ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, was a proceeding before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest legal body of the United Nations (UN), stemming from a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022 requesting the Court to render an advisory opinion relating to the legality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories, which comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, since 1967, making it the longest military occupation in modern history. In 2004, the ICJ delivered an advisory opinion on the Israeli West Bank barrier, deciding that it contravened international law and should be removed. In January 2023, the ICJ acknowledged the UNGA's request for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Public hearings opened on 19 February 2024 at the ICJ's seat in The Hague, with 52 states and three international organizations presenting legal arguments — the largest number of parties to participate in any single case in the ICJ's history. The court's advisory opinion was delivered on 19 July 2024, determining that the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that Israel's occupation since 1967, and the subsequent creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources, are illegal under international law. The court also ruled that Israel should pay full reparations to the Palestinian people for the damage the occupation has caused, and determined that its policies violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Palestinian Authority welcomed the decision as historic, while the Israeli government formally rejected it, stating a political settlement can only be attained through negotiations; Israeli leaders and politicians further decried the ruling as antisemitic. The court's opinion was backed by the European Union but criticized by the United States. On 18 September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling for the end, within a year, to Israel's "unlawful presence" in the West Bank and Gaza.

A draft motion prepared by the State of Palestine was approved by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on 11 November 2022. It was passed by a vote of 98 to 17, with 52 abstentions, and was sent to the General Assembly. Nicaragua presented the draft resolution because Palestine is not a full member of the UN.

On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions.

On 20 January 2023, the ICJ confirmed

Paragraph 18 of the resolution requests the Court to render an advisory opinion on the following questions:

Riyad al-Maliki, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine, hailed the resolution as "a diplomatic and legal success and achievement". Al-Maliki expressed gratitude to the nations that supported the resolution by sponsoring it and voting in favor of it. He urged countries that did not support the resolution to "adhere to international law and avoid standing on the wrong side of history." Days prior to the final vote, in an attempt to impede the referral of the conflict to The Hague, then-Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid wrote to 50 countries urging them not to support it in the General Assembly.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) welcomed the resolution's approval by the General Assembly,praising the positions of the countries that supported it, which confirms their commitment to international law and is consistent with their historical support for the Palestinian cause.

The court fixed 25 July 2023 as the deadline for presentation of written statements and 25 October 2023 as the deadline for written comments on the statements made by other States or organizations.

On 7 August the Court announced that 57 written statements had been filed in the Court's registry, including three from international organizations—League of Arab States, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and African Union—with the remainder from Palestine and UN member states. According to Le Monde, 57 written submissions is a record (more than have been received on any other case) since the Court's creation in 1945, which the newspaper regards as already a small victory for the Palestinians.

The written statements will not be published by the Court until the start of public hearings, but according to Le Monde, a large majority of the 57 submissions recognize the jurisdiction of the Court to render an opinion on the issues raised; only around 10 or so submissions contest the referral to the Court.

On 14 November, the court announced that 15 comments on the written statements were accepted by the Court.

On 14 July 2023, the Government of Canada argued that the Court should exercise its discretion to decline to render an advisory opinion, because Israel has not accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter, and the UN Security Council has established a framework for the parties to resolve the dispute through negotiations.

Although France abstained in the General Assembly on the resolution which requested the advisory opinion from the Court, France submitted a statement to the Court of around 20 pages, in which it reaffirms the illegal nature of colonization, recounts the legal obligations of the occupier in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and notes the risk of an annexation by fait accompli.

The Government of Israel reportedly made submissions to the Court arguing that the Court lacks the authority to adjudicate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that it should instead be resolved by direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority.

On 24 July 2023, during a meeting at the Hague, Palestine Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Riyad Al-Malki, delivered the Palestinian submission.

The UK submission opposed the hearing of the case in the ICJ.

Oral presentation of the arguments started on 19 February 2024. On that date, the Palestinian delegation presented its arguments. The following countries presented oral arguments in the case:

•  African Union: The AU representative, professor Mohamed Helal, stated,The injustice being wrought against the people of Gaza makes it imperative to end Israel's impunity and hold it accountable for the rule of law.
•  Libya: The Libyan representative stated Palestinians have the right to self determination.
•  Namibia: Namibian Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab stated,Palestinians and Namibians suffered the loss of human dignity… and the outright theft of their land and natural resources… we cannot look the other way in the face of the brutal atrocities committed against the Palestinian people.
•  South Africa: South Africa argued that Israel's occupation amounted to colonial apartheid, that the settlements need to be dismantled, and reparations need to be paid to Palestinians.
•  Sudan: The Sudanese representative urged the court to issue an advisory opinion for Israelis and Palestinians toredouble their efforts to achieve peace and security.

•  Belize: The Belize representative argued Gaza is still occupied despite Israel's 2005 withdrawal.
•  Bolivia: The representative from Bolivia argued that Israel's occupation policies and practices violated international law.
•  Brazil: The Brazilian attorney advocated for a two-state solution and argued Israel's occupation was a violation of international law.
•  Chile: The Chilean representative stated,By virtue of its actions, including the exploitation of natural resources, the policies of settlements, the erection of the wall, the legalisation of outposts, among others, Israel has demonstrated its intention to control indefinitely the occupied Palestinian territory.
•  United States: The occupation must continue for Israel's self defense.

