The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, with significant consequences for human rights protections in Palestine under Israel’s 57-year occupation. The opinion stems from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to the court to consider the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The following quote can be attributed to Tirana Hassan, Human Rights Watch Executive Director:
In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.
The ICJ opinion is found here: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf
Among its findings:
¶ 104: “. . . the Court notes that Israel’s occupation has lasted for more than 57 years.”
¶ 108: “. . . it does not follow from Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that, in cases of prolonged occupation, the occupying Power acquires additional powers through the passage of time. The fact of the occupation cannot result in the transfer of title, regardless of the duration of the occupation.”
¶ 109: "The fact that an occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status under international humanitarian law.”
¶ 113: "The Court recalls that Israel has been carrying out a settlement policy throughout its occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory . . ..”
¶ 114: "The Court further notes that, between 1967 and 2005, Israel’s settlement policy was carried out in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.”
¶ 115: “ . . . the Court found that Israel’s settlement policy was in breach of the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that “[t]he Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. . . . In the present case, there is extensive evidence of Israel’s policy of providing incentives for the relocation of Israeli individuals and businesses into the West Bank, as well as for its industrial and agricultural development by settlers . . ..”
¶ 117: “. . . Israel’s construction of settlements is accompanied by specially designed civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which integrates the settlements into the territory of Israel.” . . . The Independent International Commission of Inquiry adds that the continuous expansion by Israel of settlements and related infrastructure actively contributes to the entrenchment of the occupation . . .. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted, the population of the Israeli settlements has grown rapidly as a result of the establishment of Israeli infrastructure . . ..”
¶118: "The transfer of members of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the occupied territory is prohibited regardless of whether it results in the displacement of the local population.”
¶ 120: "The expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is based on the confiscation or requisitioning of large areas of land. According to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry, over 2 million dunams (approximately 2,000 sq km) have been expropriated in Area C alone since 1967, amounting to more than a third of the West Bank . . .. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that almost all of this State land has been allocated for the benefit of Israeli settlements . . ..”
¶ 122: "According to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, private property must be respected and cannot be confiscated. . . . [T]he occupying Power bears the duty to administer public property for the benefit of the local population or, exceptionally, to meet the needs of the army of occupation. In the present case, however, the public property confiscated or requisitioned for the development of Israeli settlements benefits the civilian population of settlers, to the detriment of the local Palestinian population. The Court, therefore, concludes that these land policies are not in conformity with Articles 46, 52 and 55 of the Hague Regulations.”
¶ 124: “. . . under the principle of customary international law contained in Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, the occupying Power shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of natural resources in the occupied territory, including but not limited to forests and agricultural estates, and it shall “safeguard the capital” of these resources. . . . [T]he occupying Power has the continuing duty to ensure that the local population has an adequate supply of foodstuffs, including water . . ..
¶ 128: "United Nations Reports confirm that Israel prioritizes the water supply of settlements, to the detriment of Palestinian communities, which suffer from lengthy and frequent water outages . . .. Israel has imposed restrictions on the construction and maintenance by Palestinians of water installations without a military permit, and it prevents Palestinians from accessing and extracting water from the Jordan River . . .. Thus, in practice, Palestinians have little ability to ensure access to water in large parts of the West Bank; instead they must purchase significant quantities of water from Israel at a high price . . ..”
¶ 130: "Israel’s water and land policies have resulted in the reduction of agricultural land from 2.4 million dunams (approximately 2,400 sq km) in 1980 to around 1 million dunams (approximately 1,000 sq km) in 2010, while the share of agriculture in the gross domestic product of the Occupied Palestinian Territory declined from 35 per cent in 1972 to 12 per cent in 1995, to less than 4 per cent by 2020. Moreover, the expansion of settlements and of industrial zones has contributed to the pollution of freshwater and groundwater. Dwindling supplies of water and associated environmental degradation have severely undermined the Palestinian agricultural sector, reducing employment possibilities . . ..”
