Yuji Iwasawa, president of the UN’s highest court, says international law prohibits the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare.

Sally Sara: Good morning. What’s your reaction to this advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice?

Chris Sidoti: Well, firstly, it’s very welcome, but secondly, it’s totally as expected. These are things that our Commission of Inquiry has been saying repeatedly over the last two years. And so for me, it’s not a surprise at all. But it is wonderful to have the highest court in the international system, the International Court of Justice, saying these things at this time.

And by that, supporting the findings and the work that we have done as a commission of inquiry.

Sara: Given that this advisory, its findings are non-binding, does it really make a difference?

Sidoti: It does make a difference. They’re non-binding certainly in a technical sense, but they are the most authoritative statement of the law that we can get from any international court in the international system. So they are important. They were requested by the General Assembly.

And under the UN Charter, it’s now up to the Security Council and the General Assembly to enforce this decision. So, although non-binding directly, indirectly they established the law for the international legal system and the international political system.

Sara: Earlier this morning, I spoke to Shoshbed Rosian, an Israeli Government spokesperson for the Office of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She repeated allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in Hamas attacks.

So let’s take a listen.

Rosian: But Israel has this confirmation that UNRWA was part and participated member employees of UNRWA on 7 October. And like I said, unfortunately, this is a radio medium, and there is clear video of an identified UNRWA employee that kidnapped a body, a body on 7 October outside of Kibbutz Beeri.

Sara: What do you think of those comments are from the Prime Minister’s office?

Sidoti: The spokesperson said an employee.

UNRWA has said itself that it has had allegations against nine of its then employees, all of whom have been dismissed, and not more than that. The court made the specific point that Israel had not established that UNRWA was not neutral and impartial in the work that it was doing. And it indicated that UNRWA had taken all appropriate action in relation to any allegations. So the court’s finding is serious on this matter.

Israel had an opportunity to produce for the court all the evidence it had that UNRWA was biased in any way or involved in any way. The courts could not find that evidence convincing and said that UNRWA had acted appropriately.

Sara: Israel has repeatedly said that UNRWA is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. But as you’re saying, the ICJ president found that Israel hadn’t substantiated the allegations. And the UN earlier this year fired nine staff members from UNRWA.

Why hasn’t Israel pursued this case to prove these allegations in a formal setting?

Sidoti: Well, I’m not the one to answer that. We, as well, have asked Israel to prove these allegations and they have failed to do so. The only conclusion I can draw is that it doesn’t have the evidence that, like so many other areas in relation to this conflict, the Israeli Government makes [an] assertion that is not backed up by evidence, and expects the rest of us to take them at face value, to accept their assertions without evidence.

Well, neither the court nor our commission can do that.

Sara: Is it a correct understanding that it is the obligation of the member states to pursue and criminally investigate if there have been instances such as this, rather than the UN bodies themselves?

Sidoti: It’s both. There is certainly an obligation on all UN member states, but the UN also has a jurisdiction to deal with the implementation of international law.

The International Court of Justice was established precisely for that purpose under the UN Charter itself. The Court is one of the principal organs of the UN. But bodies like our commission are set up by UN agencies, the Human Rights Council, and given the authority to conduct those investigations and to report publicly on the results of our investigations. And that’s exactly what we’ve done. The Court in its opinion refers specifically to the obligation of the State of Israel as a member state of the United Nations to co-operate fully with all UN processes.

Now that means with agencies like UNRWA, but it also means with [the] Commission of Inquiry like us. Interestingly, the court says that Israel has no right to exclude UN agencies from the state of Palestine. Israel does have a right to govern access to Israel, to the country itself, but not to the occupied Palestinian territory. And yet we have been refused access repeatedly, although we have asked frequently, regularly during the course of the last four years.

And so it’s quite clear from the court’s decision that Israel is failing in its obligations under the UN Charter itself as a member state of the United Nations.

Sara: You’re listening to Radio National Breakfast, and my guest is human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti, who sits on the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory. How fragile is the current ceasefire in Gaza, in your view?

Sidoti: It seems to be very fragile, but we simply have to hope that it continues and that the fighting, the violations that are occurring at this stage cease. At the moment, the ceasefire is the only hope that the Palestinian people in Gaza have. And it simply has to be enforced.

Sara: The ICJ’s judges are also weighing accusations brought by South Africa that Israel has broken the 1948 UN Genocide Convention with its actions in Gaza.

When do you expect a verdict in this case?

Sidoti: I think that’s quite some time off. Maybe 2027 or even 2028. That’s one of the reasons why our commission produced its own report on this issue back in September, about a month ago. And we found on the evidence available to us that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and was therefore violating the Genocide Convention. Now, until such time as the Court gives its decision, that’s going to be the most authoritative opinion on this issue coming out of the UN.

Sara: Chris Sidoti, thank you very much for your time this morning.

Sidoti: Thanks, Sally. It’s very good to talk to you again.

Transcribed from ABC Radio National Breakfast, 23 October 2025

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.