Résumé de l’Avis Consultatif du 22 octobre 2025 « obligations d’Israël en ce qui concerne la présence et les activités de l’ONU, d’autres organisations internationales et d’Etats tiers dans le TPO et en lien avec celui-ci » – JURDI – Juristes pour le respect du droit international

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website X YouTube LinkedIn Unofficial Summary 2025/7 October 22, 2025

Israel's obligations regarding the presence and activities of the Organization of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in and related to the occupied Palestinian territory Summary of the advisory opinion of October 22, 2025

Qualities (paras. 1-16) The Court recalls that, by letter dated 20 December 2024, the Secretary-General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Court the decision taken by the General Assembly of the Organization (hereinafter, the ’General Assembly«) to submit to it the question set out in resolution 79/232 which it adopted on 19 December 2024.

Paragraph 10 of this resolution reads as follows:

« The General Assembly, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Decided, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice to give, under Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, as a matter of priority and urgency, an advisory opinion on the following question, having regard to the rules and principles of international law, including in particular the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the privileges and immunities applicable under international law to international organizations and States, the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, the advisory opinion of the Court dated 9 July 2004 and the advisory opinion of the Court dated 19 July 2024, in which it reaffirmed the obligation of the Occupying Power to administer the occupied territory in the interests of the local population and held that Israel had no right to sovereignty over any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and could not exercise sovereign powers thereon due to his occupation:

What are Israel's obligations, as an occupying power and member of the United Nations, with regard to the presence and activities of the Organization, including its agencies and bodies, other international organizations, and third States in and related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including

2 – with regard to ensuring and facilitating the unhindered provision of essential necessities vital to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population, as well as basic services, humanitarian aid, and development assistance, in the interest of the Palestinian civilian population and in support of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination?»

I. COMPETENCE AND DISCRETIONARY POWER (PAR. 17-41) A. Competence (paras. 18-22) The Court first considers whether it has jurisdiction to give the requested advisory opinion. It notes that, under paragraph 1 of Article 96 of the Charter, the General Assembly may request an advisory opinion on any legal question. In accordance with the condition set out in Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute, the Court must ascertain that the question posed by the General Assembly is a legal question. It considers that this is the case here and that it therefore has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly.

B. Discretionary Power (paras. 23-41) The Court recalls that only decisive reasons can lead it to refuse a request for an opinion falling within its competence.

1. The question is whether, in giving the requested opinion, the Court would be prejudging certain elements of a

ongoing legal case (paras. 26-31) The Court rejects the argument that the requested advisory opinion could prejudge certain elements relevant to the case concerning the’Application of the convention for prevention and the repression of the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). She notes that the two proceedings clearly each have a different purpose. In this case, the Court's role is limited to determining the obligations incumbent upon Israel, as the occupying Power and as a Member of the United Nations, "with regard to the presence and activities of the Organization… in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory." The contentious case between South Africa and Israel, on the other hand, concerns whether Israel has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter, the "Genocide Convention").

The fact that the Court, in its orders indicating provisional measures in the contentious case, enjoined Israel, among other things, to guarantee the provision of basic services and humanitarian aid to the population in the Gaza Strip does not alter the distinction between the two proceedings. The measures indicated aim to preserve certain rights invoked under the Genocide Convention and deemed plausible by the Court.

Although the same conduct may be required of a State under different legal rules, and the same conduct may simultaneously violate several obligations, a finding by the Court regarding one obligation does not necessarily prejudge the question of compliance with a different obligation. In this case, the facts that could give rise to a possible finding of a violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention are sufficiently distinct from the facts relating to the determination of Israel's obligations as an occupying Power and as a Member of the United Nations in the context of the present case.

3 – There are, however, points of fact or law that may be relevant both in the context of these advisory proceedings and in contentious matters. In this regard, the Court recalls that the parties to pending contentious proceedings will have the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments on factual and legal issues, on the basis of which it will decide the dispute in question.

2. It is unclear whether this issue has already been addressed in previous advisory opinions.

(paras. 32-35) The Court then considers the argument that the question raised has already been addressed in its previous advisory opinions on the Legal consequences of building a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory and on the Legal consequences arising from policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem (hereinafter, the ’2024 Advisory Opinion«). It considers that the request under consideration differs from the two previous ones and concerns an issue that was not addressed in the advisory opinions it has already issued. First, the present request addresses a specific issue that did not arise at the time. As is clear from the preamble to resolution 79/232, the General Assembly’s request followed the adoption by Israel, on 28 October 2024, of laws restricting the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA, hereinafter also referred to as the »Agency’). Second, the 2024 Advisory Opinion was limited, ratione temporis, to policies and practices prior to October 7, 2023. This request, however, relates to conduct subsequent to that date.

3. It remains to be seen whether, based on the available information, the consultative procedure is

the appropriate means to provide the requested opinion (paras. 36-37) In response to the argument that the request would require it to undertake a thorough examination of the facts and to formulate conclusions on constantly evolving issues in dispute, which could not be adequately done in an advisory proceeding, the Court notes that the case file contains extensive documentation concerning the relevant facts. In the present case, the Court considers that the available information enables it to rule on legal questions in a manner consistent with its judicial function.

