The UNGA 81st Session #UNGA81 should promote four priorities related to Palestine: First, protect humanitarian action by ensuring aid is delivered exclusively in accordance with international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles, opposing mechanisms that politicize, militarize, or instrumentalize relief, and insisting on Israel's obligation to facilitate full and unhindered humanitarian access. Second, give practical effect to the Palestinian people's right to self-determination by advancing the realization of a sovereign Palestinian State comprising Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and by cooperating to bring Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied territory to an end. Third, move beyond rhetoric on accountability by adopting concrete diplomatic, legal, and economic measures that ensure respect for the UN Charter, international humanitarian and human rights law, while strengthening support for international courts and other accountability mechanisms. Fourth, establish an international reparations mechanism capable of documenting injury, preserving claims, and administering restitution, compensation, and other forms of reparation for Palestinians harmed by Israel's internationally wrongful acts, drawing on lessons from existing international reparations mechanisms while reflecting the unique findings of the ICJ. These priorities are not entirely novel. They follow directly from the legal consequences identified by the International Court of Justice and the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. I explore the duty to cooperate, and what it requires of States and international organizations two years after the Court's landmark 2024 Advisory Opinion, in my ICJ anniversary article: linkedin.com/pulse/after-cou…

Two years ago, on 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice confirmed that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and clarified the obligations of all States not to recognize or assist that unlawful situation, and to cooperate in bringing it to a rapid end. Since then, the law has become clearer. Implementation has not. This article reflects on what has changed over the past two years, with particular attention to developments in the West Bank and Gaza, and the continuing uncertainty surrounding the duty of international cooperation. It argues that the principal challenge today is no longer identifying the applicable law, but giving practical content to one of the Court's most significant findings: the obligation of States to cooperate in bringing an unlawful situation to an end. After the Court Spoke: Duty to Cooperate on the Question of Palestine linkedin.com/pulse/after-cou…

Even a cursory reading of the @cogatonline report reveals serious factual and legal flaws. That should come as no surprise to any impartial reader. The report repeatedly equates aid entering Gaza with aid reaching civilians, yet the law of occupation requires an occupying Power to facilitate effective humanitarian relief, not merely record truckloads at a crossing. It substitutes aggregate tonnage for meaningful access, attributes virtually every operational failure to Hamas while overlooking restrictions imposed through its own capricious, arbitrary and unlawufl registration regime, and measures compliance against self-selected benchmarks rather than the humanitarian needs of a protected population. International humanitarian law asks a different question: not how much crossed a border, but whether civilians actually received the assistance to which they are entitled. That distinction remains conspicuously absent.

Over two million Palestinians were subjected to a war of debilitation: civilians deliberately targeted with lethal force, widespread and wanton destruction, and mass forced displacement. Now, many are left to survive - if they can - on barely 35% of the minimum caloric intake required, while much of the world looks elsewhere.

