“Nowhere is safe in Gaza”: The International Court of Justice finds that there are plausible grounds that Israel is committing genocide

collage of a black head against an earthy background with roots coming out of the head in the shape of tree branches with ink blotches attacking the tree

Why did the ICJ rule on this issue?

On 29 December 2023, South Africa filed a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing the State of Israel of genocide. South Africa argued that the State of Israel has been committing a series of acts with the aim of eliminating the Palestinian population in Gaza. These acts include indiscriminate and intentional attacks on civilians, including in designated safe areas, causing mass killings and injuries; intentional attacks on and destruction of social infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and mosques; and forced displacement. South Africa also referred to the use of dehumanising language by members of the Israeli government in relation to the Palestinian population and the public incitement to genocide on their part.

South Africa identified children as one of the most affected groups. They face malnutrition, starvation and disease, which, combined with lack of access to healthcare, is causing the death of many of them. Without access to food, water, healthcare, sanitation, communications and humanitarian aid, South Africa argued that conditions in Gaza no longer permit life to be sustained.

In light of the extraordinary urgency of the situation, South Africa requested that the ICJ order provisional measures making it clear what Israel must do while the case is heard – including requiring Israel to suspend all military operations and cease to intentionally cause conditions aimed at physically eliminating the Palestinian population in Gaza.

What did the ICJ rule on this issue?

On 26 of January 2024, the ICJ issued its order on provisional measures, finding that there are plausible grounds that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The ICJ ordered Israel to prevent genocide; prevent its military from committing genocide; prevent and punish incitement to genocide; allow urgently needed services and humanitarian assistance into Gaza; preserve all associating evidence; and report to the Court in one month on the implementation of these measures.

The ICJ established that Palestinians are a protected national group and emphasised the evidence of the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where “25,700 Palestinians have been killed, over 63,000 injuries have been reported, over 360,000 housing units have been destroyed or partially damaged and approximately 1.7 million persons have been internally displaced”.

The ICJ also focused on the devastating impact on children, who make up almost half of the population of Gaza, finding that immediate measures are needed to prevent further irreparable harm. In this respect, the Court read testimony of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA): “The plight of children in Gaza is especially heartbreaking. An entire generation of children is traumatized and will take years to heal. Thousands have been killed, maimed, and orphaned. Hundreds of thousands are deprived of education. Their future is in jeopardy, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.”

In a separate declaration, Judge Bhandari called to all parties for an immediate ceasefire.

With regards to jurisdiction, and taking into account the abovementioned, the ICJ held that it had jurisdiction on the matter since there is a dispute between South Africa and Israel relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention. The ICJ considered that South Africa's standing before the Court was justified on the grounds that, as a party to the Genocide Convention, it has an interest in ensuring that the obligations contained therein are fulfilled.

Why is this significant?

This ruling is significant, as it not only deems the allegations against Israel plausible, but also imposes legal obligations on Israel. This case could lead to a greater international consensus to challenge Israel's abuses. All State parties to the Genocide Convention have “a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling the obligations contained in the Convention”.