ICJ Reviews Israel’s Aid Obligations to Palestine: Key Takeaways
On May 2, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded public hearings examining Israel’s legal responsibilities regarding the facilitation of humanitarian aid by UN agencies and other relief organizations in the Palestinian territories it occupies.
Over the course of the week, a panel of ICJ judges heard oral arguments from 40 countries, including China, France, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. These proceedings followed a request by the UN General Assembly in December 2023, and a final advisory opinion from the court is expected in the coming months.
Widespread Condemnation of Israel’s Aid Blockade
Most participating states criticized Israel for severely restricting humanitarian assistance to Gaza since the launch of its military campaign on October 7, 2023 a campaign many have referred to as genocidal. Israel has entirely halted the delivery of food and medical supplies for over two months, worsening Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and pushing its population toward starvation and medical collapse.
There was broad agreement among states that, as an occupying power, Israel is legally obliged to allow humanitarian agencies to deliver aid particularly in Gaza, which it continues to bomb. As one legal expert stated, “Every state, except for two, agrees that Israel is an occupier and owes certain obligations.”
Israel’s Position: Denial and Defiance
Israel chose not to participate in the hearings, instead submitting written statements in which it dismissed the process as a “circus” and accused the ICJ of anti-Semitism. It argued that it is not required to cooperate with what it called “compromised” UN agencies and insisted that its sovereign right to self-defense outweighs any duty to provide aid.
This is not the first time Israel has refused to attend ICJ hearings, particularly when the outcome may result in an advisory opinion against it.
The U.S. Defense of Israel
The United States defended Israel’s stance during the hearings. According to legal scholar Heidi Matthews, an assistant professor of law at York University, the U.S. presentation deliberately avoided addressing the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and attempted to shield Israel from legal accountability.
Matthews criticized the U.S. for adopting a formalist approach devoid of factual grounding, describing it as characteristic of authoritarian legal strategies. Similarly, Rutgers University legal expert Adil Haque noted that the U.S. sought to intimidate the court by repeating Israel’s unproven claims that UNRWA the UN agency for Palestinian refugees has been infiltrated by Hamas.
Israel banned UNRWA from operating in Gaza in October 2024, even though the agency provides vital support to Palestinians displaced by the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Legal Scholars Question Real-World Impact
Haque warned that the U.S. is pushing for a vague advisory opinion that would avoid directly addressing Israel’s actions. “If the court rules in overly general terms, it may say nothing meaningful about Israel’s conduct,” he said.
Meanwhile, more than two million Palestinians in Gaza continue to suffer under conditions described as genocidal, facing starvation and relentless violence.
Symbolic Justice vs. Tangible Action
While ICJ advisory opinions help reaffirm international legal norms, they are non-binding and cannot compel state action. Haque noted that some countries may be using the ICJ process as a substitute for direct action, pointing to statements from European states like the UK and France that condemned Israel's blockade but failed to follow up with meaningful pressure.
The UK referenced its recent decision to suspend arms sales to Israel, while France emphasized the urgent need for humanitarian aid access but critics argue these gestures fall short of what is needed.
“The burden is now on states to take real action, not wait for a court ruling on what is already evident,” Haque stated.
Looking Ahead: What Will the ICJ Decide?
A ruling from the ICJ is not expected for several months. Legal analysts believe the court may issue a narrow opinion outlining Israel’s obligations to facilitate humanitarian aid and cooperate with UNRWA. However, given Israel’s prior disregard for the court's provisional measures including an earlier ruling instructing it to prevent genocide and expand humanitarian access expectations for enforcement remain low.
No country has acted to hold Israel accountable for ignoring that provisional order, originally issued in response to South Africa’s genocide case in December 2023.
By the time the ICJ delivers its final opinion, legal experts warn that tens of thousands of Palestinians could already be dead victims of starvation or ethnic cleansing.
As legal scholar McIntyre put it: “The advisory opinion won’t solve the crisis on the ground. What’s needed now is decisive action by the international community.”
Watch This Important Video
