In December 2023, South Africa accused Israel of genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its war on Gaza.
The subsequent hearing, a couple of weeks later, drew huge attention as Israel’s war was formally challenged on the world stage for the first time since the start of the current war.
But almost two years later, the ICJ, the world’s highest court, is still hearing the case, with no judgment likely any time soon.
At the time of the hearing, the death toll in Gaza was just under 24,000, according to the Gaza health ministry. Since then, it has more than doubled to at least 65,000 Palestinians killed.
In July this year, the ICJ extended by six months the deadline for Israel to deliver its counter-arguments to South Africa’s allegations under the Genocide Convention, prompting fears the case would be delayed.
Meanwhile, this week, a UN commission of inquiry released what many say is the most significant report on Israel’s war to date, concluding that it has committed genocide in Gaza since 7 October 2023.
The report’s authors, including legal experts Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti, told Middle East Eye that the report used evidence and a similar methodology in its analysis to that which will be used by the ICJ.
But why has the ICJ not yet issued a judgment on Israel’s actions? When will it come? And what will happen after that?
Below, Middle East Eye breaks down what is going on.
What is the ICJ?
The ICJ, often called the World Court and based in The Hague, was founded in 1945 to settle legal disputes between member states of the UN according to international law.
It can also give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by UN bodies and related agencies.
Disputes can include arguments over territory, the interpretation of treaties, and allegations of serious international crimes such as genocide. Each judgment is binding on the parties involved.
What is happening with the South Africa v Israel case?
On 29 December 2023, South Africa accused Israel, before the ICJ, of breaching the Genocide Convention of 1948. (I have previously covered the legal status of genocide).
For cases of such complexity, the ICJ will often take years to come to a judgment.
In the interim, South Africa requested that the ICJ issue “provisional measures”, which are orders that bind Israel to refrain from and prevent acts of genocide.
On three occasions, the ICJ has responded with provisional measures against Israel.
Prevent genocidal acts: On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide faced a serious and urgent risk of irreversible breach. Israel was also told to allow humanitarian aid without obstruction. However, the ICJ did not order a ceasefire.
Ensure unhindered delivery of aid and basic services: In the second order, on 28 March 2024, the ICJ noted that famine was actively unfolding in Gaza. It directed Israel in more forceful terms to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Immediately halt its military operations in Rafah: The third order, on 24 May 2024, was the most pointed, stating that the risk of genocide in Rafah, southern Gaza, had significantly intensified. It also required Israel to keep the Rafah crossing open for humanitarian assistance.
These orders by the ICJ are legally binding on Israel. But so far, Israel has rejected the allegations and largely failed to comply.
Why has South Africa not requested more provisional measures?
South Africa last requested a provisional measure in May 2024, when the death toll in Gaza was more than 36,000 killed.
Gerhard Kemp, professor of international criminal law at UWE Bristol Law School, says that South Africa is now reluctant to return to the ICJ for new provisional measures because Israel ignored orders previously issued.
A South African diplomatic source, speaking to MEE on condition of anonymity, said that it is considering further diplomatic and political moves beyond the ICJ to hold Israel accountable.
“The provisional measures orders have not been enforced, and the genocide has worsened,” the diplomat said.
Bringing further provisional measures, they said, could ultimately delay the merit of the case itself.
“It’s quite clear that one has to go beyond the ICJ to ensure that something happens to mitigate the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”
Kemp, who is a South African, suggests that instead South Africa is pursuing a broader diplomatic strategy, including via the formation of the Hague Group.
Created in January 2025, the coalition focuses on practical steps to hold Israel accountable and end violations of international law, such as targeting weapons shipments and urging states to ban arms for Israel from docking in their ports.
South Africa and its partners are also encouraging individual states to pursue alleged instances of war crimes, which can be done through national courts under universal jurisdiction.
“South Africa is doing additional things beyond the ICJ to try and prevent the genocide and put pressure on Israel with economic means, diplomatic means and universal jurisdiction,” says Kemp.
What’s the timeline of South Africa v Israel?
Complex international legal cases can take years to resolve. Here’s what’s happened so far:
26 January 2024: The ICJ issues the first of its provisional measures. South Africa is given nine months to file its written submission of legal arguments and evidence (known as a “memorial”).
5 April 2024: Following a 29 February 2024 meeting with the parties, the ICJ sets deadlines for the two states to deliver their written arguments; 28 October 2024 for South Africa to file its memorial (nine months from the January 2024 order) and 28 July 2025 for Israel to file its counter-arguments (known as “counter-memorials”)
October 2024: South Africa files its memorial.
April 2025: Israel requests an extension of six months, which South Africa opposes. The ICJ compromises, granting a five-and-a-half-month extension to 12 January 2026.
Israel has not used the opportunity to raise preliminary objections to the court’s jurisdiction or the admissibility of the case, which would have suspended the case for six to 12 months while it was decided. Israel can still challenge jurisdiction and admissibility as part of the main case.
What’s going to happen next?
Mike Becker of Trinity College Dublin’s School of Law suggested that following the submission of Israel’s counter-memorial, due on 12 January, the ICJ will decide whether a second round of written pleadings is necessary.
This is likely considering the complexity of the dispute and the fast-changing situation in Gaza. “It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see an order in January that says South Africa has six months to file a reply, and then Israel has another six months to file a rejoinder,” Becker, who is an expert on international courts and a former associate legal officer at the ICJ, told MEE.
Under this scenario, South Africa would need to file a second written pleading with the ICJ by mid-2026. Israel would follow suit in late 2026 or early 2027.
Once the written phase has concluded, the ICJ will schedule oral hearings. Becker suggests this could be in April or May 2027, if nothing else arises that could require additional delay.
