On Dec. 19, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice, “on a priority basis and with the utmost urgency,” to render an advisory opinion on “the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, … including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population.”
On Mar. 2, 2025, Israel imposed a near-total humanitarian blockade on the Gaza Strip, preventing food, medicine, and other essential supplies from reaching the civilian population. Israel denied access to UN agencies and bodies, including the World Food Program and World Health Organization, as well as other international organizations, like the International Committee of the Red Cross. By the middle of April, 4,692 children had been diagnosed with acute malnutrition (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports here and here). The food and medicine they need sits in trucks a few miles away.
Last week, the International Court of Justice held public hearings in its advisory proceedings. Thirty-nine States, the United Nations, and three other international organizations participated. Over the weekend, baby girl named Janan starved to death.
The question posed to the Court by the General Assembly is a complex one, implicating “international humanitarian law, international human rights law, privileges and immunities applicable under international law for international organizations and States, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 19 July 2024.” It extends beyond humanitarian aid to “development assistance in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.”
It will likely take months for the Court to work through all the legal issues before it and produce a comprehensive advisory opinion. In the meantime, children will waste away, their bodies damaged beyond repair, while the sick and injured will die.
The Court can act now, and it should.
In an earlier essay, Jasmin Johurun Nessa and I argued that the Court should indicate provisional measures in the separate case of South Africa v. Israel, involving alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. The Court can and should do so on its own initiative (proprio motu) without waiting for a request by South Africa. Nothing prevents the Court from relying on the factual information placed before it in last week’s advisory proceedings as well as reports from U.N. agencies and bodies.
Alternatively, the Court should simply deliver two advisory opinions. The first advisory opinion, issued on an expedited basis, would be limited to Israel’s obligations as an occupying power to ensure the food and medical supplies of the population or, if the population is inadequately supplied, to agree to and facilitate relief schemes on their behalf (Geneva Convention IV, arts. 55 & 59). Based on the information before it, the Court should find that the population in Gaza is inadequately supplied, that U.N. agencies and bodies are prepared to adequately supply them, and that Israel must therefore agree to and facilitate U.N. relief operations immediately. Other legal issues would be addressed in a second advisory opinion delivered later.
At the close of the public hearings, three judges posed questions to the participants. All three inquired about the situation since March 2, when the aid blockade began, indicating that they are concerned with the situation that exists today, not the situation that may exist months from now. The questions also indicate a desire to identify Israel’s obligations in specific and concrete terms.
Vice President Julia Sebutinde asked:
“Which third States and other international organizations operate to provide basic services and humanitarian and developmental assistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? To what extent have restrictions, if any, been placed upon their operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel since 2 March 2025?”
Judge Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo asked:
“Given the restrictions on access to the Gaza Strip, and taking into account the measures adopted by Israel as of 2 March 2025, what is the current state of the humanitarian situation and, more specifically, the extent of famine among the civilian population?”
He then asked:
“Which entities of the United Nations system are still present in the Gaza Strip and capable of delivering humanitarian aid?”
Finally, Judge Sarah Cleveland asked:
“Since 2 March 2025, what is the operational status of both sides of the border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, and what measures has Egypt taken to facilitate humanitarian assistance in and out of the Gaza Strip?”
These questions suggest that at least some members of the Court may wish to act now. This essay identifies one way the Court could do so.
Nothing prevents the Court from dividing a complex request into two parts and answering the more urgent part first. The Court should do so here. The Court has delivered two advisory opinions in a single proceeding once before, involving the Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. There, the General Assembly expressly called upon the Court to deliver one opinion on two legal questions in a first phase and, contingent on subsequent conduct by the States concerned, deliver a second opinion on two further legal questions. Here, the General Assembly’s request refers to “urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population.” Its resolution notes “the utmost urgency of upholding [] essential assistance” and expresses the view that “these developments demand consideration by and guidance from the International Court of Justice, on a priority basis and with the utmost urgency.” The General Assembly expressed its “grave concern about the dire humanitarian situation” and demanded that Israel “comply without delay with all of its legal obligations.” It expressed its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his “rapid response and ongoing efforts,” including with regard to “emergency humanitarian needs.” While the General Assembly did not ask the Court to deliver two advisory opinions, doing so would duly respect the General Assembly’s sense of “utmost urgency.”
The Court is faced with many legal questions and must answer them all. But it may answer some before others. Many questions are complex. But others are simple. Children are starving. The civilian population is inadequately supplied. Israel is not ensuring their food and medical supplies. U.N. agencies can do so. So Israel must agree to and facilitate humanitarian relief by U.N. agencies. It is that simple. The Court should say so now.
Over the weekend, reports surfaced that the Israeli government is considering allowing a limited amount of food to enter Gaza “before the end of the month.” These reports should not stay the Court’s hand. Civilians in Gaza are inadequately supplied now, so Israel must agree to and facilitate relief now. Every day that children, pregnant women, the sick, the wounded, and other civilians are deprived of the food and medicine they need is a day that Israel violates its legal obligations. This continuing breach must immediately cease and never repeat.
The reported plan will not adequately supply the civilian population even if it is implemented weeks from now. The plan envisages creating six food distribution sites in South Gaza. Civilians in North and Central Gaza would be left to starve. While the model reportedly “could be expanded to north and central Gaza,” such an expansion may not happen for additional weeks, or months, or at all. Each hub would serve only 5,000 to 6,000 households, leaving the vast majority of civilians with nothing. Each household would receive a 44-pound parcel of food and hygiene items every week or two. Even able-bodied adults would struggle to deliver such parcels back to their households without cars or fuel. In many households, all adults are dead or injured, sick or malnourished, elderly or disabled. They and their children will die. Each parcel is designed to contain “the exact amount needed and not an ounce more,” according to a former Israeli military official involved in earlier planning. Plainly, a standard-size parcel cannot provide the “exact amount” needed by households of different sizes and with different needs. Children require diverse diets to grow, while burn victims require more food to heal. This is why international criminal tribunals consistently hold that placing civilians on a subsistence diet is not a humanitarian gesture but an international crime.
The reported plan would not come close to satisfying Israel’s obligations as an occupying power. It makes a mockery of international humanitarian law. The U.N. Secretary General, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, and the Humanitarian Country Team have denounced it and refuse to participate in “any arrangement that does not fully respect the humanitarian principles.”
If this reported plan reflects the most that Israel is prepared to do on its own, then the Court must take the matter out of Israel’s hands and place it into the hands of the United Nations.
The General Assembly posed a complex question to the Court. The Court should answer part of that question now, and answer the rest later, not because any part of the question is unimportant, but because one part of the question is of “the utmost urgency.” The civilian population of Gaza is inadequately supplied. Israel must agree to and facilitate relief by the U.N. agencies and international organizations positioned to provide it. The whole world knows this. The Court knows this. The Court should say so now.
