Five questions on the opinion of the International Court of Justice, which concludes that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are illegal

The UN judicial body has again ruled that Israel’s increasing occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967 is contrary to international law. But the advisory opinion is not legally binding.

Israel’s policy collides to international law. While the Hebrew State continues its offensive in the Gaza Strip, its “prolonged occupation” Palestinian territories since 1967 are once again on trial “illegal” and must stop “as quickly as possible”according to the conclusions of an advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Friday, July 19.

What exactly does the ICJ, the UN’s main judicial body, say about this issue? How does it justify its decision? And what could its consequences be?

1 What exactly does the International Court of Justice say?

The UN General Assembly had asked the ICJ in December 2022 to rule on the status of 337 territories in the West Bank. These lands located in the territories of the Palestinian Authority were appropriated without consultation, and often with violence, by approximately 478,000 Israelis, according to the count of the Israeli NGO Peace Now.

During the Arab-Israeli War of June 1967, Israel captured the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), then annexed by Jordan, as well as other territories, including the Gaza Strip.

The court, which sits in The Hague and judges legal disputes between states, concluded after a detailed analysis* that “the continued presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful”. She urges Israel to “stop immediately” its illicit presence and “colonization activity”, “to evacuate all the settlers [israéliens] as soon as possible” and of “repair the damage caused” to all affected persons.

2 How does the Court justify its decision?

The ICJ recalls that international law allows the occupation of a territory in certain situations, but only if it is a“a temporary situation responding to a military necessity”that must be “at all times consistent with the rules relating to the prohibition of the threat or use of force (…) as well as the right to self-determination”.

“The Court considers that Israel has no right to sovereignty over any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and cannot exercise sovereign powers therein by reason of its occupation.”the ICJ therefore judges. “Nor can Israel’s security concerns override the principle of prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force.”adds the Court.

Many of Israel’s measures in the occupied territories also constitute a form “systemic discrimination based, in particular, on race, religion or ethnic origin”in violation of several articles of international pacts and conventions against discrimination, the body reports.

3 Is this decision new?

No, it confirms several judgments already taken for decades by different international bodies. Since 1967, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted about ten resolutions to condemn the construction of these colonies. In 2016, for example, the UN Security Council unanimously denounced (minus the abstention of the United States) a “flagrant violation” of international law, and demanded that Israel “put an immediate and complete end” to colonization.

The ICJ itself had already given an advisory opinion* on the same subject in 2004. This resulted in the same conclusion, “namely that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, were established and are maintained in violation of international law”This policy is also contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which defines the law of occupation, François Dubuisson, professor of international law, stressed to France Télévisions.

4 What are the possible consequences of this decision?

The ICJ statement is only an advisory opinion, and is therefore not accompanied by sanctions or preventive measures. On the other hand, the ICJ calls on States and international organizations not to turn a blind eye by considering the settlements as lawful, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary.

“All States” And “international organizations (…) are obliged not to” supporting the Israeli occupation in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Court finally orders the UN to examine possible measures “to end as soon as possible” to this Israeli presence.

5 How did the international community react?

The Palestinian Authority presidency described the opinion as“historical”.“This is a great day for Palestine”welcomed Varsen Aghabekian Chahine, Minister Delegate for Foreign Affairs of the Palestinian Authority. The ICJ “presented a very detailed analysis of what is happening through Israel’s prolonged occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory, in violation of international law”she added.

“Jews are not occupiers in their own land”reacted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a reaction shared by the Prime Minister’s Office. “No lying decision in The Hague can distort the historical truth” And “the legality of Israeli settlements” born “cannot be disputed”maintained the head of government, who has already contested the legitimacy of the discussions at the ICJ.

The European Union welcomed the ICJ’s decision in a statement. “which largely corresponds to the positions of the EU, themselves fully aligned with the UN resolutions”. “In a world of constant and increasing violations of international law, it is our moral duty to reaffirm our respect for all decisions of the ICJ”adds the block.

* Links followed by an asterisk refer to a PDF document.