to genocidal intent.

Evidence Categories

• Statements by political and military officials
• Patterns of killing and serious injury
• Destruction of homes, civilian infrastructure and essential services
• Food insecurity, starvation and restrictions affecting humanitarian relief
• Displacement and the conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza
• Evidence relevant to intent and the cumulative pattern of conduct

26 January 2024 — First Order

The Court found prima facie jurisdiction and ordered six binding measures. They require Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts within Article II of the Genocide Convention, ensure its military does not commit such acts, prevent and punish direct and public incitement, enable urgently needed humanitarian assistance, preserve evidence and report to the Court.

• Prevent prohibited acts: including killing, serious bodily or mental harm, destructive conditions of life and measures intended to prevent births.
• Control the military: ensure Israeli military forces do not commit the prohibited acts.
• Prevent incitement: prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide.
• Humanitarian assistance: enable urgently needed basic services and aid.
• Preserve evidence: prevent destruction and ensure preservation of evidence.
• Report: submit a compliance report within one month.

Vote: the principal measures were adopted by 15 votes to 2.

28 March 2024 — Famine & Humanitarian Measures

The Court found that Palestinians in Gaza were no longer facing only a risk of famine and that famine was setting in. It reaffirmed the January measures and required large-scale humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, sanitation and medical supplies.

It also ordered Israel to ensure that its military did not commit acts violating the rights protected under the Convention, including by preventing the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.

Vote: the reaffirmation was 14–2. Key operative measures on military conduct and reporting were 15–1.

24 May 2024 — Rafah

The Court reaffirmed the earlier measures and ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in Rafah, that may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life capable of bringing about physical destruction in whole or in part. It also required the Rafah crossing to remain open for humanitarian assistance and required unimpeded access for UN-mandated investigative bodies.

Vote: the Rafah measure was adopted by 13 votes to 2.

Intervention Filings in the ICJ Record

The ICJ case record shows intervention submissions from more than twenty States. These are formal procedural filings under Articles 62 or 63 of the Court’s Statute. They should be distinguished from general political statements.

Important Procedural Note

• Nicaragua: filed an application for permission to intervene in January 2024 but withdrew it in April 2025.
• Palestine: filed an application for permission to intervene and a declaration of intervention.
• United States: filed an Article 63 intervention declaration in March 2026. This means its role should be described from the ICJ record rather than simply labelled an outside observer.

Intervention means a State is participating in the legal interpretation of the Genocide Convention. It does not automatically mean that every intervening State adopts South Africa’s entire factual or legal case.

No Official “Opposing Countries” List

The ICJ does not publish a list of governments that “oppose” South Africa. A more accurate record is to identify governments that publicly rejected the genocide allegation, backed Israel politically or militarily, or challenged aspects of the proceedings.

Why Their Support Matters

Political backing can affect diplomatic protection, weapons transfers, funding, intelligence cooperation and international pressure. Those relationships are part of the wider accountability context, but they are not themselves findings of the ICJ.

Political and military support for Israel is documented as part of the wider accountability context. Such support does not by itself establish a legal justification for civilian harm or violations of international law. The documentation gives particular attention to Palestinian civilian suffering, accountability proceedings, and evidence concerning alleged violations by Israel.

Core ICJ Documents

The 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory was a separate advisory proceeding. It should not be described as a “26 July 2024 jurisdiction ruling” in South Africa v. Israel. Case No. 192 remains in the merits phase.

South Africa’s Legal Case

• Genocide Convention: South Africa argues that Israel is violating obligations to prevent and punish genocide.
• Article II acts: the case addresses killing, serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicted destructive conditions of life.
• Intent: South Africa argues that the pattern of conduct, statements, policies and consequences can be used to establish genocidal intent.
• Related obligations: the application also addresses incitement, conspiracy, attempt and complicity.

Israel’s Stated Response, Documented Without Endorsement

• Israel has argued that it is acting against Hamas and that its objective is military and security-related rather than the destruction of Palestinians as a group.
• Israel has challenged the Court’s jurisdiction and has argued that the case should not proceed on South Africa’s framing.
• Israel has pointed to claimed humanitarian measures and civilian-protection policies as part of its response.

These are Israel’s claims, not findings of the Court. They are included so the page can document the legal dispute accurately without turning the Respondent’s narrative into an endorsement.

What the Court Has Decided So Far

• The Court found prima facie jurisdiction in January 2024.
• The Court found that at least some of the rights asserted by South Africa were plausible.
• The Court identified a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights and issued binding provisional measures.
• In March 2024, the Court found that famine was setting in and imposed additional humanitarian measures.
• In May 2024, the Court ordered an immediate halt to the Rafah offensive insofar as it could inflict prohibited conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza.
• The Court has not yet issued the final merits judgment determining whether Israel is legally responsible for genocide.

The Key Legal Question Still Open

The final merits stage will require the Court to assess the evidence, including whether prohibited acts occurred and whether the required specific intent for genocide is established. The provisional-measures findings are significant but are not the final merits judgment.

Two Separate Accountability Systems

ICC Findings on Netanyahu & Gallant

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber stated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes including starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population, as well as crimes against humanity including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. These are ICC findings at the arrest-warrant stage, not convictions.

Why the Two Cases Should Not Be Merged

• ICJ: asks whether Israel, as a State, bears international responsibility under the Genocide Convention.
• ICC: examines individual criminal responsibility under the Rome Statute.
• A finding in one court does not automatically decide the legal question before the other.

International Court of Justice

• Case 192: Official case record
• Application: 29 Dec 2023 PDF
• First Order: 26 Jan 2024
• Second Order: 28 Mar 2024
• Third Order: 24 May 2024
• Counter-Memorial extension: 20 Oct 2025
• Current procedural order: 21 May 2026
• Intervention record: States filing interventions

International Criminal Court

• Palestine situation: ICC official page
• Netanyahu & Gallant warrants: 21 Nov 2024 decision and warrants

UN, Human Rights & Humanitarian Sources

• UN OCHA — occupied Palestinian territory
• UN Human Rights Office
• Amnesty International
• Human Rights Watch
• B’Tselem

Major statistics and allegations are presented with a date, source, and attribution where available. Court findings are identified as findings, while allegations are attributed to the party or source making them. Israel’s stated arguments are documented as part of the legal record, but they are not presented as a justification for civilian harm or violations of Palestinian rights.