In a significant development, the UN General Assembly last year requested an advisory opinion from the World Court regarding Israel’s legal responsibilities. This came after Israel imposed a ban on the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, which serves as the primary aid provider to Gaza.
Yuji Iwasawa, the president of the court, stated on Wednesday that Israel is obligated to cooperate with and facilitate relief efforts conducted by the United Nations and its entities, including the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).
Despite these proceedings, Israel has rejected claims of violating international law, labeling the court’s process as biased. Although Israel did not participate in the April hearings, the country did submit a detailed 38-page written argument for the court’s consideration.
This advisory opinion from the World Court coincides with a delicate US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, which has been in place since October 10. The truce, intended to end the prolonged conflict in the Palestinian enclave, remains tenuous following recent Israeli military actions. Earlier this week, Israeli forces launched attacks in response to what they described as a deadly assault by Hamas militants on two of their soldiers.
While advisory opinions aren’t legally binding, they hold considerable influence. Legal experts suggest that the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the operations of the UN and its global missions.
The proceedings predate the current fragile US-brokered Gaza ceasefire agreement, which took effect on October 10, and aims at ending the two-year war in the Palestinian enclave. Though still in effect, the shaky truce was tested earlier this week after Israeli forces launched a wave of deadly strikes, saying Hamas militants had killed two soldiers.
Under the agreement, 600 humanitarian aid trucks are to be allowed to enter daily.
The UN has announced plans to ramp up aid shipments into Gaza. On Monday, Hamas chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya told Egypt’s Al-Qahera News that Israel has complied with aid deliveries per the ceasefire agreement.
During the hearings in April, Palestinian ambassador to the Netherlands Ammar Hijazi told the 15-judge panel that Israel was “starving, killing and displacing Palestinians while also targeting and blocking humanitarian organisations trying to save their lives”.
Israel’s ban on the UN agency in Gaza, known as UNRWA, came into effect in January.
The organisation has faced increased criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right allies, who claim the group is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. UNRWA rejects that claim.
In March, Israel cut off all aid shipments for three months, leading to severe food shortages in the Palestinian territory.
Eventually, Israel allowed in some aid while pushing forward with a highly criticised plan to shift aid distribution to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private US-backed group.
Conditions continued to worsen and international food experts declared a famine in parts of Gaza in August.
Israel has claimed there was enough food in Gaza and accused Hamas of hoarding supplies.
GHF has suspended its operations after the latest ceasefire was reached.
Advisory opinions issued by the UN court are described as “nonbinding” as there are no direct penalties attached to ignoring them. However, the treaty that covers the protections that countries must give to UN personnel says that disputes should be resolved through an advisory opinion at the ICJ and the opinion “shall be accepted as decisive by the parties”.
The UN General Assembly asked for the ICJ’s guidance in December 2024 on “obligations of Israel ⦠in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations ⦠to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population”.
“We cannot let states pick and choose where the UN is going to do its work. This advisory opinion is a very important opportunity to reinforce that,” Mike Becker, an expert on international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, told The Associated Press ahead of the hearings in April.
The ICJ has issued other advisory opinions on Israeli policies. Two decades ago, the court ruled that Israel’s West Bank separation barrier was “contrary to international law”. Israel boycotted those proceedings, saying they were politically motivated.
In another advisory opinion last year, the court said that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and called on it to end, and for settlement construction to stop immediately. That ruling fuelled moves for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. Israel condemned the decision, saying it failed to address the country’s security concerns.
Arrest warrants for Netanyahu
Last year, another tribunal in The Hague, the International Criminal Court, issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, alleging the pair have used “starvation as a method of warfare” by restricting humanitarian aid and have intentionally targeted civilians â charges Israeli officials strongly deny.
The advisory opinion at the ICJ is separate from the ongoing proceedings initiated by South Africa, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Israel rejects South Africa’s claim and accuses it of providing political cover for Hamas.
The war in Gaza was triggered by Hamas’ surprise attack on southern Israel that left 1200 dead and 250 taken hostage. Israel’s retaliatory offensive in the Palestinian territory has killed more than 68,000 people, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
The ministry’s figures are seen as the most reliable by UN agencies and independent experts. Israel has disputed them without providing its own toll.
