On Wednesday, October 22, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark ruling, mandating that Israel, as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip, is obligated under the Fourth Geneva Convention to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief schemes provided by third states and impartial humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The court’s detailed advisory opinion emphasized Israel’s unconditional responsibility to ensure that the basic needs of Gaza’s population are met, highlighting significant deficiencies in the current provision of aid and calling for immediate action to address the humanitarian crisis in the region.
The ICJ’s ruling comes in response to ongoing concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, where the local population has faced severe challenges in accessing essential supplies, including food, water, medical care, and shelter. The court specifically referenced Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which stipulates that an occupying power must ensure the population of an occupied territory is adequately supplied with basic necessities. The ICJ found that Gaza’s population has been “inadequately” supplied, as the flow of humanitarian aid has been heavily restricted, exacerbating the region’s dire circumstances.
According to the court’s findings, Israel imposed severe restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza following the events of October 7, 2023, when hostilities escalated in the region. These restrictions culminated in a near-total blockade of humanitarian and medical supplies starting on March 2, 2025. While limited aid deliveries were permitted to resume on May 19, 2025, the court deemed these measures insufficient to meet the needs of Gaza’s population. The ICJ underscored that such restrictions violate Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law, which requires the occupying power to facilitate the unimpeded delivery of aid.
The court also addressed Israel’s claims that UNRWA, a key humanitarian agency in Gaza, was compromised due to alleged affiliations of its staff with Hamas or other groups designated by Israel as terrorist organizations. The ICJ firmly rejected these allegations, stating that “Israel has not substantiated its claims that a significant part of UNRWA employees are members of Hamas” or other such groups. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support assertions that UNRWA’s aid distribution was discriminatory based on nationality, race, religion, or political opinion. This finding reaffirms UNRWA’s role as an impartial and essential provider of humanitarian assistance in Gaza.
In its ruling, the ICJ emphasized that security concerns cannot justify a blanket suspension of humanitarian activities in occupied territories. “The occupying power may never invoke reasons of security to justify the general suspension of all humanitarian activities in occupied territory,” the court declared, reinforcing that Israel’s obligation to facilitate aid is “unconditional.” This obligation exists irrespective of the security challenges Israel may face, as the principles of international humanitarian law prioritize the protection of civilian populations in occupied territories.
The court’s opinion also clarified the broader legal framework governing Israel’s actions in Gaza. It reaffirmed that the law of occupation applies concurrently with international humanitarian law governing hostilities, meaning Israel must comply with both sets of legal obligations. As an occupying power, Israel is not entitled to claim sovereignty over any part of the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, the court noted. This statement underscores the ICJ’s position that Israel’s authority in these territories is strictly limited to its role as an occupying power under international law, with no basis for exercising sovereign powers.
Additionally, the ICJ reiterated Israel’s obligation to refrain from using starvation as a method of warfare, a practice explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law. The court highlighted that denying civilians access to food, water, and other essentials constitutes a serious violation of their human rights. While the ICJ’s advisory opinion focused on identifying Israel’s legal obligations rather than adjudicating specific violations, it stressed that Israel remains bound to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories.
The ruling has sparked widespread international attention, with humanitarian organizations and advocacy groups welcoming the ICJ’s clarification of Israel’s obligations. The ICRC and UNRWA issued statements expressing hope that the decision would lead to improved access for humanitarian aid in Gaza. “This ruling reaffirms the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and underscores the urgent need to address the suffering of Gaza’s population,” said an ICRC spokesperson. UNRWA echoed this sentiment, calling for immediate action to ensure that aid reaches those in need without delay.
Critics of Israel’s policies in Gaza have hailed the decision as a step toward accountability, arguing that it places clear legal pressure on Israel to comply with its international obligations. However, some observers note that the ICJ’s advisory opinions are non-binding, meaning their implementation depends on the political will of the parties involved and the international community’s response. Israel has not yet issued an official statement in response to the ruling, but past reactions to ICJ decisions suggest it may challenge the court’s findings or argue that its security concerns take precedence.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains acute, with reports indicating that over 80% of the population relies on aid for basic survival. Malnutrition, lack of clean water, and inadequate medical care have contributed to a deteriorating situation, particularly for children and the elderly. The ICJ’s ruling comes at a critical juncture, as international calls for a ceasefire and increased humanitarian access grow louder.
The court’s decision also has broader implications for the application of international humanitarian law in occupied territories worldwide. By reaffirming the unconditional nature of an occupying power’s obligations, the ICJ has set a precedent that could influence future cases involving similar conflicts. Legal experts suggest that the ruling may prompt further scrutiny of Israel’s actions in Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories, potentially leading to additional international legal proceedings.
As the situation in Gaza continues to unfold, the international community will be closely watching Israel’s response to the ICJ’s ruling. Humanitarian organizations are urging immediate action to ensure that aid reaches those in need, while diplomatic efforts to address the underlying causes of the crisis remain ongoing. The ICJ’s decision serves as a powerful reminder of the legal and moral imperatives to protect civilian populations in times of conflict, particularly in occupied territories where the responsibilities of the occupying power are clearly defined under international law.
