Third State Submissions: Summaries of interventions for the ICJ Advisory Opinion on 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

Prepared by Dwija Panchal, Yaman Midani, Maria Alejandra Gomez Duque, James Henderson, Conall Mathur-Dix, N Chowdhury, and Henriette Willberg

Download the material in PDF format here

Introduction

In December 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render an Advisory Opinion 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. The Oral Proceedings for the case took place between 28 April and 2 May 2025, during which States and international organisations presented submissions outlining their positions on Israel’s obligations. In addition to oral pleadings, many States also submitted Written Statements to the Court. Following over six months of deliberations and drafting, the Court is scheduled to deliver its Advisory Opinion on Wednesday 22 October 2025, at 3pm.

In its request for an Advisory Opinion, the UNGA asks the Court to consider, “on a priority basis and with the utmost urgency,” the following question:

What are the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance, for the benefit of the Palestinian civilian population, and in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination?

Central to this case are questions regarding Israel’s obligations with respect to UNRWA, the UN agency widely recognised as the ‘backbone’ of the humanitarian response in Gaza and which plays a vital role in providing humanitarian and development assistance to the Palestinian people, particularly Palestinian refugees. The request for an Advisory Opinion was initiated following Israel’s adoption of legislation aimed at dismantling UNRWA, part of Israel’s ongoing and sustained attack on the agency’s staff and operations.

States are the primary subjects and actors of the international legal system. While conventions and treaties are often emphasised as sources of international law, the normative authority of customary international law should not be overlooked. Customary international law is generally understood to consist of two essential elements: State Practice and opinio juris, the belief that such practice amounts to a legal obligation. Submissions of States before the ICJ are a form of relevant State Practice and opinio juris, and make an important contribution to the formation of customary international law and the interpretation of treaty obligations.

The following catalogue collects and summarises the positions of third States presented before the ICJ, focusing on their submissions regarding Israel’s obligations under international law. The summaries draw primarily on the written statements of third States, complemented by their oral submissions. For a comparative examination of State practice identified in these respective interventions, see Al Haq’s recent report on the UNRWA Advisory Opinion.

The following states made written and/or oral arguments before the Court in May 2025: Algeria, the African Union, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Egypt, France, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, League of Arab states, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Namibia, The Netherlands, Norway, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, The Russian Federation, Tunisia, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Vanuatu.

Summaries

Algeria: Written statement and Oral statement

Algeria submits that Israel, as a member of the UN, has an obligation to respect UNRWA’s activities and “not to impede the humanitarian assistance it provides” in accordance with UNGA resolutions. Israel’s failure to respect its obligations as a Member of the UN will seriously impede the provision of urgent supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian people. Algeria also submits that Israel, through its targeting of UNRWA, is in breach of its obligations as an occupying power to provide humanitarian assistance. This includes Israel’s adoption of two laws banning UNRWA, its impediments to the provision of essential services and humanitarian assistance as well as its impediments to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Algeria considers that Israel’s breaches of international law entail legal consequences for third states.

African Union: Written statement and Oral statement

The African Union (AU) asserts that Israel’s obstruction of humanitarian aid, its criminalisation of UNRWA, and its legislative targeting of UN actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law, including obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, International Human Rights Law and customary international law. Israel is bound to ensure the enjoyment by the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of their rights to existence, to life and to food. To comply with its international legal obligations, Israel must repeal the 2024 laws that ban UNRWA’s operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it must facilitate assistance from third states and must give assurances that it will comply with its international obligations. The AU also stresses that Israel’s conduct undermines the entire multilateral system and erodes the international legal order meant to safeguard human rights and decolonisation. The AU highlights the Palestinian right to self-determination as a jus cogens norm and condemns Israel’s efforts to silence third States and international bodies providing aid. It calls on the ICJ to affirm Israel’s legal obligations and urges all States to act collectively to uphold justice and Palestinian sovereignty.

Bangladesh: Written statement

Bangladesh submits that Israel is in serious breach of its international legal obligations as an occupying power and as a member of the United Nations, through the enactment of domestic legislation targeting UNRWA and its attacks on the operations, infrastructure, and personnel of UNRWA and other international actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Bangladesh underscores that Israel’s obstruction and frustration of “vital humanitarian and development support” impedes the Palestinian people’s ability to respond to the “ongoing violation of their right to self-determination.” Israel has violated its obligations as a UN member through both its domestic legislation against UNRWA and its actions targeting international humanitarian operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Bangladesh urges the Court to affirm that Israel must cease these violations, ensure the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance, and provide full reparations. Bangladesh further calls on all States to refrain from recognising or assisting in the maintenance of the unlawful situation resulting from Israel’s conduct.

Belgium: Written statement and Oral statement

Belgium contends that Israel, as an occupying power and UN member, has an obligation under IHL, human rights law, Security Council resolutions, and the order of provisional measures issued by the ICJ in the case of South Africa v. Israel, to ensure the unimpeded operation of UN agencies—particularly UNRWA—and other humanitarian actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It highlights both Israel’s negative duty to refrain from obstructing aid and to not attack, harass or detain humanitarian personnel, and its positive duty to actively facilitate humanitarian assistance, especially in Gaza. Belgium warns that Israel’s actions, including restricting aid and using starvation as a method of warfare, violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, various human rights instruments, and provisional ICJ measure, potentially amounting to war crimes. It calls on the ICJ to reaffirm these obligations, reinforce accountability, and support the broader legal and humanitarian framework necessary for Palestinian statehood and peace.

