The South Africa v. Israel Case: Examining Security Council Mechanisms for Enforcing Provisional Measures

Abstract This paper examines the Security Council’s role in enforcing International Court of Justice (ICJ) provisional measures, using the South Africa v. Israel case as a lens to explore broader questions of Council authority under the UN Charter. Focusing on Articles 94(1) and 94(2), it argues that the Council is legally empowered to secure compliance with binding provisional measures, including through adoption of obligations derived from the Genocide Convention to preserve peace and security. It contends that South Africa could invoke Article 94(2) to seek Council intervention. The analysis considers procedural classification under Article 27(2) as a means to circumvent the veto, while also acknowledging the potential, albeit politically limited, recourse to Chapter VII. The paper maintains that legal authority persists despite political constraints. Whatever the trajectory of the underlying case, the analysis advances a broader argument about reinforcing ICJ authority and strengthening the UN’s enforcement architecture.