by Raziz Rashid
On April 28, 2025, in a solemn courtroom in The Hague, the voice of Malaysia resonated through the marble halls of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague in the Netherlands.
It was not the voice of a geopolitical heavyweight or a dominant military power. It was the voice of principle.
Represented by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Dato’ Sri Azalina Othman Said, Malaysia stood among 40 nations to address a matter that has plagued global conscience for over seven decades: the unfulfilled right of Palestinians to self-determination.
For Malaysia, this moment was not a ceremonial gesture. It was a deliberate assertion of legal and moral agency—a statement that international law must serve those who have no armies, only hope.
In doing so, Malaysia reaffirmed its role not merely as a regional actor, but as a principled advocate for justice on the global stage.
A Legal Milestone in Malaysia’s Foreign Policy
Malaysia’s latest participation at the ICJ marked the third time it has engaged in legal proceedings relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), following advisory opinion hearings in 2004 and 2024.
But the stakes today are arguably higher. Since the breakdown of a temporary ceasefire earlier this year, Israel’s military offensive has intensified, drawing renewed global scrutiny and humanitarian outrage.
The hearings, initiated by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 79/232, were not about rhetoric. They sought the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations concerning its prolonged occupation, and its conduct toward the United Nations, other international organisations, and third states operating in the OPT.
Malaysia’s presence was neither accidental nor symbolic—it was strategic, calibrated, and urgent.
Grounded in Law: Malaysia’s Legal Standpoint
Malaysia’s intervention at the ICJ was built on solid legal footing. At its core lies international humanitarian law, the UN Charter, and a body of legal norms that prohibit the acquisition of territory by force, the denial of basic rights under occupation, and the systematic repression of an occupied people.
Azalina’s oral submission made clear: Israel, as the occupying power, has failed to fulfill its legal obligations. These include ensuring the provision of basic services such as education, healthcare, water, and housing.
More gravely, Malaysia highlighted Israel’s active obstruction of humanitarian agencies like UNRWA, which has served as a lifeline for Palestinians under siege.
The attempt to unilaterally shut down UNRWA was denounced as not just illegal, but a moral failure of staggering proportions.
Malaysia’s legal team, composed of representatives from Wisma Putra, the Attorney General’s Chambers, and the Legal Affairs Division, delivered a message rooted in universal norms. Their arguments did not rely on emotive appeals, but on hard evidence of legal transgressions and structural impunity.
The Moral Compass of a Nation
Malaysia’s commitment to Palestine is neither new nor opportunistic. It has been a consistent pillar of foreign policy since the 1980s, underpinned by bipartisan support across administrations. This commitment is grounded not just in religious solidarity or geopolitical positioning, but in a deeper moral principle: the right of every people to determine their own destiny.
The stance transcends political ideology. From the halls of the United Nations to the corridors of regional diplomacy, Malaysia has advocated for a sovereign Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The ICJ appearance builds on this long-standing position, elevating it from political alignment to legal advocacy.
Azalina: Advocate, Servant, and Legal Custodian
At the centre of Malaysia’s ICJ appearance was Dato’ Sri Azalina Othman Said, whose performance went beyond procedural formalities. With clarity and conviction, she recast Malaysia’s presence not merely as a participating nation, but as the moral voice of a people witnessing injustice unfold in real time.
Azalina’s legal background, combined with her position as Minister for Law and Institutional Reform, lent credibility and weight to Malaysia’s statement. More than a political representative, she functioned as a custodian of Malaysia’s legal conscience.
Her invocation of international legal standards served to both indict the failings of power and affirm the potential of law as a tool for justice.
Her statement bore the weight of history and the pain of a dispossessed people. “We appear not just as a Member State of the United Nations,” she said, “but as a voice echoing the suffering of a nation whose rights, homes, and futures are being erased in front of the world’s eyes.”
Confronting the Critics: Why This Matters
It is not uncommon for international advocacy to be misunderstood at home. In times of domestic hardship, some voices have questioned whether Malaysia should be spending energy on international affairs when economic and social challenges persist domestically.
But this view is shortsighted. Upholding international justice is not an act of distraction—it is an affirmation of national dignity. A country that stands for human rights abroad reinforces its own standards at home.
In advocating for Palestine at the ICJ, Malaysia sends a message that principles matter, even when they are inconvenient or politically costly.
Moreover, legal diplomacy is not a luxury. It is an essential component of a rules-based international order. The same laws that protect Palestinians from occupation are those that protect small nations like Malaysia from being marginalised or coerced by greater powers.
To stand for Palestine is to stand for the very idea that international law is a shield for the weak—not a tool of the strong.
A Call for Unity Through Justice
Malaysia’s stand at the ICJ should not divide but unite. It offers citizens a moment to reflect on what it means to be part of a global community committed to justice, fairness, and the protection of the voiceless. It reminds us that the law, when wielded with integrity, can be a language of resistance and redemption.
In a world too often desensitised to suffering, Malaysia chose to speak. It chose to act. And through Azalina’s voice at The Hague, it chose to remind the world that justice delayed is not justice denied—so long as nations are willing to stand up, even when the odds seem
insurmountable.
As the Court deliberates, Malaysia’s role will endure—not just in the legal records of the ICJ, but in the moral imagination of a world still searching for balance between power and principle.
WE