Residents of Gaza, facing daily shortages of water, healthcare, medicines and basic supplies, are at the center of a new legal submission South Africa filed at the International Court of Justice on August 25. Pretoria has placed fresh evidence before a specialized committee of ICJ judges tasked with monitoring whether Israel is complying with the court’s existing protective orders for Palestinians in Gaza.
The submission does not revisit South Africa’s original genocide case. It targets something more immediate: whether Israel is following the provisional measures the ICJ has already issued, orders that are legally binding and designed to prevent irreversible harm to civilian populations while the broader case works its way through the court.
South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation argues that despite three such binding orders, Israel continues to bombard Gaza, causing mass casualties and widespread displacement. Pretoria also accuses Israel of arbitrary detention and deportation of Palestinians. The practical consequences for ordinary people in Gaza are the core of the submission: a civilian population cut off from the basic services and safety that international law is meant to guarantee during armed conflict.
This is not Pretoria’s first move on compliance. South Africa previously sent letters with supporting evidence to the United Nations Security Council in May 2024, February 2025 and September 2025, each time pressing for what it calls Israel’s “full and immediate compliance” with the court’s directives. The August 25 filing continues that pattern, using every available legal avenue to keep pressure on the question of enforcement.
The distinction between provisional measures and the underlying genocide case matters enormously for what civilians can expect in the near term. The genocide case, launched in December 2023, turns on whether Israel violated the 1948 Genocide Convention and will take years to resolve. Provisional measures, by contrast, are about stopping or limiting actions that could cause irreversible harm right now, before any final judgment. They carry legal force, but the ICJ has no independent mechanism to enforce them. The court cannot deploy troops or impose sanctions. It can assess compliance, make findings and refer the matter to other bodies, including the UN Security Council.
That gap between what the court orders and what it can compel is precisely the problem South Africa’s submission puts on the table. By providing detailed evidence of alleged non-compliance, Pretoria gives the monitoring committee material to evaluate Israel’s conduct and consider what further steps remain available. The submission, in effect, asks the court to confront the limits of its own authority and decide what to do about them.
Israel has rejected the genocide allegations outright, defending its military operations as lawful and proportionate acts of self-defense against Hamas. That position has not changed.
For the public interest, the stakes extend well beyond Gaza. The outcome will test whether international courts can offer meaningful protection to civilians caught in armed conflict. If the ICJ finds non-compliance but has no effective remedy, it raises hard questions about whether provisional measures serve any real protective function. If the court finds ways to press compliance, or if the submission itself prompts a change in conduct, it sets a precedent that could shape how future conflicts are managed under international law.
What remains to be seen is whether the monitoring committee’s process produces any concrete change for the people in Gaza who are living, right now, with the consequences of the court’s inability to enforce its own orders. More information on South Africa’s legal strategy and the broader context of the case is available at https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/lifestyle/gaza-war-south-africa-takes-its-fight-against-israel-to-the-next-level-with-fresh/x3wrfqr.