What should Australian supporters know about THINC’s legal advocacy?

An Australian donation appeal and an international court record put THINC’s work in concrete terms. In December 2024, Christians for Israel Australia invited supporters to fund the organisation. In February that year, the International Court of Justice had listed THINC director Andrew Tucker and chair Pieter Hoogendoorn as advisers to Fiji’s delegation.^[1][2]

THINC, the Hague Initiative for International Cooperation, describes its mission as challenging what it considers the misuse of international law against Israel. It combines research, education and advocacy.^[3] Australian support is therefore offered for a legal advocacy programme with access to governments. The missing connection is what that support paid for: the records reviewed here do not trace Australian donations to Fiji’s delegation or another particular intervention.^[1][2][4]

What the Australian fundraising shows

Christians for Israel Australia’s coupon names THINC as a project for countering anti-Israel lawfare, suggests gifts of $30 to $50 and provides payment instructions through Christians for Israel Australia Foundation Ltd. It gives a supporter a practical way to contribute to THINC’s work.^[1]

THINC’s signed 2025 accounts record EUR944 under donations via CFI-Australia in the comparative receivables table’s 2024 column. The entry records an amount due (a receivable), rather than cash received or an annual Australian fundraising total. The accounts assign it to no training course or Pacific delegation.^[4] The collection agreement and remittance records would establish how much was collected, what reached THINC and whether donors restricted its use.

These disclosures would help supporters as well as critics. A donor should be able to tell whether a gift funds research, a course, travel or advice to a government. Publishing purposes and totals would answer that question without exposing small donors’ personal details. Christians for Israel Australia, THINC and the Australian Jewish Association (AJA) have distinct roles; each should account for the activity it undertakes.^[1][5][4]

Training lawyers to make the case

In an AJA interview uploaded on 25 June 2025, Tucker describes strengthening lawyers’ advocacy skills, developing an Australian hub and seeking support. The host thanks Christians for Israel for partnering in the event. THINC’s activity report separately describes classroom training with Christians for Israel, Australian lectures and expansion of its Australian work.^[5][4]

The programme offers a way to build an argument, recruit people who can make it and bring it into legal and policy forums. Its purpose should be visible wherever its expertise is offered. Course materials and commissioning terms would allow recipients to judge the arguments and the interests supporting them.^[3][5]

Competing legal arguments are valuable, and studying an advocacy position does not bind a lawyer to it. States are entitled to consult outside experts. The standard should be the quality of the reasons and disclosure of the adviser’s role, applied equally to advocacy for either side.

Access is clearer than the claimed results

The court record establishes a substantial role. On 26 February 2024, Fiji appeared in proceedings on Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory with Tucker and Hoogendoorn listed as advisers. Fiji argued that the Court should decline the requested advisory opinion. Its presentation also recognised Palestinian self-determination and Israel’s right to secure sovereignty, and stressed negotiations and mutual respect.^[2]

The delegation’s position deserves that full description. Listing advisers establishes participation; authorship, payment and the advice Fiji accepted would require the delegation’s own records. On 19 July 2024, the Court delivered its advisory opinion, concluding that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful. The Court’s reasoning provides the substantive test of arguments urging it to refrain.^[2][6]

Tucker also credits briefings of Pacific ambassadors with influencing a later United Nations vote. Yet the UN’s account of the 18 September 2024 resolution records Papua New Guinea and Australia explaining their positions in their own terms, without identifying THINC. Testing his claim requires evidence from the governments whose votes he attributes to the briefings.^[5][7]

The priority questions are therefore specific. Christians for Israel Australia and THINC should identify the purposes and allocation of Australian support. THINC and Fiji should explain the advisory arrangement and how Fiji assessed the advice. Supporters deserve to know what their donations enable; the public deserves to know whose advocacy informs a government’s legal case.