[Emilia Klebanowski is a PhD candidate in international human rights law at Radboud University. Her research explores reparations for gross human rights violations.]
On 22 October 2025, the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion on the Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Though the advisory opinion comprises quite a lot of materials to unpack, this weblog focuses particularly on the details of the ICJ’s ruling. As well as, it addresses the important thing disagreements highlighted within the judges’ separate opinions and declarations.
Advisory Opinion Request
On 20 December 2024, the United Nations Basic Meeting (UNGA) requested that the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on the next query:
What are the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Energy and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and actions of the United Nations, together with its businesses and our bodies, different worldwide organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, together with to make sure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently wanted provides important to the survival of the Palestinian civilian inhabitants in addition to of fundamental companies and growth help, for the good thing about the Palestinian civilian inhabitants, and in assist of the Palestinian folks’s proper to self-determination?
Briefly, the UNGA tasked the ICJ with delineating Israel’s obligations, as an occupying energy and UN member, to cooperate with the UN and different actors within the Occupied Palestinian Territory to make sure unhindered humanitarian support, fundamental companies, and assist for the Palestinian folks’s proper to self-determination. As already noticed by Marko Milanovic and Eliav Lieblich, the Courtroom was on virtually all factors unanimous, with Choose Sebutinde dissenting on factors principally pertaining to the United Nations Aid and Works Company for Palestine Refugees within the Close to East (UNRWA).
This request follows two prior advisory opinions in relation to Palestine, particularly the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the Wall from 2004, and the advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem from 2024. Moreover, it additionally must be interpreted within the context of the continuing contentious circumstances of South Africa v Israel in regards to the utility of the Genocide Conference, and Nicaragua v Germany on alleged breaches of sure worldwide obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. For extra background context, see here.
Jurisdiction and Discretion
Earlier than diving into the substance of the query, the Courtroom needed to decide whether or not it had jurisdiction to render the opinion, and in that case, whether or not it ought to nonetheless decline to take action. Whereas the Courtroom’s jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion was clear minimize (see paras. 18-22), the Courtroom coated the problem of discretion in additional element because of a few of the taking part States arguing that the Courtroom ought to decline to present the opinion as a result of: the advisory opinion would prejudge parts of the pending contentious case of South Africa v Israel (paras. 26-31); the query had already been addressed within the earlier advisory opinions referred to above (paras. 32-35); the Courtroom didn’t have the competence to undertake vital factual investigations (paras. 36-37); and that the request constituted an abuse of the worldwide juridical course of (paras. 38-40). In the end, the ICJ rejected all these arguments and determined that “there are not any compelling causes for it to say no to present the opinion”. Notably, not all judges agreed with the Majority’s method in regards to the train of discretion. In her separate opinion, Choose Sebutinde (who has been accused of bias and impartiality recently) argued that it ought to have exercised its discretion to say no rendering the advisory opinion primarily based on the arguments put ahead above.
Scope of the Query
A primary level of competition was how broadly (or narrowly) the ICJ would interpret the query posed by the UNGA. The Courtroom took a slightly formalistic method when decoding the query, observing that the query “considerations the identification of the ‘obligations of Israel’” (para. 77), and thereby clearly differentiated it from earlier advisory opinions which requested the Courtroom to find out the authorized penalties of any breach of related obligations (see, for instance, the 2 prior advisory opinions regarding Palestine, here and here; but in addition the advisory opinions on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius or Obligations of States in respect of climate change which involved each state obligations and authorized penalties). It is very important notice that the Courtroom focuses solely on Israel’s major (substantive) obligations, whereas it may have additionally thought of whether or not Israel was underneath any remedial obligations, equivalent to cessation or reparation, which might have necessitated the Courtroom to have a look at the query of Israel’s accountability.
In terms of the temporal scope, this advisory opinion is the primary one to handle information after 7 of October 2023. Certainly, in its 2024 advisory opinion, the Courtroom explicitly excluded conduct by Israel within the Gaza Strip in response to the assault carried out by Hamas and different armed teams on 7 October 2023 (para. 81). Against this, within the newer advisory opinion, the Courtroom adopted a really in depth method together with information as they stood as of two Could 2025, which considerations the day of closure of oral proceedings (para. 80). Curiously, it additionally consists of subsequent developments which have been issued, on the Courtroom’s request, by the UN, Israel, and Palestine (para. 80). The Deputy-Registrar of the Courtroom had particularly requested “the United Nations, the State of Israel and the State of Palestine to present explanations on the state of affairs since 7 Could 2025 with regard to the supply of urgently wanted important provides and fundamental companies for the Palestinian civilian inhabitants in and in relation to the Gaza Strip.”. Whereas the Registry’s letter has not (but) been made publicly accessible on the Courtroom’s web site, it raises fascinating questions as to the authorized foundation of its request and the procedural justification for searching for further info after the shut of oral proceedings.
