We begin in the Hague where just this past Friday, the UN's top court delivered an interim ruling on the case of genocide brought against Israel by South Africa. The ICJ ordered so-called provisional measures to protect Palestinians from genocidal acts in Gaza. However, it stopped short of calling for a ceasefire. This was a highly anticipated ruling. It was broadcast around the world. The ICJ's rulings are legally binding. However, they can be difficult to enforce, especially while Israel enjoys the protection of the United States at the UN Security Council, where the U.S. has the power of veto. However, there is no doubt that the ruling did not go Israel's way. The court has found a plausible risk that genocide is occurring or could occur. And that will be difficult for the Israeli government to shrug off try as it might. Now this news coming when it did on a Friday afternoon, very late in our production schedule, means that we haven't had time to fully examine the legal implications. But Tarak Nafa has been following the coverage and he joins me now. What are the initial repercussions that you're seeing out there?

Well, a lot was at stake here, Richard, not just for Palestinians who are being killed and starved by Israel en masse, but also for the credibility of the international legal order. This may be the most politically divisive case ever brought before the Hague. Could and should the court have gone further in explicitly ordering a ceasefire? Many will say yes, absolutely. But does the ICJ's decision effectively amount to the same thing? That's the interpretation of South Africa's foreign minister.

I believe that in exercising the order, there would have to be a ceasefire without it. The order doesn't actually

work.