No. This is simple. You sue me, say, for trademark infringement. Before the case goes to trial, you ask for a preliminary injunction demanding that I --- at least for the duration of the trial --- stop using your trademark. As it turns out, I'm not doing much interesting with it; the cost to me to stop using the trademark is minimal. Recognizing that, the court enjoins me from using your trademark, until the trial is done.

What you're saying now is "because I got the injunction, I won the case". Obviously, no.

"Plausibility" at the ICJ is a technical term, part of a 3-part test to determine if any preliminary orders can be issued ("in preservation of rights") at all in a case:

"What is required is something more than assertion but less than proof; in other words, the party must show that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the right it claims exits as a matter of law and will be adjudged to apply to that party’s case".

Plausibility is virtually always established in these cases.

Now, look at what South Africa asked for as a preliminary measure, and look what they got.

Again, it is weird that we are still talking about this, because I quoted for you the numbered paragraph in the decision that repeats the point I am making.

Later

I'm noting that we are so far to the right margin on this very old, cursed thread that this post gets only 250px in my browser window. It's fine if we're not going to convince each other; we can just leave it here. We're probably the only two people reading this.

Go read up on ICJ preservation of rights process, though. It's fascinating. It's like a whole parallel law system, being worked out in our lifetimes.