On Wednesday, prominent experts in United Nations affairs and international law strongly criticized the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague for its non-binding decision. The ruling mandated Israel to cooperate with a controversial U.N. aid organization, which the U.S. had ceased funding due to its alleged backing of Hamas terrorists.
ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa stated that Israel, the Jewish state, “is obligated to accept and facilitate humanitarian relief operations offered by the United Nations and its various bodies, including UNRWA.”
Eugene Kontorovich, a professor and director for the Center for International Law in the Middle East at George Mason University Scalia Law School, informed Digital that “The opinion, crucially, does not constitute a case decision and holds absolutely no legal authority.”
Kontorovich cautioned that the ruling also poses a threat to U.S. interests. He remarked, “The ICJ asserts ‘moral authority,’ but it appears to be disconnected from reality. The Court determined UNRWA to be a neutral, legitimate aid agency, notwithstanding the involvement of its members, and the extensive infiltration of its facilities and structure by Hamas, a fact the U.S. government has recognized. It invents legal principles from nothing. This represents a significant risk to the U.S., which has frequently been on the receiving end of unfavorable Advisory Opinions from this politicized Court.”
Kontorovich, also a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, further stated, “Based on this advisory opinion, the ICJ might decide that the U.S. is compelled to continue engaging with U.N. organizations it intends to withdraw from or sanction – or even provide assistance to terrorist entities aiming to harm Americans. The U.S. ought to withdraw from any treaty granting the ICJ jurisdiction and recall its appointed judge from the court.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry declared on X its “categorical rejection of the ICJ’s ‘advisory opinion,’ which was wholly anticipated from the beginning concerning UNRWA. This represents another political endeavor to impose political actions against Israel disguised as ‘International Law.’ The ICJ’s advisory opinion issued today should have condemned the terrorist involvement of UNRWA: its employees directly participated in the October 7th massacre and persist in supporting Hamas’s terrorist operations – all under the aegis of the United Nations.”
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres implored Israel to adhere to the ICJ’s decision. When asked about Israeli U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon’s characterization of the ruling as a “shameful decision,” a spokesperson for Guterres conveyed to reporters, “We anticipate the Government of Israel will fulfill its legal responsibilities. I will refrain from responding to the rhetoric from any particular official.”
Anne Bayefsky, Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, informed Digital, “The ICJ – grandiosely referred to as the ‘World Court’ – is an offshoot of the United Nations, an organization plagued by antisemitism and prejudice against the Jewish state.”
“Consequently, in this scenario, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution proclaiming Israel guilty, then ‘requested’ its Court to merely affirm the pre-established conclusion – a request to which the Court readily acceded.”
Digital reported that experts on the Middle East contend that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has ties to Hamas, ought to have no part in the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip due to its employment of Hamas terrorists.