4. The question of whether the request constitutes an abuse of international judicial procedure

(paras. 38-40) In the Court's view, even if an abuse of process could be alleged in the context of an advisory proceeding, there would be no justification for upholding such an allegation in the present case. The Court cannot accept the argument that the "political nature" of the proceedings should prevent it from exercising its jurisdiction. By its request, the General Assembly asks the Court to fulfill its judicial function and, more specifically, to answer a legal question on the basis of the applicable rules of international law. The Court therefore does not consider it inappropriate to answer the question submitted to it.

II. GENERAL CONTEXT (PAR. 42-74) A. Historical Context (paras. 42-47) The historical context of the situation concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory was recently set out by the Court in its 2024 advisory opinion. In the present advisory opinion, the Court refers to certain events that have taken place in the Gaza Strip

4 – between 2005 and 2023, as well as its conclusions in its 2024 advisory opinion and resolution ES-10/24 adopted by the General Assembly on 18 September 2024.

B. Humanitarian aid before October 7, 2023 (paras. 48-57) The Court notes that the United Nations, and in particular the General Assembly, intervened to ensure that humanitarian aid was provided to the refugees of Palestine. It specifically recalls the creation of UNRWA in 1949 and the commencement of its activities in 1950.

Following the 1967 armed conflict, known as the "Six-Day War," and the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, UNRWA and Israel concluded a provisional agreement on June 14, 1967, concerning assistance to Palestinian refugees in the occupied Palestinian territory (hereinafter, the "1967 Agreement"). The 1967 Agreement stipulated that "the Agency would continue to provide assistance to Palestinian refugees, with the full cooperation of the Israeli authorities, on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip," and that Israel would facilitate the Agency's work to the fullest extent of its ability, listing a number of commitments made by Israel. By its resolution 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, the General Assembly extended the mandate of UNRWA to include assistance to persons displaced by the hostilities of 1967.

According to the United Nations, over its 75 years of existence, UNRWA has become the Organization's principal agency for relief and assistance to Palestinian refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and neighboring states. Its mandate has been renewed pursuant to successive General Assembly resolutions, the most recent of which extended it until June 30, 2026. UNRWA's programs and services have come to cover a wide range of areas, including education and training, healthcare, direct relief, and development services.

The Court also observes that other United Nations bodies and organs, specialized agencies of the Organization, other international organizations and third States have also provided assistance in and related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

C. The attacks of October 7, 2023 and the response to them (paras. 58-62) The Court notes that, on 7 October 2023, Hamas and other armed groups present in the Gaza Strip carried out attacks in Israel, killing more than 1,200 people, injuring thousands more and taking 251 hostages, some of whom were held for more than two years.

Following these attacks, Israel launched a large-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip by land, air, and sea, resulting in countless casualties, including tens of thousands of civilian deaths, many of them women and children, massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, and repeated displacement of the vast majority of civilians. During its military campaign, Israel severely restricted and, for extended periods, particularly between March 2 and May 18, 2025, completely prevented the entry of aid (including food and water) into the Gaza Strip and its distribution to the Palestinian population, with devastating consequences for them. The United Nations has reported numerous attacks on schools and healthcare facilities in the Gaza Strip, both those run by Israel and those run by other organizations, with some schools being directly targeted. The Secretary-General of the Organization indicated that between 7 October 2023 and 20 August 2025, at least 531 humanitarian workers, including 366 members of the Organization's staff (360 of whom were employed by UNRWA), had been killed in the Gaza Strip.

5 – In January 2024, Israeli authorities alleged that several UNRWA staff members had participated in the attacks of 7 October 2023, that Hamas had appropriated UNRWA premises for military purposes, and that UNRWA had long since lost its neutrality. The United Nations immediately took steps to investigate these allegations. In this regard, the Court notes the investigations carried out by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and the work of an independent panel of experts tasked with examining whether UNRWA was taking all reasonable steps to ensure its neutrality, whose report was submitted on 20 April 2024.

Despite these measures, Israel maintained its grievances against UNRWA.

D. Measures taken by Israel regarding relief activities in Gaza,

particularly with regard to UNRWA (paras. 63-74) The Court notes that, on 28 October 2024, the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, adopted two laws entitled respectively «Law on the Cessation of Activities of UNRWA» and «Law on the Cessation of Activities of UNRWA in the State of Israel,» Israel intending to apply the latter to East Jerusalem, which it considers part of its territory. By letter dated 3 November 2024, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the President of the General Assembly that Israel had withdrawn its invitation to UNRWA to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians under the 1967 Agreement. For Israel, the 1967 Agreement had expired. In a letter dated 24 January 2025, Israel informed the Secretary-General that UNRWA must cease its activities in East Jerusalem and vacate the premises it occupied there no later than 30 January 2025. The two laws relating to UNRWA adopted by the Knesset entered into force on 30 January 2025.

On January 15, 2025, Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement, which included provisions to increase and regulate the delivery of humanitarian aid, relief supplies, and fuel to the Gaza Strip. The ceasefire took effect on January 19, 2025. For 42 days, increased humanitarian aid was permitted in the enclave. However, on March 2, 2025, Israel decided to block all humanitarian aid destined for the Gaza Strip, claiming that this decision was based on Hamas stealing supplies and using them to finance its activities. Beginning March 18, 2025, Israel resumed its military operations in and against the Gaza Strip.

