Israel's Continued Presence In Occupied Palestinian Territory Unlawful: International Court Of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has opined that Israel's continued occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, and Israel is obligated to end its occupation and make reparations to all affected persons.

The Court arrived at this conclusion in its Advisory Opinion on the “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” in response to a request from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 30, 2022.

Key conclusions

1. The Court determined that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which has lasted more than 57 years since 1967, is unlawful.

2. Israel is obligated to end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.

3. Israel must cease all new settlement activities immediately and evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

4. Israel is required to make reparations for damages caused to all natural or legal persons affected in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

5. All States are under an obligation not to recognize the legality of the situation arising from Israel's unlawful presence and not to aid in maintaining this situation.

6. International organizations, including the United Nations, must not recognize the legality of the situation created by Israel's presence.

7. The United Nations, particularly the UNGA and the Security Council (UNSC), should consider further action to end Israel's unlawful presence as rapidly as possible.

Issues

The UNGA sought the Court's advice on the following questions:

(a) 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?

(b) 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?

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction to render the opinion and found no compelling reasons to decline.

ICJ on prolonged occupation of Palestine

The Court noted that occupation is intended to be temporary and cannot transfer sovereignty to the occupying power. The prolonged nature of the occupation does not change its legal status under international humanitarian law but raises questions about the justification for the occupying power's continued presence.

ICJ on Israeli settlement policy

Reaffirming its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court declared that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate international law. The Court expressed concern over the expansion of settlements since 2004.

ICJ on annexation of Palestine

The Court viewed Israel's attempts to acquire sovereignty over occupied territory, including East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as violations of international law prohibiting the use of force for territorial acquisition.

Israel's legislation discriminatory against Palestinians

The Court found that Israel's legislative and administrative measures discriminated against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory on grounds prohibited by international law, constituting systemic discrimination in violation of multiple international conventions.

“the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Article 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”, as per the press release.

ICJ on Palestine's right to self-determination

The Court opined that Israel's policies and practices deprive Palestinians of their right to self-determination, undermining their future exercise of this right.

“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”, as per the press release.

Legal status of the occupation

The Court concluded that Israel's assertion of sovereignty and annexation efforts affected the legal status of the occupation, rendering Israel's continued presence unlawful under international law.

Implications for other states and the UN

The Court emphasized that other States and international organizations are obligated not to recognize or support the situation created by Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court urged the UNGA and UNSC to consider further actions to end Israel's unlawful occupation.

Dissenting opinion: Vice President Julia Sebutinde gave a dissenting opinion, stating that while the ICJ had the jurisdiction to render the opinion, it should have refrained from rendering it “in exercising its discretion judiciously and maintaining the integrity of its judicial role.”