{"id":314823,"date":"2025-11-20T14:09:46","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T19:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?post_type=document&p=314823"},"modified":"2026-03-06T12:11:50","modified_gmt":"2026-03-06T17:11:50","slug":"separate-opinions-and-declarations-advisory-opinion-of-the-international-court-of-justice-on-the-obligations-of-israel-in-relation-to-the-presence-and-activities-of-the-united-nations-other-interna","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/separate-opinions-and-declarations-advisory-opinion-of-the-international-court-of-justice-on-the-obligations-of-israel-in-relation-to-the-presence-and-activities-of-the-united-nations-other-interna\/","title":{"rendered":"Separate opinions and declarations – Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the 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 (A\/80\/502\/Add.1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

To learn more about all ICJ cases related to the question of Palestine, click here to visit the dedicated webpage.<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Eightieth session<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Agenda item 123<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Strengthening of the United Nations system<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the 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<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Note by the Secretary-General\u00a0<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Addendum<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. By my note of 22 October 2025 (<\/span>A\/80\/502<\/span><\/a>), I transmitted to the General Assembly the advisory opinion delivered on 22 October 2025 by the International Court of Justice on the 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, in response to the request made by the Assembly in its resolution<\/span>79\/232<\/span><\/a>of 19 December 2024.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. I hereby transmit to the General Assembly the separate opinions and declarations appended to that advisory opinion.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    [Original: English and French]<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Separate opinion of Vice President Sebutinde<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

    Compelling reasons warrant a measured approach by the Court, which avoids revisiting previously adjudicated issues, or prejudging contentious matters pending before the Court or circumventing the principle of State consent \u2014 There are challenges in verifying the accuracy and authenticity of information presented regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza\u202f\u2014 It is imperative that the root causes and bottlenecks obstructing aid delivery be identified\u202f\u2014 The question posed by the General Assembly is narrowly framed\u202f\u2014 The obligations owed by United\u202fNations Member States hosting United\u202fNations agencies are not absolute and may be qualified by specific agreements concluded between United\u202fNations agencies and host States\u202f\u2014 UNRWA\u2019s presence and operations within the territory of Israel are subject to Israeli consent\u202f\u2014 Israel is obligated under international counterterrorism conventions and binding Security Council resolutions to take appropriate action against terrorism, which is relevant to its prohibition of UNRWA\u2019s continued operations within its territory\u202f\u2014 Even occupying Powers enjoy a degree of discretion in implementing their legal obligations\u202f\u2014Israel\u2019s decision to restrict UNRWA\u2019s presence and operations on its territory for reasons of national security is justified under international law\u202f\u2014 Israel\u2019s national security concerns regarding UNRWA warrant thorough, impartial investigation and resolution by competent authorities\u202f\u2014 Where a United\u202fNations agency acts manifestly contrary to the principles of the Charter to the detriment of the United\u202fNations Member\u2019s interests or security, that Member is not obliged to assist that United\u202fNations agency in perpetuating such conduct\u202f\u2014 The obligation of assistance stipulated in Article\u202f2, paragraph\u202f5, of the Charter is limited to enforcement action undertaken by the Security Council under Chapter\u202fVII of the Charter\u202f\u2014 Where specific legal provisions require an occupying Power to facilitate relief for the civilian population, such obligations do not negate its inherent right to ensure its own security\u202f\u2014 A lasting peace and a sustainable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved through the facilitation of meaningful dialogue between the parties by the international community.<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Introduction<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. I preface this separate opinion by shedding light on why I have in some instances voted with the majority, whilst in other instances I have not. <\/span>First<\/span><\/i>, I agree with the majority that the Court unquestionably has jurisdiction to render the requested advisory opinion.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Secondly<\/span><\/i>, while I have voted in favour of the Court answering the question posed by the General Assembly, I am of the firm view that, in order to preserve the integrity of its judicial function, the Court should, in responding to that question, have taken into account the compelling reasons outlined below in this separate opinion<\/span>1<\/span>. Regrettably, that is not the case. Taken individually and collectively, the reasons I outline in this separate opinion warrant a measured approach that appropriately limits the scope of the Court\u2019s answer.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Thirdly<\/span><\/i>, while I have voted in favour of paragraph\u202f223\u202f(3)\u202f<\/span>(a)<\/span><\/i>of the present Advisory Opinion, I would emphasize that Israel\u2019s obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that the Palestinian population\u202f<\/span>\u2014<\/i><\/span>\u00a0including Palestinians in the Gaza Strip\u202f<\/span>\u2014<\/i><\/span>\u00a0has an adequate supply of essentials for daily life, as the Court itself has affirmed, \u201chave remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control\u201d exercised over the territory<\/span>2<\/span>. In my respectful view, given the fluid and evolving nature of the situation on the ground in Gaza, the\u00a0Court lacks a sufficiently reliable evidentiary basis to accurately assess the current degree of effective control exercised by Israel over the Gaza Strip. It is therefore difficult to sustain the conclusion of the majority that such control has \u201cincreased significantly\u201d since the Court\u2019s\u00a0previous\u00a0Advisory Opinion<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. Crucially, Israel\u2019s humanitarian obligations must be discharged in a manner that does not unduly compromise its legitimate security interests. Yet, the Court\u2019s reasoning appears to accord insufficient weight to Israel\u2019s stated concerns, including Israel\u2019s assertion that members of Hamas have infiltrated the United\u202fNations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (hereinafter \u201cUNRWA\u201d or the \u201cAgency\u201d), thereby potentially undermining the neutrality of that humanitarian organization. Furthermore, the Court appears to cast doubt on the bona fides of Israel\u2019s invocation of such concerns and questions the relevance of those security concerns to the fulfilment of Israel\u2019s obligations under international law<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    5. Fourthly<\/span><\/i>, in my view, the acknowledgment that the State of Israel bears responsibilities under international humanitarian law\u202f<\/span>\u00be<\/span>including those set out in paragraph\u202f232\u202f(3)\u202f<\/span>(c)\u00a0<\/span><\/i>to\u00a0<\/span>(f)<\/span><\/i>\u00a0of the present Advisory Opinion\u202f<\/span>\u2014<\/i><\/span>\u00a0should neither be interpreted as casting doubt on Israel\u2019s compliance with those obligations, nor as diminishing the parallel responsibilities borne by other parties to the conflict.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    6. Moreover, as the Court itself has recognized, \u201cthe intensity of the hostilities could affect the implementation of certain obligations under the law of occupation, and therefore the particular conduct required of the occupying Power\u201d<\/span>. Regrettably, the Court in its reasoning disregards the complex realities of urban warfare, including the exceptionally high population density of Gaza, the use by Hamas of Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages as human shields and its militarization of civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. When substantiated by credible and verifiable evidence, these factors are materially relevant to the assessment of both the scope and the implementation of Israel\u2019s obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. I remain unconvinced that the evidentiary threshold required for such verification can be adequately met within the confines of these advisory proceedings. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      I. Preliminary issues<\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n

