Belgium has formally filed a declaration of intervention at the International Court of Justice in the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel — joining a growing coalition of states that have invoked Article 63 of the ICJ Statute to participate in proceedings over Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Belgium’s intervention focuses on Articles I through VI of the Genocide Convention, with particular attention to the interpretation of Article II — specifically the “specific intent” requirement for establishing genocidal intent. The court has invited both South Africa and Israel to submit written observations on Belgium’s intervention, in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Court.

Belgium joins more than a dozen countries that have already filed applications to intervene, including Colombia, Libya, Spain, Chile, Ireland, Cuba, and Brazil. The accumulation of state interventions is legally significant: it signals that the international community does not accept Israel’s characterization of the ICJ proceedings as politically motivated, and that a substantial number of states — spanning multiple continents and political traditions — regard the genocide question as one warranting full legal examination.

The United States has not intervened. It has not filed observations. Its position throughout the proceedings has been to defend Israel diplomatically at the UN Security Council, where it has vetoed ceasefire resolutions, while asserting that genocide allegations lack merit — without engaging the legal framework or the evidence South Africa has presented.

The ICJ case does not end wars. It establishes legal records, shapes future accountability, and puts states on notice about where they stand in relation to international law. Each new intervention makes the record longer and the eventual ruling harder to dismiss.