The proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) mark a critical moment in international law and diplomacy concerning Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. While the court cannot enforce binding measures in this advisory case, its forthcoming opinion—requested by the U.N. General Assembly—carries significant legal and moral weight that could:
- Shape International Norms: The court’s interpretation of Israel’s obligations under international law, particularly regarding humanitarian aid and the treatment of occupied populations, could serve as a reference point for future legal and diplomatic negotiations worldwide.
- Influence Policy: Although non-binding, advisory opinions from the ICJ often pressure states to align with international consensus. A strong opinion against Israel might increase diplomatic and economic pressure—especially from countries participating in the hearings.
- Impact UN and Humanitarian Operations: The ruling could affect the legitimacy and operations of agencies like UNRWA and frame future interactions between humanitarian organizations and the Israeli government.
- Affect Public Opinion and Aid: Countries currently providing military or financial support to Israel might come under greater scrutiny if the opinion finds serious legal breaches, potentially shifting public discourse and policymaking.
However, the ICJ’s 2004 ruling declaring Israel’s West Bank barrier illegal had limited practical impact, as Israel ignored it. The same could happen here, especially given Israel’s refusal to participate in the hearings and its long-standing distrust of U.N. institutions.
The coming months will reveal whether the court’s opinion influences real-world outcomes or primarily reinforces legal precedent and international expectations.