Bolivia: Written statement and Oral statement

Bolivia submits that Israel, as an occupying power, has a duty to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the benefit of the Palestinian population, to consent to relief operations by humanitarian organisations and to facilitate their implementation. As a member of the UN, Israel has an obligation to cooperate with the UN, to respect the law as indicated by ICJ Advisory Opinions and General Assembly Resolutions, and to respect the privileges and immunities of UN and UNRWA personnel, guaranteeing their safety. In order to fulfil its duty to cooperate in promoting economic and social progress to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, Israel must ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies, basic services and humanitarian assistance. Security concerns cannot be invoked to justify actions that violate international law.

Brazil: Written statement and Oral statement

Brazil stresses that Israel, as both an occupying power and UN member, has binding obligations under the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolutions to ensure humanitarian access and protect civilian populations. As a member of the UN, Israel has an obligation to give assistance to the UN and its agencies, including UNRWA, whose mandate cannot be undermined unilaterally by domestic legislation. UNRWA delivers life-saving humanitarian assistance but also plays a crucial role in enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their self-determination. Brazil also suggests that the Court consider whether measures taken by Israel to undermine diplomatic missions between Third States and the State of Palestine constitute a violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

Chile: Written statement and Oral statement

Chile outlines Israel’s obligations towards the UN and its agencies arising from its UN membership, including specific obligations concerning the privileges and immunities of the UN and its officials, including UNRWA, its duty of cooperation and the binding decisions set forth in UN Security Council resolutions. Chile emphasises that Israel has a duty as an occupying power to ensure that the basic needs of the civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are met and, if this is not the case, to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, whether it comes from third States or other humanitarian organisations. Facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance is closely related to the right of the occupied population to their economic, social and cultural development, and a prolonged breach of this obligation necessarily impacts the ability of the population to exercise their right to self-determination. Considering UNRWA’s specific mandate and fundamental work providing relief assistance, Chile submits that Israel has an obligation to accept and facilitate the operation of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This comprises an obligation not to impede third states and humanitarian organisations, but also a positive obligation to adopt all necessary measures to ensure UNRWA’s fulfilment of its mandate.

China: Written statement and Oral statement

China submits that Israel, as an occupying power, is obligated under international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, to ensure unimpeded humanitarian assistance and to respect the role of UN agencies, including UNRWA. China contends that Israel’s measures against these agencies violate its legal obligations and have seriously undermined the economic, social and cultural development of the Palestinian people, thereby impeding the realisation of their  right to self-determination and development, which China regards as central to the Palestinian question. As a UN member state, Israel is further obligated to cooperate in good faith with the UN and other States to ensure and facilitate humanitarian operations and to respect the privileges and immunities of the UN and its staff. China calls on all States, as “stakeholders in the humanitarian cause,” to unite and cooperate in providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.

Colombia: Oral Statement

Colombia submits that Israel has placed the Palestinian population in an impossible situation by making them subject exclusively to its power and obstructing the work of relief agencies, which have been the primary source of protection for a population facing severe deprivation and starvation. Israel’s conduct is inconsistent with its obligations as an occupying power and constitutes breaches of its responsibilities as a UN member state, as well as under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law. Colombia recalls that Israel has an obligation not to impede the Palestinian people from exercising its right to self-determination. As a UN member, Israel is obliged to act in good faith under the UN Charter and to assist the UN in any actions taken pursuant to the Charter, including through agencies such as UNRWA. Israel must also comply with the obligations encompassed in the conditions of its admission of membership to the UN. Israel’s obstruction of humanitarian assistance and attacks on UNRWA—an agency with a unique mandate and capacity unmatched by any other organisation—constitute violations of its obligations under IHL. These include the duty to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid and basic services, as well as to protect civilian property and infrastructure.

The Comoros: Written statement and Oral statement

The Union of the Comoros submits that Israel’s unilateral obstruction of UNRWA’s activities aggravates existing threats to international peace and security in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel is in violation of its legal obligations as a UN member, including the duty to perform in good faith its obligations arising from the Charter, to assist in the organisation’s activities, to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, and to respect UN privileges and immunities. By impeding and interrupting the presence and humanitarian activities of the UN, including UNRWA, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,  Israel violates its obligations as an occupying power under IHL and violates fundamental rights such as the right to life, health, education and an adequate standard of living. Israel’s conduct further violates peremptory norms of international law, notably the intransgressible rules of IHL, the right of people to self-determination, and the prohibition of genocide. The Union of the Comoros emphasises that it is the responsibility of the international community to take practical action to ensure that Israel respects its international obligations and to guarantee protection of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Egypt: Written statement and Oral statement

Egypt submits that Israel is in breach of its legal obligations as both an occupying power and UN member by obstructing the operations of the United Nations, particularly UNRWA, and by impeding humanitarian and development efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Egypt argues that Israel’s prolonged occupation, unlawful settlement expansion, demographic manipulation, and denial of access to essential resources constitute violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and undermine the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. It emphasises that Israel must facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and fully comply with its legal obligations under international law until the occupation is brought to an end.  Egypt calls on the Court to reaffirm Israel’s obligations and clarify the responsibilities of third States in supporting Palestinian sovereignty and statehood.