•  Bangladesh: Bangladesh argued Israel must withdraw its forces in the occupied territories and dismantle all settler structures.
•  China: The Chinese representative argued that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resistance.
•  Indonesia: Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi stated,Israel's unlawful occupation and its atrocities must stop and should not be normalised or recognised. It is clear that Israel has zero intention to abide by international legal obligations.
•  Japan: The legal advisor to Japan's Foreign Ministry stated atwo-state solution where Israel and the future independent Palestinian state live side by side in peace and dignity remains the only viable path for both peoples.
•  Pakistan: The Minister for Law and Justice Ahmed Irfan Aslam stated that Israel's occupation was reversible, citing France's withdrawal of 1 million settlers from Algeria in 1962.

•  Ireland: The Irish representative stated,By its prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory, and the settlement activities it has conducted there for more than half a century, Israel has committed serious breaches of a number of peremptory norms of general international law.
•  Belgium: The legal expert representing Belgium stated Israel's occupation sought a permanent demographic alteration and violates the fundamental rules of international law.
•  Luxembourg: The lawyer representing Luxembourg argued that Israel'sactivities of colonisation cannot be justified under self-defence and suggested that its actions had violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.
•  Netherlands: Netherlands representative René JM Lefeber argued that people under occupation have a right to self-determination.
•  Norway: Norwegian foreign minister Espen Barth Eide statedthe injustice to which the Palestinians are subjected must stop and argued a two-state solution wasthe only solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
•  Russia: The Russian representative stated Israel needed tostop all settlement activities in the occupied territory.
•  Slovenia: Slovenia argued that Palestinians have the "fundamental human right" to self-determination and that the Israeli occupation was an impediment to it.
•   Switzerland: The Swiss representative stated Israel's occupationcannot be justified under security requirements because it affects the well-being of the population and is discriminatory in nature.
•  United Kingdom: The British representative acknowledged that the Israeli occupation was illegal but argued the court should not issue a ruling on it.

•  Arab League: Representing the Arab League, Ralph Wilde stated there was no "backdoor legal basis" for Israel to maintain the occupation; he ended by quoting the Palestinian poet Refaat Alareer, stating,If I must die, you must live to tell my story. If I must die, let it bring hope. Let it be a story.
•  Iran: Iran stated that it was a "collective legal and moral responsibility" to end the occupation andwe should not leave [Palestinians] alone and let them down.
•  Iraq: The Iraqi representative stated Iraq isdeeply concerned about the humanitarian suffering inflicted on the Palestinians throughout the state of Palestine.
•  Jordan: Michael Wood, representing Jordan, stated,the only way for the [Palestinian] right to self-determination to be exercised is for the [Israeli] occupation to come to an end. Ayman Safadi further stated,The occupation is unlawful, it is inhumane, it must end, yet Israel has been systematically consolidating the occupation.
•  Kuwait: The Kuwaiti representative stated,The occupying power has waged an illegitimate war on the Palestinians in Gaza characterised by numerous international law violations.
•  Lebanon: The Lebanese representative stated,Since 1967, Israel has been committing a crime of aggression, illegally occupying territories before annexing them.
•  Oman: The Omani representative stated Palestinianshave been living under occupation, oppression, injustice and daily humiliation, while the international community failed to assist them in realising their aspirations to an independent state.
•  Qatar: The Qatari lawyer stated that the ICJ holds aclear mandate and indeed the responsibility to remedy to this unacceptable situation. The credibility of the international legal order depends on your opinion and the stakes cannot be higher.
•  Saudi Arabia: Saudi envoy Ziad al-Atiyah stated that Israel has committedegregious violations of its fundamental international obligations toward Palestinians under occupation.

The ICJ delivered its opinion on 19 July 2024. It concluded that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful, that Israel should put an end to that occupation, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established. It further concluded that where Palestinians have lost land and property, that Israel should pay reparations. In relation to the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the court found that Israeli laws "implement a separation" between Palestinians and settlers in the occupied territories in physical and juridical senses, "breach[ing]" Article 3 of CERD. It also found that all states, and institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly, are under an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal nor "render aid or assistance" toward maintaining Israel's presence in the occupied territories.

Among the breaches of international law, the court identified practices such as forcible evictions, pervasive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement, the transfer and retention of settlers into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the failure to protect Palestinians from settler violence, placing restrictions on access to water, the extension of Israeli law into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the exploitation by Israel of resources in the occupied territories. While raising the issue of Israel's separation policy, noting a distinction between segregation and apartheid, it stopped short of ruling that the policy fell under the provisions of international law regarding apartheid. It has been speculated that this may have been related to a concern to achieve a great majoritarian consensus among the presiding judges.