      A. The Court\u2019s advisory jurisdiction<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n
        \n
      1. Article\u202f65, paragraph\u202f1, of the Statute of the Court empowers the International Court of Justice to render advisory opinions on any legal question, upon request from any body authorized under, or in accordance with, the Charter of the United\u202fNations. Article\u202f96 of the Charter further clarifies that the General Assembly and the Security Council are expressly entitled to request such opinions. The Court has previously affirmed that the legal questions submitted must fall within the scope of the requesting body\u2019s activities, and that \u201cit is for the Court to satisfy itself that the request for an advisory opinion comes from an organ or agency having competence to make it\u201d<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. The General Assembly has requested an advisory opinion on Israel\u2019s legal obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (hereinafter the \u201cOPT\u201d), both as the occupying Power and as a United\u202fNations Member State. These issues fall within the Assembly\u2019s mandate to uphold international peace and security and concern the legal status of United\u202fNations entities, including UNRWA. As the questions are legal in nature, the Court hasjurisdictionto respond. In the present instance, all the above criteria are fulfilled, and no participant has contested the Court\u2019s jurisdiction to issue the requested advisory opinion.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        B. Discretion<\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n
          \n
        1. Where the Court\u2019s advisory jurisdiction is established, it retains discretion to decline to render an opinion if compelling reasons justify such a course<\/span>, or to adopt a measured approach that limits the scope of its opinion in order to preserve the integrity of its judicial function<\/span>. The Court has consistently affirmed that, as a general principle, it should not refuse to respond to a request for an advisory opinion<\/span>9<\/span>, except if doing so is necessary to safeguarding the integrity of its role as the principal judicial organ of the United\u202fNations<\/span>10<\/span>. In the present case, the following compelling considerations\u202f\u00beboth individually and cumulatively\u202f\u00bewarrant a measured approach, requiring the Court to limit the scope of its opinion\u00a0in order to\u00a0preserve the integrity of its judicial function.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          (i) Revisiting previously\u00a0adjudicated\u00a0issues\u00a0constitutes\u00a0a clear abuse of the Court\u2019s advisory\u00a0jurisdiction\u00a0and politicizes its judicial function<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. It will be recalled that the General Assembly adopted resolution\u202f<\/span>79\/232<\/span><\/a>barely five months after the<\/span>Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(hereinafter the \u201c<\/span>OPT<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Opinion\u201d)<\/span>. Both in that Opinion and in the\u00a0<\/span>Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory<\/span><\/i>\u00a0(hereinafter the \u201c<\/span>Wall<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Opinion\u201d)<\/span>, the Court has, in those two prior advisory opinions, already given its opinion regarding the applicable rules and principles of international law and expounded on its understanding of Israel\u2019s specific obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as an \u201coccupying Power\u201d, including in relation to the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. In my view, revisiting issues already adjudicated in prior advisory opinions constitutes a clear misuse of the Court\u2019s advisory jurisdiction and undermines the sound administration of international justice. Such repetition lacks legitimate judicial purpose and risks politicizing the Court\u2019s proceedings, thereby diminishing the authority and impartiality of its advisory function. The following examples illustrate my point:<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n