Israel is responsible for providing aid to Palestinians trapped in occupied Gaza.
The International Court of Justice recently gave an advisory opinion in a ruling that Israel is responsible for providing aid to Palestinians in occupied Gaza through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other international agencies.
According to the International News Agency, the International Court of Justice accepted its jurisdiction in the matter and said it could give an advisory opinion in the case.
The court concluded that Israel must cooperate with UNRWA and other UN agencies in providing aid, and facilitate access to the aid system.
The judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel has failed to prove its claim that a large number of employees of the UN relief agency UNRWA are members of Hamas.
In April this year, UN lawyers and Palestinian representatives accused Israel of violating international law in the International Court of Justice because Israel completely blocked aid from entering Gaza from March to May.
At the time, Israel had taken the position that Hamas fighters were stealing the aid, but it could not prove this allegation in court.
The court further said that the Palestinians in Gaza were being provided with insufficient food, while the use of hunger as a weapon of war is prohibited.
The lawyer for the Palestinian representatives, Paul Reichler, said that these findings make it clear that Israel is not fulfilling its obligations under international law.
It should be noted that the UN relief agency UNRWA, which provides education and assistance to millions of Palestinians, has more than 30,000 employees.
The United Nations confirmed in August 2024 that nine UNRWA staff members were likely involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and were dismissed.
On the other hand, Israel says that an UNRWA employee killed in Gaza in October 2024 was actually a Hamas commander.
Although the advisory opinion is not legally enforceable, its legal interpretation has legal effect and serves as guidance for the international community, member states and other courts.
Israel’s diplomatic and legal position, in particular its international reputation and the legitimacy of its military actions, could be affected.
The Palestinians and their supporting countries could find a legal victory that could be useful in future mediation, negotiations or international decision-making.
Israel did not participate directly in the hearing, but it described the court’s jurisdiction and legal proceedings as political and biased.
However, the court’s associate president, Judge Julia Sibutande, has filed a dissenting opinion against the advisory opinion.
She says that the court’s opinion is not “balanced and impartial” because Israel’s arguments were not properly heard.
She pointed out that the court did not look at the historical, territorial and diplomatic dimensions of the Palestinian conflict, such as the establishment of the Zionist state, the borders during the British Mandate period, Israel’s security concerns, the negotiating framework such as the Oslo Accords, etc.
Sibutande took the position that the court’s opinion ignored the fundamental principle of state consent, meaning that it is difficult for a state to accept a court decision without its own bias.
According to her, the decision could reduce the effectiveness of the negotiation path and bringing the dispute to the court’s jurisdiction could make that path more difficult.
It should be recalled that in a 2024 advisory opinion, the World Court had declared that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories was illegal and should be ended immediately.
The court also said that since Israel is an occupying power, it has a responsibility to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people.
