In a significant development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an order regarding the case of South Africa v. Israel, establishing that there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable damage to the rights asserted by South Africa. While compliance by Israel with the order remains a crucial question, the impact on third states involved in facilitating Israeli operations in Gaza is equally significant as their actions will shape Israel's response.

South Africa had brought the case, alleging that acts committed during the Israeli military campaign may constitute genocide, incitement to commit genocide, and failure to punish those responsible. The ICJ ruled that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and the vulnerability of the Palestinian civilian population were plausible. This ruling may pave the way for the development of a doctrine of humanitarian stasis, granting interim relief based on human vulnerability, in the ICJ's case law.

According to the ICJ's order, there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights found by the court to be plausible. This finding has legal implications for third states involved in the conflict.

Legal commentators and institutions argue that third states now have an obligation to prevent violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza. The foreign ministry of South Africa stated that third states must act independently and immediately to prevent genocide and ensure they are not themselves in violation of the Genocide Convention by aiding or assisting in its commission. Experts warn that third states providing military or other support to Israel may implicate themselves in violations of the Genocide Convention.

Indeed, the ICJ order places a heightened responsibility on third states to prevent genocide. The duty to prevent genocide requires states to employ all means reasonably available to them, emphasizing the obligation of conduct rather than results. This obligation demands a concrete assessment of military and other assistance provided to Israeli forces in Gaza. Countries providing assistance to Israel will now be under a stricter obligation to scrutinize Israeli compliance and regulate military assistance more stringently.

The ICJ order also raises the issue of complicity in genocide for third states involved in the military campaign in Gaza. The risk of future litigation around their involvement is objective and concrete. Continued support to the operation without sufficient safeguards could potentially violate the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention.

Examples of these legal implications can be seen in the case of the Netherlands and the delivery of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel. Human rights organizations challenged the Dutch government, arguing that the delivery of these parts contributes to serious violations of international law in Gaza. The court ruled that international commitments of the Netherlands, including the Genocide Convention, required a reevaluation of the permit for such deliveries. The appeal decision, expected on February 12, will clarify the applicable legal standards and the duty to prevent genocide in light of the ICJ order.

As the ICJ order emphasizes the real and imminent risk of irreparable harm to plausible Convention rights in Gaza, the international community must take action. Since the order was issued, reports indicate that hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, civilians have been injured while waiting for humanitarian aid, and government ministers have called for displacement at a far-right conference. The urgency of the situation demands that states move beyond assurances and take effective measures to ensure compliance with the ICJ order.

The legal implications of the ICJ order for third states underscore the significance of this ruling in the South Africa v. Israel case. It is a critical moment for the international community to uphold its obligations under the Genocide Convention and to prevent further violations in Gaza.