HIGHLIGHTS

ICJ Extends Timeline in South Africa v. Israel: A Procedural Turning Point in the Gaza Genocide Litigation

Introduction

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has issued an important procedural Order dated 21 May 2026 in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

The Order does not decide the merits of the allegations. Instead, it establishes the next phase of written proceedings and significantly extends the litigation timeline. By authorising a second round of written pleadings and setting deadlines stretching into 2029, the Court has acknowledged the extraordinary factual, legal, and geopolitical complexity of the dispute.

The decision indicates that final oral hearings on the merits are unlikely to occur before late 2029 or 2030.

The ICJ’s Procedural Order of 21 May 2026

Under the Rules of the Court, proceedings before the ICJ generally begin with two principal written submissions:

1. A Memorial filed by the Applicant; and
2. A Counter-Memorial filed by the Respondent.

However, where the Court considers the dispute particularly complex or legally significant, it may permit a second round of written pleadings.

In the present case, the ICJ formally directed that an additional round shall take place, consisting of:

• A Reply by South Africa; and
• A Rejoinder by Israel.

This procedural decision marks an important development because it confirms that the Court considers the issues raised in the case sufficiently substantial to require expanded written argumentation.

The New Timeline for Proceedings

The Court established the following deadlines:

The Court also stated that it “reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision,” meaning that the scheduling of oral hearings will only be determined after completion of the written phase.

As a result, substantive hearings on the genocide allegations are expected only after mid-2029.

Why the Court Allowed a Second Round

South Africa’s Position

During a procedural meeting held on 29 April 2026 between the President of the Court and representatives of both States, South Africa strongly argued that an additional round of pleadings was necessary.

South Africa sought at least eighteen months to prepare its Reply and advanced several reasons:

1. Complexity of the Dispute

The case involves highly sensitive and complicated questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention in the context of military operations in the Gaza Strip.

2. Volume of Evidence

Israel’s Counter-Memorial reportedly included an extensive body of factual material, annexes, legal arguments, and documentary evidence requiring detailed examination.

3. Jurisdictional and Admissibility Objections

In addition to disputing the genocide allegations on the merits, Israel raised formal objections challenging:

• the jurisdiction of the ICJ; and
• The admissibility of South Africa’s claims.

South Africa argued that responding adequately to these preliminary objections required substantial legal preparation and analysis.

Israel’s Position

Israel opposed the necessity of a second written phase and argued that the existing pleadings were sufficient.

However, Israel adopted an alternative position in the event the Court decided otherwise. It stated that if South Africa were granted eighteen months to prepare its Reply, Israel should receive the same amount of time for its Rejoinder.

The Court ultimately adopted this balanced approach and granted both parties equal preparation periods.

Procedural History of the Case

The Order also reflects the broader procedural evolution of one of the most significant international cases of recent years.

Legal Significance of the Order

Although procedural in nature, the 21 May 2026 Order carries important implications.

1. Recognition of Exceptional Complexity

By allowing a second round of pleadings, the Court implicitly recognised that the dispute involves exceptionally serious factual and legal questions requiring detailed examination.

2. Expansion of the Written Record

The additional submissions will substantially enlarge the evidentiary and legal record before the Court. This may influence how the Court ultimately approaches issues of intent, state responsibility, military conduct, humanitarian obligations, and interpretation of the Genocide Convention.

3. Delay of Final Adjudication

The Order also confirms that a final judgment remains years away. International litigation before the ICJ is often lengthy, particularly in disputes involving armed conflict and allegations of genocide.

4. Continued Global Attention

The case continues to occupy a central place in contemporary international law and diplomacy. The procedural developments are likely to remain closely monitored by States, international organisations, scholars, and human rights institutions worldwide.

Composition of the Court

The Order was delivered by a full bench of distinguished international jurists sitting at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

The composition of the Court included:

• President Yuji Iwasawa
• Vice-President Julia Sebutinde
• Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Bhandari, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi, Hmoud, and Okowa
• Judge ad hoc Aharon Shapira
• Registrar Philippe Gautier

The authoritative English text of the Order was signed by President Iwasawa and Registrar Gautier.

Conclusion

The ICJ’s Order of 21 May 2026 represents a major procedural milestone in South Africa v. Israel. While the Court has not yet addressed the substantive genocide allegations, the decision to permit an extensive second round of pleadings underscores the gravity and complexity of the dispute.

With written proceedings now extending until 2029, the litigation is poised to become one of the longest and most consequential cases in the modern history of the International Court of Justice.

The eventual judgment—whenever delivered—may have lasting implications for the interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the law governing armed conflict, and the future development of international accountability mechanisms.

Reference

• Standard Legal Citation (ICJ Style)-Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 21 May 2026, I.C.J. Reports 2026.
• APA 7th Edition-International Court of Justice. (2026, May 21). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel): Order (General List No. 192). Peace Palace, The Hague.
• Bluebook (US Legal Citation)-Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (S. Afr. v. Isr.), Order, 2026 I.C.J. No. 192 (May 21).
• Harvard Style-International Court of Justice, 2026. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 21 May 2026, General List No. 192. The Hague: ICJ.
• International Court of Justice (ICJ)