¶ 131: "The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission stated that 86 per cent of the mineral-rich Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea was in practice under the jurisdiction of the regional councils of Israeli settlements and that settlements extract minerals and cultivate fertile agricultural lands at the expense of Palestinians . . . .
¶ 132: "The General Assembly has repeatedly demanded that Israel “cease the exploitation, damage, cause of loss or depletion and endangerment of the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” . . ..”
¶133: "On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considers that Israel’s use of the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with its obligations under international law. By diverting a large share of the natural resources to its own population, including settlers, Israel is in breach of its obligation to act as administrator and usufructuary. . . . The Court further considers that, by severely restricting the access of the Palestinian population to water that is available in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel acts inconsistently with its obligation to ensure the availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality (Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). . . . [T]he Court also concludes that Israel’s policy of exploitation of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with its obligation to respect the Palestinian people’s right to permanent sovereignty over natural resources.”
¶ 134: "Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, the occupying Power must in principle respect the law in force in the occupied territory unless absolutely prevented from doing so.
¶135: "Since the start of the occupation, Israel has extended its legal domain in the West Bank, which has resulted in far-reaching changes to the applicable law and, in practice, two sets of applicable law: military law and Israeli domestic law, which has been extended extra-territorially to apply only to Israeli settlers. This has been done through military orders, legislation and Supreme Court decisions and includes criminal law, national health insurance law, taxation laws and laws pertaining to elections.”
¶ 136: "Israel has to a large degree substituted its military law for the local law in force in the Occupied Palestinian Territory at the beginning of the occupation in 1967. Offences under Israel’s military law are tried by Israeli military courts rather than by local civil or criminal courts. Moreover, as a matter of practice, the competent Israeli military authorities apply to settlers the law applicable to civilians in Israel, as well as to non-Israeli Jews present in the West Bank. As a result, settlers in the West Bank enjoy the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship, as well as the protections of Israeli domestic laws and social benefits. In addition, settlers are not subjected to Israeli military courts and are instead tried before Israeli civilian courts. Palestinians in the West Bank are thus subject to military law and military courts, whereas settlers benefit from the criminal law and criminal justice system applicable to civilians in Israel.”
¶ 137: "Moreover, regional and local councils of settlers have assumed de facto jurisdiction over the settlements in the West Bank . . ..”
¶ 138: "In East Jerusalem, domestic Israeli law has been applied since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. By its Government and Law Procedures Ordinance (No. 11), 5727-1967, of 28 June 1967, Israel declared that its domestic law, jurisdiction and administration were applicable to East Jerusalem, the geographical boundaries of which were expanded. . . . [F]rom the perspective of domestic law, Israel treats East Jerusalem as its own national territory, where Israeli law is applied in full and to the exclusion of any other domestic legal system.”
¶ 141: "For these reasons, the Court considers that Israel has exercised its regulatory authority as an occupying Power in a manner that is inconsistent with the rule reflected in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
¶ 143: "The Court observes that the large-scale confiscation of land and the deprivation of access to natural resources divest the local population of their basic means of subsistence, thus inducing their departure. Furthermore, a series of measures taken by Israeli military forces has exacerbated the pressure on the Palestinian population to leave parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory against their will (see paragraphs 180-229 below). Reports by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UnitedNations bodies document that Israel evicts or displaces hundreds of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory every year, commonly as a result of the demolition of their property or as a result of zoning and planning policies and the relocation plans associated with them. . . . [T]he Secretary-General of the United Nations reported that more than a thousand Palestinians were displaced between June 2022 and May 2023 after Israeli authorities demolished, confiscated or sealed their properties . . .. Also, demolitions caused the displacement of over 700 Palestinians between April 2021 and March 2022 . . ..”
¶ 144: "The Court recalls that, under the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”.”
¶ 145: "The purpose of the prohibition also indicates, in the Court’s view, that the provision protects an occupied population against any transfer that is involuntary in character. . . . Therefore, the absence of physical force does not exclude the possibility that the transfer in question is forcible.”