France: Written statement and Oral statement

France submits that, under the UN Charter, Israel has an obligation as a UN Member State to co-operate in good faith with the UN and its subsidiary organs, including UNRWA. As an occupying power, Israel has an obligation to accept and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which has been established to be inadequately supplied. France argues that Israel’s margin of discretion to prohibit UNRWA’s activities is limited by its duty to protect the occupied population and to co-operate in good faith with the agency. In light of the essential role of UNRWA and the absence of other actors with capacity to ensure adequate supply, Israel is required to facilitate UNRWA’s activities. France also argues that if this assistance is indispensable for the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, Israel has obligations under international human rights law to facilitate such assistance. Finally, France emphasises that Israel must respect and protect the privileges, immunities and security of UN personnel and property.

Hungary: Written statement and Oral statement

Hungary strongly argues that the ICJ should decline the Advisory Opinion request. In respect of Israel’s obligations under international law, Hungary asserts that States’ obligations to the UN and its agencies are assumed voluntarily and are neither absolute nor unqualified. Pointing to the allegations that members of UNRWA participated in the attacks on 7 October 2023, Hungary submits that UNRWA has failed to maintain its neutrality, which may justify limitations to the privileges and immunities granted to UNRWA as a UN agency. These facts may also justify abrogation from the Comey-Michelmore Exchange of Letters in which Israel committed to facilitating UNRWA’s work, on the ground that this constitutes a security concern. Hungary also highlights that other UN bodies such as UNHCR and WFP are operational in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and asserts that Israel has no obligation to allow a specific organisation to provide humanitarian aid.

Iceland: Written statement

Iceland submits that under the UN Charter, Israel has obligations to act in good faith and give assistance to UNRWA. Given that since 1950, UNRWA has provided basic services in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that a State would usually provide, Iceland argues that Israel’s obligation to restore the status quo ante under the law of occupation encompasses an obligation to resume the services of UNRWA or otherwise meet these basic needs.  Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under an obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes on behalf of the Palestinian population, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory has inadequate resources. Iceland argues that a disengagement of communication with external actors providing these services, including UNRWA, is incompatible with these obligations. Iceland also submits that Israel has an obligation not to impede the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and this encompasses enabling the presence and activities of external actors in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Indonesia: Written statement and Oral statement

Indonesia states that, under the UN Charter, Israel’s obligations include respecting the presence of the UN’s agencies and bodies; assisting and facilitating the UN’s work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and complying with decisions of the ICJ. The latter includes Israel’s obligations to provide humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, halt its military offensive in Gaza and keep the Rafah crossing open. Indonesia asserts that as an occupying power, Israel has obligations to observe the Geneva Conventions; provide basic supplies; protect hospitals and humanitarian personnel; not conduct collective punishment; and not displace the Palestinian population. This includes agreeing to relief schemes as the basic needs of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory are not met, and providing unhindered passage for humanitarian aid. Indonesia submits that Israel has failed to comply with its obligations as a UN Member State and occupying power, and argues that Israel is obliged to put an end to and make reparation for these unlawful acts.

The Islamic Republic of Iran: Written statement and Oral statement

The Islamic Republic of Iran submits that the Palestinian issue is sui generis because of Israel’s prolonged occupation, systematic violations of international law and UN resolutions, denial of Palestinian rights, and severe humanitarian deprivation, requiring cumulative application of international human rights and humanitarian law. Iran submits that Israel’s membership to the UN is a “manifest disregard for the purpose and principles of the UN” and that its persistent violations of international law further undermine its legitimacy as a UN member. Israel has systematically violated IHL and human rights law by obstructing aid, depriving Palestinians of their basic needs contrary to their inalienable right to self-determination and committing acts that amount to war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide, thereby breaching its obligations as an occupying power.

Ireland: Written statement

Ireland submits that as a UN Member State, Israel has obligations under the UN Charter to act in good faith and assist the UN, including UNRWA. Ireland highlights several of Israel’s obligations as an occupying power, including ensuring population’s access to the food and medical supplies, facilitating the necessary supplies and/or agreeing to relief schemes if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. In light of UNRWA’s vital role in providing essential supplies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Ireland submits that Israel is in breach of its obligations by impeding UNRWA activities. Separately, Ireland considers that Israel has obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to afford UNRWA such privileges and immunities required to fulfil its mandate. Ireland submits that Israel has breached this obligation by prohibiting Israeli government authorities from contacting UNRWA and purporting to preserve criminal proceedings against UNRWA. Finally, Ireland argues that Israel has an obligation as a UN Member State not to adopt measures which impede the realisation of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, which Ireland considers to entail an obligation not to impede the provision of humanitarian and development assistance.

Israel: Written statement

Israel argues that its obligations as a UN Member State are neither absolute nor unqualified, and its obligation to assist the UN only applies to enforcement actions taken by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. Israel asserts that the UN’s privileges and immunities can lawfully be withheld where there are legitimate security concerns. Alleging that UNRWA has been infiltrated by terrorist organisations and has breached its neutrality, Israel argues that by ending its  engagement with UNRWA, it is complying with its obligations to refrain from providing any support to entities involved in terrorism. Israel argues it has the authority and power to determine whether, when and to what extent third parties may be present and operate in the occupied territory.  With respect to Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel argues that the obligation of an occupying power to agree to relief schemes is not unlimited, that there is no obligation to facilitate relief schemes of organisations which are not impartial, and that an occupying power may refuse provision that is not urgently needed. Israel states that it has been working with other partners to facilitate the passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Israel submits that it facilitates representatives of foreign states in territories under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, but argues that as these are not diplomatic or consular missions, they do not enjoy the associated privileges or immunities.

