Iceland and the Netherlands have filed requests to intervene in the genocide case that South Africa brought against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, according to a report by Genocide Watch.

The two European states join a growing group of countries seeking to participate in the proceedings, which South Africa instituted under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention) over Israel's military operations in Gaza.

Under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, a state party to a multilateral convention at issue in a case may intervene in the proceedings. When the construction of the Genocide Convention is at issue, any party to that treaty has a right to intervene, and the court is bound to admit the intervention. States may also seek permission to intervene under Article 62, which allows a state with an interest of a legal nature in the outcome of the case to submit a request that the court permit its intervention.

The intervention filings by Iceland and the Netherlands signal that additional parties to the Genocide Convention want their positions on the treaty's construction placed before the court as the case proceeds on the merits.

For practitioners, the development matters for several reasons. First, each intervention adds a layer of written and oral procedure to an already complex docket. Intervening states file written statements setting out their interpretation of the Genocide Convention, and the parties to the case — South Africa and Israel — must respond to those constructions in their own pleadings. Second, interveners under Article 63 gain access to the written pleadings and documents filed in the case, subject to conditions set by the court. Third, the positions taken by intervening states can influence how the court frames the substantive legal questions, including the standard of proof for intent to destroy a protected group and the scope of obligations to prevent and punish genocide.

The case, brought by South Arabia... rather, South Africa, remains at the stage of proceedings on the merits, following earlier orders by the court on provisional measures under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute.

The ICJ has not yet ruled on the requests by Iceland and the Netherlands. If the court admits the interventions, the two states will become parties to the proceedings in respect of the construction of the Genocide Convention, though they will not become parties to the dispute itself. That distinction limits their procedural role: interveners may present arguments on the treaty's interpretation but cannot seek relief.

The report by Genocide Watch announcing the filings does not state the precise date on which each request was lodged with the court's registry, nor the treaty basis — Article 62 or Article 63 — on which each state relies. Earlier interventions by other states in the same case have invoked both provisions, and the court has previously admitted Nicaragua's declaration of intervention under Article 63.

Practitioners monitoring the case should watch for the court's orders on admissibility, which typically set time-limits for written statements by interveners and for observations by the parties. Those orders will determine the procedural schedule for the next phase of the merits proceedings.