1. Introduction: background of the seizure of UNRWA services in East-Jerusalem
On 8 December 2025, Israeli police, accompanied by municipal Israeli officers, forcibly entered the ability of the United Nations Reduction and Works Company for Palestine Refugees within the Close to East (UNRWA), situated within the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, changed the flag of the United Nations by the Israel nationwide flag and, in accordance with data offered by the United Nations, “(…) minimize communications (…) whereas furnishings, IT tools and different property have been seized”. This motion raises a major variety of points associated to the authorized standing, underneath worldwide regulation, of the compound, and the compatibility of this operation with Israel’s obligations vis-à-vis the United Nations.
As is well-known, UNRWA was created in 1949 by Normal Meeting decision 302 (IV), with the preliminary mandate to offer “direct reduction and works programmes” to Palestine refugees, with a view to “stop situations of hunger and misery (…) and to additional situations of peace and stability”. UNRWA thus took over from the United Nations Reduction for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR) established in 1948 (for particulars cf. B. Richardson, The United Nations Reduction for Palestine Refugees, Worldwide Group 1950, pp. 44-54). Following the hostilities of June 1967, Normal Meeting decision 2252 (ES-V) requested UNRWA to “proceed to offer humanitarian help (…) on an emergency foundation, and as a brief measure, to individuals within the space who’re at the moment displaced and in severe want of continued help”. Ever since, the Normal Meeting repeatedly confirmed UNRWA’s mandate for Palestinians, later urging the Company to additionally “undertake efficient measures to ensure the protection and safety and the authorized and human rights of the Palestinian refugees within the occupied territories”.
Most not too long ago, on 5 December 2025, the Normal Meeting extended the mandate of UNRWA for a interval of one other three years with 151 sure votes, ten no votes and 14 abstentions. On the identical day, it additionally adopted its decision on ‘Operations of the United Nations Reduction and Works Company for Palestine Refugees within the Close to East’ through which the Normal Meeting requested Israel to respect the premises of UNRWA, together with these situated in East Jerusalem.
Israel and UNRWA had concluded on 14 June 1967 an ‘Change of Letters (…) Constituting a Provisional Settlement regarding Help to Palestine Refugees’, through which Israel inter alia agreed
[t]o acknowledge [emphasis added] that the Conference on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 13 February 1946, to which Israel is a celebration, shall govern the relations between the Authorities and UNRWA in all that considerations UNRWA’s capabilities.
The Israeli parliament, nevertheless, on 28 October 2024 adopted two legal guidelines, specifically the ‘Legislation to Stop UNRWA Operations’ and the ‘Legislation to Stop UNRWA Operations within the Territory of the State of Israel’ (unofficial English translations thereof accessible within the letter of the UN Secretary Normal addressed to the Normal Meeting and to the Safety Council of 9 December 2024), with the previous offering that the above talked about bilateral letter will probably be terminated, whereas the latter aimed toward stopping “UNRWA operations inside the territory of the State of Israel” and prohibiting the operation of “any consultant workplace [or to] present any providers or perform any actions, instantly or not directly, inside the sovereign territory of the State of Israel”. Following up on the adoption of this home laws, Israel authorities then on 3 November 2024 notified UNRWA of its intention to terminate the stated alternate of letters, which in flip now led to the seizure, by Israel, of the UNRWA services in East Jerusalem described above.
2. Israel’s obligations vis-à-vis UNRWA underneath worldwide humanitarian regulation
On the outset, it’s price recalling that, regardless of the purported annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem by adopting the ‘Primary Legislation: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel’ on 30 July 1980 and ensuing additional laws and observe, East Jerusalem stays occupied territory, as having been constantly confirmed inter alia not solely by the Worldwide Court docket of Justice, but additionally by each, the Normal Meeting (cf. e.g. Normal Meeting decision A/RES/79/81) and the Safety Council (see e.g. Safety Resolutions 465 (1980), 476 (1980) and 478 (1980).
This entails that, aside from any query as to the privileges and immunities UNRWA is entitled to, a problem addressed beneath, Israel additionally continues to be obliged to abide by relevant guidelines of worldwide humanitarian regulation as being the occupying energy with regard to East Jerusalem. Mentioned obligations have not too long ago been laid out and analyzed intimately within the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion on the ‘Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Actions of the United Nations, Different Worldwide Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory’. Notably, the Court docket discovered that UNRWA didn’t violate the precept of impartiality inside the that means of Article 59 4th Geneva Conference (ibid., para. 114.), nor that of neutrality (ibid., para. 118).
