South Africa alleges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza breaches the Genocide Convention, which Israel denies. The Court indicated provisional measures three times in 2024, and the case is now in the written merits phase. South Africa’s Reply is due on November 22, 2027, and Israel’s Rejoinder on May 22, 2029.
Latest development Sep 18, 2026
On September 18, 2026, Colombia informed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that it was withdrawing the Article 63 declaration of intervention it filed in April 2024. The withdrawal followed a change of government in Colombia that restored its ties with Israel. The written merits phase continues, with South Africa’s Reply due on November 22, 2027.
Why it matters
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will decide whether Israel’s military conduct in Gaza breaches the Genocide Convention and engages Israel’s state responsibility. Its reading of the Convention matters to both parties and to the many states that have sought to intervene.
Background
South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on December 29, 2023. It alleges that Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip breaches the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The campaign followed the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. South Africa asked the Court to indicate provisional measures and, ultimately, to find Israel responsible for genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel denies the allegations, argues that it is exercising its right to self-defense against Hamas, and contests both the Court’s jurisdiction and the plausibility of South Africa’s claims.
After hearings on January 11 and 12, 2024, the Court found on January 26, 2024, that it was plausible that Israel’s conduct could violate Palestinians’ rights under the Genocide Convention. It indicated provisional measures requiring Israel to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish incitement, preserve evidence, and report back to the Court. On South Africa’s further requests, the Court ordered Israel on March 28, 2024, to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access amid famine conditions. On May 24, 2024, by 13 votes to 2, it ordered Israel to halt its offensive in the Rafah Governorate. None of these orders determines the merits, and Israel’s compliance has remained contested.
Numerous states have sought to intervene, filing applications or declarations under Articles 62 and 63 of the Court’s Statute. They included Nicaragua, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, Türkiye, Chile, the Maldives, Bolivia, Cuba, Ireland, and Belize. The Comoros, Belgium, Paraguay, the Netherlands, Iceland, Namibia, the United States, Hungary, and Fiji filed declarations later, between October 2025 and March 2026. Israel appointed the late Aharon Barak as judge ad hoc and, after his resignation in July 2024, Ron Shapira. South Africa appointed Dikgang Moseneke. On September 18, 2026, Colombia withdrew its April 2024 declaration, after a change of government restored its ties with Israel.
On April 5, 2024, the Court fixed October 28, 2024, for South Africa’s Memorial on the merits and July 28, 2025, for Israel’s Counter-Memorial. South Africa filed its Memorial on October 28, 2024. Israel received successive extensions, the last of which the Court’s president granted on October 20, 2025, citing evidentiary issues over hyperlinked documents in the Memorial. Israel filed its Counter-Memorial on March 12, 2026. On May 21, 2026, after a procedural meeting on April 29, 2026, the Court fixed November 22, 2027, for South Africa’s Reply and May 22, 2029, for Israel’s Rejoinder.
Timeline 24 events
-
OrderColombia withdraws its declaration of intervention
Colombia informed the Court it was withdrawing the Article 63 declaration it filed in April 2024, following a change of government that restored ties with Israel.
ICJ Press Release: Colombia withdraws its Declaration of interventionColombia withdraws from South Africa's ICJ lawsuit against Israel, court says
-
FilingSouth Africa files non-compliance dossier with ICJ
South Africa submitted a dossier to the ICJ’s Article 11 committee monitoring provisional measures, alleging that Israel has failed to comply with the Court’s three provisional measures orders. The filing was made under the Court’s Rules concerning Internal Judicial Practice rather than as a new request for measures.
South Africa submits dossier to the ICJ on Israel’s non-compliance with Provisional Measures OrdersSouth Africa submits dossier to ICJ over Israel's non-compliance with provisional measuresSA submits dossier to ICJ over Israel's "non-compliance" in GazaSouth Africa files dossier alleging Israel’s continued breaches of ICJ orders
-
OrderCourt sets 2027 and 2029 deadlines for Reply and Rejoinder
The order fixed November 22, 2027, for South Africa’s Reply and May 22, 2029, for Israel’s Rejoinder. It followed a procedural meeting on April 29, 2026.
