Timeline and Follow-up on the Genocide Case at the ICJ

The lawsuit filed by South Africa before the International Court of Justice constituted a landmark legal moment, not only because of the gravity of the accusation, but because it reactivated one of the most sensitive international agreements: the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. However, the gravity of this moment lies not only in the issuance of the decision, but in what followed, and we ask two years later: have the Court's orders been left without follow-up, or have they turned into a continuous accountability process? What happened and how do we build on it, and who is responsible?
Phase One: On December 29, 2023, South Africa formally filed its lawsuit before the Court, based on Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which allows any state party to sue another state for breaching the Convention, even if not directly harmed. With this action, the Palestinian issue moved for the first time in decades to the heart of international jurisdiction.
Phase Two: The Court held public hearings on January 11 and 12, 2024, to consider the request for provisional measures. At this stage, the Court was not asked to prove that the crime had occurred, but to assess the existence of a reasonable risk threatening the rights protected under the Convention, and the seriousness of the continued actions subject to the lawsuit. This point was deliberately misunderstood in political and media discourse, as it was portrayed as a “formal stage,” while in reality it is the basis for urgent judicial intervention.
Phase Three: On January 26, 2024, the Court issued its order for provisional measures, and decided that the rights South Africa sought to protect were “plausible and at real risk.” The Court obligated Israel to: take all measures to prevent acts that could constitute genocide, ensure the entry of humanitarian aid and essential services, prevent public and direct incitement to genocide, and submit an official report within one month on compliance procedures. Legally, this decision is binding and not subject to political or selective interpretation.
Phase Four: Since February 2024, indicators of Israeli non-compliance have begun to accumulate through restrictions on aid, the continued expansion of military operations, and the escalation of incitement without accountability. Faced with this reality, many countries joined the case and South Africa returned to the Court, requesting additional measures, especially with the worsening situation in Rafah. New hearings were held on May 16 and 17, 2024, confirming that the case has not been closed, and that the Court retains its jurisdiction as long as the danger persists.
In this timeline, responsibility cannot be limited to the plaintiff state, the Court, or the states that joined the case alone. As a state party to the Genocide Convention, the State of Palestine bears a direct legal obligation to follow up on the implementation of the Court's orders. This means that Palestine's role should not be limited to welcoming decisions, but should include: systematically documenting non-compliance, raising it through legal and diplomatic channels, and explicitly demanding international measures to ensure implementation.
Contentment with a political stance empties international recognition of Palestine of its legal content. For signatory states and recognizing states: a double commitment. More than 150 states have ratified the Genocide Convention. Under it, the obligation is not limited to refraining from committing the crime, but includes preventing it and prosecuting its violation. States that have recognized the State of Palestine bear a double responsibility because they are now called upon to protect it legally. Recognition that is not translated into diplomatic pressure, a review of relations, or public defense of the binding nature of the Court's decisions, turns into a symbolic, ineffective measure.
Justice is a process; the International Court of Justice has not yet issued its final judgment, and that may take years. But the timeline of the case clarifies one fact: international law does not work automatically, but needs states that insist on activating it. The State of Palestine must lead the follow-up process, not merely play the role of a victim. And signatory states, especially those recognizing Palestine, must prove that recognition is a commitment, not a slogan. In this case, dropping the follow-up is dropping accountability, and dropping accountability is undermining rights and the meaning of international justice, and a sign of Israel's continued impunity for daily crimes, which is the main reason for the occupying state's disrespect for any laws or UN resolutions, because it always escapes punishment to the point where it deals with the international system with unprecedented contempt.