Certain legal terms carry enormous moral weight, yet they are increasingly used in ways that stretch or blur their strict definitions. When these labels are applied without meeting the evidentiary standards international law requires, their meaning risks becoming diluted at the very moment clarity matters most.

Accusing Israel of special intent to destroy, when the state itself was the victim of attempted destruction, is ultimately perverse. The ICJ will consider, too, that the absence of special intent is strongly evidenced by Israel's specific actions in Gaza.

South Africa's landmark case at the International Court of Justice tests the boundaries of international law and strategic litigation. This analysis examines the formidable legal hurdles, the politics of treaty enforcement, and what the case means for organisations navigating reputational and compliance risk in an era where courts are becoming arenas for diplomatic contest.