Israel did not allow any aid to reach the Gaza Strip from March 2 to May 18, 2025. On May 19, 2025, Israeli authorities authorized the Organization to resume the delivery of limited aid to the Gaza Strip. However, the United Nations and the observer State of Palestine alleged that Israel continued to impose significant restrictions on the entry and distribution of aid and goods into the Gaza Strip. According to them, by the end of August 2025, the humanitarian situation in the territory had become catastrophic, as evidenced by famine, mass displacement, extreme levels of deprivation, and an ever-increasing number of civilian casualties, including children.

On May 27, 2025, Israel established a new aid distribution system through a private foundation (the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation), with only a few distribution points, primarily in the southern Gaza Strip. The United Nations, other international organizations, and humanitarian non-governmental organizations, considering the system to be inconsistent with humanitarian principles, failing to meet the needs of the population, and endangering them, withdrew their support.

6 – III. SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE QUESTION POSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (PAR. 75-81) The Court notes that the question concerns the determination of Israel's "obligations." The General Assembly did not ask the Court to determine the "legal consequences" of any breach of these obligations. Therefore, the Court does not consider that it has been asked to determine whether Israel has breached its legal obligations or to address the legal consequences of its conduct, particularly with regard to the law of State responsibility. However, the determination of Israel's legal obligations cannot be made in the abstract and requires consideration of the specific circumstances underlying the request. Accordingly, the Court bases its assessment on the factual situation and determines Israel's obligations with the degree of precision it deems necessary to fulfill its judicial function.

Turning to the territorial scope of the question, the Court notes that it relates to Israel’s obligations with respect to United Nations entities, other international organizations, and third States «in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory.» Thus, the request requires an examination not only of Israel’s obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, but also of activities undertaken by Israel in Israeli territory or elsewhere, insofar as these relate to the presence and activities of United Nations entities, other international organizations, and third States «in connection» with the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court further observes that, although the question before it concerns Israel’s obligations throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it pays particular attention, due to the explicit reference in the request to ’essential items for the survival of the Palestinian civilian population,« to Israel’s obligations in the Gaza Strip.

As regards its temporal scope, the General Assembly's request contains no restrictions. The Court is also aware that the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is constantly evolving. It bases its legal analysis primarily on the facts as they stood on 2 May 2025, the date of the closing of the oral proceedings, as well as on the participants' responses to the questions posed during the oral proceedings, which were received on 7 May 2025. Furthermore, it takes into account subsequent developments, based on those brought to its attention, at its request, by the United Nations, Israel, and the observer State of Palestine.

IV. OBLIGATIONS OF ISRAEL AS AN OCCUPATING POWER WITH REGARD TO THE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION, , OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

AND THIRD STATES (PAR. 82-162) The Court recalls that an occupying power has a general obligation to administer the territory in the interests of the local population. Israel’s specific obligations as an occupying power with regard to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third States are governed by international humanitarian law, in particular the law of occupation (Part A), and by international human rights law (Part B).

A. International Humanitarian Law (paras. 83-145) The Court notes that Israel's relevant obligations derive from the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (hereinafter, the "Fourth Geneva Convention"), to which that State is a party. As confirmed by the Court's case law, the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel also has obligations under customary international law, as expressed in particular in the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on

7 – land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 and to certain provisions of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter, «Additional Protocol I»). The Court emphasizes the fundamental importance of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution in international humanitarian law.

1. Status of Israel as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip (paras. 85-87) The Court recalls that, in its 2024 advisory opinion, it concluded that, following the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005, Israel retained the ability to exercise, and continued to exercise, certain essential prerogatives over the Gaza Strip, and that its obligations under the law of occupation remained proportionate to the degree of its effective control over that territory. Those conclusions were based on the control exercised by Israel over the Gaza Strip before 7 October 2023, including control of land, sea and air borders, the imposition of restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, the collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone. Since that date, Israel's effective control over the Gaza Strip has increased considerably. The Court concludes that Israel's obligations under the law of occupation have also been considerably extended, in proportion to this increased effective control over the territory. These obligations include those arising from the law of occupation examined in section IV.A.

The Court observes that the fact that hostilities are ongoing does not necessarily preclude the simultaneous application of the law of occupation. When hostilities occur in an occupied territory, the law of occupation applies alongside the other rules of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities, and the occupying power must respect both sets of rules. However, the intensity of the hostilities could affect the implementation of certain obligations under the law of occupation and, consequently, the conduct required of the occupying power.

2. The relevance of Israel's security concerns (paras. 88-90) The Court is aware of Israel's security concerns. It observes that, while certain provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and other rules of customary international law permit the occupying power to take into account security considerations or military necessity, the protection of security interests is not an independent ground of exception allowing a State to derogate from the rules of international humanitarian law that would otherwise apply. Any limitation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law, based on its security concerns, must originate in a specific rule. The Court emphasizes that the principle of good faith must govern the invocation of such concerns.