Jordan: Written statement and Oral statement

Jordan submits that Israel has multiple overlapping obligations that arise under various areas and sources of international law, including customary international law, the law of the UN, international human rights law, the law of occupation, diplomatic and consular law, and ICJ orders. Israel’s obligations can be summarised as follows: not impeding the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, including not undermining the population’s integrity as a people; adopting necessary and effective measures to protect the Palestinian civilian population; co-operating with the UN, international organisations and third States to end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and resolve the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip; facilitating UNRWA, which plays a critical role in the Gaza Strip, in fulfilling its mandate and providing disaster relief; respecting the privileges and immunities of, and facilitating unimpeded transit of, UN personnel, humanitarian workers and third State diplomatic staff across Israel’s territory to access the Occupied Palestinian territory; complying with the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions; acting for the benefit of the Palestinian people and ensuring basic needs are met, or if unable to do so, agreeing to and facilitating relief schemes; respecting the right to life, housing, food, clothing, and education under customary international law and the ICCPR, ICESCR, CERD and CRC; abiding by the orders of the ICJ, including to open the Rafah crossing; and not purporting to close the diplomatic or consular missions of third states in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as Israel does not have sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Kuwait: Written statement and Oral statement

Kuwait submits that as a UN Member State, Israel has the following obligations: to extend necessary privileges and immunities to enable the UN to fulfil its functions; to protect UN premises and personnel; and not to interfere with UN operations, including by not obstructing their movement into and within the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Kuwait highlights Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law: ensure proper functioning of education institutions; ensure essential and basic needs are met; facilitate relief schemes where these needs are not met due to inadequate resources of the occupied territory; and protect humanitarian and medical personnel and facilities. Kuwait also notes the prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare. Under international human rights law and the right to self-determination, Israel is obliged to respect the rights to life, food and water, health, and education. Israel is also under a duty to promote and facilitate the realisation of the right to self-determination, and refrain from obstructing this. Kuwait argues that Israel has violated these obligations.

The League of Arab States: Written statement and Oral statement

The League of Arab States contends that Israel is bound by a wide range of international legal obligations. Under the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, Israel must end its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible, allow free access to third States for cultural, academic, and diplomatic activities, and not impede the establishment of diplomatic relations between the State of Palestine and third States. Israel must not apply its domestic laws to the Occupied Palestinian Territory or pass legislation that obstructs UN operations there, such as the Israeli law passed on 28 October 2024 targeting UNRWA, which the League deems null and void.

The League submits that, as the UN Charter prevails over other agreements, Israel must uphold the absolute privileges and immunities of the UN and UNRWA, which cannot be overridden by considerations of military necessity, and must not interfere with UN operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel is obligated to promote, assist, and facilitate UN activities, provide reparations for wrongful acts causing loss or damage to UNRWA, and repeal any laws, including the 28 October 2024 law, that maintain the unlawful situation.

The League asserts that, as an occupying power, Israel must ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies to the Palestinian population, including food, medical aid, clothing, bedding, shelter, and items for religious worship; cooperate with the UN and third States to reconstruct Gaza; not hinder third States’ economic and development assistance; maintain public order and safety; and treat civilians humanely. Israel is obliged to agree to and facilitate all relief, reconstruction, and rehabilitation schemes, including those by the UN and third States, and to end the longstanding blockade of Gaza to allow development assistance and promote general welfare. This obligation also extends to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Israel must take all necessary measures to address the humanitarian situation, ensure rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, and implement ICJ provisional measures. Israel must not mistreat, harass, intimidate, arbitrarily detain, or illegally arrest medical and humanitarian personnel, and must respect, protect, and must maintain the operation of medical and humanitarian objects and premises, including hospitals.

The League submits that Israel must not forcibly transfer or deport people, use starvation as a method of war, or destroy objects essential for civilian survival. Under the ICCPR, ICESCR, and CRC, Israel must respect the rights to life, food, health, education, liberty, and security, refrain from torture, and protect children and women, including facilitating UN services for them.

Luxembourg: Written statement and Oral statement

Luxembourg submits that, as a UN Member State, Israel assumes obligations under the UN Charter to respect the privileges and immunities of the UN and its subsidiaries, including UNRWA, and to uphold the absolute inviolability of UN premises. Luxembourg argues that Israel’s law of 28 October 2024 for the cessation of UNRWA’s activities and purporting to allow criminal proceedings to be brought against UNRWA personnel are counter to these obligations. Luxembourg further submits that Israel has obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law to respect the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; ensure public order and safety; provide food and medical supplies; and bring in necessities where local resources are inadequate or, alternatively, agree to and facilitate relief schemes for the occupied population. Luxembourg argues that Israel is violating these obligations by impeding UNRWA’s activities.

Malaysia: Written statement and Oral statement

Malaysia asserts that, through its anti-UNRWA legislation, Israel is in direct breach of its obligations as an occupying power to administer the Occupied Palestinian Territory ‘for the benefit of the local population’ and to protect the Palestinian people, including ensuring humanitarian and development assistance, not impeding the work of organisations delivering such assistance, and agreeing to and facilitating relief schemes. Moreover, Malaysia submits that UNRWA functions as a quasi- or humanitarian substitute of the Protecting Power, meaning that Israel cannot validly withdraw its consent regarding the agency’s operations. Israel is in breach of its obligations as a UN member to accord the UN and its officials privileges and immunities and to cooperate in good faith with the UN, most recently through its adoption of legislation on the cessation of UNRWA operations. Malaysia submits that these obligations are a matrix of obligations intended to support and entrench the right of peoples to self-determination. Malaysia submits that Israel’s policies and practices towards the UN constitute violations of all aspects right to self-determination identified by the ICJ in its July 2024 Advisory Opinion.

