China Enters Legal Fray, Joining ICC Genocide Case Against Israel
China joins South Africa's genocide case at the International Court of Justice, adding a permanent Security Council member to the growing coalition seeking accountability. The move highlights the importance of international law institutions that the EU has long championed.
China has announced it will join South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, marking a significant shift in Beijing's approach to international legal proceedings on the Gaza conflict.
The announcement, which drew over 40,000 engagements on social media within hours, positions China alongside a growing coalition of nations that have formally intervened in the case South Africa initiated in December 2023.
A Coalition Expands
South Africa's original filing accused Israel of committing acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Since then, Brazil, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, and Belgium have joined the proceedings. China's entry adds the weight of a permanent UN Security Council member to the coalition.
Belgium's intervention in December was particularly notable as the first EU member state to formally join the case. The Belgian government stated its decision reflected its commitment to international law and the rules-based international order.
The ICJ issued provisional measures in January 2024 ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide and allow unimpeded humanitarian access. In July 2024, the court determined that Israel's presence in occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and its policies amount to annexation.
Beijing's Calculated Move
China had previously expressed cautious support for the ICJ's rulings while avoiding explicit endorsement of the genocide charges. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin stated in early 2024: "We hope that the ICJ's provisional measures can be effectively implemented."
The shift from verbal support to formal intervention represents a notable change in approach. In February 2024, China delivered a statement at the ICJ arguing that the Palestinian people's use of armed struggle to gain independence from foreign and colonial rule was legitimate.
According to Voice of America, experts noted that Beijing had reservations about the use of international courts to deal with genocide allegations, given China's own position regarding accusations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, observed that China had been using the ICJ decision to push for de-escalation while avoiding the word "genocide" and describing the ruling as a "temporary measure."
Reactions: Support and Scepticism
Social media responses to the announcement were divided. Many commenters welcomed China's decision as a significant step toward accountability.
"History is shifting. When major powers step into court, impunity starts cracking. No more vetoes. No more silence." - @Grippan65Momi
Others questioned the credibility of the announcement or noted the tension with China's own human rights record.
"If it's about filing a case with the ICC, then just China's human rights abuses alone would provide enough material to fill a whole truckload of charges." - @kew2dssysb
Some commenters raised questions about verification, with one account noting: "There are no credible sources that support this claim." This reflects the challenge of verifying diplomatic announcements that circulate rapidly on social media before official confirmation.
The EU's Commitment to International Law
The European Union has positioned itself as a defender of the rules-based international order, including the authority of international courts. EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell stated that ICC arrest warrants issued in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant were binding on all EU member states.
"This decision is a binding decision and all states, all state parties of the court, which include all members of the European Union, are binding to implement this court decision," Borrell said.
According to the European Council on Foreign Relations, the ICC warrants represent a test for European principles. Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain have indicated they would enforce the arrest warrant. In January 2025, the Hague Group was formed as a coalition of nine countries pledging to fulfill their obligations under the Rome Statute.
Slovenia went further, banning Netanyahu from entering the country in what it called a defence of international law.
The contrast with the United States is stark. Washington has historically opposed ICC jurisdiction over its allies and rejected the court's authority in this case.
What This Means for International Justice
China's decision to formally join the case adds diplomatic weight to a proceeding that has already attracted significant international attention. According to Justice Info, the ICJ case represents one of several concurrent legal tracks addressing the Gaza conflict, including the ICC's investigation that led to the November 2024 arrest warrants.
A UN-backed independent commission of inquiry released a report in September 2025 concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, finding that Israeli authorities deliberately inflicted conditions of life on Palestinians calculated to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian population.
Israel has rejected all genocide allegations and requested multiple extensions to file its response. The deadline for Israel's written submission was extended to March 2026. A hearing on the merits of the case may not occur until 2027.
For the EU, the case highlights the importance of international institutions that Brussels has long championed. When major powers engage with international courts rather than dismissing them, the institutions gain legitimacy. As we have reported, the contrast between European approaches to international law and those of other major powers continues to define the global order.
Looking Ahead
The growing coalition of states joining South Africa's case puts additional pressure on Israel and on countries that have attempted to shield it from international accountability. Nearly 80 percent of UN member states now recognise Palestine, according to Al Jazeera.
For China, the move positions Beijing as a defender of international law on this issue while complicating its resistance to international scrutiny of its own human rights record. For the EU, China's engagement with the court represents a vindication of the rules-based order that European institutions have worked to build since the Second World War.
The question now is whether formal legal proceedings will translate into meaningful accountability or whether powerful nations will continue to shield their allies from consequences.
January 23, 2026