The Court docket nevertheless additionally said that, at the very least as a matter of precept, Israel because the occupying energy “is in precept free to decide on the humanitarian organizations by which it fulfils its obligation to conform to and facilitate humanitarian reduction” (ibid., para. 120). On the identical time the Court docket nonetheless concluded that “the United Nations, appearing by UNRWA [emphasis added], has been an indispensable supplier of humanitarian reduction” relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Whereas focusing in that regard on the particular scenario prevailing in Gaza, the Court docket in doing so referred to the above-mentioned letter of the Secretary Normal. The Secretary Normal in flip, in stated letter (p. 2), had referred to UNRWA’s “important work within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, together with East Jerusalem” and that “[t]he cessation of or restrictions on UNRWA actions within the Occupied Palestinian Territory would have devastating penalties for Palestine refugees”.
Therefore, offered Israel isn’t able to satisfy the wants of the Palestine refugees, “it has an obligation to permit and facilitate the actions of UNRWA till all these wants are met” (ibid., p. 5). In that regard, it’s furthermore essential to notice that the UNRWA compound in East Jerusalem served as a facility that not solely offered providers for Palestinian refugees residing in East Jerusalem and the opposite components of the West Financial institution, but additionally for Palestinians residing in Gaza. As a matter of truth, the stated compound, i.e. what UNRWA known as its ‘West Financial institution Discipline Workplace’, has since 1994 additionally, at the very least partially, housed UNRWA Headquarters together with inter alia the Commissioner-Normal, the Division of Authorized Affairs, and the Exterior Relations and Communications Division. Not the least it additionally served as a warehouse for gadgets to be used in Gaza together with meals, but additionally served as a liaison workplace with Israeli authorities in help of UNRWA operations in Gaza till the Israeli laws purporting to ban the work of UNRWA within the Occupied Palestinian Territory grew to become efficient. Accordingly, the seizure by Israel of the UNRWA services in East Jerusalem not solely hampered UNRWA’s operations within the West Financial institution (together with East Jerusalem), but additionally these in Gaza on which the Worldwide Court docket of Justice had, as talked about, particularly targeted in its 2025 advisory opinion.
Lastly, it’s also price recalling that the willpower by the Worldwide Court docket of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion on the ‘Authorized Penalties arising from the Insurance policies and Practices of Israel within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, together with East Jerusalem’ that Israel’s continued presence within the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal underneath worldwide regulation (ibid., para. 285, (3)) however, its obligations underneath relevant guidelines of worldwide humanitarian regulation proceed till the occupation is de facto delivered to an finish (ibid., para 264). It follows that the seizure and closure by Israel of the UNRWA compound already raises vital points underneath relevant guidelines of worldwide humanitarian regulation.
3. Authorized standing of UNRWA services in East Jerusalem underneath worldwide regulation
Aside from the simply talked about points arising underneath worldwide humanitarian regulation, the Israeli motion nevertheless additionally raises questions so far as the authorized standing of the compound underneath the 1946 Conference on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is worried.
Whereas it’s already Article 105 UN Constitution that gives that the ‘Group’ shall take pleasure in within the territory of every of its Members “such privileges and immunities as are essential for the fulfilment of its functions” it’s notably the 1946 Conference on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (also known as the so-called ‘Normal Conference ‘) that spells out in additional element the privileges and immunities to be granted to the United Nations.
But, Article 105 UN Constitution, identical to the 1946 Conference, refers back to the privileges and immunities of the ‘Group’ solely, i.e. the United Nations as such, however not these of its specialised companies. The immunities of the latter are ruled by the 1947 Conference on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Companies, of which Israel is nevertheless not a celebration. This due to this fact raises the query whether or not UNRWA is to be thought-about a part of the United Nations, and therefore enjoys privileges and immunities underneath the 1946 Normal Conference.
