The International Court of Justice’s Dual Rulings on the Israel-Gaza Conflict: January and May 2024

A Chronology of ICJ-Related Developments

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued two landmark provisional rulings regarding the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, each marking a escalation in legal and humanitarian scrutiny. The proceedings stem from a case filed by South Africa in December 2023, accusing Israel of genocidal intent in Gaza. Since then, the court has delivered judgments that are legally binding but lack direct enforcement mechanisms, relying instead on political pressure and Security Council action.

• December 2023: South Africa files a case with the ICJ accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza; the case remains ongoing.
• January 26, 2024: The ICJ delivers a preliminary ruling in the genocide case brought by South Africa.
• May 17–20, 2024: South African application prompts the ICJ to issue an urgent plea regarding the Rafah offensive.
• May 24, 2024: The ICJ presiding Judge Nawaf Salam delivers a ruling ordering an immediate halt to the Rafah military offensive.

January 26, 2024: Preliminary Genocide Ruling – Measures and Reactions

On January 26, 2024, the ICJ issued its first major provisional judgment in the genocide case, described by observers as an “overwhelming rebuke of Israel's wartime conduct.” Presiding Judge Joan Donoghue outlined six specific provisional measures, though the court stopped short of ordering a cease-fire in Gaza.

The ruling commanded Israel to “do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza.” Additional measures included allowing humanitarian aid at scale, preventing inflammatory speech, and submitting reports on compliance within one month. Israeli judge Aharon Barak supported two of the orders: those concerning humanitarian aid and the prevention of dehumanizing rhetoric.

The ICJ expressed being “deeply concerned about continuing loss of life and human suffering.” At the time, the Gaza Health Ministry reported approximately 26,000 Palestinians killed since the outbreak of hostlines on October 7, 2023, with about two-thirds of the deceased identified as women and children. The court noted that at least one-quarter of Gaza’s population was facing starvation. The Israeli military asserted that at least 9,000 of the approximately 26,000 killed were Hamas militants.

International reactions were swift. The U.S. State Department stated that allegations of genocide were “unfounded” but urged Israel to “take all possible steps” to minimize civilian harm, increase aid deliveries, and curb dehumanizing rhetoric. UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized that the rulings were “legally binding” and expressed trust that Israel would comply, including “to take all measures within its power” to prevent the destruction of the Palestinian people. Hamas welcomed the ruling but was also called upon by the court to release remaining Israeli hostages. The UN Security Council scheduled a follow-up meeting to address the ruling’s implementation. Notably, Israel, which has historically boycotted international tribunals, sent a high-level legal team to participate, signaling the perceived seriousness of the proceedings.

May 24, 2024: Urgent Ruling on Rafah Offensive – “Disaster” and Explicit Orders

Nearly four months later, the ICJ returned with a ruling dated May 24, 2024, delivered by Presiding Judge Nawaf Salam. This judgment was notably more direct in its language regarding the Israeli military operation in Rafah, the southernmost governorate of the Gaza Strip.

Judge Salam stated: “Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate which could bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians.” The court further ordered Israel to allow unimpeded access to Gaza for any UN body investigating allegations of genocide, and to enable the “unhindered provision at scale” of basic services and humanitarian aid. The tribunal characterized the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “now to be characterised as disastrous.”

The ruling also addressed the status of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, stating the court “found it deeply troubling that Israeli hostages were still being held by Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza, and called for their immediate and unconditional release.” This marked the second ICJ ruling to invoke the hostage issue, reinforcing earlier appeals.

Israeli leadership rejected the ruling outright. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, and War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz vowed to continue military operations “wherever and whenever necessary – including in Rafah,” asserting that the offensive was essential to dismantle remaining Hamas battalions and rescue captives. The Israeli military had begun the Rafah offensive approximately three weeks prior, around May 7, 2024, and claimed to have facilitated the evacuation of an estimated 1 million people, though over 800,000 Palestinians had fled the area by the time of the ruling. The government maintained that it had made “extensive efforts” to ensure humanitarian aid flowed into Gaza, a claim contested by on-the-ground agencies.

The United Nations suspended food distribution in Rafah on May 21, citing the perilous situation there; aid agencies reported that rotten eggs were being disposed of among aid packages, and the Rafah crossing with Egypt remained largely closed to commercial and humanitarian traffic. The ICJ explicitly ordered Israel to keep the Rafah crossing open, emphasizing that the humanitarian situation had reached a disaster threshold. Prior to the offensive, roughly 1.5 million people were sheltering in Rafah having been displaced from other parts of Gaza. By May 24, the population in the area had been significantly compressed, with aid access severely constrained.

International responses were mixed. South Africa’s foreign ministry chief Zane Dangor called the ruling “groundbreaking,” alluding to it as the first time the court had issued an explicit order to Israel to halt action in a specific part of Gaza. The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, expressed discomfort with the “compatibility” of the bloc’s commitment to the rule of law and its support for Israel. Hamas welcomed the decision, demanding that Israel stop its aggression in Rafah. The Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, hailed the ruling as a step toward implementation of international law, noting that Israel is a party to the Genocide Convention.

Trends and Figures: From January to May 2024

The period between the two rulings witnessed stark quantitative shifts in the conflict’s human and material toll.

