The International Court of Justice declared Israel’s presence in occupied Palestinian territories as illegal
On Friday 19 July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and the consequences of Israel’s conduct for other states following an 18-month process including public hearings where more than 50 states, including Palestine, and three international organizations participated. The long-awaited advisory opinion stated that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is a clear violation of international law.
On 30 December 2022, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 in which it requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on two questions. These questions relate first to the legal consequences arising from certain policies and practices of Israel as an occupying Power in a situation of belligerent occupation since 1967. Secondly, they relate to how such policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation in light of certain rules and principles of international law and to the legal consequences which arise from this status.
Israel considers the West Bank to be disputed territory, the future of which should be decided in negotiations, but in the meantime it is still moving populations into settlements to solidify its hold. It has annexed east Jerusalem in a move that isn’t internationally recognized, while it withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but maintained a blockade of the territory after Hamas took power in 2007. The international community generally considers all three areas to be occupied territory.
In its Advisory Opinion, the ICJ concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful, finding it contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and its corollary principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force. This violation has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s continued presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court considers that Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over or to exercise sovereign powers in any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory on account of its occupation.
The Court also examined the question of the legal consequences arising from Israel’s adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures against Palestinians. This differentiation of treatment cannot be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that this regime of comprehensive restrictions constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of international law.
The Court then turns to the effects of Israel’s policies and practices on the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. In this regard, the Court is of the view that, as a consequence of Israel’s policies and practices, which span decades, the Palestinian people has been deprived of its right to self-determination over a long period, and further prolongation of these policies and practices undermines the exercise of this right in the future. For these reasons, the Court considers that Israel’s unlawful policies and practices are in breach of Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The Court is of the view that occupation cannot be used in such a manner as to indefinitely leave the occupied population in a state of suspension and uncertainty. In light of the ICJ’s opinion, all states and international organizations (including the UN) are under the obligation to not to recognise as legal “the situation created by the illegal presence of the Israeli state in the Palestinian territories” and not to send “aid or assistance” that can guarantee the survival of the settlements.