The Hague — The International Court of Justice is poised to deliver an advisory opinion on whether and to what extent Israel is legally obligated to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The U.N. General Assembly requested the opinion last year after Israel effectively barred the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the primary provider of civilian assistance in Gaza, from operating in the territory.

Legal experts and diplomats say the advisory opinion will not itself be binding, but it is expected to clarify how international humanitarian law applies to the movement and protection of relief consignments in contexts of occupation and armed conflict. The Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international humanitarian law are likely to figure prominently in the court’s reasoning, with potential findings on the obligations of occupying powers to permit and facilitate relief operations, as well as on the responsibilities of third parties and international organizations.

Beyond legal doctrine, the ruling carries practical consequences. Gaza’s economy and public services have long depended on sustained aid flows. With UNRWA sidelined, alternate relief channels must be expanded quickly to avert deeper humanitarian collapse. An ICJ opinion affirming robust obligations could increase diplomatic pressure on Israel to restore or guarantee access and could prompt donor states to reconfigure funding and delivery mechanisms, while a narrower opinion may leave political and logistical hurdles unresolved.

The decision also intersects with market assessments of regional risk. Investors and global commodity markets monitor disruptions in the Levant for their potential to raise geopolitical premiums, affect shipping in the eastern Mediterranean and Suez corridors, and influence regional energy and supply-chain calculations. Governments that provide large-scale humanitarian funding may face domestic fiscal choices if the ruling prompts an expansion of aid commitments or new administrative costs to reroute assistance.

Policy responses will likely vary. Donor countries could attach stricter conditionalities to funding, shift resources to nongovernmental actors or multilateral partners, or press for increased inspections and guarantees at border crossings. International organizations, meanwhile, will need legal and operational guidance to minimize liability while sustaining lifesaving deliveries. For the Palestinians, any durable change in access will influence employment, public health, and reconstruction prospects—factors that reverberate through local markets and into regional economic stability.

The ICJ’s advisory opinion comes amid a broader trend of judicialization of international humanitarian governance, with states and multilateral institutions increasingly seeking legal clarification on contested wartime obligations. Whether the court’s guidance produces immediate changes on the ground will depend on political will and logistical capacity. Still, the ruling is likely to reshape the diplomatic framing of aid access and to serve as a reference point for future disputes over the international community’s obligations to protect civilians in conflict zones.