Despite the ceasefire between Israel and Palestine, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has made it clear that this development will not affect his country’s genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.). South Africa submitted the case in December 2023, accusing Israel of genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Formally titled Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), South Africa’s case argues that Israel’s military operations have resulted in large-scale civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid. These actions, according to South Africa, violate the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Due to the complexity of the case, it will take years before the I.C.J. reaches a decision. Moreover, the international response to this legal action has been momentous. Many nations and international institutions, including members of the United Nations, have expressed varying degrees of support or criticism. More than a dozen states, including several Global South nations, have indicated their intention to join or intervene in the case. The Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has been a critic of Israel, voiced similar opinions and stated that despite a ceasefire, this should not mean impunity for Israel. This response reflects the widespread global concern about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the recognition that the Genocide Convention gives all state parties the right to bring cases against other state parties accused of violations. Both South Africa and Israel are parties to this Convention, making the case legally admissible before the I.C.J..

There are many powerful international actors deeply involved in the process of this case. The I.C.J., as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is the central institution in this process. The broader U.N. system, humanitarian agencies, and several influential states are also shaping the conversation. The case has drawn attention from Western countries such as the United States, which continues to support Israel diplomatically, as well as from countries and regions advocating for Palestinian rights, such as Turkey, Malaysia, and several Latin American nations.

Historically, allegations of genocide have been raised in other conflicts, such as Rwanda, Bosnia, and Myanmar, but this marks the first time that a case under the Genocide Convention has been brought against Israel, a state long shielded by strong alliances and strategic partnerships. In January 2024, the I.C.J. ordered provisional measures requiring Israel to take all steps to prevent genocidal acts and to allow the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. However, the Court did not order a ceasefire, a decision that has been met with both praise and criticism. In essence, the issue at stake is not only whether genocide is being committed but also whether the international legal system can effectively respond to such allegations during an active conflict.

While South Africa’s decision to pursue legal action at the I.C.J. has been praised as a courageous assertion of international law, the effectiveness of this response remains limited. One of the central criticisms is that I.C.J. rulings, although legally binding, lack direct enforcement mechanisms. The Court depends on the voluntary compliance of states and the political will of the United Nations Security Council to implement its orders. Historically, such mechanisms have proven weak, especially when powerful allies protect the accused state. For example, even though the I.C.J. ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide and facilitate humanitarian aid, there has been little measurable improvement in Gaza’s humanitarian conditions. Civilian deaths, displacement, and infrastructure destruction have persisted, raising questions about the real impact of the Court’s provisional measures. Another criticism concerns the slow nature of international legal proceedings.

The I.C.J.’s final judgment on the merits of South Africa’s case could take years, while the situation in Gaza deteriorates daily. This lag between accusation and resolution means that the victims the case aims to protect may continue to suffer without immediate relief. The I.C.J.’s January 2024 decision only confirmed that South Africa’s allegations were “plausible,” not that genocide was definitively occurring, and thus it stopped short of providing stronger, enforceable orders. The delay in achieving a final ruling exposes one of the fundamental weaknesses of relying solely on international adjudication to address ongoing atrocities. Furthermore, the I.C.J.’s focus on state accountability overlooks key actors in the conflict.

Hamas, as the governing body in Gaza and a non-state armed group, is not subject to I.C.J. jurisdiction, which limits the Court’s ability to fully address the conflict’s complexity. This omission creates a legal and moral tension. While Israel’s actions are scrutinized, the attacks and tactics of Hamas are not directly adjudicated in the same venue. Critics argue that this imbalance could weaken perceptions of impartiality and make compliance even less likely. The I.C.J.’s refusal to order a ceasefire also illustrates a contradiction within the response. Without halting military operations, the Court’s orders to protect civilians and ensure humanitarian access are difficult to implement. As Time and Reuters reported, this has caused frustration among observers who believe the I.C.J.’s measures are insufficient to prevent further harm. Finally, the case has had unintended diplomatic consequences. It has deepened political divisions between nations supporting Israel and those supporting Palestine. Israeli officials have dismissed South Africa’s case as baseless and politically motivated, accusing Pretoria of exploiting the term “genocide” to delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense.

According to the Times of Israel, the legal Adviser for Israel’s Foreign Ministry said at the opening of the second day hearings that South Africa brought “a grossly distorted story”. In turn, this rhetoric has polarized international diplomacy, making it harder for mediators to achieve consensus on humanitarian pauses or reconstruction efforts. As a result, while the I.C.J. case is a landmark in international law, its practical effects on the ground have so far been minimal. The problem persists because the international community lacks both the mechanisms and the unity to enforce the I.C.J.’s orders or to create conditions conducive to peace.

To move beyond the current stalemate, the international community must adopt a more integrated approach that links legal accountability with immediate humanitarian relief and long-term conflict resolution. Relying solely on the I.C.J. will not be enough. The first step should be the creation of a hybrid accountability and humanitarian task force composed of representatives from states party to the Genocide Convention, United Nations agencies, human rights organisations, and neutral legal experts. This body would monitor Israel’s compliance with the I.C.J.’s provisional measures, document violations, and coordinate humanitarian assistance directly to Gaza. Importantly, the task force should have the authority to publish regular compliance reports and recommend tangible actions, such as temporary sanctions or arms embargoes, if obligations are breached.

By combining humanitarian oversight with legal monitoring, the international community could close the gap between the I.C.J.’s orders and their enforcement, ensuring that legal principles are matched by practical implementation. In addition, any long-term resolution must confront the underlying political and security dynamics that perpetuate the conflict. This requires addressing Israel’s security concerns, Hamas’s role as a governing entity, and the long-standing blockade and occupation that have crippled Gaza’s economy and infrastructure.

A restructured diplomatic framework under U.N. supervision could establish phased agreements that link Israel’s legitimate security needs with the gradual easing of the blockade and the reconstruction of Gaza. International observers should be deployed to monitor civilian protection, document violations, and facilitate humanitarian corridors. Such a framework would balance the legal imperatives of the I.C.J. case with the political realities on the ground, moving from punitive measures to constructive solutions.

Finally, the strategy should include an incentive-and-compliance system that combines diplomatic rewards and penalties. States could offer reconstruction funding, economic cooperation, and normalisation incentives to Israel, contingent upon verifiable improvements in humanitarian conditions and reductions in civilian casualties. Conversely, persistent violations of international law could trigger targeted sanctions, suspension of arms sales, or restrictions on diplomatic privileges. This dual approach of carrots and sticks would encourage compliance while maintaining international accountability. This proposal differs from the current response in several crucial ways. It does not depend solely on the slow and often unenforceable processes of international adjudication. Instead, it introduces mechanisms for real-time monitoring, humanitarian action, and political engagement. It also acknowledges that lasting peace cannot be achieved through legal rulings alone but requires coordinated efforts that integrate security, justice, and human welfare. By linking accountability with tangible improvements in the lives of civilians, this approach could transform the I.C.J. case from a symbolic gesture into a catalyst for meaningful change. In doing so, the international community would reaffirm that justice and humanity can coexist even in the most intractable conflicts.