The Netherlands told the International Court of Justice that starvation and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid could be key indicators of genocidal intent, in its submission to the case brought by South Africa against Israel.
The Netherlands, which intervened in the ongoing genocide case at the ICJ, presented its views on the interpretation of acts of genocide and the determination of genocidal intent in the submission it filed on March 12.
The Netherlands said that acts of genocide could take the form of starvation and the deliberate withholding of humanitarian aid and that these could play a significant role in determining genocidal intent.
The country stated in its submission that, considering the prohibition of genocide as a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) and the obligations under the Genocide Convention as erga omnes partes, all states have a common interest in ensuring the realization of the Convention’s objectives.
Referring to the ICJ’s statement in its first provisional measures decision in the case regarding the interests of all states parties to the Genocide Convention, the Netherlands said that its intervention concerns the interpretation, application, and implementation of the Convention.
The Netherlands stated that forced displacement, depending on the facts, may correspond to or lead to one of the underlying acts of genocide and may play an important role in determining specific intent.
It argued that forced displacement may lead to one of the underlying acts listed in Articles 2(b) and 2(c) of the Genocide Convention and may also constitute evidence of specific genocidal intent.
It stated that forced displacement may cause or contribute to serious bodily or mental harm prohibited under Article 2(b) of the Convention and may also correspond to or lead to the creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group under Article 2(c).
The Netherlands emphasized that forced displacement may not only lead to or correspond to underlying acts of genocide but may also serve as evidence of specific genocidal intent.
The Netherlands stated that acts committed against children should be assessed differently and that such acts may play an important role in determining specific genocidal intent.
The Netherlands presented its view that, in light of children’s specific needs and vulnerabilities, a lower threshold should apply when assessing "serious bodily or mental harm” under Article 2(b) of the Genocide Convention when the victim is a child.
The Netherlands noted that conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group under Article 2(c) should be assessed in light of children’s specific needs and vulnerabilities and argued that the effects of forced displacement on children, under certain conditions, may correspond to an act of genocide.
The Netherlands also presented its views on determining specific intent, stating that when interpreting the requirements under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, the court may consider the targeting of children, including killing, in several ways.
The Netherlands emphasized that the targeting of children may serve as evidence of genocidal intent and is relevant to determining specific intent and interpreting what constitutes the destruction of a group in whole or in part.
The Netherlands stated that starvation and the deliberate withholding of humanitarian aid may constitute underlying acts of genocide and may play an important role in determining genocidal intent.
The Netherlands argued that, under Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, acts that create conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group are not limited to methods that cause immediate death.
The Netherlands noted that such acts must be calculated to lead to the eventual physical destruction of the group and that this does not require actual physical destruction to occur, but rather that the conditions are calculated to result in such destruction.
The Netherlands argued that, when interpreting the requirements of specific intent under Article 2 of the Convention, the court should consider starvation and the deliberate withholding of humanitarian aid, particularly when carried out based on a coordinated plan or a consistent pattern of conduct.
The Netherlands also stated that the obligation to prevent genocide is a due diligence obligation and therefore, a duty of conduct.
Alongside the Netherlands, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, Türkiye, Chile, Maldives, Bolivia, Ireland, Cuba, Belize, Brazil, Comoros, Belgium, Paraguay, Norway, Iceland, Namibia, the US, Hungary, and Fiji have also submitted declarations of intervention in the case against Israel.
While many countries’ interventions align with South Africa’s claims, the submissions of Paraguay, the U.S., Hungary, and Fiji partially reflect arguments similar to those presented by Israel.
Similar arguments to those put forward by the Netherlands had also been defended in a joint intervention submission by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.K. in the case filed by The Gambia against Myanmar regarding allegations of genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
However, among these six countries, only the Netherlands intervened in South Africa’s genocide case, while Germany, Canada, France, the U.K., and Denmark refrained from intervening, leading to comments on double standards and inconsistency.
The Israel Information and Documentation Center (CIDI), a pro-Israel lobby organization in the Netherlands, objected to the country’s intervention submission.
In a statement on social media, the CIDI said the intervention shows that the Netherlands has not distanced itself from South Africa and described this as highly concerning, adding that the Netherlands does not distance itself from South Africa’s attempts to broaden the definition.
The CIDI also argued that, although the Dutch government is not obliged to consult parliament on such a decision, it would have been more appropriate to do so.
The Republic of South Africa filed a case at the ICJ on Dec. 29, 2023, alleging that Israel violated the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
South Africa requested provisional measures from the court due to the urgency of the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
The court issued three separate provisional measures decisions on Jan. 26, March 28, and May 24, 2024.
In these decisions, Israel was requested to take all necessary measures to prevent acts defined under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, ensure that its military does not commit such acts, immediately implement measures to prevent genocide, particularly halt military operations in Rafah that may create a risk of genocide, and regularly report to the court on the measures taken.
Israel Deputy Attorney General Gilad Noam stated in a post on X that Israel had declared in its defense submission to the ICJ on March 12 that South Africa’s allegations are completely baseless and defamatory.
Noam said that Israel remains committed to its obligations under the Genocide Convention and that any claims to the contrary aim to undermine the right and obligation of states to defend themselves against terrorist armed groups determined to destroy them.
In a statement signed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, it was noted that South Africa will assess Israel’s response and decide whether to request permission from the court to submit additional written statements or proceed directly to the oral phase.
The statement added that despite the ceasefire dated Oct. 10, 2025, and three binding ICJ decisions ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide and ensure the immediate and unhindered provision of essential services and humanitarian aid, Israeli attacks, casualties, and severe living conditions in Gaza continue.
