Victory: ICJ orders Israel to stop Rafah attack, allow humanitarian aid, and give genocide investigators access

This is the UN's International Court of Justice's response to South Africa's request for urgent measures to stop Israeli aggression against Palestine.

Today, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) acknowledged that the situation in Gaza has deteriorated. Consequently, it ruled in favour of South Africa’s request for urgent measures against Israel.

This is the press release.

Request for the modification of the Order of 28 March 2024

The Court reaffirms its previous provisional measures and indicates new measures

THE HAGUE, 24 May 2024. The International Court of Justice today delivered its Order on the request for the modification and the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa on 10 May 2024 in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

In its Order, the Court:

“(1) By thirteen votes to two,

Reaffirms the provisional measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, which should be immediately and effectively implemented;

• IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

• AGAINST : Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(2) Indicates the following provisional measures:

The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by civilians in the Rafah Governorate:

(a) By thirteen votes to two,

Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

• IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

• AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(b) By thirteen votes to two,

Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance;

• IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

• AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(c) By thirteen votes to two,

Take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide;

• IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

• AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(3) By thirteen votes to two,

Decides that the State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.

• IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

• AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.”

___________

Vice-President SEBUTINDE appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court;

Judges NOLTE , AURESCU and TLADI append declarations to the Order of the Court;

Judge ad hoc BARAK appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court.

___________

In its Order, the Court emphasizes that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip which, as stated in its Order of 26 January 2024, was at serious risk of deteriorating, has deteriorated, and has done so even further since the Court adopted its Order of 28 March 2024. It notes that

“[a]fter weeks of intensification of military bombardments of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians had fled as a result of Israeli evacuation orders covering more than three quarters of Gaza’s entire territory, on 6 May 2024, nearly 100,000 Palestinians were ordered by Israel to evacuate the eastern portion of Rafah and relocate to the Al-Mawasi and Khan Younis areas ahead of a planned military offensive.

The military ground offensive in Rafah, which Israel started on 7 May 2024, is still ongoing and has led to new evacuation orders. As a result, according to United Nations reports, nearly 800,000 people have been displaced from Rafah as at 18 May 2024.”

The Court considers that these developments are exceptionally grave and constitute “a change in the situation within the meaning of Article 76 of the Rules of Court”. The Court is also of the view that the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 28 March 2024, as well as those reaffirmed therein, do not fully address the consequences arising from the change in the situation, thus justifying the modification of these measures.

The Court further considers that, on the basis of the information before it, the immense risks associated with a military offensive in Rafah have started to materialize and will intensify even further if the operation continues. In addition, the Court is

“not convinced that the evacuation efforts and related measures that Israel affirms to have undertaken to enhance the security of civilians in the Gaza Strip, and in particular those recently displaced from the Rafah Governorate, are sufficient to alleviate the immense risk to which the Palestinian population is exposed as a result of the military offensive in Rafah”.

___________

A summary of the Order appears in the document entitled “Summary 2024/6”, to which summaries of the opinions and declarations are annexed. This summary and the full text of the Order are available on the case page on the Court’s website.

Ends.

Note

The dissenting judges were Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) and Aharon Barak (Israel).