-
OrderCourt president meets parties on procedural timetable
Representatives of South Africa and Israel met with the Court’s president in The Hague to discuss the next procedural steps, leading to the May 2026 scheduling order.
-
FilingNamibia, U.S., Hungary, and Fiji file declarations of intervention
The four states each filed declarations under Article 63 of the Court’s Statute on the same day Israel submitted its Counter-Memorial.
Four States File Declarations of Intervention in South Africa v. Israel
-
FilingIsrael files Counter-Memorial
Israel submitted its written Counter-Memorial responding to South Africa’s Memorial by the extended deadline.
-
FilingNetherlands and Iceland file declarations of intervention
Both states invoked Article 63 to intervene shortly before Israel’s Counter-Memorial deadline.
ICJ: Declarations of intervention filed by the Netherlands and by Iceland
-
FilingParaguay files declaration of intervention
Paraguay filed a declaration of intervention under Article 63, and South Africa and Israel were invited to submit written observations on it.
-
FilingBelgium files declaration of intervention
Belgium sought to intervene under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, joining a growing list of states seeking a role in the Court’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention.
-
FilingComoros files declaration of intervention
The Comoros invoked Article 63 of the ICJ Statute to file a declaration of intervention in the proceedings.
ICJ Press Release: The Comoros files a declaration of intervention
-
OrderCourt extends Israel’s Counter-Memorial deadline to March 2026
The President of the Court granted Israel a further extension, citing unresolved evidentiary issues over hyperlinked documents in South Africa’s Memorial.
ICJ grants Israel another extension to respond in genocide case brought by South AfricaSAI Order of 20 October 2025
-
FilingIreland files declaration of intervention
Ireland became one of more than 10 states to seek to intervene under Article 63, following Türkiye, Chile, Bolivia, and others in 2024.
-
FilingSouth Africa files Memorial on the merits
South Africa submitted its Memorial, reportedly with extensive evidentiary material, by the Court’s October 28, 2024, deadline.
-
OtherBarak resigns as Israel’s judge ad hoc and Israel names Shapira
Aharon Barak resigned for personal reasons, and Israel named Ron Shapira as his successor.
Prof. who called ICJ 'unworthy of any trust' tapped as Israel's judge in genocide case
-
FilingState of Palestine files declaration of intervention
The government of the State of Palestine filed the declaration in support of South Africa’s application.
-
FilingMexico files declaration of intervention
Mexico filed a declaration seeking to intervene under Article 63, the same day the Court ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive.
-
OtherCourt orders Israel to halt Rafah offensive
By 13 votes to 2, the Court reaffirmed its earlier measures. It also ordered Israel to halt any action that could inflict conditions bringing about the Palestinian group’s physical destruction.
-
FilingLibya files declaration of intervention
Libya became one of the early third states to seek to intervene under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, invoking its status as a party to the Genocide Convention.
Libya files a declaration of intervention in the proceedings under Article 63 of the Statute
-
OrderCourt fixes deadlines for Memorial and Counter-Memorial
The Court set October 28, 2024, for South Africa’s Memorial and July 28, 2025, for Israel’s Counter-Memorial.
-
OtherCourt orders further measures over Gaza famine risk
On South Africa’s renewed request, the Court reaffirmed its prior order and required Israel to ensure unimpeded provision of humanitarian aid amid famine conditions.
The ICJ's Second Order on Provisional Measures in the South Africa v. Israel Case
-
FilingNicaragua files request to intervene under Article 63
Nicaragua sought to join the case over the interpretation of the Genocide Convention. Many other states later filed their own requests or declarations.
-
OtherCourt indicates first provisional measures
The Court found it plausible that Israel’s acts could violate Palestinians’ rights under the Genocide Convention and ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts and preserve evidence, among other measures.
Gaza: Israel must implement Provisional Measures ordered by the ICJ
-
HearingCourt holds hearings on provisional measures request
The ICJ held two days of public hearings at the Peace Palace on South Africa’s request for provisional measures.
