THE Israeli government鈥檚 decision to ban the operations of the UNRWA in the Israeli-claimed territory and prohibit Israeli state agencies from having any contact with it or its representatives in October 2024 resurfaced the question of Israel鈥檚 adherence to international obligations in relation to Palestine and the Palestinian people. This decision, taken by the Knesset, came just three months after the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where the Court held that Israeli policies and practices in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are unlawful. Accordingly, it was unsurprising that the ICJ would be required to deliberate again on the Palestine/Israel question.听
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, popularly known as UNRWA, established by the United Nations General Assembly as its subsidiary organ on December 8, 1949, has a mandate covering Palestinians displaced or forced to leave during the Nakba, the 1948 Palestine War, and later conflicts, along with their descendants, including legally adopted children. UNRWA is widely regarded as the backbone of humanitarian aid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, providing essential services such as education, healthcare and food assistance to millions of Palestinian refugees.听
While the Israeli government has long accused UNRWA of lacking neutrality and being associated with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the issue became highly contentious following the October 7 attacks. Allegations emerged that 19 UNRWA staff were involved in the attacks. Although UNRWA dismissed nine of its employees after an internal investigation, the allegations led to funding cuts by its major donors. Despite a report by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna, commissioned by the UN Secretary-General, which found the Israeli evidence insufficient, the crisis remains unresolved. The ban on the operation of the UNRWA, stemming from Israel鈥檚 earlier allegations, represents one of the most severe challenges to UNRWA鈥檚 mandate.听
The Israeli government鈥檚 decisions have raised significant questions about Israel鈥檚 adherence to its international obligations towards the United Nations under the UN Charter, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946), and other relevant sources of international law. Given the importance of UNRWA鈥檚 work in providing humanitarian assistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, especially amidst the precarious situation exacerbated by the 2023 Hamas-Israel war, Israel鈥檚 targeting of its operational capacity through legislation affecting its presence, activities and immunities is a matter of grave concern for the international community.听
In disputes involving an international organisation and a state, as illustrated by the present scenario, the ICJ does not have contentious jurisdiction, as it is limited to disputes between states. However, the ICJ can entertain its advisory jurisdiction in such cases. An advisory opinion of the ICJ is a non-binding judicial statement issued in response to a request from a duly authorised United Nations organ or specialised agency concerning a legal question within the scope of their activities. The ICJ has delivered several advisory opinions on the Palestine issue, notably the 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Wall and the 2024 Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.听
As stated earlier, the request for an advisory opinion must come from a duly authorised UN organ or specialised agency. In the past, the UN General Assembly has frequently made such requests regarding the Palestine question, and this instance was no exception. In response to global protests against the Israeli government鈥檚 decision on UNRWA, Norway spearheaded a resolution containing a request for an advisory opinion. Eventually, UNGA Resolution 79/232 was adopted on December 19, 2024, with 137 votes in favour, 12 votes against, and 22 abstentions. The resolution requested an advisory opinion 鈥渙n a priority basis and with the utmost urgency鈥� due to the evolving ground situation.
The legal question put forward by the UN General Assembly concerns 鈥渢he obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organisations and third states, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance, for the benefit of the Palestinian civilian population, and in support of the Palestinian people鈥檚 right to self-determination.鈥� The resolution considers this question supplementary to those raised in the 2024 Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.听
Since UNGA Resolution 79/232 requested the advisory opinion 鈥渙n a priority basis and with the utmost urgency,鈥� the ICJ issued an order on December 23, 2024, setting February 18, 2025, as the deadline for submitting information in the form of written statements from the United Nations, its member states, and the observer State of Palestine. This raises the question of whether Bangladesh should participate in the proceedings by submitting a written statement.
Bangladesh has consistently advocated for the rights of the Palestinian people in various multilateral forums, especially the United Nations. Bangladesh asserts that its position on the Palestinian question is grounded in Article 25 of its Constitution. It has also participated in various judicial forums, including the ICJ and the ICC.听
For instance, Bangladesh recently submitted a written statement and participated in the oral proceedings for the 2024 Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Previously, it participated in the oral proceedings for the 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Wall. Furthermore, Bangladesh expressed its intention to intervene in the Gaza genocide case (South Africa vs Israel) on January 14, 2024. Additionally, it referred the Palestine situation to the ICC under Article 14 of the Rome Statute. Given its track record, it is expected that Bangladesh will participate in both written and oral proceedings for the upcoming advisory opinion.听
Beyond Bangladesh鈥檚 support for the Palestinian people鈥檚 right to self-determination, the questions presented to the ICJ should be of particular concern to Bangladesh as one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping forces. Bangladesh should take into account the significant challenges faced by peacekeeping forces in distributing humanitarian aid and undertaking their responsibilities in occupied or war-torn territories. Thus, Bangladesh鈥檚 participation would reflect not only its moral stance but also its practical interests.听
Given the urgency emphasised in UNGA Resolution 79/232 and the ICJ鈥檚 timeline for submitting written statements, Bangladesh must make a prompt decision on this matter. Bangladesh should seize this solemn opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to its principles of international relations and advocate for the universal protection of human rights. By participating in the advisory proceedings, Bangladesh can underscore its longstanding dedication to upholding justice and equity on the global stage, emphasising its proactive role in addressing the rights of oppressed populations and supporting international law.
听
Quazi Omar Foysal is an international law expert, working at American International University-Bangladesh and practising in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
