Amman, 17 November 2025 – The Question of Palestine Program at ARDD’s Renaissance Strategic Center (RSC), in partnership with Law for Palestine (L4P), hosted a high-level hybrid event titled “The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Obligations Towards UN Agencies, Other International Organizations and Third States: Initial Reflections.”
The panel brought together leading experts and practitioners, including Ardi Imseis, who served as part of the legal team contributing to the proceedings that led to the ICJ Advisory Opinion; Michael Lynk, former UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory; Mona Ali Khalil, whose extensive expertise on UN legal frameworks and the law governing international organizations offers a vital lens through which to interpret the Opinion; Anis F. Kassim, a foundational figure in advancing legal scholarship on Palestine’s international legal status and the rights of its people; and Matthew Hoisington, Chief of International Law at UNRWA’s Department of Legal Affairs, whose internal perspective provided a unique reading of the ICJ Advisory Opinion and its implications for UNRWA’s mandate and operational space. The discussion was facilitated by Ihsan Adel, Founder and Chair of Law for Palestine.
The event concentrated on the Advisory Opinion the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently delivered on the 22 of October 2025, as requested by the UN General Assembly in December 2024. The Opinion addresses the responsibilities of states and international organizations in the face of an ongoing genocide and humanitarian catastrophe, and calls out for a third time Israel’s role as an occupying power and as a UN member state. It builds on the ICJ’s earlier 2004 and 2024 Advisory Opinions, and forms part of a growing legal framework addressing the illegality of Israel’s prolonged occupation and its conduct during ongoing hostilities. This coherent legal narrative challenges impunity and centers Palestinian rights.
The request indeed, even though it’s not directly addressed in the question, was triggered by Israel’s ban on UNRWA and its escalating restrictions on humanitarian access at a time when Gaza is experiencing unprecedented levels of destruction, famine, forced displacement, and collapse of essential systems. Across the panel, experts highlighted that the Advisory Opinion reaffirms fundamental and binding principles of international humanitarian and human rights law.
The Opinion not only restates core legal norms but also provides factual findings, particularly regarding humanitarian obstruction and attacks on UNRWA, that are likely to influence current and future international litigation. The panel stressed that the ICJ decisively rejected allegations questioning UNRWA’s neutrality and found no substantiated evidence supporting Israel’s claims. The Opinion situates UNRWA’s decades-long presence and “unique and sustained connection” with the population of Gaza within the framework of international law, reinforcing the agency’s mandate and highlighting Israel’s obligation to cooperate with it in good faith. Speakers noted that attempts to delegitimize or dismantle UNRWA, through military attacks, legislative bans, withdrawal of immunities, and political pressure, have direct and devastating consequences for Palestinian civilians, and that diminishing the agency’s capacity only increases Israel’s own legal responsibilities as the occupying power.
Israel, as an occupying power, must ensure the provision of essential supplies to Palestinians and must facilitate, not obstruct, relief operations by the UN, particularly UNRWA. Under Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power is obligated to provide relief schemes and to refrain from any form of forcible transfer or deportation. Panelists noted that Israel’s sustained attacks on UNRWA’s operations and its obstruction of humanitarian assistance constitute an implied attempt to withhold relief from the population, thereby creating conditions that could pressure residents to leave the territory. The Court explicitly connected the withdrawal of relief schemes to the prohibition on the forcible transfer of the protected population.
The Court also clearly reaffirmed that Israel has no claim to sovereignty over any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that its occupation is unlawful, with the UN General Assembly already having set 18 September 2025 as the deadline for Israel’s complete withdrawal. Panelists emphasized that, for years, international debates had centered on managing the occupation within the framework of international law rather than on bringing it to an end. The ICJ’s 2024 Advisory Opinion marked a decisive shift by explicitly determining that Israel’s continued physical presence in the territory is itself unlawful. Yet, the international oversight of the Israeli occupation reveals a persistent gap between the clarity of international law and the lack of meaningful international accountability. While the legal framework governing occupation, humanitarian protection, and the right to self-determination is well-established, the political determination to enforce these norms remains critically lacking. Several panelists noted that Israel’s disregard of its obligations under the UN Charter, as well as its obstruction of UN agencies and humanitarian actors, raises fundamental questions regarding its continued standing within the United Nations. Should Israel persist in defying binding decisions of the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the ICJ, its position and status in the UN system may be challenged, and similar measures adopted for Apartheid South Africa’s membership in 1974 could be considered by the General Assembly.
The Advisory Opinion may thus serve as an authoritative legal reference demonstrating that Israel has engaged in sustained violations of its duties to act in good faith, to cooperate with the United Nations, and to respect the privileges and immunities of the UN and its personnel, as its actions aimed at restricting UNRWA’s work are incompatible with its obligations under the UN Charter and the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Panelists underscored that the ICJ’s findings apply equally to Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur mandated by the Human Rights Council to monitor and report on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, whose functions are likewise protected under international law.
The event concluded with a unified message: the ICJ Advisory Opinion provides a clear legal foundation that must now translate into political action, operational protection, and meaningful accountability for a government that has dishonored itself internationally. The obligations clarified by the Court are neither optional nor aspirational, they are binding requirements of international law. Ensuring their implementation is essential for the protection of Palestinian people, the integrity of the UN system, and the preservation of accountabilit
