The case, initiated in December 2023, centres on allegations that Israel’s conduct in Gaza is in breach of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The Irish government first announced in March 2024 that it would intervene in the proceedings following the filing of South Africa’s memorial, which took place in November 2024.

Tánaiste Micheál Martin said in December 2024 that the Irish intervention would ask the ICJ to “broaden its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of genocide by a state”.

Supporters of Israel have claimed that Ireland is trying to “redefine” genocide, and the Israeli government has alleged that its actions are motivated by antisemitism, closing its Dublin embassy in retaliation.

However, Michael Becker, an assistant professor of law at Trinity College Dublin who specialises in international law and human rights, told our sister publication Irish Legal News that Ireland’s 27-page declaration of intervention “makes clear that it is not attempting to rewrite the definition of genocide or the meaning of genocidal intent”.

“Rather, Ireland is urging the court to find that genocidal intent can be derived from a policy or plan at state level that intends the physical destruction of a protected group or that understands such destruction to be a foreseeable consequence of state action,” he said.

A crucial part of the intervention concerns what is known as the “only reasonable inference” test for establishing genocidal intent.

Ireland argues that this test should not be applied in such a way that would lead to “the possibility of genocide being excluded in most, if not all, cases of armed conflict”.

Mr Becker explained: “The ICJ has set a very high bar when it comes to establishing a genocidal plan or policy based on indirect or contextual evidence.

“Perhaps the most important aspect of Ireland’s intervention is its observation that a pattern of conduct that can only point to genocidal intent, as the ICJ requires, does not mean that the same evidence cannot simultaneously point to other intentions or goals.

“This goes to the idea that genocide can take place in combination with or in service of other objectives, such as defeating a terrorist enemy.

“Consistent with the ICJ’s jurisprudence, Ireland does not dispute that it must be the case that the evidence cannot be explained by anything other than genocidal intent — but this does not mean that the acts concerned need to have been exclusively intended to destroy the protected group.

“This is an essential point that provides a clear pathway for the court to clarify its approach to genocidal intent.”

He added: “Ireland’s arguments here about how the Genocide Convention should be interpreted are nearly identical to those set out in its intervention in the ICJ case between The Gambia and Myanmar last month.

“Ireland has taken a consistent and reasonable position that is not based on what state stands accused of genocide.”

South Africa and Israel have both been invited by the ICJ to furnish written observations on Ireland’s declaration of intervention.

Israel has until 28 July 2025 to file its counter-memorial in the case.