South Africa has launched a new move against Israel at the International Court of Justice, submitting an expanded dossier that it says demonstrates Israel’s failure to comply with binding measures it was required to implement immediately.
Analysts say the move could increase pressure on Israel, but is unlikely to deliver immediate gains for Palestinians.
Pretoria announced on Friday that it had submitted the expanded file on 25 August, saying it contained information and evidence documenting Israel’s non-compliance with the binding provisional measures previously issued by the court to protect Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
In 2024, the International Court of Justice issued three separate orders that included measures aimed at preventing acts covered by Article II of the Genocide Convention and facilitating access to essential services and humanitarian assistance.
The third order, issued in May that year, instructed Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah in southern Gaza and keep the crossing open for aid.
South Africa’s latest move comes as the original case it filed against Israel in 2023 enters a judicial process that could continue for years, after Israel submitted a counter-memorial and challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
Renewed Pressure
Because of Israel’s legal challenges, the court has set dates for another round of proceedings extending through 2029.
This gives the issue of urgent provisional measures and their implementation greater importance in the near term, turning the matter from a legal battle into a political test for the international community, which is supposed to ensure that what the court described as irreparable harm in Gaza is prevented.
The latest step reflects South Africa’s belief that greater pressure must be placed on Israel over its failure to comply with the court’s provisional measures, particularly after it became clear that a final ruling in the case may not come before 2030 or 2031, according to international law professor and former chairman of the UN Human Rights Committee William Schabas.
A judgement had previously been expected this year or next, Schabas said during an appearance on the programme Beyond the News.
He argued that this had not happened because the court “works patiently, not slowly”, making it necessary to highlight Israel’s non-compliance and submit supporting documentation so that the court can move towards oral proceedings and eventually issue a judgement.
Schabas described South Africa’s move as courageous and bold in documenting and legally characterising Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The problem, he said, is that the court has no mechanisms to enforce its decisions on the ground.
That, according to Schabas, requires international action. He said the latest move could encourage more of Israel’s supporters to distance themselves or exercise greater caution in dealing with it, but stressed that this would remain only a small part of the broader Palestinian struggle.
Schabas also said the court has the authority to act on its own initiative over Israel’s failure to comply with provisional measures.
However, he considered such a move unlikely because the court lacks the means to enforce any new ruling without broader international solidarity and pressure extending beyond South Africa alone.
He also pointed to the possibility of Washington intervening to block action directed against Israel.
Less Israeli Fear of International Law
Israel has responded to South Africa’s latest move with relatively little concern, according to Israeli affairs expert Dr Mohannad Mustafa, who argues that Israel is no longer seriously constrained by international law or international justice under the current US administration.
When Pretoria filed its original case, Mustafa said, the Israeli position was different because former President Joe Biden was still in the White House.
At the time, there remained an expectation that international law might be respected, prompting Israel to engage with the court, accept the provisional measures and pledge to implement them.
The current climate is different.
Mustafa said there is now little room to speak of fear of international law inside Israel, where some ministers publicly call for the killing of civilians in Gaza on the claim that “there are no innocent people among them”, without the government’s military legal adviser moving to prosecute them over statements that directly contradict Israel’s commitments before the International Court of Justice.
The Israeli military announced around two weeks ago that it was investigating approximately 170 cases involving possible violations in Gaza.
It later said all but four of those investigations had been closed, with only a limited number remaining open.
According to Mustafa, the process ultimately narrowed to two cases, one involving the killing of Palestinian child Hind Rajab because of the international attention her case generated.
Mustafa argued that the process is largely about public relations.
Israel, he said, remains concerned about its global image, particularly in the United States, because it does not want to lose its standing within the international community and international institutions.
“Nevertheless, Israel will now face greater pressure because proving its crime has become easier, and because its judiciary has been complicit in this genocide,” he said.
Palestinians Expect Less From the Court
Palestinians themselves no longer place significant expectations on the International Court of Justice to deliver immediate measures capable of protecting them or improving their living conditions, according to Palestinian political analyst Dr Iyad al-Qarra.
He said conditions in Gaza had not materially improved as a result of the court’s previous orders or UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which called for an urgent improvement in living conditions.
Palestinians, al-Qarra said, have come to understand that Israel no longer places much weight on either the international community or the International Court of Justice and instead relies almost entirely on US protection.
He told Beyond the News that the court itself has increasingly become a target of Israeli and American pressure.
Al-Qarra did not dismiss the significance of South Africa’s latest move.
He argued that it requires regional and international support and could encourage more countries to join the case, strengthening the Palestinian narrative and reinforcing the argument that what occurred in Gaza amounted to genocide, a crime that is not extinguished by the passage of time.
However, he said the latest South African step should not be expected to produce a strategic transformation in conditions inside Gaza.
Israel, he argued, remains largely indifferent to international law and the international community, while continuing to distance itself from agreements it had previously accepted.