The court further wrote that:

The court stated that the Israeli–Palestinian peace process did not prevent international law from applying to the situation. The ICJ stated that the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council are required to determine the method of ending Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied territories, and that all states are obliged to cooperate with the non-recognition of the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories.

The UN confirmed that the matter would be handed over to the UNGA to determine what action would follow.

On 18 September 2024, the UNGA adopted a non-binding resolution to enforce the advisory opinion. 124 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 43 countries abstained and 14 countries, including Israel and the US, voted against. Europe was divided: France, Portugal, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Spain and Norway voted in favour of the resolution; Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Italy, the UK and the Netherlands abstained; the Czech Republic and Hungary voted against the resolution.

The resolution called for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territory within one year. It also called on all member states to stop importing products from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and to stop supplying arms, munitions and related equipment to Israelin all cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Switzerland was given a mandate to convene aConference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, with the Conference to be convened within the next six months.

Israeli leaders and politicians decried the ICJ ruling as antisemitic:

• Benjamin Netanyahu called the ruling "a decision of lies", sincethe Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land.
• Knesset MP Yuli Edelstein stated that the International Court of Justice has beenhijacked by Islamists and their supporters.
• National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stated that the decisionproves for the umpteenth time that this is a distinctly antisemitic and political organization.
• The Israeli Minister for Finance Bezalel Smotrich called for an immediate annexation of the West Bank, stating:The answer to The Hague – sovereignty now.
• Benny Gantz stated that the decision was a testament to outside meddling that was "counterproductive to regional security" but also further evidence for the 'judicialization' of a political conflict.
• Avigdor Lieberman stated that the judgment was an "antisemitic act," and also accused the court of "launching a war" against Israel, which isalready fighting six others.
• Yariv Levin, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, stated:No lies [by the World Court] will change the simple fact: the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.
• Israel Katz, Israel's Foreign Minister, stated that the judgment was 'dangerous' in that it plays into the hands of the extremists andencourages the Palestinian Authority to continue its path of slander.
• Yair Lapid, the opposition leader, stated that the decision wasdisconnected, one-sided, tainted by antisemitism, andserves only Islamic terrorism.
• Ahmad Tibi stated that the verdictaccurately captured reality, determining that the state of segregation and the application of Israeli law in the occupied territories is apartheid.
• The Israeli human rights NGO B'tselem declared,No more excuses. The international community must force Israel to end the occupation.

• The office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the opinion and called the decision historic.
• Secretary General of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization Hussein al-Sheikh hailed the verdict as a victory for the Palestinians' right to self-determination, and considered that the judgment amounted to the "collapse and defeat of the Judaization project through confiscation, settlement, displacement, and racist practices against a people under occupation."

• The United States Department of State criticized the ICJ ruling, claiming that it would make future negotiations for a Palestinian state more difficult.

• The newly formed Labour government said itrespects the independence of the ICJ and is considering the ruling before making an official response. The Foreign Office added the UK isstrongly opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and rising settler violence.

• The European Union backed the ICJ's advisory opinion and stated that its ruling aligns with the bloc's own positions, with its foreign policy chief Josep Borrell saying the opinion would be analyzed on its implication on the EU's policy.
• Belgium Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hadja Lahbib said in a post on X:The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory does not comply with international law and that settlement activity must cease. Belgium will always stand up for the respect of international law.
• Spain said the rulingincludes important pronouncements … on the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and on settlements, among other aspects and thatThe government urges the UN and the international community to take into consideration the conclusions of the report and to adopt appropriate measures in this regard.
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia called on Israelto comply with its duties and obligations under international law as laid out in the ICJ's opinion.
• Norway Minister of Foreign Affairs, Espen Barth Eide, said in a post on X:The ICJ is crystal clear: Israeli policies and practices are to be considered annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and are in violation of international law. This is an unequivocal message to Israel, which we expect them to comply with immediately.

• South Africa Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola said the rulingaffirms South Africa's long-standing position that the occupation by Israel of Palestinian territory remains unlawful under international law and thatThere is now an additional legal obligation for all states to end complicity in Israel's illegal actions and to act to ensure respect for international law, he said in a statement.

• Daniel Levy, a political analyst, stated the ICJ case would cause third parties to reckon with the consequences of beingcomplicit in this violation of international law and in guaranteeing impunity for the violating party, namely Israel.
• Ynet journalist Itamar Eichner stated that though the ICJ decision represented the worst-case scenario Israeli politicians feared, the very 'brutality' of the ruling may act in Israel's favour. In his view, it is likely that Israeli leaders are hoping that Donald Trump will win the U.S. elections, and then pass laws against the ICJ and ICC, and impose sanctions on the judges responsible for these verdicts.

• International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
• International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine
• Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine
• Seventy-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly
• South Africa's genocide case against Israel
• The Hague Group

• Overview of the case (from International Court of Justice website)
• Full text of the UN General Assembly resolution of 30 December 2022
• Verbatim Records from 19–21 February 2024
• Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, 19 July 2024
• Blog entry from EJIL:Talk! (blog of the European Journal of International Law)
• Blog entry from Opinio Juris