The UK’s ICJ submission on OPTs

Britain Palestine Project Briefing 1, Dr Brian Brivati, Executive Director, Britain Palestine Project

In its May 2 submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding Israel’s obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), the United Kingdom advanced a clear defense of core international humanitarian and UN legal principles, as it has done many times before. British government lawyers in The Hague underscored that Israel, as the occupying power, is bound by the Geneva Conventions to ensure the welfare of the occupied population. This means: “Israel must facilitate full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian provision to the population of Gaza, including food, water and electricity, and must ensure access to medical care in accordance with international humanitarian law.” The UK explicitly argued that the duty to allow relief is unconditional – an occupier “may not withhold consent to offers to conduct humanitarian relief operations that are exclusively humanitarian and impartial in nature”, and any “refusal to negotiate or agree to relief schemes will constitute a violation of Article 59” of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Life-saving assistance cannot be lawfully blocked or delayed. Facilitation must be wholehearted: as the UK noted, it requires providing transport, storage and distribution facilities to aid agencies. Crucially, the UK’s ICJ submission defended the role of impartial humanitarian organizations, notably the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

The British representative dismissed any attempt to discredit UNRWA’s neutrality, telling the Court that “the United Kingdom considers that UNRWA is an ‘impartial humanitarian organization’ for the purposes of Article 59 of GC IV. Insofar as impartiality is understood as meaning ‘neutrality’, UNRWA also satisfies that requirement.” This affirmation directly counters accusations that UNRWA is partisan, reinforcing that Israel has a duty to cooperate with UNRWA and other impartial agencies in delivering aid. The UK further voiced support for UNRWA’s mandate and noted its own expectation that UNRWA uphold the highest standards of neutrality (citing recent reviews of UNRWA’s practices) but supporting the further investigation if necessary. In short, Britain used the ICJ platform to bolster the UN principle that humanitarian agencies must be allowed to operate unhindered in conflict zones.

Another key point in the UK’s legal argument is the responsibility of an occupying power when it opts to work with relief agencies. If Israel chooses to meet its obligations via a third party such as UNRWA, “the occupying power must ensure the safety and security of that third party as far as possible.” This underscores that Israel remains responsible for protecting aid workers and facilities. The UK highlighted that failing to supply the population and also failing to allow an impartial organization to fill the gap would breach both Article 55 (adequate provisioning) and Article 59 (relief consignments) of the Geneva Conventions. The UK also reminded the Court of Article 60 of Geneva Convention IV – that even if humanitarian groups are assisting, the occupying power is not relieved of its own duties. In essence, Israel cannot outsource its obligations nor use aid agencies as an excuse to shirk responsibility.

The ICJ submission additionally addressed the issue of treatment of detainees and the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The UK noted that under the law of occupation, the ICRC has a special protected status that must be respected at all times. It cited Article 143 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees the ICRC the right to visit protected persons in detention. According to the UK, this right “may not be prohibited except for reasons of imperative military necessity, and then only as an exceptional and temporary measure.” Importantly, British lawyers made clear that one party’s violations do not excuse another’s. They condemned Hamas’s holding of hostages and denial of ICRC access to them, calling it “completely unacceptable,” but stressed this “cannot serve as justification for Israel to deny the ICRC access to Palestinian detainees since October 2023.” In other words, Israel must uphold humanitarian law regardless of Hamas’s actions – a reaffirmation of the fundamental IHL principle that obligations to protect civilians and detainees are not reciprocal and not subject to suspension. The UK’s stance here aligns with longstanding UN and ICRC principles: collective punishment or tit-for-tat withholding of humanitarian protection is unlawful.

Finally, Britain’s presentation underscored respect for the United Nations itself. It agreed that Israel, as a UN member, must honour the privileges and immunities of the UN and its agencies operating in the OPT. This is grounded in the UN Charter (Articles 104–105) – Israel must allow the UN to fulfil its mandate. The UK emphasized that any Israeli measures undermining UN personnel or agencies (such as certain recent Knesset laws targeting UN operations) are of serious concern. Thus, the UK aligned itself with core UN Charter principles, reinforcing that an occupying power has no license to obstruct UN missions or humanitarian partners in the field.

In sum, the UK’s ICJ submission strongly and positively reinforced international humanitarian law (IHL) and UN principles. It advocated for the duties of an occupying power to protect civilians, facilitate relief, and cooperate with neutral agencies. It championed the non-derogation of humanitarian obligations, even amid security threats. These positions bolster the international rule-of-law framework in the Israel-Palestine context – sending a message that even close allies of Israel view compliance with IHL as imperative. Notably, Britain backed the very process of obtaining an ICJ advisory opinion (voting in favour of the UN resolution requesting it) as an affirmation of a rules-based order.

This principled stance sets a high standard that UK policy is now expected to meet in practice.

The question is: will it do anything different?