THE ICJ ADVISORY OPINION ON ISRAEL’S OBLIGATIONS: REAFFIRMING UNRWA’S HUMANITARIAN MANDATE

By Diya Kanwal, a fourth year law student at National Law Institute, Bhopal.

---

INTRODUCTION

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the territory of Palestine was placed under a Class “A” Mandate administered by Great Britain. In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (II), proposing the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish States, with Jerusalem under international administration. While the Jewish community accepted the plan, the Arab States and Palestinian Arabs rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The 1948-1949 war between Israel and several Arab States in the region led to a widespread displacement and a severe humanitarian crisis, resulting in nearly 700,000 Palestinians being forced to leave their homes.

Recognising the scale of the humanitarian emergency and the need for coordinated relief efforts, the United Nation General Assembly established the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in 1949 as its subsidiary organ, and it began its operations on 1 May 1950. The agency was tasked with providing assistance, protection, and essential services to Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Before 7 October 2023, humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees was primarily coordinated through UNRWA. Its operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory were governed by the 1967 Agreement between UNRWA and Israel, which outlined the agency’s privileges and immunities. Alongside UNRWA, various United Nations bodies, specialised agencies, other international organisations, and third States also provided humanitarian and developmental support. However, following the attacks of 7 October 2023 and the ensuing military operations, Israel alleged that certain UNRWA employees were involved in the attacks. In a six-page dossier shared with the United States and the Reuters news agency, it alleged that 12 UNRWA staff members were directly involved in the attacks of 7 October. The document further claimed that UNRWA had employed around 190 individuals affiliated with Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades and the Islamic Jihad movement.

Subsequently, Israel adopted several measures affecting relief operations in Gaza. On 28 October 2024, the Israeli parliament enacted two laws to terminate UNRWA’s activities: one ending its operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and another banning them within Israel’s claimed sovereign territory. These laws came into effect on 30 January 2025 . On 3 November 2025, Israel officially notified the United Nations of its decision to cancel the 1967 agreement governing UNRWA’s operations in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Consequently, the agency was ordered   to  vacate all premises in occupied East Jerusalem and cease its operations in them by 30 January 2025.

First, the Law to Cease UNRWA Operations, annulled the longstanding Comay-Michelmore Agreement of 1967, which had governed UNRWA’s privileges and operations in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It also prohibited Israeli authorities from maintaining any contact with UNRWA or its representatives. Secondly the Law to Cease UNRWA Operations in the Territory of the State of Israel, explicitly banned the agency’s activities within what Israel defines as its sovereign territory, effectively targeting UNRWA’s work in East Jerusalem, an area that, under international law, remains part of the occupied Palestinian territory.

From 2 March to 18 May 2025, Israel blocked all humanitarian relief to the Gaza Strip. Later, it established the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation on May 27, 2025, and resumed limited aid deliveries on May 19, 2025, under a new distribution mechanism. This system, however, has faced widespread criticism from the international community for undermining established humanitarian coordination frameworks and restricting access to aid. Further, the prohibition on UNRWA’s operations in areas Israel designates as its “sovereign territory” including occupied East Jerusalem has compelled the agency to evacuate its headquarters compound and cease activities there. Simultaneously, restrictions on engagement between UNRWA officials and Israeli authorities, coupled with the denial of visas, have effectively expelled international staff from the occupied West Bank.

This analysis examines the recent Advisory Opinion (“AO”) delivered by the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) on 22 October 2025, concerning Israel’s obligations as an Occupying Power in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations and other international actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“OPT”), including East Jerusalem. It traces the historical background of UNRWA’s establishment and operations, Israel’s recent legislative and administrative measures restricting the agency’s work, and the broader humanitarian implications of these actions. It also highlights the ICJ’s interpretation of Israel’s duties under international law, which includes the obligation to facilitate humanitarian assistance, respect the privileges and immunities of UN agencies, and uphold the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

ICJ’s ADVISORY OPINION

In its resolution 79/232, adopted on 19 December 2024, the United Nations General Assembly requested the ICJ to provide an AO on obligations of Israel, as an Occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to unhindered humanitarian aid and safeguarding the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. On 22 October 2025, ICJ delivered its AO.

Referring to its 2024 AO, the Court recalled that despite Israel’s withdrawal of ground forces in 2005, it retained significant control over Gaza’s land, sea, and air borders, movement of people and goods, tax collection, and the maintenance of a military buffer zone. These are the factors sufficient to establish effective control.  In its 2025 AO, the court has reaffirmed that Israel remains an Occupying Power in relation to the Gaza Strip. Following the events of 7 October 2023, Israel’s effective control over Gaza had increased considerably, as reflected in its intensified military presence and the complete blockade of humanitarian aid from 2 March to 18 May 2025. Consequently, Israel's obligations under the law of occupation have also expanded, corresponding to the heightened degree of control it now exercises (ICJ AO, 2025, para. 86). The Court had earlier stated that Israel’s obligations under the law of occupation “remain commensurate with the degree of its effective control” over the territory. This finding is consistent with the functional or “sliding-scale” approach, which posits that occupation duties increase with the capacities and functions a State is able to exercise.