The Maldives: Written statement and Oral statement

The Maldives affirms the unique and indispensable role of UNRWA in delivering humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including with respect to access to water. It underlines that Israel has significantly impaired UNRWA’s ability to perform its critical humanitarian role in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, through legislative and administrative measures as well as attacks on personnel, facilities and equipment. The Maldives highlights the impacts that Israeli attacks have had on UNRWA’s water distribution services, detailing Israel’s violations of its obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that the civilian population has sufficient access to humanitarian supplies and the right to water enshrined in international human rights law. The Maldives further submits that Israel is in breach of its obligations as a member of the UN, including its obligation to provide assistance to the UN and the activities of UNRWA and to accord its staff and premises privileges and immunities.

Mexico: Written statement and Oral statement

Mexico submits that Israel’s attacks on UNRWA infrastructure and personnel violate its obligations as an occupying power under IHL to  ensure and facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people and to permit and facilitate humanitarian relief initiatives, as well as the ICJ’s provisional measures order in South Africa v. Israel. Mexico submits that Israel has obligations under international human rights law to ensure non-discrimination, prevent torture, protect rights of women and children and safeguard equal access to humanitarian aid and essential services for all. Additionally, as a UN member state, Israel is obligated to respect UN privileges and immunities granted to UNRWA and other UN agencies, to uphold the values of the UN Charter, to support and not obstruct international efforts aimed at providing humanitarian and economic assistance and to comply with UN resolutions and ICJ decisions. These obligations relate to the broader principle of self-determination and are crucial to support the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people.

Namibia: Written statement and Oral statement

Namibia submits that, as both an occupying power and a UN Member, Israel has an obligation to respect the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination., including their right to decide what forms of aid to accepts and from whom. As an occupying power, Israel must ensure the provision of essential supplies and basic services to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and facilitate the activities of other actors providing assistance. As a UN member, Israel is further obligated to cooperate in good faith with the UN, to implement the decisions of the Security Council and the ICJ’s Provisional Measures Orders, to respect the privileges and immunities essential to UN humanitarian operations, and to respect its obligations established under its 1967 agreement with UNRWA. Namibia also highlights Israel’s obligation not to impede the work of third States in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and arbitrarily restrict diplomatic relations.

The Netherlands: Written statement

The Netherlands submits that an occupying power is under an obligation to agree to relief for an inadequately supplied population and to facilitate relief operations by all means at its disposal. Ending a bilateral agreement with an international organisation that is the main provider of essential services, thereby leaving the occupied population inadequately supplied, is unlawful under IHL. The Netherlands emphasises that, in situations of extreme dependence on relief operations, terminating relations with UNRWA “directly and severely affects a people as a whole, frustrating its economic, social and cultural development” and undermines their ability to exercise the right to self-determination. It also notes that, due to the erga omnes application of peremptory norms, the occupying power owes obligations not only to the people in the occupied territory but also to the international community. International organisations and third States providing humanitarian relief therefore have the right to demand the resumption of operations when an occupying power breaches these obligations, as part of its duty to cease wrongful conduct and fulfill its obligations.

Norway: Written statement and Oral statement

Norway submits that Israel’s hindering of the provision of development assistance and humanitarian relief impedes the Palestinian people from exercising their right to self-determination, in violation of Israel’s obligations as an occupying power. Israel’s obligation to facilitate the provision of  humanitarian relief may be fulfilled only by lifting the blockade. Norway cites the obligation of an occupying power to facilitate relief schemes where the occupied population is inadequately supplied (laid out in the Fourth Geneva Convention) as applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel must facilitate the movement of relief both in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in transit through its own territory. Norway refers to the negative obligation not to obstruct the representative Palestinian authorities in the maintenance of their own relations with international actors, such as the UN and third-states. Norway emphasises UNRWA’s indispensability to the wellbeing of Palestinian refugees through its provision of relief and maintenance of infrastructure amid enormous needs. Norway states that Israel is obliged to facilitate the transit of UNRWA and other UN personnel, and that any obstruction or repeal of the organisation’s role is a violation of Israel’s obligations. Norway also refers to Israel’s obligation to contribute to achieving the realisation of a viable State of Palestine, in terms of the two-State solution that contextualised the vote granting Israel UN membership.

The of Islamic Cooperation: Written statement and Oral statement

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) asserts that the situation imposed on the Palestinian people “has been a cause for concern since the creation of Israel in 1948” due to Zionist claims to the whole Palestinian territory and the corollary intention of expelling Palestinians. Israel has no sovereignty over the OIC and, consequently, cannot legitimately make decisions concerning actions which are delegated to international organisations and third States. As a UN member and occupying force, Israel has a duty to protect UN staff and to respect the rights of the Palestinian population. The OIC submits that Israel’s measures against UNRWA, which constitute flagrant violations of international law and war crimes, are coupled with an additional “overarching illegality”: the denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and its corollary the right of return for expelled populations. The OIC submits that attacks on UNRWA, which plays an indispensable role in ensuring the survival of the Palestinian people, also constitute “an existential threat to the Palestinian people.”

