The International Court of Justice has a notable function when it comes to the Gaza conflict, however its decisions are non-binding in nature which considerably reduces their impact on the nations in question and the world in general. Some key elements regarding its involvement in the conflict involve its advisory opinions and it is invoking humanitarian law in the light of this issue. The ICJ has long been establishing accountability for violations of international law during the conflict, providing a legal framework for addressing grievances. Rulings have helped develop the international law surrounding this issue and has been a source of international dialogue seeking a resolution to the Gaza conflict.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued two significant advisory opinions that relate to the Palestine-Gaza conflict. The first being advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004). The ICJ concluded that the construction of the wall violated international law, including provisions of the fourth Geneva Convention. The court called for the wall’s dismantlement and for Israel to make reparations for damages caused. It also emphasized the need for the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. Secondly, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Status of Palestine was issued in 2018 where the opinion was not formally issued as a standalone advisory opinion, but the ICJ addressed aspects related to Palestine’s status in its advisory opinions and discussions regarding other cases. The ICJ has consistently recognized the Palestinian territories as occupied territories, thus affirming the applicability of international humanitarian law. While there isn’t a specific advisory opinion solely dedicated to the legal status of Palestine, discussions and past rulings acknowledge Palestine’s rights under international law, particularly concerning self-determination and the applicability of human rights protections.

The ICJ primarily deals with cases brought by states, it has addressed legal disputes related to the Gaza conflict brought in by Palestine or another state. This could involve allegations of breaches of international law. The first example includes Case Concerning the Wall (2004). While not a case brought by Palestine against Israel, this advisory opinion arose from a request by the UN General Assembly. It addressed the legality of the separation wall constructed by Israel in the occupied territories, including Gaza. The ICJ ruled that the wall violated international law, emphasizing the need to respect the rights of the Palestinian people. In 2023 South Africa vs Israel sprung up in the international court. Accordingly, South Africa highlighted allegations of human rights violations occurring during escalations in Gaza, invoking international human rights law. The argument was based on the need to protect civilians and uphold the rights of the Palestinian people under international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). South Africa framed its position within the context of the right to self-determination, a principle enshrined in international law and affirmed by the ICJ. This right is particularly relevant to the Palestinian situation, where South Africa emphasized the need for a political resolution that respects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The decision came on the 26th of January 2024 where this court instructed Israel to stop its military from acts of genocide against the Palestinians. It must be noted here that rulings are legally binding on countries which formally accept the ICJ – these include Israel and South Africa – but in practice, unenforceable by the court.

The International Court of Justice plays a crucial role in interpreting and clarifying international human rights and humanitarian law, particularly in contexts of armed conflict like that in Gaza. The ICJ issued an advisory opinion regarding Israel’s construction of a separation barrier in the West Bank. The court concluded that the wall violated international law and called for its dismantlement, emphasizing the obligations of Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This ruling has been referenced in discussions about human rights violations and state responsibilities in the Gaza conflict. The ongoing conflict in Gaza has led to increased scrutiny of state actions under international law. For instance, following escalations in violence, various UN bodies have called for investigations into potential violations of human rights and humanitarian law. The ICJ’s authority in interpreting these laws can guide accountability mechanisms and influence how states approach their military operations.

ICJ significantly impacts the development of international law, particularly in shaping norms around occupation, self-determination, and the use of force, as seen in the context of the Gaza conflict. The Court’s 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the construction of the separation barrier by Israel reinforced the principles of occupation and self-determination. The court concluded that the barrier violated international law, emphasizing the rights of the Palestinian people. This opinion serves as a legal framework for assessing Israel’s actions in both the West Bank and Gaza, highlighting state obligations under international law. Following escalations in Gaza, such as the 2014 and 2021 conflicts, UN commissions of inquiry have documented alleged violations of international law. These reports often reference the ICJ’s rulings, advocating for accountability and adherence to international norms. The findings could lead to potential legal actions at the ICJ or other international courts, emphasizing the importance of state responsibility for violations. The ICJ’s interpretations of self-determination, particularly in relation to the Palestinian people, bolster international support for their rights. This has influenced recent discussions in international forums, such as the UN, where there is increasing advocacy for recognizing Palestinian statehood and rights, impacting state behaviour in diplomatic negotiations.

The International Court of Justice also plays a crucial role in establishing accountability for violations of international law, particularly in the context of the Gaza conflict. Following the 2021 escalation in Gaza, the UN Human Rights Council established a commission of inquiry to investigate alleged violations of international law. The commission’s report, released in 2022, documented potential war crimes by both Israel and Hamas. These findings provide a basis for accountability and could serve as evidence in future ICJ cases or other international legal proceedings. In recent years, the Palestinian Authority has sought to bring cases against Israel regarding alleged violations of international law, particularly concerning military operations in Gaza. The authority has expressed intentions to pursue accountability through international mechanisms, potentially involving the ICJ, which emphasizes the legal framework available for addressing grievances.

The landmark ruling of 19 July 2024 declared that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful, along with the associated settlement regime, annexation and use of natural resources. The Court added that Israel’s legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ mandated Israel to end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, provide full reparations to Palestinian victims and facilitate the return of displaced people.

South Africa’s case in 2023 and the above-mentioned examples of the past serve to invoke international law as a framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of the Gaza conflict, emphasizing the importance of legal principles in fostering dialogue, accountability, and resolution. These also depict the crucial role ICJ has played and is yet to play to seek such a resolution. ICJ’s role, however, is only advisory and states follow its rulings as per their own discretion. One way it could potentially improve its role is by increasing outreach and awareness about its decisions, making them more accessible to affected populations and states. This could enhance understanding of international law and promote compliance. A timely response to pressing situations such as the recent bloodbath in Gaza, could also help strengthen its role as an international arbitrator.