At the request of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), on 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ/Court) rendered its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. On its merit, the Opinion discussed two primary questions, which gravitate on: first, the legal consequences arising from certain Israel’s activities in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967; and second, corollary to said activities, the effect upon the legal status of the occupation and consequences for all States and the United Nations (UN).1 At the risk of oversimplifying the discourse within the Opinion, in these questions, Israel is found to violate various international laws and is under the obligation to provide reparation.

Beyond said legalese discussions, however, what seems to be often overlooked is how within the anatomy of its Opinion, the Court opined multiple assertions which inadvertently hint at its aspiration to take an active position to help strategize the resolution of the conflict and solidify the UN as a system. This strain of activism should be welcomed and further discussed, especially in the face of the mounting doubt upon the capability of international legal order to address the situation, especially in the Gaza Strip.