-
FilingSouth Africa files application instituting proceedings
South Africa lodged its application against Israel alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza and requested provisional measures.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill South Africa file its Reply on the merits by the November 22, 2027, deadline fixed by the International Court of Justice?
- South Africa files Reply on schedule70%
- Still pending on January 31, 202821%
- Deadline extended, Reply filed late6%
- South Africa discontinues the case3%
- Resolves by
- Jan 31, 2028in 15 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
South Africa is most likely to file its Reply by the November 22, 2027, deadline (70%). It met its Memorial deadline, and the Court gave it an unusually long 18 months after a procedural meeting both parties attended. The main risk is an extension tied to the volume of Israel’s Counter-Memorial or evidentiary disputes.
How it resolves. Resolved from ICJ press releases, orders, and the case docket. “Files on schedule” if the Court records South Africa’s Reply as filed on or before November 22, 2027. “Filed late after extension” if the Court extends the deadline and the Reply is filed after November 22, 2027, but on or before January 31, 2028. “Discontinues the case” if South Africa notifies discontinuance under Article 88 or 89 of the Rules of Court before filing. “Still pending” if none of these has occurred by January 31, 2028, including where an extension runs past that date.
Reasoning
Starting point. Applicant states’ second-round written pleadings (Replies) in contentious ICJ cases: Most ICJ Replies are filed on the fixed or first extended date. Roughly a quarter of second-round deadlines are extended at least once, and discontinuances by applicants in active merits cases are rare, under 5%.
No merits judgment is realistic within 36 months, since Israel’s Rejoinder is due May 22, 2029, and hearings would follow. The Reply is the next scheduled step that moves the case. The base rate for ICJ applicants meeting second-round deadlines is fairly high, with perhaps a quarter of deadlines extended. South Africa filed its Memorial on time in October 2024 and remains politically committed, as its August 2026 non-compliance dossier shows. The 18-month period was fixed after consultation, which reduces the need for later extensions. Against that, the evidentiary disputes over hyperlinked documents that delayed Israel’s Counter-Memorial could recur, and the growing number of Article 63 declarations may add procedural work. Discontinuance is a long shot, given South Africa’s investment and the reputational cost of withdrawing. The leading alternative is an extension that pushes filing past January 31, 2028. The previous forecast asked the same question one day ago, and nothing in the record since then justifies moving any outcome, so the numbers are unchanged.
South Africa met its Memorial deadline in October 2024 · Long 18-month period set after party consultation · Possible repeat of evidentiary disputes over documents · Rising number of Article 63 declarations adds procedural load · South Africa’s continuing political commitment to the case
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 27, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made
What it would mean
If South Africa files its Reply on schedule, no money changes hands and no balance sheet moves. The main cost is South Africa’s own legal spending. That spending passed R130 million, or over $7M, by 2025 and is paid for through Treasury special appropriations. An on-time Reply keeps the three provisional measures orders in force. It also keeps the case on track for Israel’s Rejoinder on May 22, 2029. Merits hearings, and any finding on state responsibility or reparation, would come only after that.
Discontinuance, at 3%, is the outcome with the largest consequences. It would end the case, and the provisional measures orders that campaigners cite against arms suppliers would likely fall away with it. It would also remove one of the grievances cited in the February 2025 U.S. executive order that cut aid to South Africa. U.S. aid to South Africa totaled nearly $440M in 2023. In September 2026, South Africa’s foreign minister gave no sign that Pretoria would drop the case to ease U.S. pressure. An extension, at 6%, would delay the timetable without changing the money picture.
Money, who pays, markets and what to watch
Two steps ahead. The case’s financial weight sits outside the courtroom. If Washington links aid or trade terms to the case, the November 22, 2027, Reply date becomes a natural point to bargain over delay or discontinuance. Discontinuance would likely end the provisional measures that campaigners use against arms suppliers. Israel raised jurisdiction in its Counter-Memorial, not as a preliminary objection. So jurisdiction and merits will likely be heard together, which pushes any reparations phase further out.
Who pays
- South African taxpayers fund the case. Treasury special appropriations of R95 million in 2024 and another R37 million in 2025 took total spending past R130 million, or over $7M.[1][2][3]
- Israel pays its own defense costs, and it has not disclosed them. It faces no money claim unless a merits judgment finds it responsible and a separate reparations phase follows.