Chair, Excellencies, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today on the systematic de-registration and administrative constriction of international non-governmental organizations operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I’m equally grateful to the Committee for raising this matter of utmost concern during the Security Council Open Debate on the Question of Palestine last week. It goes to the heart of international humanitarian law and the integrity of multilateral cooperation in support of the Palestinian people. Allow me to begin where international law itself requires us to begin: with consequences for civilians and for the humanitarian system that exists to protect them. On 30th December 2025, thirty-seven international non-governmental organizations - including the Norwegian Refugee Council - were notified that their registrations with Israel, the occupying Power, would expire within sixty days, without substantive assessment of pending applications or guidance on compliance. Across Gaza and the West Bank, the de-registration of INGOs is already producing measurable harm. Since early January 2026, organizations without renewed Israeli registration have been denied staff rotations into Gaza. Programmes have been interrupted, supply chains destabilised, and life-saving operations constrained. This is not a marginal technical disruption. INGOs implement substantial proportions of shelter, health, water, food security, protection, and education activities. They operate through UN coordination systems with the host government of Palestine, in partnership with Palestinian NGOs and UN Agencies, including UNRWA, and within donor-validated compliance frameworks. When INGOs are impeded, humanitarian delivery does not simply slow down —it fractures. The Palestinian population bears the cost, in reduced access to medical care, shelter, sanitation, and food. From this operational reality, we must turn to its deeper legal and political significance: its relationship to Palestinian self-determination and permanent sovereignty. The International Court of Justice has affirmed that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is a peremptory norm of international law. It has further held that Israel’s presence and associated practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are unlawful, and that all States must cooperate to bring that situation to an end. Unconditionally, and as rapidly as possible. Humanitarian assistance is not external to this legal framework. It is an integral part of it. Subordinating humanitarians' presence to Israeli administrative discretion amounts to the assertion of political authority over a core dimension of sovereign Palestinian civic life. It risks transforming relief into an instrument of subjugation. De-registration is therefore not merely an administrative act. It is part of a wider architecture of domination over Palestinian territory and people. A genuinely technical system to facilitate the presence of INGOs, invited by the State of Palestine, would be rule-bound and reasoned. The existing framework exhibits none of these attributes. Central to this system is the demand for comprehensive national staff lists and detailed response plans. This requirement has been presented as a security measure. In reality, it functions as a coercive instrument within a wider regime of control. INGOs are legally unable to comply due to binding data protection law, donor contractual obligations, and labour protections. Compliance would expose organizations to regulatory sanctions, contractual liability, and serious protection risks for staff and beneficiaries. Refusal is therefore not political defiance. It is a legal obligation. From the standpoint of international law, this situation is indefensible. The International Court of Justice has reaffirmed - most recently in the October 2025 Advisory Opinion - that, where the civilian population is inadequately supplied, Israel, as the occupying Power, is under an unconditional obligation to agree to and facilitate humanitarian relief. This obligation is one of result (meaning, acceptance) and conduct (active facilitation). It cannot be subordinated to political preferences. Article 63 of the Fourth Geneva Convention guarantees the continued operation of relief societies, subject only to temporary and exceptional security measures. Systemic de-registration, political vetting, and structural obstruction fall far outside this narrow exception. The Court has further grounded these duties in peremptory norms, including the right to self-determination. In other words, Palestinians have a right to request and receive aid, and impartial humanitarian organizations enjoy a corollary right to provide. When breached, it gives rise to obligations erga omnes. Obligations owed to the international community as a whole. All States have a legal interest in their protection. All States have duties of non-recognition, non-assistance, and cooperation. This has concrete implications. Acquiescence in unlawful restrictions risks breaching international responsibility. Accepting de-registration as a technical matter, while knowing its legal and operational effects, amounts to indirect assistance in an unlawful situation. Chair, What emerges from this record is clear. INGOs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are legally authorised under international humanitarian law to continue and operate. They are registered under Palestinian law. They are embedded within UN coordination structures. They are trusted by donors. They are operationally capable and vital. They are normatively compliant. Their marginalisation is not the product of regulatory failure. It is the product of a political assault by Israel on imperative humanitarian relief, on peace, and human security. If such practices are normalised in Palestine, they will not remain confined to Palestine. They will become part of the global repertoire of humanitarian restrictions. The erosion of humanitarian independence in Palestine will reverberate elsewhere. The Committee therefore has a vital role to play. First, in insisting that unlawful registration measures be withdrawn. Second, in affirming that humanitarian access cannot be made conditional on political compliance with the whims of the occupant, or with those of any other alien ruler. And third, in supporting Member States in fulfilling their duty to cooperate to bring violations to an end. International law, in this context, is not uncertain. It is established and explicit. The Court has spoken. The General Assembly has endorsed. The Security Council has decreed. The humanitarian system has complied. What remains is whether States – all States – will act accordingly. The inalienable rights of the Palestinian people cannot be realised where humanitarian presence is precarious, conditional, and politicised. Palestinians are entitled to assistance that is independent, protected, and governed by law rather than external custodianship or profit. That is not a matter of charity. It is a matter of legal obligation. Thank you.