a) UNRWA and the scope of software ratione personae of the 1946 Conference on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
This situation has not too long ago come up in a civil case in US federal court docket, the place the US District Court docket for the Southern District of New York on 30 September 2025 confirmed that “UNRWA is a subsidiary organ of the U.N.” and accordingly concluded “that UNRWA enjoys absolute immunity” (ibid., p. 16; on the historical past of the case cf. Damrosch right here). This choice is consistent with the truth that Normal Meeting resolutions extending the mandate of UNRWA have on a number of events explicitly referred to UNRWA as a ‘subsidiary organ’ of the Normal Meeting” (cf. e.g., G.A. Res. 513 (VI) (26 January 1952) (referring to UNRWA as a “subsidiary organ established by the Normal Meeting”); G.A. Res. 1315 (XIII) (12 December 1958) (“Recalling that the Company is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations”), whereas others have confirmed that UNRWA, “as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, enjoys the advantages of the [General Convention].” (G.A. Res. 1456 (XIV), Preamble (9 December 1959). Moreover, the UN’s Repertory of Follow has additionally labeled UNRWA as a subsidiary organ of the Normal Meeting (cf e.g., United Nations, Repertory of United Nations Organs, Quantity 1, Article 7, para 16 (1945-1954) (citing UNRWA for instance of a ‘subsidiary organ’). The UN Secretariat, in its publications, additionally repeatedly referred to UNRWA as a subsidiary organ (cf. e.g. U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 1968, p. 182, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/6 (“[UNRWA] is a subsidiary organ of the Normal Meeting, with a mandate established by that physique, and should always act as a United Nations company.”); U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 1969, p. 209, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/7 (referring to UNRWA as “subsidiary organ”); U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 1976, p. 159, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/14 (identical); U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 1997, p. 439, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/41 (identical); U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 2000, p. 354-58, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/38 (identical).) As a matter of truth, since UNRWA’s construction and phrases of reference are decided, could also be modified, and even be discontinued, by or underneath the authority of the Normal Meeting, it shares what has been known as “[t]he constitutional options widespread to all subsidiary organs of the United Nations”(cf. W. Dale, UNRWA: A Subsidiary Organ of the United Nations, 23 ICLQ (1974), p. 576 et seq. (577)). It’s additional price noting in passing that within the simply talked about case the previous US authorities had shared that exact same place, whereas the Trump administration then modified course and tried to persuade the US District Court docket for the Southern District of New York, albeit in useless, that UNRWA didn’t take pleasure in immunity as allegedly not being a subsidiary organ of the UN Normal Meeting.
b) Authorized penalties of UNRWA’s protected standing
Given its standing as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, and additional provided that Israel is a celebration of the Normal Conference, it had to ensure underneath Article II, Part 2 thereof that UNRWA, in addition to
its property and property wherever situated and by whomsoever held, shall take pleasure in immunity from each type of authorized course of besides insofar as in any explicit case it has expressly waived its immunity”.
What’s extra is that underneath Article II, Part 3, 1st sentence of the Conference, “[t]he premises of the United Nations [and hence in the case at hand the premises of UNRWA as being a subsidiary organ thereof] shall be inviolable, and that lastly and in accordance with Article II, Part 3, 2nd sentence thereof
[t]he property and property of the United Nations, wherever situated and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and every other type of interference, whether or not by government, administrative, judicial or legislative motion.
It goes nearly with out saying that the entry of Israeli authorities into the UNRWA premises and the searches and seizures undertaken represent an nearly blatant violation of these provisions. The truth that Israel had beforehand terminated the above-mentioned alternate of letters between Israel and UNRWA couldn’t terminate the protected authorized standing of UNRWA’s services.
As a matter of truth, the stated alternate of letters merely constituted a modus operandi e.g. as to the entry of UNRWA employees into the West Financial institution (together with East Jerusalem) and Gaza. Particularly, this letter couldn’t present for a unilateral proper of Israel to put aside the privileges and immunities arising underneath the Normal Conference provided that its Last Article, Part 35 gives that
[t]his conference shall proceed in power as between the United Nations and each Member which has deposited an instrument of accession for as long as that Member stays a Member of the United Nations.
It’s true that Part 36 additional stipulates that the “Secretary-Normal [but the Secretary General only and not the Commissioner General of UNRWA that entered into the 1967 Exchange of Letters with Israel] might conclude with any Member or Members supplementary agreements adjusting the provisions of this conference as far as that Member or these Members are involved”. Even assuming that the 1967 Change of Letters did represent such a ‘supplementary settlement’, and additional assuming it had been validly entered into on the first place by the Commissioner Normal of UNRWA, it will have been “topic to the approval of the Normal Meeting” which by no means occurred.
The merely declaratory character of the alternate of letters is confirmed by the truth that it acknowledged that the 1946 Normal Conference did apply to UNRWA. In any other case it will have been most pure to, on the one hand, delete the ‘acknowledge’, and then again, state that the content material of the Normal Conference (reasonably than the Normal Conference as such) shall govern the relations between Israel and UNRWA.
