Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of Israel in Relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, dated 22 October 2025: summary and analysis

The conflict between Israel and Palestine exemplifies many of the challenges that humanity has faced throughout modern history, including religious differences, nationalism, economic inequality, colonialism and totalitarianism. The legal context of this conflict is extremely complex and encompasses issues relating to self-determination, human rights, international humanitarian law and the jurisdiction of international organizations. The International Court of Justice has issued three advisory opinions on the Palestinian issue. This article examines the most recent of these: the Opinion on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations in the occupied Palestinian territory, dated 22 October 2025. After reviewing the Court’s main conclusions, the article examines the positions of the judges who issued dissenting opinions and provides the author’s comments. In the author’s view, the Opinion differs from others in terms of its tone (the Court attempted to avoid criticizing Israel), the narrow formulation of the question (the UN General Assembly requested that the Court determine Israel’s obligations rather than the consequences of their violation) and the Court’s refusal to interpret the question more broadly. However, the main problem is that the Opinion is unlikely to be taken into account by Israel and is unlikely to help the UN General Assembly determine its own course of action. Thus, the opinion reflects the broader trend of international judicial proceedings increasingly taking on the character of lawfare.

1. Толстых В. Л. Международно-правовые аспекты конфликта между Израилем и Палестиной // Электронное приложение к «Российскому юридическому журналу». — 2018. — № 4. — С. 6—20 ; № 5. — С. 15—27.

2. Толстых В. Л. Юрисдикционные оговорки и lawfare: комментарий к статьям А. С. Исполинова и С. Д. Пименовой // Международное правосудие. — 2024. — Т. 14. — № 3 (51). — С. 75—89.

3. Толстых В. Л., Кудинов А. С. Конфликт между Палестиной и Израилем: динамика международно-правовой квалификации // Закон. — 2024. — № 1. — С. 120—140.

4. Carty A. Israel’s Legal Right to Exist and the Principle of the Self-determination of the Palestinian People? // Modern Law Review. — 2013. — Vol. 76. — No. 1. — P. 158—177.

5. Dupuy P. M. International Law as a Common Heritage of Mankind. March 21, 2025 // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/international-law-as-a-common-heritage-ofmankind.

6. Milanovic M. The Bottom Line of the ICJ’s UNRWA Advisory Opinion. October 23, 2025 // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-bottom-line-of-the-icjs-unrwa-advisoryopinion.

7. Milanovic M. A Follow-Up on the ICJ’s UNRWA Advisory Opinion. October 27, 2025 // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-follow-up-on-the-icjs-unrwa-advisory-opinion.

8. Milanovic M. Palestine Sues the United States in the ICJ re Jerusalem Embassy. September 30, 2018 // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/palestine-sues-the-unitedstates-in-the-icj-re-jerusalem-embassy.

9. Papic T. Xi’s, Putin’s and Trump’s (Not So) Competing World Orders. September 29, 2025 // URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/xis-putins-and-trumps-not-so-competingworld-orders.

10. Peters А. International Law and its Scholarship in the Time of Monsters. May 06, 2025 // Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law Research Paper No. 2025-05. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5242721.