The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a significant advisory opinion, ruling that Israel, as the occupying power, is legally obligated to ensure essential supplies reach the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and to facilitate humanitarian aid efforts. The world’s top court found that Israel must allow the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and other humanitarian organizations unimpeded access to provide life-saving assistance, rejecting Israel’s claims that UNRWA is not neutral due to alleged Hamas infiltration as unsubstantiated.
Core Ruling and Legal Obligations
The ICJ’s non-binding advisory opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly in December 2024, asserts that Israel has an unconditional duty under Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to agree to and facilitate relief schemes when the local population is inadequately supplied. The court determined that the population in Gaza has indeed been inadequately supplied with essentials such as food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. Consequently, Israel is mandated to ensure that these basic needs are met and to provide every assistance for actions taken by the United Nations and its entities. The court also unanimously ruled that Israel must ensure the population of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem has access to essential daily supplies.
Rejection of Israeli Arguments on UNRWA
A central tenet of the ruling addresses Israel’s claims against UNRWA, which led to the country banning the agency’s operations in the OPT. The ICJ found that Israel had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its allegations that a significant number of UNRWA employees are affiliated with Hamas or other terrorist factions, nor that the agency lacks neutrality. The court recognized UNRWA’s indispensable role as a provider of humanitarian relief in Gaza and stated that Israel is obliged to cooperate with the UN agency in good faith. The court further opined that it was not possible to replace UNRWA’s capacity as a provider of aid for Gaza, calling it an “indispensable provider of humanitarian relief”.
Background and Context
The request for this advisory opinion stemmed from Israel’s decision in October 2024 to ban UNRWA operations, which sparked global concern about humanitarian access to the Palestinian territories. The ICJ’s proceedings, which included oral arguments from 39 states and organizations, aimed to clarify Israel’s obligations as an occupying power, particularly concerning its interactions with the UN and other international bodies involved in humanitarian operations. This ruling follows previous advisory opinions from the ICJ concerning Israel’s practices in the OPT, including one in July 2024 that declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories unlawful. The broader legal context also includes a separate case brought by South Africa alleging genocide by Israel in Gaza.
Implications and Reactions
While advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant legal weight and moral authority, potentially influencing international law and state practices. UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the opinion as “very important” and hoped Israel would abide by it, noting its decisive impact at a time when the UN is striving to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated that it “categorically rejects” the court’s findings, asserting that Israel “fully upholds its obligations under international law” and will not cooperate with organizations it deems “infested with terror activities”. The US State Department also dismissed the ruling, calling it “corrupt” and “nakedly politicized,” and stating it “unfairly bashes Israel and gives UNRWA a free pass”. However, Palestinian representatives hailed the ruling as a moral and legal victory. Several countries, including Norway and Slovenia, welcomed the decision and indicated they would follow up with resolutions in the UN General Assembly. The ruling also reinforces the obligation for all states to cooperate with the UN and not to render aid that maintains the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the OPT. The court’s emphasis on the prohibition of using starvation as a method of warfare was also highlighted, with Hamas stating this confirms the occupation is committing a form of genocide. The court also ruled unanimously that Israel must not forcibly displace or transfer populations under its occupation and must respect the prohibition of using starvation as a weapon of war. The opinion also addresses Israel’s obligation not to use security reasons to justify the general suspension of all humanitarian activities in an occupied territory.
The global news of this ruling underscores the ongoing scrutiny of Israel’s conduct regarding humanitarian access and its obligations as an occupying power. The ICJ’s stance adds considerable weight to international calls for unimpeded aid delivery to the beleaguered population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.