The International Court of Justice has issued three Provisional Measures Orders in South Africa v. Israel, and a new legal analysis argues that the moment has come to enforce them.

South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel on 29 December, invoking Articles 36(1) and 40 of the Statute of the Court and Article 38 of the Rules of Court. The application alleged breaches of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and included a request for provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute to protect the rights invoked from imminent and irreparable loss. Since then, the Court has issued three Orders on provisional measures, the most recent dated 24 May 2024.

The report, completed in mid-September 2025, offers an in-depth analysis of the three Orders together with each individual and minority opinion issued by the judges in the proceedings. It examines the content and scope of Israel's ongoing obligations under the Orders, their impact on third States and corporations, and the urgency of immediate enforcement.

The surrounding legal landscape

Since the 24 May 2024 Order, close to a dozen reports by United Nations bodies and experts have addressed Israel's commission of international crimes in the Gaza Strip. These include reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 and a legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Genocide Convention by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.

In July 2024, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court confirmed the illegality of Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and affirmed that Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activities, evacuate all settlers and fully withdraw from the entirety of the OPT as rapidly as possible.

A further Advisory Opinion, on the Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, was requested in December 2024. That request responds to Israel's continued targeting of UN personnel, premises and aid workers. The International Criminal Court, meanwhile, has issued arrest warrants charging Israel's Prime Minister and former Minister of Defence with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Despite these developments, the analysis finds that the international community and individual States have failed to enforce international law, including the binding provisional measures indicated by the Court. Instead, the report contends, they have provided Israel with diplomatic cover and the financial and material means to continue its operations in Gaza.

The report also documents measures taken against accountability institutions. By September 2025, the United States had sanctioned the ICC Prosecutor, six ICC Judges, two ICC Deputy Prosecutors, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and three leading Palestinian human rights organisations: Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

On the humanitarian situation, the report cites the World Food Programme's Director of Emergencies, who warned that conditions in Gaza are "unlike anything we have seen in this century". Escalating ground incursions and what the analysis describes as clear preparatory steps to permanently occupy the Gaza Strip, alongside a vast body of evidence of non-compliance with the Court's rulings, necessitate revisiting and finally enforcing the provisional measures ordered in South Africa v. Israel.

The role of individual opinions

A central focus of the analysis is the judges' individual opinions. Article 57 of the Statute of the Court allows judges to attach individual opinions to judgments and other decisions, including Orders on provisional measures or Advisory Opinions, where the decision does not fully represent their own view. These may take the form of concurring, dissenting or separate opinions, as well as declarations.

The practice originates in the Anglo-Saxon or common law judicial system and features in most international judicial bodies, including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Individual opinions rarely receive explicit endorsement in subsequent cases. Even so, the report notes, they can contribute to the development of international law by influencing future interpretations and the Court's own understanding of complex legal issues. They also shed light on the reasoning behind the judges' votes, which enhances the transparency of the proceedings and facilitates intellectual dialogue within the Court.

Where the bench divides on a key legal question — such as whether there is a plausible risk of genocide, or whether a change in circumstances warrants indicating further provisional measures — individual opinions containing clear, well-substantiated reasoning may proactively reconcile or bridge gaps between divided positions and be availed of in subsequent practice.

Practical significance for practitioners

For practitioners, the analysis offers a consolidated account of the differences and similarities across the three Orders, clarifying the precise content and scope of Israel's ongoing obligations under each. It also addresses obligations extending beyond the parties: State obligations under the Genocide Convention, individual criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide under the Rome Statute, and corporate complicity in genocide. Lawyers advising States, international organisations or companies with exposure to the region will find in the report a mapping of how the Court's provisional measures interact with these wider frameworks of liability. The analysis closes by assessing the Orders' relevance to the current situation in Gaza and arguing for their immediate enforcement.