¶ 147: "The Court considers that Israel’s policies and practices, which it discusses in greater detail below (see paragraphs 180-229), including its forcible evictions, extensive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement, often leave little choice to members of the Palestinian population living in Area C but to leave their area of residence. The nature of Israel’s acts, including the fact that Israel frequently confiscates land following the demolition of Palestinian property for reallocation to Israeli settlements, indicates that its measures are not temporary in character and therefore cannot be considered as permissible evacuations.”
¶ 148: "The Court notes that Israel’s settlement policy has given rise to violence by settlers and security forces against Palestinians.”
¶ 149: “[T]he right to life of protected persons in the occupied territory is guaranteed under the rule reflected in Article 46 of the Hague Regulations. This rule is complemented by the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that protected persons shall be humanely treated and protected against all threats or acts of violence.”
¶ 150: "According to various United Nations reports, settlers often subject Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to extensive violence, which Israeli authorities fail to prevent or to punish . . ..”
¶ 151: "The Secretary-General of the United Nations has regularly documented an increase in the frequency and severity of attacks by settlers against Palestinians . . .. Other United Nations reports document incidents of armed settlers carrying out attacks inside Palestinian communities, sometimes in the proximity of the Israeli security forces who fail to intervene or, indeed, even support settlers in their attacks . . .. According to the Human Rights Committee, the lack of access for victims to justice and effective remedies fosters a “general climate of impunity” in the case of settler violence against Palestinians . . ..”
¶ 152: "Evidence before the Court indicates that Israeli security forces intervene with unnecessary or disproportionate force against Palestinians in the aftermath of settler attacks or in the context of Palestinian demonstrations against settlement expansion. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry has reported several incidents in which Israeli security forces have used live ammunition to suppress demonstrations by Palestinians resulting in hundreds of fatalities and injuries . . .. [M]ore Palestinians were killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2022 than in any other year since 2005 . . ..”
¶ 153: "Further, it is reported that Palestinian women and girls are subjected to gender-based violence in the form of excessive use of force and abuse, including physical, psychological and verbal abuse and sexual harassment, by Israeli security forces and settlers . . ..”
¶ 154: "In the present case, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Court is of the view that Israel’s systematic failure to prevent or to punish attacks by settlers against the life or bodily integrity of Palestinians, as well as Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinians, is inconsistent with the obligations identified in paragraph 149 above.”
¶ 155: "In light of the above, the Court reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the régime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law . . ..”
¶ 156: "The Court notes with grave concern reports that Israel’s settlement policy has been expanding . . .. In particular, in December 2022 Israel’s parliament approved the establishment of an additional minister within the Ministry of Defence vested with governing powers in the West Bank, including land designations, planning and co-ordination of demolitions, which would expedite the approval process for new settlements. Also, the size of existing Israeli settlements expanded from 1 November 2022 to 31 October 2023 at a significant rate, with approximately 24,300 housing units within existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank being advanced or approved, including approximately 9,670 in East Jerusalem (“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan . . ..”
¶ 158: "By the term “annexation”, in the present context, the Court understands the forcible acquisition by the occupying Power of the territory that it occupies, namely its integration into the territory of the occupying Power. Annexation, then, presupposes the intent of the occupying Power to exercise permanent control over the occupied territory.”
¶ 159: Regardless of the circumstances in which the occupation was brought about, the fact of the occupation alone cannot confer sovereign title to the occupying Power. Consequently, conduct by the occupying Power that displays an intent to exercise permanent control over the occupied territory may indicate an act of annexation.”
¶ 163: "Israel has asserted that East Jerusalem is part of its territory, as evidenced by the notification of the Israeli Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, according to which “Jerusalem is not, in any part, ‘occupied territory’; it is the sovereign capital of the State of Israel” . . .. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry reports that “[o]ver one third of East Jerusalem has been expropriated for the construction of Israeli settlements, and only 13 per cent of the annexed area is currently zoned for Palestinian construction” . . .. It adds that approximately 230,000 persons live in 14 settlements established in East Jerusalem . . ..”
¶ 165: "Because Israel treats East Jerusalem as its own territory, it regards Palestinians residing there as foreigners, and it requires that they hold a valid residence permit . . ..
