The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wrapped up four days of high-profile public hearings on May 2, addressing Israel’s legal responsibilities regarding humanitarian aid access in Gaza. The proceedings, initiated at the request of the UN General Assembly, saw over 40 countries present their positions — with the overwhelming majority condemning Israel for restricting humanitarian relief to the besieged Palestinian territory.
Israel declined to participate in the hearings, dismissing them as a “circus” and asserting that its right to self-defense outweighs any aid-related obligations in Gaza. This stance was widely challenged by nations such as China, the UK, France, Russia, Pakistan, and Indonesia, who emphasized that, under international law, Israel’s role as an occupying power requires it to allow the flow of aid and relief through United Nations agencies and NGOs, especially in areas experiencing humanitarian collapse.
The ICJ was asked to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories, particularly in light of escalating military actions. In March 2025, Israel intensified its military operations in Gaza following Hamas’s rejection of a ceasefire extension, worsening an already dire humanitarian situation.
Legal scholars noted a strong consensus among participating states, with most agreeing that Israel’s denial of essential goods like food and medicine violates key principles of international humanitarian law.
“Only two states disagreed with the classification of Israel as an occupying power,” noted Juliette McIntyre, legal expert at the University of South Australia. “The general agreement was clear — humanitarian aid is vital for Palestinian survival and for upholding the legitimacy of international law.”
Although the ICJ’s advisory opinion will not be legally binding, it carries significant moral and diplomatic weight and could influence future UN resolutions and global policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
NEWS DESK
PRESS UPDATE