The current president of the court, Judge Nawaf Salam, is leading today's hearing.

He's currently explaining the background to the case. He says the court must determine first whether there's been a change in the situation since the court's order of 28 March this year.

He says the court has observed "with regret the catastrophic living conditions of people in the Gaza strip has deteriorated further", especially prolonged and widespread deprivation of food.

Today's court session is now beginning. As we've been reporting, the ICJ will consider South Africa's request to order a halt to Israel's Rafah offensive in Gaza.

The judge starts by reading a summary of South Africa's request, submitted under the Genocide Convention.

Stay with us for updates, reaction and analysis. You can also watch by clicking the play button above.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

The words of the court’s ruling in January have been subject to intense scrutiny and it’s centred around the use of the word “plausible”, with this key paragraph drawing the most attention:

“In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances…are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”. This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and media outlets including the BBC.

In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.

Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.

The judges had stressed that they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that soe of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.

You can read more from about the background to the case here.

Today’s ruling is part of a much bigger case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel has rejected the claim as false and “grossly distorted”. The ICJ is not expected to deliver a ruling on this case for several years.

But at the end of last year South Africa asked the court to take “provisional measures”, which is essentially a court injunction that can freeze a situation to prevent any harm being done before a final court finding is reached.

In a highly-charged ruling watched closely around the world, the court delivered an interim judgement on 26 January ordering Israel to take measures to prevent potentially genocidal acts in Gaza. It also ordered Israel to do more to enable the provision of aid to the people there.

However the words of that judgement, centred around the use of the word “plausible”, have since been the subject to intense scrutiny, with many interpreting it to mean the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”.

Then last month the then-president of the court, Joan Donoghue, told the BBC that the ICJ did not decide that there was a plausible case for genocide, but rather that the Palestinians had a right to be protected from genocide, as claimed by South Africa.

Hello and welcome to our live coverage as we wait to hear from a panel of judges at the UN’s highest court over South Africa’s request to order a halt to Israel’s offensive in Rafah, in southern Gaza.

Lawyers for South Africa have asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to impose emergency provisional measures, which they say are necessary to ensure the survival of the Palestinian people.

They are also seeking to force Israel to allow aid workers, journalists and investigators “unimpeded access” to Gaza.

It all forms part of a larger case brought to the Hague-based court by South Africa about Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Israel, which has called South Africa’s case “wholly unfounded”, says its offensive in Rafah is necessary to destroy the last remaining Hamas battalions after the 7 October attack.

One key thing to note is that while ICJ rulings are legally binding, in practice they are unenforceable by the court.

We’ll be bringing you the latest lines from the court, analysis and reaction to the ruling once it comes. You can also watch it live at the top of this page from 13:00 GMT by clicking the play button.