Furthermore, the Court observes that, when taking measures to combat terrorism, States must comply with the obligations imposed on them by international law, in particular their obligation to respect international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

3. The relevant legal framework in international humanitarian law, in particular the law of

the occupation (paras. 91-127) The Court observes that customary international law imposes on all parties to an armed conflict an obligation to authorize and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid intended for civilians in need, subject to a limited right of control.

8 – This assistance must be impartial and provided without any adverse distinction.

More specific obligations apply in the case of occupation. Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention oblige an occupying power to ensure that the population of the occupied territory is provided with the essentials for daily life, including food, water, shelter, and medical supplies and care. Article 59 imposes additional obligations in cases where the population is insufficiently supplied. Recalling the specific context of the present case, the Court will begin by analyzing the obligations that Article 59 imposes on Israel.

has) Obligation to accept and facilitate relief efforts in accordance with Article 59 of the

Fourth Geneva Convention (paras. 93-101) The Court emphasizes that Israel's obligation, as the Occupying Power, to accept and facilitate relief efforts if the local population is insufficiently supplied, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 59, is unconditional.

Relief efforts referred to in Article 59 may be undertaken «either by States or by an impartial humanitarian organization.» This provision therefore imposes obligations on Israel both towards third-party States and towards the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations. These organizations must be impartial to fall within the scope of Article 59.

Paragraph 4 of Article 59 recognizes certain rights for a State granting free passage to consignments destined for a territory occupied by a party adverse to the conflict. These rights include the right to inspect the consignments and obtain sufficient assurance that they are intended to provide relief to the population in need. Although the provision does not expressly refer to the rights of the occupying power, the latter, by virtue of controlling the territory, is also entitled to exercise the aforementioned rights. However, no State may exercise these rights to obstruct the delivery of relief consignments in a manner that jeopardizes the fulfillment of its obligations as set forth in Article 59.

The obligation of an occupying power to accept and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid into an occupied territory, in accordance with Article 59, does not replace its fundamental obligations to ensure the availability of food and medical supplies essential to the survival of the local population.

Other provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention confirm that aid can only be suspended temporarily and for strictly limited reasons. For example, the second sentence of Article 60 states that the occupying power «shall not in any way divert relief consignments from their intended purpose, except in cases of urgent necessity, in the interests of the population of the occupied territory and with the consent of the Protecting Power.» The specific conditions under which Article 60 authorizes the diversion of humanitarian consignments are cumulative, and such a measure can only be taken in the interest of the local population. Thus, the Court emphasizes that the reallocation of aid must remain exceptional, temporary, and subject only to the conditions strictly defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Any large-scale diversion of humanitarian aid constitutes a violation of the obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention. Furthermore, the diversion of aid must never contravene the general obligation of an occupying power to ensure that the population is adequately supplied. The occupying power may under no circumstances invoke security reasons to suspend all humanitarian activity in occupied territory.

9 – The Court observes that the impartial distribution of humanitarian aid requires considerable planning and coordination. Thus, an occupying power must not merely authorize the passage of essential items through the occupied territory. It must also use all means at its disposal to ensure that these items are distributed regularly, equitably, and without discrimination, in particular by facilitating access and refraining from the threat or use of violence or lethal force against the civilian population attempting to access this humanitarian aid. Relief operations must be conducted in a manner that respects the dignity of the local population and is compatible with the protection of their human rights.

b) It is not a question of whether the local population of the occupied Palestinian territory is insufficient

supplied (paras. 102-109) In light of the evidence in the case file, the Court concludes that the supply of food and other necessities to the local population of the Gaza Strip is insufficient, within the meaning of Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In such a situation, Israel, as the occupying Power, has an obligation to accept and facilitate relief efforts in accordance with that provision.

c) Israel's obligations regarding UNRWA (paras. 110-124) The Court notes that Israel does not consider UNRWA to be an impartial body and has argued that, consequently, it does not fall within the scope of Article 59. It observes that determining whether or not a humanitarian body is ’impartial« requires an objective assessment. Neither a unilateral declaration by the body in question nor a unilateral perception by the occupying power is sufficient in this regard.

The Court notes that, according to the evidence submitted, there is no proof that UNRWA, as an entity, failed to comply with the principle of impartiality within the meaning of Article 59. In other words, there is no evidence that UNRWA made distinctions based on nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions when distributing humanitarian aid or providing services in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court observes that, although neutrality is not required as such in Article 59, the two concepts are nevertheless linked, neutrality playing a role in assessing the impartiality of the activities of humanitarian organizations.

The Court considers that the information available to it is insufficient to establish a lack of neutrality on the part of UNRWA for the purposes of assessing its impartiality as an agency within the meaning of Article 59. In particular, the fact that the investigation conducted by the Office of the Superintendent of International Cooperation (OSIC) in 2024 led to the dismissal of nine UNRWA staff members due to their possible involvement in the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 against Israel is not sufficient to support the conclusion that UNRWA as a whole is not a neutral agency. Furthermore, the Court finds that Israel has not proven that, as it alleges, a significant proportion of UNRWA staff «are members of Hamas… or other terrorist factions.».

The Court notes that an occupying power is in principle free to choose the humanitarian organizations through which it fulfills its obligation to accept and facilitate humanitarian relief. However, Article 59 limits the discretion of an occupying power by requiring it to authorize and facilitate sufficient relief to ensure adequate supplies for the population.

