ICJ orders halt to Rafah offensive

The International Court of Justice ordered Israel on May 24, 2024 to “immediately halt” its military offensive in Rafah, the southern Gaza city where hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians had been sheltering, in a new set of provisional measures in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. (icj-cij.org) The court also ordered Israel to keep the Rafah crossing open for the “unhindered” provision of humanitarian assistance and to allow access for a U.N. fact-finding body. (palestine.un.org) The ruling was adopted by 13 judges to two, according to the court’s summary. The order did not decide the genocide case itself. (justsecurity.org) The ICJ was acting on an urgent request by South Africa for additional emergency measures after Israel began its ground operation in Rafah on May 7, 2024. The court said the humanitarian situation had deteriorated further since its earlier orders in January and March 2024. ### What exactly did the court tell Israel to stop? The ICJ said Israel must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate” that could inflict on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part. (icj-cij.org) That wording matters because the order was issued under the Genocide Convention framework and as a provisional measure, not as a final merits judgment. The same order required Israel to maintain open access through the Rafah crossing for humanitarian aid at scale. The court also said Israel must take effective steps to ensure unimpeded access to Gaza for any commission of inquiry or other investigative body mandated by competent U.N. organs to investigate allegations of genocide. (icj-cij.org) ### Why did the judges focus on Rafah at that moment? Rafah had become the last major refuge for civilians displaced from other parts of Gaza. The ICJ’s summary said Israel’s ground offensive, which began on May 7, 2024, was still ongoing and had led to new evacuation orders, with nearly 800,000 people displaced from Rafah as of May 18, according to U.N. reports cited by the court. (icj-cij.org) U.N. reporting cited by the court said humanitarian conditions had worsened as civilians moved again from Rafah and aid access remained constrained. The judges said the “catastrophic” living conditions described in earlier orders had deteriorated further, creating what they saw as a new basis for additional emergency measures. (icj-cij.org) ### Did the ruling order a total ceasefire in Gaza? The case before the ICJ was narrower than a general ceasefire demand. The new measures were directed at Rafah and at actions there that could create conditions of life threatening the protected Palestinian group under the Genocide Convention, while the court also reaffirmed its earlier nationwide provisional measures for Gaza. (icj-cij.org) Separate opinions published with the order showed disagreement over how broad the Rafah directive was. Judge Georg Nolte wrote that the measure was tied to preventing conditions of life that could bring about physical destruction, while other judges read the language as an explicit order to halt the offensive in Rafah. (icj-cij.org) ### Can the ICJ enforce this order on its own? The ICJ’s orders are binding under international law, but the court does not have its own enforcement arm. In practice, compliance depends on the parties and on political action by states or, in some circumstances, the U.N. Security Council. (icj-cij.org) South Africa had asked for stronger emergency intervention after warning that an assault on Rafah would make the situation irreversible. Israel has previously rejected genocide allegations and argued that its operations target Hamas and include steps to facilitate aid, according to court filings and public statements referenced in the proceedings. (icj-cij.org) ### What happens next in the case? The ICJ ordered Israel to submit a report within one month describing all measures taken to give effect to the May 24, 2024 order. The broader genocide case brought by South Africa remained pending after that, with the court still to consider Israel’s objections and, later, the merits. (icj-cij.org) The next formal milestone after the Rafah order was Israel’s compliance report to the court. Any further public steps in the case would appear through ICJ orders, filings or hearing notices in South Africa v. Israel. (icj-cij.org)