The significance of the International Court of Justice's first ruling in the genocide case against Israel

Today the United Nations highest court, the International Court of Justice, issued its first preliminary ruling in the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel.

South Africa won its application for “interim measures,” roughly equivalent to a temporary injunction, ordering Israel to take proactive steps to ensure that genocide does not occur in the future while the broader case is pending.

But the court refused to order the immediate ceasefire that South Africa requested. Instead, it ordered Israel to prevent its forces from committing or inciting genocidal acts and to allow humanitarian aid and basic services in Gaza. It also said it was “deeply concerned” about the fate of the remaining hostages kidnapped by Hamas and called for their “immediate and unconditional release.”

Israeli officials, who have strongly denied the genocide charge, denounced the provisional measures order but expressed relief that the court had not ordered a ceasefire.

So what does the decision mean? And what can happen next? “People often have a very divided view of what this court is and can do,” said Kate Cronin-Furman, a professor at University College London who studies responsibility for mass atrocities. “Either they think the UN will come with black helicopters to enforce orders, or they think the court's rulings are just empty words without any impact.”

The reality, according to experts, lies somewhere in between. The court does not have direct enforcement powers, whether or not by helicopter. But a decision like this can still have an impact by shifting the political calculations of the countries involved – and their allies.

No final decision

The first thing to note about today's order is that the court did that not decided whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. A final decision on that question will likely be years away. South Africa's partial victory should also not be seen as a sign that the court will necessarily rule in its favor later: the requirements for winning a genocide case on the merits are much more difficult to meet than the low threshold for interim measures .

Second, the court's order was in line with what most legal experts expected.

“I don't think anyone expected them to declare a ceasefire,” Cronin-Furman said. “I think the court would not have seen itself ruling on the legitimacy of Israel's claimed right to self-defense, and that is the extent to which many would have read a call for a suspension of hostilities.”

Instead, the judges “stuck quite closely to what they did in the order for interim measures in Gambia versus Myanmar,” Cronin-Furman said, referring to another case pending in court, in which Gambia accused Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya minority.

There is precedent in court order an immediate ceasefire: That happened in 2022, after Ukraine filed a case against Russia under the UN Genocide Convention.

However, that case was very different. One sovereign state using force to take over another, as Russia tried to do in Ukraine, is one of the most important taboos of international law.

In contrast, international law allows states to use force in self-defense after an attack like the one Israel suffered on October 7, when Hamas-led militants stormed across the border from Gaza, killing about 1,200 people. Israeli officials say 240 others have been taken hostage. Ordering Israel to end this war would have been a much more important step than ordering Russia to end its hostilities in Ukraine.

After today's decision was announced, some commentators speculated that the court may have refrained from declaring a ceasefire because doing so would have damaged the court's reputation if Israel had not complied.

However, none of the legal experts I spoke to called this a likely explanation.

And it is worth remembering that the Court's status has survived previous cases in which states completely ignored its orders, including in 2022, when Russia refused to comply with the order to cease hostilities in Ukraine.

Michael A. Becker, a law professor at Trinity College Dublin, said it was “not surprising that the court did not grant South Africa's request for a complete suspension of military activities.” But he added that the wording of the court's ruling was “striking” because of the emphasis placed on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where Palestinian health officials say more than 25,000 people have been killed.

“The court also dismissed Israel's arguments that it is already taking steps to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and address cases of alleged incitement to genocide,” he said.

Alliances are important

Ultimately, the political impact of the order may be more important than its specific content.

“An order from the International Court of Justice cannot do much to change the incentives of a state engaged in a military campaign that its leaders believe is absolutely necessary to protect national security,” Cronin-Furman said. “But it could make allied governments think twice about supporting that campaign.”

Friday the European Union said it expected the “full, prompt and effective implementation” of the International Court of Justice orders, noting that such orders “are binding on the parties and they must comply with them.”

Human rights organizations have been quick to call for further action. “The Court found that there is a plausible risk of genocide and that Britain has a duty to prevent genocide and not to be complicit,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. wrote on X shortly after the court had ruled.

However, the United States, Israel's main ally, issued a statement saying: “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note that the court has not ruled on genocide or called for a ceasefire .” (Previously, John Kirby, a spokesman for the US National Security Council, said the International Court of Justice case was “baseless”, while Secretary of State Antony Blinken had called it “meritless” and “counterproductive”.)

Many countries have domestic laws that prohibit military support to governments that abuse human rights, Becker said. “Because the court's decision can be interpreted as a sign that the situation in Gaza at least raises serious questions about a risk of genocide, it has the potential to trigger legal obligations under domestic law with regard to providing military support to Israel,” he said. .

The court's willingness to recognize the scale of human suffering in Gaza and emphasize that the humanitarian situation must not deteriorate further could change the political narrative on the conflict, he argued, and create new space for political action .

On the other hand, Israel's response to the court's decision pointed to an alternative perspective. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court order affirmed Israel's right to protect itself. “Like any state, Israel has the fundamental right to self-defense. The court rightly rejected the outrageous demand to nullify that right,” he said.