¶ 166: "Turning to Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank, the Court observes that, pursuant to the Basic Law of 2018 (see paragraph 163 above), the State of Israel “views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation”. As noted above, considerable areas of land have already been declared as State land and allocated for the benefit of Israeli settlements (see paragraph 120). Palestinian construction is entirely prohibited in 70 per cent of Area C and severely restricted in the remaining 30 per cent of the area; less than 1 per cent of Area C is available to Palestinians for building housing and infrastructure (“Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel”, UN doc. A/77/328 (14 September 2022), paras. 39 and 42). The rate of expansion of Israeli settlements has been consistently increasing (see paragraph 156 above). The growth rate of the settler population in the West Bank appears to be significantly higher than that of the population in Israel and of the Palestinian population in the West Bank . . ..”
¶ 167: "The Court observes that the continued expansion of settlements in Area C increases Israel’s civilian and military presence in the territory and pushes the Palestinian population to other areas of the West Bank. This, together with the infrastructure régime associated with the settlements, advances the integration of large areas of the West Bank into the territory of Israel. . . . [T]he same is true for Israel’s policy of integrating the infrastructure in the West Bank, including the road network, with that of Israel, which results in the interlacement of the settlements in the West Bank with Israel in a contiguous area, fragmenting the remaining areas in the West Bank (see paragraph 200). These measures are designed to be of indefinite duration, as evidenced by the fact that they are not easily reversible.”
¶ 168: "In this connection, the Court takes note of the report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry, which observed in 2022 that “Israel treats the occupation as a permanent fixture and has — for all intents and purposes — annexed parts of the West Bank, while seeking to hide behind a fiction of temporariness. Actions by Israel constituting de facto annexation include expropriating land and natural resources, establishing settlements and outposts, maintaining a restrictive and discriminatory planning and building regime for Palestinians and extending Israeli law extraterritorially to Israeli settlers in the West Bank.”
¶ 173: "In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s policies and practices, including the maintenance and expansion of settlements, the construction of associated infrastructure, including the wall, the exploitation of natural resources, the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the comprehensive application of Israeli domestic law in East Jerusalem and its extensive application in the West Bank, entrench Israel’s control of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, notably of East Jerusalem and of Area C of the West Bank. These policies and practices are designed to remain in place indefinitely and to create irreversible effects on the ground. Consequently, the Court considers that these policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
¶ 175: "The annexation of occupied territory by an occupying Power is unlawful. Under the principle enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations,“[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. . . . “[n]o territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal” (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), Annex, first principle).”
¶ 176: "The Security Council affirmed this principle by resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, where it also declared that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status”. . . . More recently, the Security Council, in its resolution 2334 (2016) of 23 December 2016, stated that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”.
¶ 179: "The Court has found that Israel’s policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is the view of the Court that to seek to acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory, as shown by the policies and practices adopted by Israel in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, is contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and its corollary principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force.”
¶ 185: "The Court observes that the prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms forms part of the purposes of the United Nations. Under Article 1, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, one of the purposes of the United Nations is “[t]o achieve international co-operation . . . in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also provides that “[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” (Article 2.)”
¶ 194: "The Court considers that, at least in so far as it is applied in East Jerusalem, Israel’s residence permit policy results in the differential treatment of Palestinians in relation to their right to reside in East Jerusalem . . ..”
¶ 200: “. . . [T]here were 565 movement obstacles in the West Bank in early 2023, including 49 constantly staffed checkpoints and more than 300 roadblocks (OCHA, “Fact sheet: Movement and access in the West Bank” (August 2023)). Where Palestinians are allowed access to the restricted road network, this access is dependent on obtaining an individual travel permit, which is not required for settlers.
¶ 203: "Moreover, Israel’s restrictions on movement impede access of Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip to places of worship in East Jerusalem. Evidence before the Court indicates that restrictions such as checkpoints and area closures during holy days have prevented Palestinians from attending religious rituals . . ..”
