The decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to order Israel to take necessary actions to prevent potential acts of genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip has been widely praised by world leaders, rights advocates, and legal experts. Although the ICJ did not explicitly call for a ceasefire, it acknowledged the credible risk of genocide in the heavily bombarded Palestinian enclave and rejected the dismissal of the case brought by South Africa.
The ICJ’s ruling in The Hague has also reignited calls to halt the transfer of weapons to the Israeli government, which critics argue contributes to complicity and violates international law. This includes arms shipments from the United States, Israel’s primary supporter.
South Africa initiated the case against Israel under the Genocide Convention on December 29, 2023, after submitting an 84-page application to commence the proceedings. By invoking the principle that as a party to the Genocide Convention, it has a duty to protect the legal rights of all individuals against genocide, South Africa took a stand. Although any other party to the convention could have initiated the claim, South Africa has been expressing concerns about genocide in Gaza since October 30. The assertion provides a historical background to Israel’s actions in Palestine and outlines the military operations conducted by Israel in Gaza.
Particular emphasis is placed on the actions and behaviour of Israeli political and military leaders, particularly their statements regarding how Israel planned to respond to the Hamas attacks, as well as the scale and objectives of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. South Africa then provides a detailed account of Israel’s actual military conduct during the Gaza campaign and the impact it had on Palestinian civilians. This conduct is directly linked to acts of genocide as defined in the Genocide Convention.
In reality, the ICJ’s ruling is legally binding on Israel, just like the Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions.
Therefore, there is no question that Israel must take concrete steps to alleviate the “catastrophic humanitarian situation” identified by the court and restore conditions that can sustain life in Gaza, rather than jeopardize its existence. Specifically, Israel must promptly and without arbitrary restrictions allow the entry of food, water, medical aid, fuel, and other essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza. Israel must also ensure that there are no telecommunications blackouts that hinder the delivery and distribution of aid across Gaza. Additionally, Israel must cease its obstruction of humanitarian aid distribution within Gaza. Israel must limit its military operations in Gaza to ensure that humanitarian aid can be delivered to and distributed across all of Gaza. Israel must not attack civilians waiting for humanitarian aid.
While the ruling is still far from what is expected by the it is still the right step in the right direction.
