ICJ hearings end as majority slam Israel over Gaza aid access

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has concluded four days of public hearings on Israel’s obligations regarding humanitarian aid access in Gaza, with most of the 40 participating states criticising Israel for failing to allow sufficient relief into the war-torn Palestinian enclave.

The hearings, which wrapped up on May 2, were convened in response to a request by the UN General Assembly in December 2023 for the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories.

Among the states presenting oral arguments were the UK, China, France, Russia, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Most argued that, as an occupying power, Israel is legally required to permit United Nations agencies and other humanitarian organisations to deliver aid, especially in Gaza, where conditions have rapidly deteriorated.

In March, Israel resumed its ground and aerial offensive on Gaza after Hamas rejected truce extension proposals. PHOTO: PEXELS

Legal experts said there was near-universal agreement that Israel’s actions—cutting off access to food, medicine, and essential supplies—violated international humanitarian norms and contributed to an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe.

"Every state, except for two, agrees that Israel is an occupier and it owes certain obligations," said Juliette McIntyre, a legal scholar from the University of South Australia.

"The consensus is that aid is necessary for Palestinian survival and the legitimacy of the UN system."

The ICJ’s advisory opinion, which could take months to deliver, is non-binding. However, it carries moral and legal weight and could shape future international diplomatic efforts.

Israel did not attend the hearings and dismissed the process in written submissions as politically motivated, calling the proceedings a “circus” and accusing the court of anti-Semitism. It argued that its sovereign right to defend itself outweighs obligations to facilitate humanitarian aid.

The United States, one of the few defenders of Israel’s position, told the court that Israel should uphold international law but refrained from acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Gaza or demanding specific remedial actions. Legal scholars described the U.S. intervention as an attempt to "dilute" the court’s response.

A Palestinian man reacts as he holds a child at the site of an Israeli strike on a house in Shejaia in Gaza City. PHOTO: REUTERS

Adil Haque of Rutgers University said the US sought to “spook” the court by repeating Israel’s allegations that UNRWA had been infiltrated by Hamas—a claim not substantiated by evidence.

While some European countries, including the UK and France, called on Israel to allow aid into Gaza, observers criticised the lack of concrete measures to enforce compliance. The UK also highlighted its decision to suspend some arms exports to Israel, although legal analysts questioned whether such steps are sufficient.

"Many states have made strong statements, but we must now ask what action they are willing to take," said Haque.

This is not the first ICJ process involving Israel. In January 2024, the court issued provisional measures in a separate genocide case brought by South Africa, ordering Israel to facilitate aid and prevent genocidal acts in Gaza—measures that remain unheeded, according to international observers.

Analysts expect the court’s eventual opinion to reaffirm Israel’s duty to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to cooperate with UN agencies. However, given the non-binding nature of the ruling, its impact is expected to be limited unless accompanied by concrete diplomatic or legal action by UN member states.

“By the time the opinion is issued, thousands more Palestinians may have died,” warned McIntyre.

“The advisory opinion won’t solve the crisis. It’s up to states to act.”