UNRWA was established by the United Nations in 1949, 18 years before the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territory. It has since become the principal agency of

10 – The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) plays a vital role in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA is therefore deeply integrated into the local infrastructure of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, providing for the most basic needs of the population, including food, drinking water, healthcare, and shelter. The Court recalls the scale and urgency of the needs of the population of the Gaza Strip, as well as UNRWA’s unique and sustained relationship with the people of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It considers that, under the present circumstances, it is not possible to replicate the capacity of the United Nations, acting through UNRWA, to ensure a sufficient supply of essential goods to the population of the Gaza Strip. UNRWA cannot be replaced in the short term without a proper transition plan. The Court further observes that Israel itself has not ensured a sufficient supply of essential goods to the population in the Gaza Strip. She points out that, in addition to severely restricting the entry of aid at various times after October 7, 2023, Israel blocked the entry of humanitarian aid from March 2, 2025 and only allowed the resumption of delivery of a limited amount of this aid on May 19, 2025.

The evidence therefore shows that, regardless of whether the activities carried out by the United Nations, acting through UNRWA, were replaceable, Israel did not mobilize any alternative system for a period of ten weeks. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, intended to replace UNRWA, has been widely criticized by the United Nations and other international actors, and its activities have been alleged to be incompatible with certain fundamental humanitarian principles. The Organization has noted that the volume of aid provided remains far below what is needed to meet the population's needs. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of the United Nations, more than 2,100 Palestinians have been killed at or near distribution sites of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation since the system became operational on May 27, 2025. The Court concludes that, under these circumstances, the United Nations, acting through UNRWA, is an indispensable provider of humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. Therefore, the Court considers, in light of Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and in the specific circumstances of the case, that Israel has an obligation to accept and facilitate the relief efforts undertaken by the United Nations and its entities, including UNRWA.

d) Israel's obligations with respect to other international organizations and states

third party (paras. 125-127) The Court adds that Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention refers to aid provided by «States [or] an impartial humanitarian organization.» Thus, as long as the population remains insufficiently supplied and Israel does not itself manage a humanitarian aid system that complies with its obligations under international humanitarian law, it is bound, under Article 59, to accept and facilitate relief efforts undertaken by third States or impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 4. Obligation to provide for the basic needs of the population (paras. 128-133) The Court emphasizes that, as the occupying Power, Israel is obligated to provide for the basic needs of the local population, in particular by supplying it with the products essential for its survival. The obligations to this effect are set out in Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the first provision being supplemented by paragraph 1 of Article 69 of Additional Protocol I.

11 – Israel’s obligations under Articles 55 and 56 are not contingent on the local population being «insufficiently supplied» and therefore extend beyond the Gaza Strip to other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the Court’s view, in accordance with these provisions, Israel is not only bound by the positive obligation to ensure the supply of essential goods to the local population to the fullest extent of its means, but also by the negative obligation not to impede the supply of these goods or the provision of public health services. In this regard, insofar as Israel does not itself fulfill the obligations arising from Articles 55 and 56, leaving this responsibility to the United Nations acting through UNRWA, as well as to other international organizations and third States, Israel has the same positive and negative obligations to support the activities of these entities and not to restrict them.

The operations of the United Nations, through UNRWA, and those of other international organizations and third-party states have been essential in enabling Israel to fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Therefore, in light of these obligations, Israel is obligated either to facilitate these operations or to ensure that these obligations are fully met through other means.

5. Obligation to respect and protect rescue and medical personnel, as well

that their premises (paras. 134-138) In the Court's view, the principle that humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected is part of customary international law. The activities of relief personnel may only be limited and their movements temporarily restricted in cases of compelling military necessity. Personnel involved in relief operations are also protected by the principle of distinction, unless they take a direct part in hostilities and then only for the duration of that participation. The obligations of an occupying power coexist with those imposed by international humanitarian law on all parties to a conflict to protect civilian hospitals and to respect and protect in all circumstances medical personnel exclusively engaged in medical tasks. 6. The prohibition of forced transfer and deportation (paras. 139-141) The first paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that forced transfers, whether mass or individual, and deportations from occupied territory of persons protected under that Convention are prohibited, whatever the reason. The deportation and forced transfer of all or part of the civilian population of an occupied territory are also prohibited by customary international law. The Court recalls that a transfer can be forced not only when physical force is used, but also when the persons concerned have no other option but to leave. This can include subjection to intolerable living conditions.

The second paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, while authorizing an occupying power to evacuate the population to a specific region "if the security of the population or compelling military reasons so require," also stipulates that "[t]he population so evacuated shall be returned to their homes as soon as hostilities in that sector have ceased." The Court observes that the third paragraph of Article 49 further requires the occupying power to "ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that protected persons are received in suitable facilities, that the relocations are carried out

12 – under satisfactory conditions of health, hygiene, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated from one another.».

The Court observes that it is prohibited for Israel, as the Occupying Power, to restrict the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in and related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the point of creating, or contributing to the creation of, living conditions that would force the population to leave.