- Each intervening state pays its own costs. Under Article 63, the Court’s reading of the Genocide Convention in its judgment will bind every state that intervenes.
Markets
- No listed company has disclosed exposure to this case or booked a reserve for it. Both parties are states, and neither pays as a commercial party.
- South African exports faced a 30% U.S. reciprocal tariff in 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in February 2026, and a 10% levy replaced it and was later raised to 15%. The tariffs followed wider policy disputes, not this case alone.[4]
- South Africa’s Reserve Bank said U.S. tariffs had significantly cut export volumes. Vehicles and parts, now charged a 25% duty, were hit hardest, along with steel and aluminum at 50%.[4]
Collecting
- South Africa seeks a finding of state responsibility, not a quantified award. Any compensation would need a separate phase after a merits judgment, and that judgment cannot come before Israel’s Rejoinder on May 22, 2029.
- ICJ judgments bind the parties, but the Court has no enforcement arm. A party can take non-compliance to the UN Security Council, where any permanent member can veto action.
- South Africa has already used the Court’s internal monitoring route. On August 25, 2026, it filed a non-compliance dossier with the Article 11 committee instead of asking for new measures.
Beyond the parties
- The U.S. executive order of February 2025 cut aid to South Africa. It cited this case alongside a land expropriation law and ties with Iran. U.S. aid to South Africa totaled nearly $440M in 2023.[5]
- In September 2026, as U.S. pressure grew, Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola gave no sign that South Africa would withdraw or dilute the case. South Africa may also be left out of the U.S.-hosted G20 summit.[6]
- Arms-export challenges reach defense supply chains. In October 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court overturned a February 2024 ban on F-35 parts exports to Israel and ordered the government to reassess the export authorization.[7]
- A related ICJ case brought by Nicaragua alleges that Germany aided Israel’s conduct through arms transfers. Germany withdrew its plan to intervene in this case before the March 2026 filing deadline.[8]
- Interventions follow domestic politics. Colombia withdrew its declaration on September 18, 2026, after a change of government, which leaves fewer states bound by the Court’s eventual reading of the Convention.[9]
What to watch
- Late 2026The Article 11 committee acts on South Africa’s non-compliance dossier of August 25, 2026
- Late 2026The U.S.-hosted G20 summit shows whether U.S.-South African relations, strained partly by this case, are easing[6]
- Nov 22, 2027South Africa’s Reply on the merits is due[10]
- May 22, 2029Israel’s Rejoinder is due, which closes the written phase before hearings on jurisdiction and merits[10]
Sources
- DA questions govt’s more than R130m expenditure on case against Israel at ICJ ewn.co.za · 2025-09-10
- South Africa allocates millions for ICJ case against Israel, SA Zionist Federation condemns jpost.com · 2025-03-19
- Treasury finds R95 million for SA’s genocide case against Israel mg.co.za · 2024-10-30
- Reserve Bank says Trump’s tariffs have significantly cut SA exports to the U.S. businessday.co.za · 2026-04-01
- Trump Order Cuts Aid For South Africa Over Land Law, Genocide Case Against Israel rferl.org · 2025-02-08
- Lamola refuses policy retreat as U.S. pressure intensifies mg.co.za · 2026-09-24
- Dutch Supreme Court Orders Executive Branch to Reassess Export of F-35 Parts to Israel in Light of International Obligations opiniojuris.org · 2025-10-08
- Warfare and Lawfare: South Africa’s ICJ Case Against Israel orfonline.org · 2026-04-01
- Press release: Colombia withdraws its Declaration of intervention (South Africa v. Israel) icj-cij.org · 2026-09-22
- Presidency notes ICJ order of 21 May 2026 on the matter between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel thepresidency.gov.za · 2026-06-02
Experimental AI analysis by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 27, 2026, built on the forecast above from this case’s record and public sources found by the model’s own web search. Figures are estimates as of the dates shown, and shares of value are computed by the site from the figures cited. Published without editorial review. Nothing here predicts the price of any security or is investment advice. How it is made