By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ on 19 July 2024
Edit Thread

ICJ says Israel’s settlement policies in breach of international law

The UN’s highest legal body for hearing disputes between states issued its advisory opinion today in response to a 2022 request from the General Assembly.

This case is separate from South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, which has led to previous damning interim rulings by the International Court of Justice that Israel has so far ignored.

The International Court of Justice says that Israel’s settlement policies and exploitation of natural resources in the Palestinian territory were in breach of international law. The nonbinding advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory comes despite calls by Israel and a handful of other countries against it.

The ICJ specifically answered two questions today:

  • What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
  • How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to … above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status?




ICJ agrees to all arguments brought against Israel’s occupation

The president of the International Court of Justice has said basically all the arguments that were brought forward by 52 states and international organisations during the hearings were valid.

The chief justice called them one by one, including displacement, exploitation, and the settler policies that he was really critical about. He said all these policies are violating international laws, including the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter.

He also said that Israel’s arguments for this occupation – meaning that they need the occupation for military and security purposes – are completely invalid. He actually called it a “permanent occupation” which is basically the same as annexation.

The judge said Israel has created an indefinite and irreversible situation for the Palestinian people.

This is going to be a landmark advisory opinion from the highest court of the UN, which is nonbinding but will still have implications. It raises questions about the legality of the occupation, and also about the consequences of the occupation for all states involved and the UN. This is basically a question for all countries that have a relationship with Israel.

What does the ICJ advisory opinion say?

Here are the landmark conclusions arrived at by 15 judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem:

  • ICJ unanimously finds it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested.
  • By 14 votes to 1, decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion.
  • By 11 votes to 4, is of the opinion that the state of Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful.
  • By 11 votes to 4, is of the opinion that the state of Israel is under an obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in occupied Palestinian territory as rapidly as possible.
  • By 14 votes to 1, is of the opinion that the state of Israel is under obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from occupied Palestinian territory.
  • By 14 votes to 1, is of the opinion that the state of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for damage caused to all natural and legal persons concerned in the occupied Palestinian territory.
  • By 12 votes to 3, is of the opinion that all states are under obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the state of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of state of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory.
  • By 12 votes to 3, is of the opinion that international organisations, including the United Nations, are under obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the state of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory.
  • By 12 votes to 3, is of the opinion that the UN, and specifically the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of state of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory.