Beyond the Gavel: What the ICJ’s Landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion Means for Israel, Palestine, and the Future of International Law 

On 22 October 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a significant Advisory Opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly, which authoritatively clarified that Israel, as the occupying power in the Palestinian Territory, is bound by stringent obligations under international law.

These include the imperative to ensure civilian access to essential life-sustaining supplies like food and water, facilitate humanitarian relief operations, and absolutely refrain from using starvation as a method of warfare.

Although the opinion itself is not legally binding, it serves as a powerful, authoritative interpretation of international law, providing a foundational legal framework for increased diplomatic pressure, potential actions by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and bolstered advocacy efforts, thereby shifting the legal and political landscape surrounding the conflict and holding both Israel and the international community to a higher standard of accountability.

Beyond the Gavel: What the ICJ’s Landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion Means for Israel, Palestine, and the Future of International Law 

On October 22, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague delivered a ruling that, while technically non-binding, sent a seismic ripple through the corridors of global power. The Advisory Opinion on Israel’s obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory does more than just reiterate well-worn principles of international law; it represents a critical juncture in the long-standing conflict, reframing the responsibilities of the occupying power and the role of the international community with unprecedented clarity and authority. 

For observers weary of endless cycles of violence and stalled diplomacy, the question is simple: What does this actually change? The answer is complex, layered, and speaks to the very nature of law, power, and accountability in the 21st century. 

Deconstructing the Court’s Core Findings: A Blueprint for Legal Obligations 

At its heart, the Advisory Opinion serves as a powerful, authoritative checklist against which Israel’s actions—and the world’s response—can be measured. The Court moved beyond abstract legal theory to outline concrete, practical obligations. 

• The Unambiguous Status of “Occupying Power”: The Court’s reaffirmation that Israel remains the occupying power is the foundational pillar of the entire opinion. This is not a mere label; it triggers a comprehensive suite of responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. It legally anchors all subsequent findings, from aid delivery to the prohibition of starvation, firmly within the framework of occupation. This directly challenges any political narratives that seek to obfuscate or deny this legal reality. 

• The Duty to Ensure Sustenance, Not Just Allow It: The Court explicitly stated Israel’s obligation to “ensure that the civilian population has access to essential supplies.” The verb “ensure” is crucial. It moves beyond a passive duty of non-interference to an active, affirmative responsibility. This implies that if a population is starving or lacking medicine, the occupying power is legally at fault for failing to create and maintain the conditions for survival. This has profound implications for the blockade and control of goods and people entering Gaza and parts of the West Bank, placing the legal onus squarely on Israel to facilitate the flow of life-saving aid. 

• Starvation as a Method of Warfare: A Forbidden Tactic: By explicitly naming the prohibition of starvation, the Court invoked one of the most grave charges in international humanitarian law. This elevates the issue of aid restriction from a bureaucratic or logistical challenge to a potential war crime. This finding arms UN agencies, NGOs, and third-party states with a powerful legal argument to counter any deliberate obstruction of food, water, and fuel, framing it not as a policy difference but as a fundamental breach of international law. 

• The Imperative of Cooperation with the UN and UNRWA: In a politically charged climate where UNRWA has faced intense scrutiny and funding freezes, the ICJ’s call for Israel to assist the agency is highly significant. The Court has effectively legitimized UNRWA as an indispensable humanitarian actor and placed a legal obligation on Israel to cooperate with it. This complicates efforts to sideline or dismantle the organization, reinforcing its protected status under international law and underscoring that political disputes cannot override the imperative of refugee relief. 

The Power of an “Authoritative Interpretation”: Why a “Non-Binding” Opinion Matters 

The most common dismissal of ICJ Advisory Opinions is that they are not legally binding. To stop there, however, is to profoundly misunderstand their power. As the press release itself notes, the Court’s conclusions constitute an “authoritative interpretation of the applicable international law.” 

Think of it not as a verdict to be enforced by police, but as the ultimate legal compass. Here’s what this compass directs: 

• A Tool for Diplomatic and Legal Pressure: The Opinion provides a robust, irrefutable legal basis for resolutions in the UN General Assembly and Security Council. It empowers states to frame their diplomatic criticisms not merely as political opinions, but as defenses of the international legal order. It can be cited in bilateral discussions, trade negotiations, and arms embargo debates. 

• Fuel for the International Criminal Court (ICC): While the ICJ settles disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The ICJ’s finding that starvation is prohibited, and that an occupying power has an affirmative duty to ensure essential supplies, provides a powerful legal framework that the ICC Prosecutor can use in its ongoing investigations into the situation in Palestine. 

• A Mobilizing Force for Civil Society and Public Opinion: For activists, human rights organizations, and concerned citizens, the Opinion is a potent weapon. It transforms advocacy from moral appeals into demands for legal compliance. Campaigns for sanctions, divestment, and arms embargoes can now be grounded in the authoritative word of the UN’s principal judicial organ. 

• A Legacy for the Future: This Opinion enters the canon of international law. It will be cited in textbooks, in future court cases, and in academic discourse for decades to come. It solidifies a specific interpretation of occupation duties that will shape the conduct of all occupying powers in the future, setting a precedent that transcends the immediate Israel-Palestine context. 

The Geopolitical Stage: A Global Community Forced to Take a Stand 

The sheer scale of participation in the proceedings—45 written statements and 39 oral arguments—reveals that the world viewed this as a critical battle over the soul of international law. The involvement of barristers from prestigious chambers like 3VB, representing states like Bolivia and Pakistan, underscores the legal gravitas invested in the case. 

This was not a quiet legal seminar; it was a global courtroom drama where a significant portion of the international community collectively built a case. The resulting Opinion now forces every UN member state to recalibrate its relationship with Israel regarding the occupation. States that continue to provide unwavering military or diplomatic support in the face of practices the Court has declared illegal may now be seen as complicit in the violation of international law. 

Conclusion: A Verdict That Demands Action, Not Just Acquiescence 

The ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion is a landmark not because it will instantly halt bulldozers or open all border crossings. Its power is more subtle and, perhaps, more enduring. It has stripped away the political veneer from the occupation, reframing it in the stark, unyielding language of legal obligation. 

It has handed a powerful tool to diplomats, prosecutors, activists, and all those who believe that the rule of law must apply equally to the powerful and the powerless. The Opinion does not end the conflict, but it dramatically changes the rules of the game. The world now has an authoritative legal compass. The fraught, uncertain, and essential work that remains is for the international community to find the courage to follow its direction.