Introduction

The recent interim ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding South Africa’s case against Israel has sparked global attention.
While the court did not pass judgment on the core issue of whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, it did issue six provisional measures.

ICJ’s Interim Ruling: Six Provisional Measures Ordered

Prevention of Genocidal Acts: A 15:2 majority mandated that Israel take all necessary steps to prevent acts defined under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, encompassing actions with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Immediate Military Restraint: Israel was directed to prevent its military from committing any genocidal acts “with immediate effect.”
Incitement to Genocide: Sixteen out of 17 judges ruled that Israel must prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Humanitarian Assistance: The court instructed Israel to provide humanitarian aid and basic services to Palestinians in Gaza, recognizing them as a protected group under the Genocide Convention.
Preservation of Evidence: Israel was entrusted with preserving evidence related to alleged acts under the Genocide Convention in Gaza.
Reporting Requirement: By a 15:2 majority, Israel was asked to submit a report on measures taken to implement the ruling within one month.

Jurisdiction Confirmed: The World Court clarified its jurisdiction, stating that there exists a prima facie dispute between the parties concerning the application of the Genocide Convention.
Article 9 of Genocide Convention: Referring to Article 9, the court emphasized that South Africa’s concerns and Israel’s dismissal indicated a genuine dispute.

Genocidal Acts: The court suggested that “at least some” of Israel’s acts and omissions may fall within the contours of the Genocide Convention.
Impact of Military Operation: Israel’s large-scale military operation in Gaza, causing civilian casualties and displacement, was highlighted.
Statements by Israeli Officials: The court pointed to concerning statements by senior Israeli officials, including orders for a “complete siege” of Gaza and dehumanizing remarks about troops.
Humanitarian Concerns: Expressing deep concern, the court warned of a potential deterioration in the humanitarian situation before the final judgment.

Court’s Limitations: The ICJ refrained from ordering a ceasefire, with legal experts explaining that such an order could render Israel defenseless and fall outside the court’s purview.
International Impact: While the court’s rulings are legally binding, enforcement is lacking. However, its opinions carry weight with the UN and other international institutions.

ICJ: Doing Justice without power