Pakistan: Written statement and Oral statement

Pakistan submits that Israel, as an occupying power and a UN Member, is obligated under international law to ensure and facilitate the activities of the UN, other organisations and third States in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the provision of urgently needed supplies, basic services and humanitarian and development assistance. Israel is in extended,  flagrant violation of its obligation to respect the specific privileges and immunities that UNRWA and its staff enjoy under international law, with recent anti-UNRWA legislation reflecting a broader, systematic campaign against the agency. Pakistan submits that Israel’s attacks on UNRWA are part of a plan to destroy the right to return of Palestinian refugees and to undermine the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, a plan which cannot be allowed to succeed. Pakistan examines in depth how Israel’s conduct relating to the presence and activities of UNRWA in the Occupied Palestinian Territory violates its obligations under IHL and relevant human rights instruments. It further asserts that Israel’s breach of its primary obligations gives rise to the obligation to cease such breaches and to restore the status quo ante, including through reparations and compensation.

State of Palestine: Written statement and Oral statement

Palestine submits that Israel, lacking sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory, has no legal authority to obstruct urgently needed humanitarian or developmental assistance to the Palestinian civilian population. Israel has created conditions of subjugation and deprivation that have made Palestinians dependent on such aid, while systematically impeding its delivery. These actions violate the four constituent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, as set out by the ICJ. Israel’s actions also violate its duty not to prevent or interfere with the presence or activities of third parties, including the UN, international organisations and  third States, in fulfilling their own obligations to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Israel’s obstruction of the provision of humanitarian goods, services or assistance to the Palestinian population also breaches its obligations under IHL and its officials have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It further violates duties undertaken as a UN Member States, including Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and undermines the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people. Palestine submits that Israel’s ongoing breach of its obligations owed to the UN constitute a “campaign of delegitimisation” against the UN as a whole, “incompatible with and antithetical to the actions of a responsible and law-abiding member of the international community.”

Israel’s “existential assault” on UNRWA—including attacks on UNRWA personnel, premises and property, obstruction of UNRWA’s mandate and anti-UNRWA legislation—constitutes a violation of its obligations as a UN Member and an occupying power, and is clearly linked to an attempt to deny Palestinian refugees the right to return, as guaranteed under international law. Palestine submits that this assault, which has resulted in the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in whole or in part, should be considered genocidal. Palestine submits that Israel is obligated to cease its internationally wrongful acts and provide restitution and satisfaction to all injured parties.

Panama: Oral statement

Panama submits that the complexity and comprehensive scope of the question posted by the General Assembly demand a detailed analysis in law and fact from the Court. It focuses its statement on affirming the ICJ’s jurisdiction to give the requested Advisory Opinion, highlighting the consistency of such action with past Court practice. Panama submits that no provision of the ICJ Statute deprives the Court of jurisdiction to issue an opinion, and that it may decline to do so only for compelling reasons. Panama reaffirms its longstanding commitment to peace, international law, and multilateral diplomacy.

Philippines: Written statement

The Philippines reaffirms its support for the UN’s mission and submits that the Court’s opinion should reinforce the balance between sovereignty, international law, and humanitarian imperatives. The Philippines submits that Israel, as a UN Member State, has obligations under international law to render assistance to the UN; to grant privileges and immunities to the UN and its agencies; to ensure their operational integrity, effectiveness, impartiality, and independence; to facilitate safe and unimpeded humanitarian access; to respect and protect the physical safety of UN personnel; and to ensure accountability for attacks against UN staff and property. At the same time, the Philippines recognises the need for a legal framework that protects the effectiveness and independence of UN agencies while maintaining host-State sovereignty. It underscores the importance of international law in guiding State conduct and ensuring humanitarian protection during Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territory. The statement concludes that the Court’s opinion should uphold international law principles while maintaining the balance between humanitarian imperatives, State sovereignty, and institutional integrity.

Poland: Written statement and Oral statement

Poland submits that Israel must respect its humanitarian assistance obligations arising both from its status as an occupying power and from the principle that all States must fulfil in good faith their international commitments. Under IHL, Israel is prohibited from imposing an arbitrary blockade on humanitarian assistance to occupied populations in need. In situations of occupation, these obligations extend beyond allowing passage and require the occupying power’s active facilitation and agreement to relief schemes. Poland stresses that respect for the right to self-determination reinforces broader legal protections for occupied populations, with particular emphasis on children’s rights. It notes that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, read alongside relevant UN Security Council resolutions, requires parties to armed conflict to ensure humanitarian aid reaches affected children. Poland highlights that Israel must allow such assistance under the Geneva Conventions and refrain from targeting humanitarian workers. It also reaffirms that while every State has a right to self-defence, this must comply with international law, and humanitarian obligations are not contingent on the reciprocity of other parties to the conflict.

Qatar: Written statement and Oral statement

Qatar argues that, as a UN member and occupying power, Israel has legal obligations to respect the privileges and immunities of UN agencies, facilitate humanitarian access (both by refraining from impeding such aid and by actively aiding its distribution), and uphold fundamental human rights. Qatar details Israel’s breaches of its erga omnes obligations through the dismantling of UNRWA operations and wider obstruction of humanitarian aid, contending that these acts form part of a broader strategy to dismantle the legal framework protecting Palestinian refugees and undermine the jus cogens norm of self-determination as a result of, inter alia, UNRWA’s “assistance to the Palestinian people’s economic, social and cultural development”. Qatar submits that such obstruction of relief supplies constitutes a breach of the prohibition on using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. It also highlights Israel’s targeting of medical facilities and personnel as violations of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, both the obligation to refrain from such targeting and to ensure the functionality of medical services in an occupied territory.

