19 Fall 2026 The ICJ – Advisory Opinions. The ICJ also provides advisory opinions to UN bodies – non-binding but treated by most Western states as indicative of their international obligations. Two recent advisory opinions directly concern Israel. Both were requested by the UN General Assembly, a body in which an automatic anti-Israel majority is a structural feature. The first, delivered on July 19, 2024, addressed the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in what is termed within the UN system as the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (the West Bank / Judea and Samaria, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – for the purposes of this description, the “OPT”). The ICJ held that Israel’s continued presence in the OPT is unlawful; that Israel is under an obligation to bring that presence to an end “as rapidly as possible”; that it must evacuate all Israeli citizens from the OPT; and that it must make reparation for the damage caused to all natural or legal persons concerned.10 Critically, the ICJ also held that all States and international organizations are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s continued presence in the OPT. The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-10/24 in September 2024, welcoming the opinion and demanding Israel end its presence in the OPT within twelve months.11 The second, delivered on October 22, 2025, addressed Israel’s obligations in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations and other international organizations in the OPT. The ICJ held that Israel is unconditionally obligated to agree to and facilitate humanitarian relief schemes when the local population is inadequately supplied, which the ICJ determined was the case in Gaza. It further held that Israel may not unilaterally restrict UNRWA’s operations, rejecting Israel’s argument that the agency’s alleged links to Hamas, amongst other reasons, justified such restrictions.12 In both advisory proceedings, Israel submitted written observations – focusing primarily on jurisdictional objections and addressing certain substantive issues (including, in the UNRWA opinion, evidence of the agency’s links to Hamas) – but declined to make substantive submissions on the merits or to appear in the oral hearings.13 Dozens of states participated in the oral proceedings, the overwhelming majority advocating positions adverse to Israel. Several international organizations also submitted observations, including the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.14 Although advisory opinions are not formally binding, they carry substantial weight and directly influence the political and judicial decisions of states in their dealings with Israel – including on arms exports, economic cooperation, and diplomatic recognition. They highlight a further institutional concern with the ICJ. Advisory proceedings were designed to address legal questions for the guidance of UN organs – not to adjudicate contentious disputes between parties, or to pronounce on rapidly unfolding armed conflicts. They are inherently limited by the information before the Court, which in these cases did not include, for example, the full picture of Israel’s security needs and operational realities in the West Bank and Gaza. The result is that advisory opinions issued in this context risk functioning as one-sided legal pronouncements dressed in the authority of the world’s highest court. 10. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, 2024 I.C.J. 8 (July 19), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176 11. U.N. GAOR, 10th Emergency Special Sess., 54th Plenary Mtg., U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/500/Add.6 (Sept. 19, 2024), available at https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/270/46/pdf/n2427046.pdf 12. Obligations of Israel in Relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2025 I.C.J. General List No. 196 (Oct. 22), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/196 13. Statement of the State of Israel Pursuant to the Court’s Order of 23 December 2024 Relating to the Advisory Proceedings Initiated by General Assembly Resolution 79/232 (Feb. 28, 2025), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/ files/case-related/196/196-20250228-wri-22-00-en.pdf; Statement of the State of Israel Pursuant to the Court’s Order of 3 February 2023 Relating to the Advisory Proceedings Initiated by UN General Assembly Resolution 77/247 (July 24, 2023), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20230724-wri-08-00-en.pdf 14. Written Statement of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, ICJ Practice Direction XII Submission (Feb. 16, 2024), available at https://ijl.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/240216_IJLStatement_ICJ_Final.pdf
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=