The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has played a critical role in establishing legal precedents and frameworks for dealing with genocide. Landmark cases have helped to shape international law by establishing standards for accountability and justice in the instance of a humanitarian crisis. The ICJ's provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute have the potential to serve as a deterrence, affecting state actors' behaviour and preventing future genocides. However, one of the ICJ's major shortcomings is its lack of enforcement measures. Provisional measures are often seen as a moral obligation by states. While the ICJ has the authority to issue judgments, enforcing compliance by sovereign governments, particularly powerful ones remains challenging without the involvement of other organs of the United Nations. The current global scenario requires an analysis of the impact of ICJ provisional measures on perpetrators' conduct, particularly whether states have complied or will comply with any provisional measures mandated by the ICJ.