Israel’s Blockade and Allegations of International Law Violations
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has commenced a significant week of hearings examining allegations that Israel is violating international law by maintaining a complete blockade, preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the Gaza Strip. The blockade, in effect since March 2, 2025, has restricted supplies essential for the survival of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents. The World Food Programme recently announced that the stockpiled food held in Gaza since a brief truce earlier this year has nearly been depleted, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis significantly.
These hearings come after a December 2024 resolution by the United Nations General Assembly, spearheaded by Norway and supported by 137 member states out of 193, urging the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion rapidly and with utmost priority. Israel, along with the United States and ten other nations, opposed the resolution. Israel insists no aid will be allowed into Gaza until Hamas releases all remaining hostages taken during its October 7, 2023, attack, which killed approximately 1,200 people and saw another 251 taken hostage.
“Ensuring immediate humanitarian aid is a legal and moral obligation. We call upon the court to clarify these obligations clearly and urgently,” stated a representative from Norway, the country leading the resolution at the UN.
Israel faces accusations from multiple countries of violating its international obligations by restricting aid. Israel claims that Hamas consistently diverts supplies intended for civilians, an assertion Hamas denies. Prominent nations, including Germany, France, Britain, and even the United States, have urged Israeli authorities to allow unhindered access of humanitarian supplies into the enclave.
Week of International Submissions at the ICJ
Throughout the week-long hearings, the ICJ will hear detailed arguments from representatives of the Palestinians, the United Nations, and an extensive international coalition of 38 additional countries. Among these nations are major global actors such as the United States, China, France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, as well as notable regional organizations including the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union. Each submission is expected to underscore the severe conditions currently experienced by Gaza’s residents and outline international legal standards related to humanitarian assistance.
The first day will open with submissions by the Palestinian delegation, followed promptly by the representative from the United Nations. The proceedings reflect global urgency regarding the Gaza crisis. Representatives from the UN have labeled Israel’s actions as “politically motivated starvation,” highlighting the extreme impact of the blockade on civilian life.
“This blockade has caused possibly the worst humanitarian disaster in Gaza in decades. The international community must deeply consider its response,” said a spokesperson for the UN Humanitarian Office.
Notably absent from formal participation in the hearings, the Israeli delegation maintains its stance and has chosen to protest the proceedings by non-participation. While this approach draws international criticism, Israel remains firm in its demands, linking humanitarian access explicitly to hostage releases by Hamas. These developments showcase the substantial international pressure Israel faces, underscored by a recent conversation in which U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reconsider aid deliveries to Gaza.
Historical Context and Broader International Implications
The current blockade and subsequent ICJ hearings cannot be viewed in isolation. Historically, Gaza has been subject to various levels of restrictive measures by Israel since Hamas took political control in 2007. Many previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have led to tightened restrictions, though none have reached the severe scale of the current blockade, particularly given the humanitarian toll.
The ICJ advisory opinion sought by the UN General Assembly is not legally binding, but it possesses significant moral and political leverage. Historical precedents highlight the influence such advisory opinions can have on international policy. A similar advisory opinion in 2004 regarding Israel’s separation barrier significantly influenced international perceptions and debate about Israel’s policies toward Palestinians.
“Advisory opinions, while not enforceable, carry substantial weight internationally. They can shape diplomatic pressures and set crucial precedents for future conduct,” said Dr. Yvette Abrahams, professor of international law at the University of Amsterdam.
Beyond immediate circumstances, the advisory opinion could influence future international and regional policy toward humanitarian law adherence amidst ongoing conflicts. It also underscores emerging challenges facing international bodies like the ICJ, tasked with addressing increasingly complex humanitarian crises globally. The hearings further highlight broader international expectations for states to uphold humanitarian standards even during wartime, emphasizing accountability measures for potential breaches.
This week’s hearings will continue to garner significant international attention. Upon completion, the ICJ is expected to provide detailed analysis and deliver its opinion within the coming months. The global community eagerly anticipates this ruling, recognizing its potential to shape international discussions on humanitarian obligations, wartime conduct, and the future policy approaches adopted by nations facing similar predicaments.