¶ 204: "United Nations reports indicate that Israel’s security forces engage in the destruction of the roads and other infrastructure used by Palestinians in the West Bank . . .. Such activities further exacerbate the differentiation in the treatment of Palestinians with reference to their freedom of movement.”
¶ 205: "On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considers that, through its practice of restricting movement, Israel differentiates in its treatment of Palestinians with reference to their freedom of movement. . . . Moreover, the Court considers that Israel’s measures imposing restrictions on all Palestinians solely on account of their Palestinian identity are disproportionate to any legitimate public aim and cannot be justified with reference to security.”
¶ 207: "According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which has been compiling data on the practice of property demolition in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 2009, almost 11,000 Palestinian structures have been demolished since then. Properties demolished included more than 4,500 residential and livelihood structures, over 3,000 agricultural structures and almost 1,000 water, sanitation and hygiene structures (OCHA, “Data on demolition and displacement in the West Bank”). Israel’s practice of house demolitions takes two main forms: demolition of property as a punitive sanction for a criminal offence; and demolition of property for lack of a building permit.”
¶ 208: “[T]he military commander of the Israeli Defense Forces has the power to order the demolition of properties that are linked with individuals having committed any of a cluster of offences deemed to be terrorist in nature: these properties are primarily homes in which the individuals in question live, or have lived, or where their families live. Israel is reported to have demolished more than 2,000 Palestinian properties since the beginning of the occupation as punishment for criminal offences . . ..”
¶ 210: “[A]lthough several thousand Palestinian homes have been demolished . . ., the measure of punitive demolition appears never to have been used against properties connected to Israeli civilians having committed similar offences . . ..”
¶ 212: “[W]hile linked in some way to the individual having committed specific offences, the properties under demolition are commonly used or owned by a wide circle of people, including the individual’s family or relatives. In this regard, the Court observes that the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” This provision follows from the general principle of individual criminal responsibility, which prohibits attributing responsibility to an individual for acts of another. In the Court’s view, punitive demolition of property amounts to punishment of other persons living in or using this property for acts that they have not committed, and it is therefore contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
¶ 215: “. . . Palestinians have been excluded from the planning committees entrusted with issuing and enforcing building permits; in the 20 years prior to the report, 94 per cent of Palestinian permit applications had been denied. … It is reported that the approval rate of Palestinian permit applications has further declined since then . . . In July 2023, the head of infrastructure at the Israeli Civil Administration confirmed that more than 90 per cent of Palestinian requests for permits were rejected, while approximately 60-70 per cent of Israeli requests were discussed and approved . . ..”
¶ 217: "The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported the demolition of more than 7,000 Palestinian-owned structures between 2012 and 2022, mostly in Area C and East Jerusalem. Among these structures, more than 1,600 were structures providing humanitarian aid, more than 600 were water, sanitation and hygiene buildings, and more than 20 were schools educating approximately 1,300 children . . ..”
¶ 218: "According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, five times more demolition orders were issued for Palestinian structures than Israeli ones in the period 2019-2020. In light of the extensive unlicensed construction in settlements and outposts, the Secretary-General considered this to indicate discrimination against Palestinians . . ..”
¶ 220: "On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considers that Israel’s planning policy in relation to the issuance of building permits, and its practice of property demolition for lack of a building permit, constitutes differential treatment of Palestinians in the enjoyment of their right to be protected from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family and home, as guaranteed under Article 17, paragraph 1, of the ICCPR. [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966]”
¶ 223: “[T]he Court concludes that a broad array of legislation adopted and measures taken by Israel in its capacity as an occupying Power treat Palestinians differently on grounds specified by international law. . . . Accordingly, 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 . . ..”
¶ 225: "Article 3 of CERD [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965] provides as follows: “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.”
¶ 226: "The Court observes that Israel’s policies and practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem implement a separation between the Palestinian population and the settlers transferred by Israel to the territory.”