Under Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (“GC IV”), an Occupying Power has a legal duty to ensure that civilians in occupied territories receive essential supplies, including food, water, shelter, and medical care. Further, article 59 requires an Occupying Power to agree to and facilitate relief operations whenever the population is inadequately supplied. The court, analysing article 59 of the GC IV, stated that this duty is unconditional and applies to relief efforts by both States and impartial humanitarian organisations, including United Nations agencies. Relief supplies extend beyond food and medicine to include items essential for survival and dignity, such as water, fuel, shelter, and assistive devices for people with disabilities. While an Occupying Power may inspect aid consignments for security reasons, it cannot use this authority to block or delay humanitarian assistance. Any diversion or obstruction of aid is permissible only in exceptional and temporary circumstances, and solely for the benefit of the local population.

The ICJ has stressed that allowing aid to enter a territory is not enough. The Occupying Power must also ensure that humanitarian relief is distributed fairly, safely, and without discrimination, and that civilians are not harmed or threatened while accessing it. In essence, Israel must use all means available to guarantee the regular and dignified delivery of aid to the Palestinian population under its control (ICJ AO, 2025, para.101).

UNRWA’s INDISPENSABLE ROLE IN HUMANITARIAN RELIEF

Article 59 of GC IV obliges an Occupying Power to agree to and facilitate relief efforts if the local population is inadequately supplied. The provision requires relief operations to be conducted by “impartial humanitarian organisations,” and does not specify any particular organisation. This means that, in principle, an Occupying Power has the freedom to choose which humanitarian organisations it works with to meet its obligations.

Israel claimed that UNRWA lacked impartiality and neutrality due to alleged links with Hamas and other groups. It alleged that UNRWA employees were involved in the 7 October 2023 attacks, and the agency’s facilities were misused by armed groups. To this claim, the ICJ stated that impartiality must be determined objectively and not based on a State’s unilateral perception. Referring to the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement , the Court emphasised that impartiality means providing aid without discrimination based on nationality, religion, class, or political opinion. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found no indication that UNRWA, as an institution, violated the principle of impartiality or engaged in discriminatory practices in distributing aid and Israel’s claims were not substantiated at an institutional level.

Furthermore, the court stated that the discretion of the Occupying Power to choose which humanitarian organisations it works with to meet its obligations is limited, insofar as adequate humanitarian relief reaches the population and that their essential needs are fully met. The Court observed that Israel has failed to provide any effective replacement system for relief distribution during a ten-week period from March to May 2025. As noted above, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, established by Israel as a substitute mechanism to the UNRWA, has faced widespread criticism for violating humanitarian principles and has been linked to numerous civilian deaths near aid sites.

Many States emphasised before the court that in the context of the OPT, and especially the Gaza Strip, UNRWA remains the only humanitarian organisation with the infrastructure and capacity to adequately support the population. Established in 1949, long before the occupation began, UNRWA has been deeply embedded in the region’s humanitarian system, providing food, water, healthcare, and shelter to millions of Palestinian refugees. The states further stated that the organisation’s unique role and irreplaceable capacity have been reaffirmed in multiple UN General Assembly resolutions. Israel, however, argued that UNRWA is not indispensable and that it has worked with other partners to ensure the delivery of aid.

The Court concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the United Nations, acting through UNRWA, remains an indispensable provider of humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip. As noted by the UN Secretary-General, “there is currently no realistic alternative to UNRWA that could adequately provide the services and assistance required by Palestine refugees.”  In light of Article 59 of the GC IV, the Court determined that Israel is under a binding obligation to agree to and facilitate relief operations carried out by the United Nations and its agencies, including UNRWA.

CONCLUSION

This AO marks a significant milestone, not only for its legal conclusions but also for its scope. Notably, it is the first ICJ AO to examine Israel’s conduct after 7 October 2023. By adopting a broader temporal approach and considering facts as they stood up to 2 May 2025, the Court based its findings on the ongoing reality of the conflict and its humanitarian consequences.

Through this AO, the court has clarified that Israel’s obligations toward UNRWA are not rooted in any organisation-specific laws but arise from broader principles of international law. Israel, as an Occupying Power, is required to ensure the protection and welfare of the Palestinian civilian population and to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid without obstruction. The court has aptly clarified that the ongoing hostilities do not negate the application of the law of occupation. Even during active conflict, Israel remains bound by both the rules of occupation and the broader principles of international humanitarian law (ICJ AO, 2025, para. 162). Crucially, the Court has also stated that Israel’s responsibilities extend beyond international humanitarian law and international human rights law. As a UN Member State, Israel has an obligation under Articles 2(2) and 2(5) of the UN Charter to cooperate in good faith with the United Nations. It should refrain from obstructing its functions and respect the privileges and immunities of UN entities and personnel, including UNRWA.

While the ICJ’s opinion carries immense legal and moral weight, it remains advisory in nature and therefore not legally binding. The responsibility for ensuring compliance ultimately rests with the political organs of the United Nations, notably the General Assembly and the Security Council. However, Israel’s persistent disregard of successive AOs, including those affirming the illegality of its occupation and settlement policies, remains a matter of serious concern. This continued non-compliance is further evidenced by recent developments, including reported forced entry into UNRWA facilities and demolition activities at its headquarters earlier this year in January. Such actions suggest a continued pattern of conduct that takes little account of the Court’s findings, thereby undermining not only the authority of the Court but also the broader international legal order that seeks to uphold humanitarian principles and accountability.

In this context, the 2025 AO serves as both a legal reminder and a moral call, reaffirming that the protection of civilians and the facilitation of humanitarian aid by the occupied power are not optional, but obligations owed under international law.