Nor might the truth that Israel has now unilaterally presupposed to terminate the operation of UNRWA within the Occupied Palestinian Territory have an effect on the authorized standing of the UNRWA premises situated in East Jerusalem. For one, and to state the plain, any such home regulation couldn’t have altered in any method the authorized scenario prevailing underneath worldwide regulation. Moreover, given Israel’s obligation to cooperate with the United Nations, as specified by the ICJ’s latest advisory opinion (cf. supra) and the function of UNRWA’s premises in East Jerusalem in offering humanitarian help for Gaza, any such motion, even assuming that the premises’ authorized standing might have modified, would have been impermissible. Lastly, even after the entire UNRWA employees had left the premises, these premises didn’t lose their protected standing since, as confirmed by Article II, Part 3, 2nd sentence, United Nations premises shall be inviolable “wherever situated and by whomsoever held” (emphasis added).
One can’t due to this fact however deplore the motion undertaken by the Israeli authorities, Israel not solely being a contracting celebration of the Normal Conference, but additionally of the United Nations as such, and thus being not solely sure by the Normal Conference but additionally by Article 105 UN Constitution. It is usually price noting in passing that no matter allegations Israel has vis-à-vis UNRWA as such, which in any occasion have been rejected by the ICJ in its latest advisory opinion, they may not justify the violation of UNRWA’s privileges and immunities, identical to an alleged misuse of diplomatic premises may not function a pretext to violate the immunity of embassy premises; certainly, identical to the foundations on the privileges and immunities of diplomatic premises represent a self-contained regime (cf. for such proposition the holding of the ICJ within the Tehran Hostages case, para. 86).
4. Potential advisory proceedings on the ICJ associated to the distinction between Israel and the United Nations
On 8 December 2025, i.e. the very day of the seizure of the UNRWA constructing by Israel, the United Nations issued a ‘Assertion by the Secretary-Normal on Israeli unauthorized entry into the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound’ through which the Secretary Normal not solely “strongly condemn[ed] right this moment’s unauthorized entry into the United Nations Sheikh Jarrah compound held by UNRWA situated in occupied East Jerusalem by Israeli authorities” but additionally
urge[d] Israel to instantly take all essential steps to revive, protect and uphold the inviolability of UNRWA premises and to chorus from taking any additional motion with regard to UNRWA premises, consistent with its obligations underneath the Constitution of the United Nations and its different obligations underneath worldwide regulation, together with these regarding privileges and immunities of the United Nations.
Whereas no reply by Israel to this protest is publicly accessible, it appears protected to imagine {that a} distinction (‘différend’ within the equally genuine French textual content of Part 30 of the Normal Conference) has thus arisen between Israel and the United Nations inside the that means of the ICJ’s well-established jurisprudence as to the notion of what constitutes a ‘dispute’/ ‘différend’ as a prerequisite to bringing a contentious case earlier than the Court docket.
But, Article VIII, Part 30, 2nd sentence of the 1946 Normal Conference gives that
[i]f a distinction [‘différend’] arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member then again, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any authorized query concerned in accordance with Article 96 of the Constitution and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court docket.
It thus opens the likelihood that the Normal Meeting might request (yet one more) advisory opinion, this time associated particularly to the authorized standing of UNRWA’s premises situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory. What’s essential in that regard is that Article VIII, Part 30, third sentence of the 1946 Normal Conference explicitly gives that such “opinion given by the Court docket shall be accepted as decisive [‘’décisif’ in the French version] by the events”. Whereas the wording ‘decisive’/’décisif’ is totally different from the wording utilized in Article 59 ICJ Statute (‘binding’ / ‘obligatoire’) for ICJ judgments, it nonetheless entails a legally binding power for each events to the dispute, i.e. Israel and the United Nations, of any such advisory opinion. In any other case that very sentence could be redundant.
5. Concluding remarks
As proven, the seizure by Israel of the UNRWA compound runs counter to its obligations arising underneath worldwide regulation. One might, nevertheless, doubt whether or not even a legally binding advisory opinion by the principal judicial organ of the United Nations confirming such discovering would be capable to change the scenario on the bottom. One can’t however notice that Israel’s motion, sadly, constitutes yet one more try to offer for an additional brick within the wall separating East Jerusalem from the remainder of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and additional making an attempt to restrict the function of the United Nations in bringing a few answer to the Palestinian–Israeli battle with two States residing aspect by aspect.
As a matter of truth, the overarching relevance of worldwide regulation in setting the parameters for a peaceable settlement of the battle within the Center East appears to have decreased within the final years, if worldwide regulation ever was capable of successfully achieve this. It’s then much more essential to remind States, not solely of their obligations vis-à-vis the United Nations and its organs, but additionally that worldwide regulation is a protracted haul generally solely capable of rectify an unlawful scenario a long time after the actual fact.