7. The right of protected detainees to receive visits from the ICRC (para. 142) The Court recalls that Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to allow protected persons detained in custody to receive visits from ICRC delegates. Article 143, for its part, authorizes the ICRC «to visit all places where protected persons are found, including places of internment, detention and work» and also grants it access to «all premises used by protected persons.» It further specifies that visits may be prohibited only ’due to compelling military necessity and only on an exceptional and temporary basis« and that »[t]he frequency and duration of such visits may not be limited.« For these reasons, Israel is obliged to allow the ICRC to visit protected persons in the Occupied Palestinian Territory detained by the Israeli authorities.

8. The prohibition of the use of famine as a method of warfare (paras. 143-145) The Court emphasizes that customary international law prohibits the use of famine as a method of warfare against the civilian population.

As the Court noted, Israel blocked the entry of aid into the Gaza Strip, preventing humanitarian relief from reaching the region from 2 March to 18 May 2025. In the Court's view, Israel's consent to the activities carried out since 27 May 2025 by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and to the provision of other limited humanitarian aid did not significantly improve the situation. The Court further concluded that the supply of food to the local population of the Gaza Strip remained insufficient. In these circumstances, the Court reiterates Israel's obligation not to use starvation as a method of warfare against the civilian population.

B. International Human Rights Law (paras. 146-160) As the occupying Power, Israel has an obligation under international human rights law to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Imposing restrictions on the provision of humanitarian aid essential to the well-being and dignity of the Palestinian population directly involves these obligations.

Israel is a party to several United Nations human rights treaties, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Court considers that the principle that a State's human rights obligations extend to acts performed by that State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory, particularly in occupied territories, also applies with regard to all these instruments.

13 – Both the human rights treaties to which Israel is a party and customary international law cover a wide range of human rights that are relevant to the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. These rights apply in conjunction with the obligations imposed on an occupying power by international humanitarian law, in particular the obligation, under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to respect protected persons and treat them humanely, as well as the specific obligations of an occupying power discussed above. These rights include the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of movement, the right to protection of family life, the right to an adequate standard of living including sufficient food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the right to education and the right not to be discriminated against on specific grounds.

The Court confirmed that Israel has a positive obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill international human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including during armed conflict. It observed that, to the extent that the local population has been able to enjoy many of these rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is primarily the work of the United Nations, carried out in particular through UNRWA, and supported by the activities of other international organizations and third States, that has made this enjoyment possible and ensured. Consequently, any reduction by Israel of the capacity of UNRWA and these other actors to guarantee these fundamental human rights has the effect of proportionally increasing that State's obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill those rights.

The Court recalls the policies and practices of Israel that have deprived the population of the Gaza Strip of essential goods for daily life. It then discusses how the various rights it has identified can be applied.

V. O BLIGATIONS OF I SRAEL AS A M EMBER OF THE O RGANIZATION

UNITED NATIONS (PAR. 163-216)

A. The ongoing responsibility of the United Nations

regarding the question of Palestine (paras. 166-169) The Court recalls the responsibility of the United Nations with regard to the question of Palestine, the General Assembly having characterized this responsibility as permanent, which it must assume until this question is settled in all its aspects satisfactorily and in accordance with international legitimacy.

B. Obligation to cooperate with the United Nations (paras. 170-179) The Court emphasizes that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Charter, all Member States must fulfill in good faith the obligations they have assumed under the Charter. This provision must be applied in conjunction with the specific obligations assumed by Member States in accordance with the Charter.

In order to achieve the purposes of the United Nations as set forth in Article 1 of the Charter, Member States have a special obligation to cooperate with the Organization, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Charter, which states that «[t]he Members of the Organization shall give to it full assistance in any action undertaken by it in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter.» This provision should be read in conjunction with those of the Charter relating to the powers of the various organs of the Organization. Compliance with this duty to assist

14 – Assistance is important for the effective functioning of the Organization and the execution of its mandate, as well as for the independence and effectiveness of its staff in the performance of their duties. Furthermore, Member States are required to cooperate with the Organization in accordance with Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter.

Israel's obligation — and that of all other Member States — to cooperate with the United Nations regarding the question of Palestine is of paramount importance in addressing the critical situation that has prevailed on the ground since October 2023, where the Organization, alongside other actors, plays a vital role in the provision and coordination of humanitarian and development assistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly through UNRWA in the Gaza Strip.

The Court reiterates that Israel, as the occupying power, has no right to sovereignty over any part of the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and cannot exercise sovereign powers there. By enacting and implementing the two laws passed by the Knesset on October 28, 2024, which unilaterally terminated its cooperation with UNRWA and UNRWA's activities in East Jerusalem, Israel continues to exercise sovereign power in East Jerusalem. Furthermore, these laws have directly hampered UNRWA's activities in and related to the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the Gaza Strip.

Furthermore, the Court observes that UNRWA, as a subsidiary body of the United Nations, was mandated by the General Assembly to implement a direct relief program and works programs for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA cannot fulfill this mandate effectively without direct access to the population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is all the more true given the crucial role it has played since October 2023. In the Court's view, Israel is not entitled to cease its cooperation with the United Nations by unilaterally deciding on the presence and activities of UN entities in and related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, subject to paragraph 184 of the Advisory Opinion.

Finally, Israel must fulfill its obligations in good faith. In the event of a divergence of views between Israel and the United Nations, the obligation to cooperate requires Israel to continue consultations and negotiations with the Organization.

