South Africa v. Israel at the ICJ: Genocide, Apartheid, and the Evolution of InternationalAccountability

ABSTRACT 

South Africa’s decision to bring a case against Israel before the International Court of Justice over the 2023 Gaza conflict marks a critical moment in the evolution of international law. Rooted in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the case raises complex questions about how genocide is defined, proven, and attributed to state responsibility. Beyond the immediate legal arguments, it explores broader issues such as apartheid, long-term occupation, and the persistent challenges of enforcing international law amid protracted conflict. Although the ICJ has issued provisional measures, their limited enforceability highlights the ongoing weakness of international judicial mechanisms. Ultimately, the case may serve as a turning point, strengthening accountability frameworks and reinforcing global commitments to prevent genocide and systemic oppression.1 

INTRODUCTION 

The recent escalation of violence in Gaza has exposed significant humanitarian and legal dilemmas, with civilians bearing the brunt of the conflict and widespread allegations of systemic oppression surfacing. On 29 December 2023, South Africa initiated proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice, asserting that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to violations of the Genocide Convention.2 South Africa’s argument extends beyond the immediate crisis, situating these events within a broader historical context that includes seventy-five years of alleged apartheid policies and a sixteen-year blockade of Gaza.3 

This case carries considerable weight in the realm of international law, as it tests both the practical impact of the Genocide Convention and the ability of international courts to address complex allegations, such as genocide and apartheid, during armed conflict.4 The proceedings prompt a critical examination of state accountability and the mechanisms available for enforcing international legal norms. This article explores the legal foundations of South Africa’s case, the International Court of Justice’s responses thus far, and the broader implications for enforcing accountability under international law. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

Using a logical and analytical approach, this study draws from main legal sources such as South Africa’s application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), court decisions regarding interim measures,5 and reports from reputable human rights organizations.6 Academic study, reports from international organizations, and an evaluation of pertinent international treaties like the Genocide Convention are all included in order to contextualize and evaluate the developing body of jurisprudence. 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

The 1948 Genocide Convention, to which Israel and South Africa are parties, serves as the foundation for South Africa’s claims. The Convention grants the ICJ jurisdiction over disagreements over the interpretation and implementation of Article IX and requires governments to prevent and punish genocide.7 According to South Africa, Israel has committed basic genocidal actions as defined by the Convention in Gaza, including killing, causing severe physical and psychological injury, purposefully imposing life-threatening conditions, and preventing births among the Palestinian population. The case also touches on more general international humanitarian law issues, such as the bans on prolonged occupation and apartheid.8 

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION 

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice held public hearings and granted temporary orders requiring Israel to stop practices that violate the Genocide Convention. The court acknowledged possible violation of Palestinian rights, but it did not completely stop military operations. Later directives, which called for emergency food supply in the face of starvation, reaffirmed humanitarian relief commitments. Notwithstanding these steps, reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch show that Israel has not complied, casting doubt on the validity of ICJ rulings. The intricate balancing act between state authority, self-defense claims, and the protection of vulnerable people is reflected in the court’s sophisticated approach. 

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 

The case of South Africa v. Israel highlights important issues with international law pertaining to responsibility for alleged genocide. There is also uncertainty on the political realities affecting state compliance and the threshold for determining genocide. Despite their urgency, the ICJ’s temporary measures have little enforcement authority. The case also draws attention to the controversial discussion around apartheid classification and its implications for the law. Comparative viewpoints highlight the need for improved procedures to hold state actors responsible quickly and effectively, as comparable international cases, like Myanmar v. The Gambia before the ICJ, face drawn-out delays and unpredictable conclusions.9 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 

The alliance supporting South Africa’s stance has grown since the lawsuit began, drawing support and attention from nations including Brazil, Spain, and Mexico.10 Legal and diplomatic pressure intensified after the independent committee of the UN Human Rights Council confirmed findings that Israel was responsible for genocidal activities.11Israel’s continued military actions and rejection of the case’s premise, however, highlight the geopolitical complexity of the situation. The lawsuit is still ongoing and could have an impact on international legal standards on governmental accountability for apartheid and genocide. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The judiciary should give consideration to improve enforcement tools for both final decisions and provisional remedies in order to strengthen international legal responses. In order to ensure state adherence to genocide prevention, legislative bodies should consider strengthening legal responsibilities. International organizations and civil society can be highly beneficial in advocacy, accountability facilitation, and monitoring. Upholding the goals of the Genocide Convention and addressing the impunity gaps shown by protracted conflicts like Gaza demands greater international cooperation.12 

CONCLUSION 

The fight to hold people legally responsible for crimes throughout complicated conflicts has reached a turning point with South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. It emphasizes how state accountability under international law is changing and how important it is to stop and punish genocide wherever it takes place. Although there are still difficulties in implementing ICJ rulings, this case reaffirms the international community’s adherence to laws prohibiting apartheid and genocide and calls for ongoing attention to detail and reform of international judicial systems. 

Reference(S): 

1. Author analysis based on ICJ case documents, Dec. 2023–Jan. 2024. – Secondary Source: Author Analysis / Commentary
2. Republic of South Africa v. State of Israel, ICJ (Dec. 29, 2023). – Primary Source: ICJ Case
3. South African Parliament, Ministerial Statement on the Genocide Case Against Israel, Sept. 2025. – Primary Source: Government Publication
4. Academic commentary on ICJ genocide cases, J. Int’l L., 2024. – Secondary Source: Journal Article
5. Republic of South Africa v. State of Israel, ICJ, Order on Provisional Measures (Jan. 19, 2024). – Primary Source: ICJ Case
6. Amnesty International, Gaza: Civilians Under Fire, 2024.https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde21/0001/2024/en/; Human Rights Watch, Israel/Palestine: Attacks on Civilians, 2024. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/israel/palestine – Secondary Source: NGO Reports / Online Sources 
7. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, art. IX. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml – Primary Source: Treaty / Online Source
8. Geneva Conventions, 1949, arts. 47–85.https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0930.pdf; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-a ll-forms-racial-discrimination – Primary Source: Treaties / Online Sources 
9. The Gambia v. Myanmar, ICJ, Application Instituting Proceedings, 2019.https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/178 – Primary Source: ICJ Case / Online Source 
10. UN General Assembly, Voting Records, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/ga/documents/voting-records – Primary Source: UN Document / Online Source
11. UN Human Rights Council, Independent Commission Report on Gaza, 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/independent-commission-gaza-2024 – Primary Source: UN Report / Online Source
12. Academic commentary, “ICJ Enforcement Challenges,” Int’l L. Rev., 2024. – Secondary Source: Journal Article