Maintaining the Independence of International Law- Finding the balance in a time of heated debate
“For us at the Legal Integrity Project, the lesson is crystal clear: legitimacy in international law cannot be decreed; it must be earned through rigour, neutrality, and humility. If courts become arenas for political theatre, their judgments will speak loudly but persuade few.”
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds a unique position in the framework of international law; both as a part of the United Nations and as the arbiter of some of the most contentious cases and advisory opinions. Its position reinforces an unprecedented level of gravitas. But as the role of the ICJ has expanded, so too have the more highly charged cases it deliberates on. The danger for the ICJ is that this leads to questions of institutional legitimacy and can often lead to a lack of coherence in international law.
In its latest advisory opinion on the obligations of Israel in Gaza, the ICJ declared that Israel must “facilitate” humanitarian aid through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), allow access to basic goods and services, and respect the rights of persons in the territory. It found that Israeli allegations of UNRWA’s infiltration by Hamas were insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of denying relief access.
Advisory Opinions and Institutional Legitimacy
Ultimately, this was a non-binding, advisory opinion. But it still carries profound weight and what it shows is that this unique body of international law, has moved from narrow technical questions into a high-stakes political arena.
There could be no more contentious issue facing the Court. No issue has grasped the international attention or divided political and establishment opinion more than the case of Israel and Palestine. The result is that an advisory opinion of the ICJ, becomes something much more emblematic. The Court has been asked not merely for clarification of benign legal points, but for guidance in an active theatre of war, where facts on the ground are both fluid and contested.
The Court’s ultimate legitimacy rests on perceptions of neutrality and procedural fairness, where arguments are won and lost, through legal debate. But when an advisory opinion addresses a situation of intense political flux, it risks being perceived as a forum for moral condemnation or political messaging, rather than one reached through thorough legal discourse. The result lends itself to judgment couched in legalese but still highly critical attack on Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories.
This leads to a tension between the Court’s role as the arbiter of discrete legal disputes and involvement in questions of an ongoing armed conflict. The Court is not structured to gather real-time evidence in warzones, or police compliance and must rely heavily on a states’ cooperation. When the Court issues sweeping declarations in live conflict settings, the gap between its ruling and real-world enforcement becomes starker, inviting critique of institutional overreach.
The ICJ is already in dangerous territory on this topic. Evidence that UNRWA agency employees participated in the October 7 attacks has led to fundamental questions about its institutional neutrality.
While the Court has dismissed these concerns as “unsubstantiated”, they must be on the front foot by countering, addressing or acknowledging these accusations. Vice President of the ICJ, Julia Sebutind said in her dissenting report on the advisory opinion that these points weren’t sufficiently considered. For international law to work properly, the ICJ cannot be seen to be compromised in any way, shape or form. Neutrality is not presumed; it must be maintained.
Humanitarian Facilitation and the Limits of Enforcement
If the ICJ is to move into this hotly contested political arena, it must also accept the difference between ruling and real-world enforcement. This could not be clearer in one of the opinion’s instructions, which states that Israel must “ensure” humanitarian access. The use of the word “ensure” implies an ongoing guarantee, something which would be difficult in any conflict to oversee. Looking at this logically and independently, it is almost impossible to guarantee ongoing humanitarian access owing to the active hostilities.
In practice, Israel has argued that it has facilitated unprecedented levels of humanitarian relief. More than two million tonnes of aid and over 25,000 truckloads of food, water, and medicine have entered Gaza since the conflict began. Caloric intake now exceeds 4,400 per person per day, figures unmatched in modern wartime logistics. These facts, however, find no reflection in the advisory opinion.
The lesson in this case is that context is key. A doctrine that demands absolute assurance in an environment of total uncertainty becomes performative, not protective.
Restoring Integrity Over Expansion
Ultimately, the challenge before the ICJ is not to expand its moral jurisdiction but to preserve its judicial integrity. In a fragmented international order, restraint becomes the highest form of strength.
For us at the Legal Integrity Project, the lesson is crystal clear: legitimacy in international law cannot be decreed; it must be earned through rigour, neutrality, and humility. If courts become arenas for political theatre, their judgments will speak loudly but persuade few.
We are to advocate for plain and simple facts, not politically charged rulings or advisory orders.
Law, at its most enduring, is not the pursuit of moral victory but the discipline of fairness. It is time to restore that balance.
The Legal Integrity Project Editorial Team