Casualty figures more than increased by roughly 10,000. While the January 26 estimate stood at approximately 26,000 Palestinians killed, the Ministry of Health in Gaza reported at least 35,800 deaths by May 24, 2024, though these figures do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Displacement patterns also shifted: by January 26, nearly 85 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million inhabitants had been forced from their homes. By May 24, over 800,000 had fled Rafah specifically since the offensive began, joining an estimated 1.5 million who had already sought refuge there from earlier fighting.

The humanitarian crisis deepened markedly. In January, at least one-quarter of the Gaza population faced starvation; by May, UN suspension of food distribution in Rafah, the discovery of rotten eggs in aid parcels, and a closed crossing illustrated how quickly aid corridors were collapsing. Israeli officials continued to cite “extensive efforts” to facilitate aid, but the ICJ’s characterization of the situation as “disastrous” underscored the growing gap between stated policies and on-the-ground reality.

The issue of Israeli hostages remained constant across both rulings. The ICJ called for their “immediate and unconditional release” in both the January and May judgments, reflecting the court’s attempt to balance its genocide prevention mandate with the broader humanitarian concern of captives held by Hamas since October 7.

Stances of Key Parties

The two ICJ rulings laid bare the stark divide between the parties involved and their respective allies.

Israel has consistently denied genocidal intent, maintaining that its military operations are conducted in accordance with international law and are necessary for self-defense following the October 7 attacks. The Israeli government has argued that it takes extensive measures to minimize civilian harm and facilitate aid, though these claims have been repeatedly challenged by UN bodies and humanitarian organizations. The rejection of the May 24 ruling by senior officials underscores a policy of strategic defiance, with the military vowing to press forward in Rafah regardless of international judicial directives.

South Africa, the original complainant, has framed the ICJ proceedings as a matter of accountability and prevention. Officials, including Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor, have stated that the allegation of genocide is “getting stronger and stronger by the day,” framing the court’s rulings as necessary checks on state conduct. South Africa’s continued engagement with the case signals its intent to pursue not only interim protections but a full adjudication of the genocide claim, a process that could span years.

Hamas has generally welcomed the ICJ’s procedural gestures, particularly the calls for cease-fire and hostage release, while maintaining its position that the resistance is a response to occupation and blockade. The group continues to hold an unknown number of Israeli captives, a factor the ICJ has repeatedly invoked as part of its broader humanitarian calculus.

The United States has walked a careful line. The State Department has rejected the genocide characterization as unfounded while urging Israel to “take all possible steps” to protect civilians, increase aid, and cease dehumanizing rhetoric. The ICJ’s rulings have created diplomatic friction, even as the U.S. remains a key security and political partner of Israel.

The European Union and individual European diplomats have expressed varying degrees of concern. Josep Borrell’s comment highlighted the tension within the EU between solidarity with Israel and adherence to international legal principles. Other European governments have cautiously supported the ICJ’s role while reiterating calls for humanitarian access and compliance with international law.

The ICJ itself operates under the Genocide Convention, of which both Israel and South Africa are signatories. The court’s jurisdiction in this matter is thus grounded in treaty obligations. However, the ICJ has no police force or incarceration capacity; its rulings are legally binding under international law but rely on the political will of member states, particularly those seated on the UN Security Council, for enforcement. The court’s dual role—as both a legal arbiter and a platform for diplomatic signaling—has been evident in the varying receptions of its rulings across the global arena.

Legal and Operational Notes

The procedural posture of the ICJ in this conflict reflects both the strengths and limitations of the international judicial system. The court’s jurisdiction derives from the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which Israel and South Africa are both parties. This legal foundation enables the ICJ to issue provisional measures designed to prevent irreparable harm while a full case is adjudicated—a process that can take years.

The January and May 2024 rulings represent interim protective orders, not final judgments. As such, they are part of a broader strategy by South Africa to establish a factual and legal record of alleged genocidal intent, while pressuring Israel to alter its conduct in real time. The court’s emphasis on humanitarian access, prevention of inflammatory speech, and the cessation of specific military operations reflects its attempt to mitigate civilian harm without precipitating a total breakdown of the judicial process.

Enforcement remains the central challenge. The ICJ’s statute provides that parties must comply with its rulings, and that any dispute regarding compliance can be referred to the UN Security Council. However, the Security Council’s permanent members, including the United States, hold veto power, which has historically limited the council’s ability to act decisively in situations involving its allies. Consequently, compliance with ICJ rulings often depends on bilateral pressure, civil society advocacy, and the willingness of non-party states to impose consequences.

The ICJ’s proceedings exist alongside, but are distinct from, those of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In May 2024, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders—Mohamed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh, and Mohammed Sinwar—on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That process operates under a different legal framework, focusing on individual criminal responsibility rather than state-level genocidal intent. The coexistence of these two judicial mechanisms underscores the multifaceted legal accountability efforts surrounding the Gaza conflict.

As the ICJ case continues, the January and May 2024 rulings stand as significant, albeit partial, manifestations of international judicial engagement in one of the most consequential humanitarian crises of the 21st century. Their impact will likely be measured not only in immediate policy shifts but in the longer-term legal and political landscapes they help shape.