¶ 227: "This separation is first and foremost physical: Israel’s settlement policy furthers the fragmentation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the encirclement of Palestinian communities into enclaves. As a result of discriminatory policies and practices such as the imposition of a residence permit system and the use of distinct road networks, which the Court has discussed above, Palestinian communities remain physically isolated from each other and separated from the communities of settlers . . ..”
¶ 228: "As a result of the partial extension of Israeli law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, settlers and Palestinians are subject to distinct legal systems in the Occupied Palestinian Territory . . .. In addition, Israel’s legislation and measures that have been applicable for decades treat Palestinians differently from settlers in a wide range of fields of individual and social activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (see paragraphs 192-222 above).”
¶ 229: "The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.”
¶ 230: "The Court has found that Israel’s settlement policy, its acts of annexation, and its related discriminatory legislation and measures are in breach of international law. The Court now turns to the aspect of question (a) that enquires as to the effects of Israel’s policies and practices on the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.”
¶ 231: "The right of all peoples to self-determination has been recognized by the General Assembly as one of the “basic principles of international law” (Annex to resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970).”
¶ 232: "The Court has affirmed that the right of all peoples to self-determination is “one of the essential principles of contemporary international law” . . .. Indeed, it has recognized that the obligation to respect the right to self-determination is owed erga omnes [universally applicable] and that all States have a legal interest in protecting that right . . ..”
¶ 233: "The Human Rights Committee has explained that the importance of the right to self-determination stems from the fact that “its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights” . . .. [T]he General Assembly has repeatedly emphasized the significance of the right to self-determination as an “inalienable right” . . . “
¶ 237: “[T]he right to territorial integrity is recognized under customary international law as “a corollary of the right to self-determination” . . .. In the context of Palestine, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have called for “the respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” . . .. The Court considers that Israel, as the occupying Power, has the obligation not to impede the Palestinian people from exercising its right to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign State, over the entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
¶ 238: "The Court has already found that Israel’s settlement policy has fragmented the West Bank and severed East Jerusalem from it (see paragraph 164 above). The sprawl of settlements in the West Bank, coupled with the expansion of a road network to which Palestinians have limited or no access, has had the effect of encircling Palestinian communities in enclaves in the West Bank (see paragraphs 200 and 227 above). Moreover, Israel’s annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory violates the integrity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as an essential element of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.”
¶ 239: "Second, by virtue of the right to self-determination, a people is protected against acts aimed at dispersing the population and undermining its integrity as a people. . . . The Court has also found above that Israel’s settlement policy as a whole, its annexation of territory and its related legislation and measures that discriminate against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory contribute to the departure of Palestinians from certain areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, notably from Area C and East Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel’s strict restrictions on movement between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem divide the Palestinian populations living in different parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see paragraphs 202 and 206 above). In the Court’s view, these policies and practices undermine the integrity of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, significantly impeding the exercise of its right to self-determination.”
¶ 240: "A third element of the right to self-determination is the right to exercise permanent sovereignty over natural resources, which is a principle of customary international law . . .. The Court has already found above that Israel has been exploiting the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for its own benefit and for the benefit of settlements, in breach of its obligation to respect the Palestinian people’s permanent sovereignty over natural resources (see paragraph 133). In depriving the Palestinian people of its enjoyment of the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for decades, Israel has impeded the exercise of its right to self-determination.”
¶ 241: "Fourth, a key element of the right to self-determination is the right of a people freely to determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development. . . . The Court has already discussed the impact of Israel’s policies and practices on some aspects of the economic, social and cultural life of Palestinians, in particular by virtue of the impairment of their human rights. The dependence of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and especially of the Gaza Strip, on Israel for the provision of basic goods and services impairs the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to self-determination . . ..”
¶ 242: “[T]he Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia observed in 2023 that “Israeli-imposed restrictions, expansion of the illegal settlements and other practices not only prevent development but have also exacerbated the fragmentation of the Palestinian territory. These policies and practices have had a severe humanitarian, economic, social and political impact on Palestinians and their ability to exercise their fundamental human rights. Their repercussions have had a cumulative, multilayered and intergenerational impact on the Palestinian society, economy and environment and have caused the deterioration of the living conditions of the Palestinians, their forced displacement, ‘de-development’ of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, entrenchment of the Palestinian economy’s asymmetric dependence on Israel, and exacerbation of Palestinian institutional dependence on foreign aid.”