C. Obligation to respect privileges and immunities

of the United Nations (paras. 180-216) With regard to the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, the Court refers to Article 105 of the Charter and to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (hereinafter, the «General Convention»), to which Israel acceded on 21 September 1949 without making any declaration or reservation.

The Court emphasizes that privileges and immunities are not granted to the United Nations or its personnel as advantages, but to protect their functions.

The Court recalls that, as a general rule, the use of a subsidiary body established by the General Assembly depends on the consent of the State or States concerned, and that States possess sovereign power to decide whether to host the headquarters or a regional office of an organization on their territory. It follows that, on the territory of Israel, the presence and activities of the United Nations and its entities are subject to Israel's consent. However, in occupied territory over which, as the occupying Power, it has no sovereignty, Israel is not entitled to take actions as it might on its own territory.

15 – territory, a unilateral decision concerning the presence and activities of the Organization in and related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In the Court's view, in the context of an occupation, an occupying power exercises its jurisdiction and control over the occupied territory, and thereby accepts the obligation to respect in that occupied territory the privileges and immunities granted to the United Nations by Article 105 of the Charter and the General Convention.

The Court considers that Article 105 of the Charter and the General Convention do not cease to apply in the context of armed conflict. This position is consistent with the aims and functions of the Organization, which often carries out important missions in areas of tension and conflict.

Pursuant to Article 105 of the Charter, the General Convention sets forth the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the United Nations and its personnel in the performance of all their functions. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Court considers that the following elements and the relevant provisions of the General Convention are particularly relevant to the question before it: first, the obligation to respect the privileges and immunities accorded to the United Nations, as well as to its premises, property, and assets (Article II, Sections 2, 3, and 7); second, the obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the personnel of the Organization (Article V, Sections 18 and 20, Article VI, Sections 22 and 23, and Article VII, Sections 24 to 26); Third, the obligation to address any concerns relating to the privileges and immunities of the United Nations and its personnel within the legal framework of the Organization (Article V, Section 21, and Article VIII, Section 30).

1. Obligation to respect the privileges and immunities granted to the Organization of

United Nations, as well as its premises, property and assets (paras. 188-198) The Court notes that Article II of the General Convention sets out detailed rules concerning the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, expanding on paragraph 1 of Article 105 of the Charter. It requires Member States not to impede the independent exercise of the Organization's functions. The protection thus afforded to the Organization extends to its entities that form an integral part of it.

Article II contains, among other things, provisions concerning the immunity from jurisdiction of the United Nations and its property and assets, the inviolability of its premises and the exemption of its property and assets from all forms of constraint, and the exemption of the Organization and its assets, revenues, and other property from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on the import or export of articles intended for official use. These provisions are essential for the Organization and its entities to carry out their assigned missions in the field.

Regarding the question of whether the schools, health centers, and hospital operated by UNRWA in the Occupied Palestinian Territory fall within the category of United Nations premises, the Court considers that the relevant question is whether the functions performed and services provided by these facilities fall within UNRWA's mandate. If so, in addition to its obligations under international humanitarian law, Israel is bound to respect the inviolability of these premises, in accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the General Convention. This obligation stems from the functional nature of the privileges and immunities in question. The obligation to respect the inviolability of United Nations premises and the obligation to refrain from any form of coercion with respect to its property and assets must also be fulfilled in the context of armed conflict, as this inviolability and absence of coercion are essential to guaranteeing the independent and effective exercise of UN functions.

16 – the Organization in all circumstances. The Court recognizes that this is more difficult in the context of an armed conflict, particularly if the Organization were to lose control of some of its premises. However, it is for the Organization to determine whether a given establishment remains one of its premises. According to the Court, this determination by the Organization creates a presumption that can be rebutted only for the most compelling reasons and to which States must give the greatest weight. All parties to hostilities must fulfill the obligation to respect the inviolability of establishments considered to be premises of the Organization, as well as the obligation to refrain from any form of coercion with respect to its property and assets. Any damage to or destruction of the premises or other property and assets of the Organization as a result of military activities could constitute a violation of the obligations imposed by Section 3 of Article II of the General Convention.

2. Obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the Organization's personnel

United Nations (paras. 199-210) The privileges and immunities granted to the Organization by its Member States to ensure that it carries out its functions independently and effectively without interference necessarily extend to the personnel engaged in the performance of its duties. For the purposes of this advisory opinion, the term "United Nations personnel" includes officials as well as experts on mission.

It is for this purpose that paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Charter provides that «[t]he representatives of the Members of the United Nations and the officials of the Organization shall likewise enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent performance of their functions in connection with the Organization.» Such protection is particularly necessary to enable United Nations personnel to effectively carry out their crucial functions in situations of armed conflict.

In and related to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel must respect the independence of United Nations personnel and the privileges and immunities they require to perform their functions, in accordance with Article 105, paragraph 2, of the Charter and the General Convention. In particular, Israel is obligated to respect Articles V, VI, and VII of the General Convention, which respectively specify the scope and content of the privileges and immunities of United Nations officials, the privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations, and the laissez-passer to be used by United Nations officials when carrying out activities within their mandate.

