The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a pivotal Order on May 21, 2026, establishing new deadlines for written pleadings in the ongoing case
concerning Application of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
This development underscores the Court’s continued engagement with the highly contentious proceedings, setting the stage for further legal arguments and maintaining the pressure on Israel regarding its conduct in Gaza.
Key Procedural Deadlines Established
According to the ICJ’s Order, South Africa is now required to file its Reply to Israel’s written pleading by November 22, 2027. Following this, Israel will have until May 22, 2029, to submit its Rejoinder.
This schedule emerged from a meeting between representatives of the parties and the President of the Court in The Hague on April 29, 2026, convened to discuss the next procedural steps.
This second round of written pleadings, involving a Reply and a Rejoinder, is a common practice in ICJ cases, particularly those brought under the Genocide Convention.
Historically, all previous cases under this convention have included these stages, indicating the Court’s thorough approach to complex international disputes.
Jurisdictional Objections and South Africa’s Response
A significant aspect of the upcoming Reply from South Africa will be its response to Israel’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Israel raised this objection in its Counter-Memorial, submitted in March 2026. This timing is notable, as the Rules of Court typically stipulate that such objections should be raised “as soon as possible, and not later than three months after the delivery of the Memorial” (i.e., January 2025).
South Africa will now be compelled to address these jurisdictional challenges directly in its Reply. Confidentiality and Public Statements In accordance with the Rules of Court, the written pleadings in the case remain confidential unless the Court decides otherwise.
Despite this, Israel’s counsel publicly declared at the time of filing its Counter -Memorial in March 2026 that “its Counter-Memorial [proves] its legitimate objectives in the war have always been to eliminate military, governing capabilities of Hamas and other terrorist organizations.”
Self-Defense vs. Genocide: South Africa’s Stance
The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa firmly reiterates its position on the matter of self-defense.
While Israel’s counsel claims its actions in Gaza are authorized by and comply with int’l law regarding self-defense, South Africa’s response is unequivocal: self-defense is not a defense to genocide.
The statement emphasizes that
there is no legal justification for genocidal acts under the guise of self-defense.
Enduring Provisional Measures
Crucially, Israel remains bound by the three provisional measures Orders previously issued by the ICJ at South Africa’s request.
These measures are designed to protect the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, whom the Court has determined are under a “real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice.”
These binding Orders mandate Israel to:
Ensure its military does not commit any genocidal acts in Gaza. Ensure, “without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision…of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.”
Ensure “unimpeded access” for UN commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions, and other investigative bodies to the Gaza Strip.
The ICJ’s continued oversight and the new procedural deadlines highlight the
international community’s sustained focus on the conflict in Gaza and the allegations of.genocide.
The upcoming filings are expected to further illuminate the legal complexities
and humanitarian imperatives at the heart of this landmark case.