Saudi Arabia: Written statement and Oral statement

Saudi Arabia submits that Israel, as an occupying power, has obligations stemming from the Hague Regulations, Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law, including to refrain from measures amounting to collective punishment, to facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children, to facilitate medical services and medical personnel in their duties, and to ensure food and medical supplies. As the Occupied Palestinian Territory is inadequately supplied, Israel is bound to accept and facilitate relief supplies on behalf of the population. Saudi Arabia highlights Israel’s particular obligations under international human rights law to respect the right to self-determination, to life, to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food, clothing and housing, to water, to education and to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Saudi Arabia further submits that Israel must comply with the UN Charter and the General Convention, and carry out Security Council decisions. This includes giving the UN, including UNRWA, every assistance in any action taken pursuant to the Charter; allowing the unhindered provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian and medical assistance; and respecting the privileges and immunities of the UN and UNRWA, including immunity from legal processes and the inviolability of UN premises.

Senegal: Written statement and Oral statement

Senegal submits that as a UN member State, Israel has an unconditional obligation to co-operate in good faith with the UN. Under the General Convention, Israel must respect the privileges and immunities of the UN, including UNRWA, which extends to respecting the immunity of its property, correspondence, and personnel. Senegal argues that Israel’s unilateral termination of the Coney-Michelmore Agreement breaches Israel’s obligation of co-operation under the General Convention. Senegal points to Israel’s obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention as an occupying power to accept and facilitate relief efforts to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Senegal also asserts that Israel has numerous obligations under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law to protect humanitarian and medical personnel and facilities. Under international human rights law, Israel must respect the right to health, ensure the wellbeing of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and facilitate access to education for children. Senegal highlights that Israel cannot derogate from its obligation to comply with the binding decisions of the ICJ, including respecting the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Senegal asserts that Israel must not impose its domestic legislation within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and Israel must also allow the UN and Member States to enter the Occupied Palestinian Territory as part of their mandate or in solidarity with State of Palestine.

Slovenia: Written statement and Oral statement

Slovenia submits that Israel, as an occupying power, is under binding legal obligations pursuant to the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter to allow humanitarian assistance and facilitate the work of UN agencies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and protect humanitarian relief personnel, objects, installations, and facilities. Israel also has an obligation under IHL to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population. Slovenia emphasises that the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is a jus cogens norm recognised in numerous UN resolutions and legal opinions. Slovenia condemns Israel’s use of arbitrary force, obstruction of aid, and legislative actions that violate these obligations and sustain an unlawful occupation. Slovenia argues that Israel has an obligation under international human rights law to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population. Slovenia urges the Court to reaffirm that sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory resides with the Palestinian people and to clarify the legal consequences of Israel’s ongoing breaches.

South Africa: Written statement and Oral statement

South Africa submits that UNRWA has become central to the basic survival of Palestinian refugees and that the only alternative to the agency is the fulfilment of the Palestinians’ right to return, their right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state free from occupation and apartheid. Israel targets UNRWA because it “symbolises the rights of Palestinian refugees to return”. South Africa submits that Israel’s conduct, manifested through anti-UNRWA legislation and attacks, constitutes breaches of Israel’s obligations vis-a-vis the UN – including under the UN Charter and in respect of the UN’s privileges and immunities – as well as its obligations under IHL and international human rights law. These attacks are part and parcel of Israel’s measures “employed to deliberately inflict on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction in whole or in part”. Recalling its own history of racial segregation and oppression, South Africa submits that Israel’s attacks on UNRWA are designed to create further fragmentation of the Palestinian group. South Africa submits that Israel’s measures towards UNRWA add to its breaches as outlined in the ICJ’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion and constitute violations of peremptory norms of international law.

Spain: Written statement and Oral statement

Spain submits that Israel, as an occupying power, is legally obligated under IHL not to alter the status or demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Spain argues that Israel’s settlement policies and legislative measures obstructing the operations of UN agencies, including UNRWA, violate these obligations and hinder the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Spain affirms that Israel is obligated to co-operate with the UN agencies and guarantee and facilitate basic human rights, including the right to health, education, and an adequate standard of living. Spain also highlights Israel’s obligation to comply with the ICJ’s provisional measures orders. Spain urges the Court to issue an Advisory Opinion that reinforces the legal framework protecting Palestinian rights and clarifies Israel’s responsibilities as an occupying power.

Sudan: Oral statement

Sudan submits that, as an occupying power, Israel has binding legal obligations to uphold humanitarian protections and facilitate the operations of UN agencies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel is obligated to respect the sovereign prerogative of the State of Palestine to engage with third States and international organisations, a core element of statehood. Failure to respect this right, including through “…deliberate efforts to obstruct the presence of diplomatic or consular actors…,” constitutes a breach of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Sudan submits that, amid an urgent need for humanitarian aid, Israel’s actions and legislation targeting UNRWA violate its obligations to respect the UN’s privileges and immunities, refuting Israel’s claim that UNRWA forfeited such privileges through alleged neutrality violations.