Obligations in Relation to the Presence and Actions of the UN, Different IOs, and Third States
The Courtroom additionally underscored Israel’s obligations as an occupying energy by reference to worldwide humanitarian regulation, and worldwide humanitarian regulation. On this weblog submit, I can’t dive deeper into the Courtroom’s normal reasoning as this has already been analysed comprehensively by Eliav Lieblich. In sum, the Courtroom discovered that “the native inhabitants within the Gaza Strip has been inadequately equipped throughout the which means of Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Conference” emphasising that “Israel, as an occupying Energy, is underneath an obligation to conform to and facilitate aid schemes” throughout the which means of Article 59 (para. 109).
The Courtroom additionally discovered that Israel had insufficiently substantiated the declare that UNRWA was impartial (para. 118). All through its reasoning, the Courtroom certainly highlighted the indispensable nature of UNRWA, and emphasised that “within the present circumstances, it isn’t doable to duplicate the capability of UNRWA … UNRWA can’t be changed on brief discover and with out correct transition plan” (para. 121).
Whereas the Courtroom did take into account different mechanisms for support distribution, such because the Gaza Humanitarian Basis, which successfully changed UNRWA (for background, see here), it highlighted that this organisation has confronted vital criticism from the United Nations and different worldwide actors (see, for instance, here and here). The Courtroom additionally noticed that its operations have additionally led to the dying of over 2,100 Palestinians close to distribution websites (para. 123). Crucially, the Courtroom appeared to counsel that solely the UN presently possesses the capability to ship the size of humanitarian help required, whereas non-public entities, such because the Gaza Humanitarian Basis, can’t meet these wants at this time limit. Nonetheless, as famous above, the Courtroom didn’t exclude the opportunity of different entities assuming this function sooner or later, supplied {that a} correct transition plan is established.
Responsibility to Cooperate with the UN underneath Article 2(5) UN Constitution
Constructing on the Courtroom’s emphasis on the indispensable function of the UN in humanitarian aid, a associated and contentious problem arose regarding Israel’s responsibility to cooperate with the UN underneath Article 2(5) UNC. This text states that “[a]ll Members shall give the [UN] each help in any motion it takes in accordance with the current Constitution, and shall chorus from giving help to any state in opposition to which the [UN] is taking preventive or enforcement motion”. Sadly, the Courtroom did not additional make clear the which means and scope of Article 2(5) and easily said that it “have to be learn along with the provisions of the Constitution regarding the powers of the assorted organs of the [UN]”. This lack of readability was additionally raised within the separate opinions and declarations. For instance, Choose Charlesworth, referring to the Reparation for Injuries Advisory Opinion, highlights that the final responsibility to help the UN in all actions underneath its competence “doubtlessly [goes] past the 4 corners of the Constitution” (para. 5). Equally, Choose Xue favours a broad interpretation of Article 2(5). Different judges, particularly Abraham and Cleveland, stipulate that this responsibility solely arises along side different, pre-existing binding duties that States may need. Each most of these interpretations are slightly formidable as they find the responsibility to cooperate not solely internally from throughout the UNC, but in addition from obligations exterior to it. As argued by Eliav Lieblich, there are various alternative ways to conceptualise the responsibility to cooperate and the Courtroom’s lack of clarification leaves quite a lot of house for dialogue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, whereas the advisory opinion shouldn’t be legally binding, it nonetheless carries vital authoritative weight in clarifying Israel’s obligations underneath worldwide regulation. The non-binding nature of the opinion does actually not exempt Israel from compliance with the substantive authorized duties recognized by the Courtroom. Nonetheless, Israel’s continued disregard for the orders of the ICJ’s orders poses an actual danger to the rule-based worldwide order. As cautioned by Choose Tladi in 2024 nonetheless the “Courtroom is barely a court docket!”, emphasising that the political organs of the UN are underneath an “obligation to resolve this downside” (Declaration Judge Tladi, para. 13). In his declaration, Choose Tladi additionally voiced his frustration, asking what ought to occur when “no heed is paid to this Advisory Opinion and to the opposite suggestions and resolutions of the United Nations?”, recalling Choose Lauterpacht’s warning that persistent defiance of the Organisation’s expressed will could result in “the conviction that the State in query has change into responsible of disloyalty to the Rules and Functions of the Constitution” (para. 14).
Past its implications for Israel, the advisory opinion additionally bears significance for third States. It reinforces the obligations of all States to make sure respect for worldwide humanitarian regulation, together with via their insurance policies on humanitarian help. In opposition to this background, the opinion doubtlessly additionally carried necessary weight for these States that suspended or decreased funding for UNRWA (see, for instance, here). The Courtroom’s findings seem to vindicate UNRWA’s indispensable function in offering humanitarian support and should immediate renewed engagement and assist for it. In the end, nonetheless, whether or not this advisory opinion will produce any tangible change in follow is uncertain and stays to be seen.
