The new wave of genocide cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and particularly litigation in the Gazan Genocide case, raised questions and controversies as to the proper role of the Court in adjudicating claims arising from ongoing armed con-flicts and complex political situations, and the role of the Genocide Convention as a ba-sis for such claims. This contribution challenges the idea that resort to the Genocide Convention, even if influenced by limits on the Court’s jurisdiction, raises principled objections, as opposed to questions of fact and law for the Court’s determination. It ar-gues that the recent cases emerge from, and build on, the ICJ’s longstanding and diverse engagement in situations of armed conflict, and especially the broader reinvigoration of ICJ judicial activity of the past five years. The paper further rebuts concerns regard-ing the role of the Court in politically contentious contexts, such as ongoing armed con-flicts. Finally, it contextualises the ‘strategic’ use of the Genocide Convention and the Court within the longstanding practice of strategic litigation in international adjudica-tion, and reflects on role of the Court and its significance.