ICJ concludes hearings on Israel’s obligations with the UN and its activities in the OPT
By Lorenzo Bersellini / GICJ
On 2 May 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded its public hearings on the request from the UN General Assembly for an advisory opinion on the Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organisations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Over the course of a week, 39 state representatives, including that of the State of Palestine, presented their oral submissions to the Court.
Through resolution A/79, The UN General Assembly sought the Court’s opinion on Israel’s legal obligations as a UN member state and as an occupying power after the country’s legislative body, the Knesset, promulgated two laws on 28 October 2024 aiming to cease the action and presence of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees, the subsidiary body of the General Assembly responsible for human development and humanitarian services of more than 6 million Palestinian refugees. Moreover, more than 480 aid workers have been killed since October 2023, including 290 UNRWA agents.
Against the dire humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, aggravated by the complete suspension of the provision and circulation of humanitarian aid and assistance since the beginning of March 2025, the vast majority of the 39 States representatives before the Court accused Israel of having blatantly violated its obligations both as a UN member and as an occupying power.
In regards to its status as a UN member, those states that took the floor at the Hague - including Egypt, France, Spain, Brazil, South Africa, Qatar, China and beyond - accused Israel of violating both the UN Charter and the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which Israel joined in 1949. Concretely, Israel is found to be breaching its obligation under Article 2.5 of the Charter to give every assistance to the organisation in its actions and to its subsidiary bodies, including UNRWA, and to act in good faith. In this light, these states reminded the Court of Israel’s unlawful unilateral termination of operation with UNRWA, which could be done only through the General Assembly.
The 1946 Convention, instead, recalls the inviolability and immunity of UN premises, property, assets and personnel from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, and any other form of interference whether by executive, judicial, legislative or administrative actions. According to the states that intervened, Israel’s conduct, including deliberate attacks, arbitrary detention and torture of UN and humanitarian personnel, the siege of UNRWA’s schools and centres, and the restrictions imposed on aid providers and members of the agency, amount to violations of such obligations.
As an occupying power, Israel’s conduct was judged by multiple countries to be in breach of its obligations stemming from various legal sources, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (GC4) and its Additional Protocol I, the Hague Regulation of 1907 and other provisions of customary international law. In sum, Israel was accused of failing in its duty to:
- ensure the provision of food and medical supplies to the occupied civilian population (Art. 55 GC4), and
- agree and facilitate relief schemes (consisting in particular of foodstuff, medical supplies and clothing) on behalf of the occupied population if it is, in part or in its whole, inadequately supplied and to permit its free passage and protection (Art. 59 GC4)
Furthermore, delegations stressed the illegality of Israel’s presence in the OPT, as determined by the July 2024 advisory opinion of the Court, and its prohibition of any exercise of sovereignty over Palestinian territory.
Mindful of these obligations and prohibitions, country representatives impugned the two Knesset bills that prevent UNRWA’s presence and activities in and in relation to the OPT as unlawful and contrary to Israel’s international obligations, considering that the organisation forms the backbone of humanitarian assistance in Gaza and that is openly regarded as irreplaceable by any other actor in its delivery of humanitarian aid and services to the Palestinian population. Israel was therefore urged to resume contact with UNRWA, while at the same time facilitating and supporting its essential work in the OPT, particularly in Gaza, where 90% of its 2.1 million people has been displaced and depends on humanitarian aid for its survival.
Multiple delegations, including those of Egypt, Brazil, South Africa, Spain and others, argued that Israel’s blatant disregard for its obligations vis-a-vis the UN, other IO, and third parties as a UN member and as an occupying power are resulting in the deprivation of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Keeping in mind the central role that UNRWA plays in education, health care, humanitarian assistance, provision of public goods and the respect of the right to return of Palestinian refugees, prohibiting UNRWA’s activities and presence in the OPT and attacking the organisation’s property, assets and personnel constitutes a deprivation of the economic, social, and cultural rights, the right to development, and the right to be protected against the acts that aim at dispersing the population, undermining its integrity as a people, of the Palestinian people. These are all founding elements of the right of self-determination, whose respect is a peremptory norm and an erga omnes obligation.
Notwithstanding the consent that these motions generated throughout the whole week of oral deposition, the United States assumed different positions. It emphasised Israel’s security concerns in conceding to the occupying power margin of discretion in the decision of who can deliver humanitarian aid and when. Moreover, it disputed the fact that Art. 2.5 of the Charter obliged member states to cooperate at all times with the UN. In their view and that of the United Kingdom, the specific wording of Art 2.5 refers only to action taken by the UN Security Council. Therefore, as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, UNRWA could not impose any binding obligation of collaboration on Israel. Finally, the US cast doubt on UNRWA’s impartiality and neutrality, which would, in their view, absolve Israel from any obligation to cooperate with the agency. Nevertheless, the UN Legal Advisor and various other Member States emphasised throughout the week UNRWA’s commitment to zero tolerance for impartiality and its credible investigations on alleged involvement of UNRWA staff in the 7 October attacks on Israel, as certified by independent reports commissioned by the Secretary General. Irrespective of impartiality concerns, Israel would still be prohibited from unilaterally terminating its cooperation with UNRWA, as such a prerogative falls into the powers of the General Assembly alone.
Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) supports the decision to refer the question at stake to the principal judicial authority of the UN, in order to seek clarity and a neutral judgement that the international community could uphold. Waiting for the Court’s deliberation, GICJ stresses the need for urgent, immediate and unhindered access of humanitarian aid in Gaza. Food, water, medicine, fuel, clothing and energy supplies are all desperately needed as man-made starvation is decimating the local population. We could not emphasise more unequivocally the crucial role that UNRWA has played and still plays for Palestinians’ right to food, water, dignity, development, return and social, economic, cultural rights and their fundamental right to self-determination. The adoption of the two October 2024 laws that prevent its work are not just an attack on the UN, but a deliberate assault on the existential rights of the Palestinian. We thus invoke the return to a permanent ceasefire, the finding of a peaceful solution to the conflict and the end of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