Switzerland: Oral statement

Switzerland emphasises that lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians is only possible through respect for international law and a negotiated two-State solution. Switzerland submits that Israel, as a UN Member and occupying power, has obligations under the UN Charter, the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities, and the Fourth Geneva Convention to cooperate with the United Nations, respect its agencies’ independence, and facilitate rather than obstruct humanitarian aid. While acknowledging Israel’s security concerns, Switzerland stresses that “security” cannot be used as a blanket justification for restricting UN or humanitarian operations. Any such measures must be necessary, proportionate, and grounded in concrete, verifiable facts. Switzerland urges the Court to reaffirm that security considerations do not override binding obligations under international law and that States must act in good faith, upholding cooperation, legality, and humanitarian principles even in times of crisis.

The Russian Federation: Written statement

Russia submits that, as an occupying power, Israel has obligations under IHL to ensure and facilitate humanitarian aid to Palestinians, including key duties under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations. Russia notes the unique role of UNRWA in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and asserts that Israel’s legislation prohibiting its activities will both exacerbate the humanitarian situation and hinder the realisation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Russia submits that Israel’s ban on UNRWA’s activities and its unilateral revocation of the agency’s privileges and immunities contradict the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and constitute a serious violation of its international legal obligations.

Tunisia: Written statement and Oral statement

Tunisia submits that Israel has an obligation to end its unlawful occupation and to respect the territorial sovereignty of the State of Palestine. Israel’s anti-UNRWA legislation violates its obligations under IHL, including the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, by impeding the free passage of humanitarian relief. As a UN member, Israel is obligated to respect the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, refrain from the use of force, fulfill its obligations in good faith, and support UN actions, including those of UNRWA, providing the necessary protection. Israel is bound by General Assembly Resolution 2443, which recognises the essential and inalienable right of return for Palestinian refugees and links that right to the fundamental right of self-determination; Israel’s measures and laws against UNRWA constitute a violation of this protection. Tunisia submits that Israel’s anti-UNRWA legislation is being used to “conceal a political will to do away with the question of Palestinian refugees” and, given the scale of UNRWA’s activities, provides further evidence of Israel’s genocidal intent. Tunisia also submits that Israel has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Türkiye: Written statement and Oral statement

Türkiye submits that Israel is in violation of its obligations as an occupying power and a UN member. Türkiye denounces Israel’s blockade on humanitarian aid to Gaza as a form of collective punishment and submits that Israel’s unilateral measures have prevented UNRWA from fulfilling its mandate. Israel’s legislation banning UNRWA violates the provisional measures ordered by the Court in South Africa v. Israel and may be characterised as a potential breach of the Genocide Convention. Türkiye expresses concern about Israel’s persistent non-compliance with its obligations under international law which exacerbates the suffering of the Palestinian people and undermines the credibility of the international legal order.

The United Kingdom: Oral statement

The United Kingdom (UK) emphasises the importance of States respecting obligations concerning the privileges and immunities of the UN, noting that bodies operating under the UN must be respected, while the UN itself has an obligation to co-operate with host states. The UK submits that the obligation under Article 2(5) of the UN Charter to render “every assistance” to “any action” should be interpreted as only referring to “action” taken by the Security Council. As an occupying power, Israel has obligations under IHL to facilitate relief schemes when civilians are inadequately supplied (Article 59, GCIV) and to ensure food and medical supplies to the fullest extent of the means available to it (Article 55, GCIV). The UK asserts that UNRWA is an impartial humanitarian organisation under IHL, and Israel must not withhold its consent for its operations. The UK also emphasises the role of the ICRC in situations of armed conflict, particularly its duties towards prisoners and detainees, noting that the ICRC should have access to Palestinian detainees in Israel as well as Israeli detainees in Gaza.

The United States of America: Written statement and Oral statement

The United States of America (U.S.) submits that Israel, as an occupying power, retains discretion under the Geneva Conventions to restrict the activities of international organisations, including UNRWA, on grounds of military necessity and security. While the U.S. agrees that an occupying power does have obligations to provide basic services and humanitarian assistance to the civilian population, as per the Fourth Geneva Convention, it emphasises that this does not prescribe the specific methods for fulfilling this duty, leaving the occupying power with “complete freedom of action” and discretion to consider military and security interests. The U.S. submits that occupation law does not impose a legal obligation to cooperate with any specific international body and affirms Israel’s right to deny access to actors it deems non-impartial. The U.S. maintains that the UN Charter does not create additional legal obligations for Israel beyond those contained in occupation law, unless expressly required by binding Security Council resolutions. The U.S. challenges the appropriateness of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, cautioning that it may politicise the Court’s role and hinder the prospects for future negotiations.

Vanuatu: Written statement and Oral statement

Vanuatu stresses that, by halting UNRWA’s mandate, Israel is in breach of its obligations under the UN Charter, the UN General Convention on Privileges and Immunities, the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, and international human rights law. It contends that these violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory generate a broader ecological and existential crisis, arguing that environmental degradation—such as soil contamination, destruction of water systems, and agricultural collapse—undermines the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Drawing on its own anti-colonial and climate-vulnerable experience, Vanuatu asserts that self-determination includes the ecological conditions necessary for cultural survival, health, and intergenerational justice. It affirms that Israel, as an occupying power and UN member, must facilitate humanitarian and environmental access and uphold erga omnes obligations arising from jus cogens norms. Vanuatu concludes that the Court’s Advisory Opinion must serve as a call to uphold the international rule of law, recognise the ecological dimension of occupation, and urge all States to withhold recognition, support Palestinian-led restoration, and enforce international accountability.