Belgium today filed a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
Belgium Steps Into ICJ Case on Gaza Genocide Claims
The Hague: Belgium has formally intervened in South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, a case accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip.
The intervention, filed today, allows Belgium to take part in the proceedings because the case turns on how the Genocide Convention — a global treaty adopted in 1948 after the Holocaust — should be interpreted by the Court.
The Convention obliges countries to prevent genocide, punish those responsible, and refrain from committing such acts themselves. It also defines what genocide means in law, including the difficult requirement of proving intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Belgium is not becoming a party to the dispute and is not making accusations against Israel. Instead, it has invoked a provision that allows any country that has signed the Genocide Convention to intervene when the Court is asked to interpret the treaty. By doing so, Belgium accepts that whatever interpretation the judges give will also apply to it in the future.
In its declaration, Belgium said the case raises questions about how several key articles of the Convention should be read. Its focus is on the article that defines genocide and, in particular, on how intent is assessed — an issue that lies at the heart of the legal dispute.
Under international law, genocide is not established simply by showing large-scale deaths or destruction. Prosecutors must also demonstrate a specific intent to destroy a protected group as such. Belgium’s submission addresses how this intent requirement should be understood and applied.
Following the filing, the Court has invited both South Africa and Israel to submit written responses. Belgium’s declaration has been published on the Court’s website.
South Africa initiated the case on December 29, 2023, alleging that Israel breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Along with its application, South Africa requested urgent temporary measures to limit harm while the case proceeds.
The Court issued its first order on provisional measures on 26 January 2024. Further orders followed in March and May, reaffirming earlier directions and introducing additional measures. These rulings have kept the case under ongoing judicial supervision.
Belgium is one of a growing number of countries that have sought to intervene. Since early 2024, and as of December 24, 2025, at least 13 countries (plus the State of Palestine) have formally intervened in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case brought by South Africa against Israel, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza. These interventions are primarily under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute (declarations of intervention on the convention’s interpretation) or Article 62 (applications to intervene).
The countries that have filed declarations or applications to intervene include Bolivia, Brazil, Belgium** (filed December 23, 2025), Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ireland, Libya, Maldives, Mexico, Spain, Turkey (Türkiye), and the State of Palestine.
Nicaragua initially applied under Article 62 but later withdrew that application, though it may have shifted to Article 63 in some reports. Germany has expressed its intention to intervene on Israel’s side, but no formal filing has been confirmed in available sources. Egypt and others announced intentions earlier, but do not appear to have completed formal interventions by this date.
The case remains ongoing, with interventions reflecting growing international engagement on the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention.
Many of these States are intervening not because they are directly involved in the conflict, but because the Court’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention will shape how the treaty applies to them in future conflicts and legal disputes.
The case is being heard at the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ principal judicial body, based in The Hague. Established after the Second World War, the Court settles legal disputes between States and issues authoritative interpretations of international treaties that often extend beyond the immediate parties.
– global bihari bureau
