Author: Preyasi Singh

Court: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Date of the Opinion: 22 October 2025

Case Type: Advisory Opinion

Bench: Full Court (15 Judges), The Hague

Relevant Provisions: United Nations Charter; Hague Regulations, 1907; Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949; Customary International Humanitarian Law; International Human Rights Law

Introduction

The advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice on 22 October 2025 addresses the scope of Israel’s obligations concerning the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third States within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly Gaza. The opinion was rendered in response to a request from the United Nations General Assembly amid escalating humanitarian concerns, restrictions on UN operations, and sustained hostilities in the region.

The opinion is significant for its authoritative clarification of the legal duties of an occupying power under international humanitarian law and the United Nations Charter. While not determinative of state responsibility, the advisory opinion contributes materially to the interpretation of international legal standards governing humanitarian access and cooperation with international organizations.

Brief Facts

In 2025, the United Nations General Assembly sought an advisory opinion from the ICJ regarding Israel’s obligations toward UN agencies and other international actors operating in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This request followed reports of substantial restrictions on humanitarian access, suspension or limitation of cooperation with certain UN agencies, and impediments affecting the delivery of food, medical supplies, and essential services to the civilian population.

The factual context involved prolonged military operations and security measures that allegedly hindered the functioning of humanitarian organizations. The General Assembly requested clarification of the applicable legal framework governing Israel’s conduct as an occupying power and UN Member State, particularly in light of international humanitarian law and peremptory norms protecting civilian populations.

Issues Involved

• Whether Israel continues to bear obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law as an occupying power.
• Whether Israel is legally required to facilitate or refrain from obstructing the lawful activities of the United Nations and other international organizations in occupied territory.
• Whether restrictions affecting humanitarian access and essential supplies may engage the prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.

Arguments of the Requesting Parties

The United Nations and supporting States submitted that Israel remains bound by the law of occupation, including obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law. It was argued that these obligations include ensuring the welfare of the civilian population and facilitating impartial humanitarian assistance.

The requesting parties further contended that broad or disproportionate restrictions on UN agencies, including suspension of cooperation with humanitarian bodies, are incompatible with Israel’s duties under the UN Charter. They emphasized that humanitarian access must not be conditioned in a manner that undermines civilian survival or dignity.

Arguments Presented by Israel and Supporting States

Israel submitted that security concerns justified certain restrictive measures, particularly where humanitarian structures were allegedly misused by non-state armed groups. It argued that obligations toward international organizations must be balanced against legitimate security imperatives.

Supporting States emphasized the advisory nature of the proceedings and cautioned against the Court resolving contested factual allegations. They maintained that the Court should confine itself to legal interpretation without pronouncing on issues of state responsibility or enforcement.

Opinion of the Court

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed that Israel retains obligations under international humanitarian law as an occupying power. The Court emphasized that these obligations include ensuring access to essential goods and services necessary for the survival of the civilian population.

The Court further held that Israel, as a Member State of the United Nations, is under an obligation to cooperate in good faith with the UN and other international organizations lawfully operating in occupied territory. Arbitrary or disproportionate restrictions that impede humanitarian assistance were found to be inconsistent with these obligations.

The ICJ reiterated the absolute prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. It clarified that measures which deliberately or effectively prevent access to food, medical supplies, or humanitarian relief may constitute violations of international humanitarian law, irrespective of stated security justifications.

Ratio Decidendi

• Occupation entails continuous and affirmative obligations: An occupying power remains bound, for the duration of the occupation, by duties under international humanitarian law to ensure the welfare and survival of the civilian population, irrespective of the intensity of hostilities.
• Facilitation, not mere tolerance, of humanitarian assistance is required: States exercising effective control must enable impartial humanitarian operations and refrain from measures that render such operations ineffective in practice.
• Peremptory norms impose absolute limits on security justifications: The prohibition on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare admits of no derogation; measures that deliberately or foreseeably deprive civilians of access to essential goods may violate international humanitarian law regardless of asserted military necessity.
• UN membership generates autonomous obligations of cooperation: As a Member State of the United Nations, Israel is under a duty to cooperate in good faith with the UN and its agencies acting pursuant to their mandates, including by respecting their presence and activities in occupied territory.

Analysis

The advisory opinion represents a doctrinal consolidation rather than a departure in the Court’s jurisprudence, yet its significance lies in the specificity with which it articulates obligations relating to humanitarian access and institutional cooperation.

Notably, the Court reaffirmed that occupation law imposes positive duties, rejecting the notion that an occupying power may discharge its obligations merely by refraining from interference. The emphasis on facilitation signals a legal standard that evaluates the practical effectiveness of humanitarian operations, not their formal permissibility.

Equally significant is the Court’s treatment of security justifications. While acknowledging the existence of legitimate security concerns, the Court subjected such claims to strict legal limits, reaffirming that peremptory norms, particularly the prohibition on starvation of civilians, cannot be overridden by military necessity. In doing so, the Court reinforced the hierarchical structure of international law.

The opinion is also institutionally important. By grounding Israel’s obligations in its UN Member status, the Court situated humanitarian access within the broader framework of good-faith cooperation under the UN Charter, strengthening the legal position of UN agencies in occupied territories.

At the same time, the Court exercised deliberate restraint. It avoided attributing responsibility for specific violations or addressing enforcement mechanisms, preserving the advisory character of the proceedings. This restraint, while limiting immediate legal consequences, enhances the opinion’s authority as a reference point for future diplomatic, legal, and institutional action.

Overall, the opinion reinforces that civilian protection is central to international humanitarian law and clarifies that restrictions affecting humanitarian assistance are subject to stringent scrutiny under occupation law and the UN Charter framework.

Final Decision

The International Court of Justice, on 22 October 2025, issued an advisory opinion affirming that: 

• Israel retains obligations under international humanitarian law as an occupying power.
• Israel must cooperate in good faith with the United Nations and other international organizations operating lawfully in occupied territory.
• Measures that obstruct humanitarian assistance or restrict essential supplies may violate international humanitarian law, including the prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.