South Africa filed its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice on 29 December 2023 under the Genocide Convention. The Court issued provisional measures on 26 January 2024 and modified or added measures on 28 March and 24 May 2024. Those orders did not decide that genocide had occurred: the case remains pending, and the Court has not ruled on the merits.
What the January order did
At the provisional-measures stage, the Court considered whether it had prima facie jurisdiction, whether some rights claimed under the Convention were plausible, and whether there was urgency and a risk of irreparable prejudice before a final decision. It ordered Israel to take measures within its power to prevent acts within Article II, prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, enable urgently needed humanitarian assistance, preserve evidence, and report back within one month. It also ordered that the measures apply to the parties and called for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages held by Hamas and other armed groups.
The Court did not make a finding that Israel had committed genocide, nor did it order a general ceasefire in January. The distinctions are explicit in the Court’s March 2024 order, which recounted the January conclusions: some rights were plausible and the measures were intended to preserve them pending adjudication.
Why the Court issued later orders
On 28 March, the Court pointed to changed conditions and ordered additional measures concerning the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale. On 24 May, it ordered Israel to halt its military offensive, and any other action in Rafah Governorate, that could inflict on the group in Gaza conditions of life capable of bringing about its physical destruction in whole or in part; to keep the Rafah crossing open for aid; and to allow access for UN-mandated investigative bodies. It reaffirmed the earlier measures. The exact wording matters: the Rafah measure was part of a provisional order, not a final determination of liability.
Read the 24 May order alongside the 28 March order. Both address urgent interim protection; neither resolves the underlying factual and legal allegations.
What remains undecided
The central merits questions include whether prohibited acts under Article II occurred and whether they were committed with the specific intent the Convention requires. Those questions require the written pleadings, evidence and a final judgment. The ICJ’s case docket shows the later written proceedings and procedural orders. An interim order does not pronounce either side guilty; it imposes binding measures while the Court considers the case.
For the treaty’s definition and intent requirement, see the Convention’s text and legal test. For evidence relevant to claims of intent, see the record on civilian harm mitigation measures.