When will the ICJ make its final judgement?
Experts believe that it will come in late 2027 or early 2028.
“Once the hearing takes place, the court is pretty consistent in taking between six and eight months to produce the final judgment,” says Becker.
“If there are no surprises, this could mean a final judgment on the merits in this case by the end of 2027 or the beginning of 2028.”
Is it unusual for the ICJ to take this long?
No.
While the projected four-year timeline for South Africa vs Israel may sound lengthy, not least given the severity and urgency of what is happening in Gaza, it is if anything, relatively swift by ICJ standards.
Juliette McIntyre, senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia and international courts expert, said: “From an outsider’s point of view, it seems like it’s taking a very long time. But from the point of view of the court’s ordinary business, it’s actually perfectly on schedule.
“The most important thing, from the court’s point of view, is that they make sure that they give both parties equal opportunity to make the best case possible,” she told MEE.
Likewise, Becker says that a decision by late 2027 or early 2028 would represent “almost the absolute minimum time” that an ICJ case can take.
ICJ cases can easily take more than a decade, such as the Bosnia v Serbia case (14 years, 1993-2007), and the Croatia v Serbia case (16 years, 1999-2015).
What can affect the time it will take?
Becker cautions that three factors could still alter this timeline.
Israel brings a counterclaim: Israel could use its counter-memorial, due by January 2026, to bring a counterclaim against South Africa, although this is unlikely. If it did, then it could trigger an additional round of pleadings and deliberations.
More time: Becker says that if either side requests extensions of time to submit their written arguments, this could alter the timeline significantly. Even modest extensions of two or three extra months for each side’s second round of written submissions can quickly add up and cause delay.
Third-party interventions: Other countries are seeking to intervene in the case, mainly to support South Africa. This could lengthen the process considerably, depending on how the ICJ manages it.
Which states have intervened to back the case?
At the ICJ, there are two ways a state not directly involved in a case can participate through an intervention. It’s important to note, however, that this does not make them a party.
(i) Any state that is a party to the Genocide Convention can intervene to set out how it believes the treaty should be interpreted.
This type of intervention is covered by Article 63 of the ICJ statute. They are not meant to address the facts of the case in this scenario, although states might seek to do so. As of 19 September 2025, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, Chile, Maldives, Bolivia, Ireland, Cuba and Brazil have filed declarations of intervention under Article 63.
Until recently, states using Article 63 could automatically participate in oral hearings. Becker explains that the ICJ recently changed its rules and will now only allow this at its discretion, or else have one state speak on behalf of several, allowing views to be heard without taking up an excessive amount of hearing time.
(ii) The second way to intervene is under Article 62, whereby the third state has “an interest of a legal nature” that could be affected by the ICJ’s final judgment.
In contrast to Article 63, the court usually sets a high bar for allowing interventions under Article 62, as it can involve more hearings and separate rulings, all of which will slow down a case considerably.
Palestine and Belize have applied to intervene under both Articles 62 and 63. Nicaragua also applied to intervene under Article 62 but later withdrew its application.
Becker says: “If there were ever a situation where a state obviously meets the interest of a legal nature test, I think it’s Palestine.”
Whether the ICJ will accept Article 62 interventions – and how Israel might object – is unresolved.
How else can a state try to be involved in the case?
South Africa has not requested provisional measures for a year, as mentioned earlier.
Becker says that another state that is a party to the Genocide Convention could, in principle, start a new and separate case against Israel under the Convention. But this might complicate matters procedurally.
It is not clear, for example, whether a new case could be joined to South Africa’s case, which is already more procedurally advanced. If another state were to bring its own case, it could also then request provisional measures.
What would it mean if the ICJ finds against Israel?
The ICJ has never previously found that a state committed genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention. In 2007, the ICJ did find that Serbia violated the Genocide Convention – but not for directly committing genocide.
It’s also worth noting that the ICJ is separately hearing a case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged genocide against the Rohingya. Judgement is expected in that before South Africa vs Israel.
What happens if the ICJ finds against Israel?
The ICJ judgment against Israel would be legally binding, and Israel would be obliged to cease any acts found to constitute genocide and prevent further violations.
It would also need to guarantee that it will not repeat its actions.
South Africa has also asked the ICJ to require Israel to make reparations to Palestinian victims. These would include the safe and dignified return of those who have been forcibly displaced or abducted; respect for their full human rights, and protection from further discrimination or persecution; and undertaking the reconstruction of Gaza.
How would this be enforced?
The ICJ itself cannot enforce its own judgment. Instead, the wider international community has a duty to prevent and punish genocide.
It would be obliged not only to stop supporting Israel’s actions but also pto revent and punish them.
The judgment would be referred to the 15 members of the UN Security Council, although any attempt to enforce the judgment would likely be vetoed by the US, one of the UNSC’s five permanent members.
If that happens, then the wider UN General Assembly might invoke the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, encouraging collective diplomatic, economic or even military measures.
Politically, an ICJ genocide ruling would place heavy pressure on Israel’s allies to suspend arms transfers and diplomatic support if they are to avoid becoming complicit in Israel’s actions.
It would also deepen Israel’s international isolation and increase calls for sanctions or embargoes, either through the UN or by regional groupings such as the EU, African Union, or Arab League.
Importantly, it would bolster proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli leaders ,including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The ICC warrants do not include charges of genocide – but if the ICJ makes a finding of genocide, then it will put pressure on the ICC prosecutor to seek to add genocide charges to the existing warrants, or pursue charges against more individuals.
It could also prompt prosecutions under universal jurisdiction in national courts.
Source: MEE
