Belgium intervenes in ICJ genocide case against Israel over Gaza war

Belgium has taken a significant legal step in the landmark case against Israel at the United Nations' highest court, formally declaring its intervention to weigh in on the interpretation of the Genocide Convention. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed on Tuesday that Belgium lodged its declaration of intervention on December 23, invoking its right as a party to the convention to participate in the proceedings initiated by South Africa.

A Focus on the Core Legal Question: "Genocidal Intent"

The Belgian intervention is narrowly focused on key provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, with particular emphasis on Article II. This article defines the crime of genocide, including the necessity to prove a "specific intent" (dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. By intervening specifically on this point, Belgium seeks to provide its legal interpretation of what constitutes genocidal intent, a central and highly contested issue in South Africa's case. The court has now invited both South Africa and Israel to submit written observations on Belgium's filing.

The Context of the Case and Provisional Measures

The case, filed by South Africa at the ICJ on December 29, 2023, accuses Israel of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention during its military campaign in Gaza. In preliminary rulings, the court has issued a series of provisional measures, legally binding orders that require Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention, ensure humanitarian aid reaches civilians, and preserve evidence. Israel has strongly denied the allegations, framing its actions as self-defense against Hamas following the October 7 attacks.

The Significance of State Intervention

Belgium's move is a notable development in the case's procedural timeline. Interventions by third-party states are relatively rare and signal that other nations view the legal interpretations at stake as having broad implications for international law. As the principal judicial organ of the UN, the ICJ's final ruling in this case, while legally binding, is not automatically enforceable. However, a ruling against Israel would carry immense moral and diplomatic weight, potentially influencing international policy and other legal forums. Belgium's entry adds a European voice to a proceeding that has already drawn global attention and sharp political divisions.