←  Case Chronicle

International Court of Justice · General List No. 192

South Africa v. Israel

South Africa says Israel has been committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and in December 2023 it took Israel to the United Nations’ highest court over it. Israel says the accusation is false, and that it has been defending itself against Hamas since the attack of October 7, 2023. In 2024 the court ordered Israel three times to take steps to protect Palestinians in Gaza while the case goes on. It has not decided whether genocide happened, and that decision is years away. The two sides are still trading written arguments, and the next one is due on November 22, 2027.

Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Before
The full court
Next due
Nov 22, 2027
Status
Undecided

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

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.