United Nations staff members are entitled to the privileges and immunities provided for in Article 105 of the Charter and in Articles V to VII of the General Convention for all acts performed in their official capacity. It is the Secretary-General's responsibility to determine whether an official or expert on mission enjoys the privileges and immunities provided for therein, and to assess whether the individual has acted within the scope of their official duties. In the Court's view, the Secretary-General's determination of the scope of the official duties of the official or expert in question creates a presumption that can be rebutted only on the most compelling grounds and to which States must attach the greatest weight.

The Secretary-General may and must, under section 20 of article V and section 23 of article VI of the General Convention, waive the immunity of any member of the staff of the United Nations if he is of the opinion that such immunity would prevent justice from being done and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the Organization.

Furthermore, Israel has obligations under the general convention regarding the free movement, in and in connection with the occupied Palestinian territory, of United Nations officials, who must be able to carry out the activities within their mandate.

17 – The Court emphasizes that Israel must also respect the free movement of the Organization’s local staff so that they can carry out their official functions.

Finally, the Court emphasizes the importance of Israel’s obligation, under Article 105 of the Charter and the General Convention, to ensure the safety and security of United Nations officials and experts on mission. In accordance with the Charter and the General Convention, Israel must fulfill this obligation in good faith. This includes ensuring that United Nations personnel are not targeted.

3. Obligation to address concerns regarding privileges and immunities in the

existing legal framework (paras. 211-215) The Court considers the argument that a restriction of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations and its personnel may be justified by security concerns, doubts about the neutrality, impartiality, and independence of UNRWA, and alleged abuses of these privileges and immunities by members of its staff. It reiterates that the Organization is obligated to prevent any abuse of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its staff and itself, and to remedy such abuses should they occur. The legal framework governing these privileges and immunities is not indifferent to the legitimate concerns of Member States regarding potential abuses. The privileges and immunities granted to the Organization and its staff cannot be used as a shield for activities that are contrary to the purposes and principles of the Organization or that fall outside the functions of its staff. Nevertheless, any concerns about abuse expressed by a Member State regarding the Organization or its staff must be addressed within the existing legal framework for dispute resolution. In any event, a Member State must not evade its obligations under the Charter solely on the basis of its unilateral assessment of an alleged abuse.

VI. PRESENCE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION IN SUPPORT

ON THE RIGHT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION (PAR. 217-222) The Court explains that it is aware that the present request for an advisory opinion was not submitted out of context, but that it is part of the context of the prolonged Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which has continued for more than 58 years, and the persistent denial of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.

The Court recalls that Israel’s territorial claim to East Jerusalem has long been declared null and void by the Security Council. It notes that Israel intends to apply the «Law on the Cessation of Activities of UNRWA in the State of Israel» to East Jerusalem. As the occupying Power, Israel must refrain from extending its domestic laws to the occupied territory in any manner incompatible with its obligation not to impede the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination, including their inalienable right to territorial integrity throughout the occupied Palestinian territory.

Furthermore, the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip directly jeopardizes the living conditions of the Palestinian people. Depriving a people of their essential means of subsistence threatens the fundamental conditions necessary for them to exercise their right to self-determination. Respect for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination requires Israel not to obstruct the meeting of their basic needs in the Gaza Strip, including by the United Nations, its entities, other international organizations, and third-party states.

Finally, UNRWA's unique mandate relates to the essential aspects of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. The missions that UNRWA has undertaken in the areas of

18 – Direct relief, humanitarian assistance, and development assistance – through its programs covering education and training, healthcare, and direct relief and development services – demonstrate the Organization’s commitment to fulfilling its responsibility regarding the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Furthermore, as noted above, since October 2023, UNRWA has remained the primary provider and backbone of the entire humanitarian response in the Gaza Strip, delivering vital humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians and refugees in urgent need. In this regard, Israel has an obligation not to obstruct the activities of United Nations entities, other international organizations, and third-party states, and to cooperate in good faith with the Organization to ensure respect for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The Court reiterates that, in fine, The realization of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, including their right to an independent and sovereign state, coexisting in peace with the State of Israel within secure and recognized borders for both states, as provided for in the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, would contribute to regional stability and the security of all states in the Middle East.

* The full text of the operative part (para. 223) of the advisory opinion reads as follows:

For these reasons, THE COURT, 1) Unanimously, Said that it has the competence to give the requested advisory opinion; ;

2) Unanimously, Decided to follow up on the request for an advisory opinion; ;

3) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel, as the occupying power, must fulfill its obligations under international humanitarian law. These obligations include, in particular, the following:

has) Unanimously, ensure that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has access to essential products for daily life, including water, food, clothing, bedding, shelter and fuel, as well as medical items and services; ;

b) By ten votes to one, to accept and facilitate to the fullest extent of its means relief actions undertaken for the benefit of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory while this population is insufficiently supplied, as has been observed in the Gaza Strip, including relief actions carried out by the United Nations and its entities, in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and by international organizations and third States, and not to impede such actions; ;

19 - FOR: Mr. Iwasawa, president ; MM. Tomka, Abraham, M Xue, M. Nolte, even M Charlesworth, MM. Brant, Gómez Robledo, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Tladi, judges ;me