¶ 243: "The prolonged character of Israel’s unlawful policies and practices aggravates their violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”
¶ 247: "The Security Council, in its resolution 252 (1968), after reaffirming that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, declared that it “[c]onsiders that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status”. The Council also, by its resolution 446 (1979), called upon Israel “to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories”. Moreover, by resolution 465 (1980), the Council determined that“all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”.”
¶ 248: “[I]n 2015, [the General Assembly] called upon “Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and to cease all of its measures that are contrary to international law and all unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that are aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Territory, including the confiscation and de facto annexation of land, and thus at prejudging the final outcome of peace negotiations, with a view to achieving without delay an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967” (resolution 70/15 (2015)).”
¶ 253: "The Court observes that an occupation involves, by its very nature, a continued use of force in foreign territory. Such use of force is, however, subject to the rules of international law governing the legality of the use of force or jus ad bellum. As indicated . . . above, these rules prohibit the use of force to acquire territory.
¶ 254: "Israel’s assertion of sovereignty over and its annexation of certain parts of the territory constitute, as shown above, a violation of the prohibition of the 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. Nor can Israel’s security concerns override the principle of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force.”
¶ 256: "The Court observes that the effects of Israel’s policies and practices as discussed above, and its exercise of sovereignty over certain parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the West Bank and East Jerusalem, constitute an obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination (see paragraphs 234-243 above). The effects of these policies and practices include Israel’s annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the fragmentation of this territory, undermining its integrity, the deprivation of the Palestinian people of the enjoyment of the natural resources of the territory and its impairment of the Palestinian people’s right to pursue its economic, social and cultural development (see paragraphs 230-243 above).”
¶ 257: "The above-described effects of Israel’s policies and practices, resulting, inter alia, in the prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, constitute a breach of this fundamental right. “
¶ 261: "The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.”
¶ 262: "This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. This is the territorial unit across which Israel has imposed policies and practices to fragment and frustrate the ability of the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self-determination, and over large swathes of which it has extended Israeli sovereignty in violation of international law. The entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also the territory in relation to which the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its right to self-determination, the integrity of which must be respected.”
¶ 267: "With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.”
¶ 268: "Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity. Israel also has an obligation to repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as all measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.”
¶ 269: "Israel is also under an obligation to provide full reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons concerned . . .. The Court recalls that the essential principle is that “reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” . . ... Reparation includes restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction.”
¶ 270: "Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.”
¶ 272: "The Court emphasizes that the obligations flowing from Israel’s internationally wrongful acts do not release it from its continuing duty to perform the international obligations which its conduct is in breach of. Specifically, Israel remains bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law . . ..”
¶ 274: "The Court observes that the obligations violated by Israel include certain obligations erga omnes. As the Court indicated in the Barcelona Traction case, such obligations are by their very nature “the concern of all States” and “[i]n view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection” . . .. Among the obligations erga omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the obligation arising from the prohibition of the use of force to acquire territory as well as certain of its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”
¶ 276: "As regards the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, the Court notes that the Security Council has declared on several occasions, in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and has determined that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity” (Security Council resolution 465 (1980)). Moreover, the Security Council in resolution 2334 (2016) reaffirmed that “it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations”, and called upon “all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
¶277: "Similarly, the General Assembly has called upon all States
(a) Not to recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations, including by ensuring that agreements with Israel do not imply recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel in 1967;
(b) To distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
(c) Not to render aid or assistance to illegal settlement activities, including not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories, in line with Security Council resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980;
(d) To respect and ensure respect for international law, in all circumstances, including through measures of accountability, consistent with international law” (resolution 74/11 (2019)).
In its resolution 77/126, the General Assembly also called upon “all States, consistent with their obligations under international law and the relevant resolutions, not to recognize, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining, the situation created by measures that are illegal under international law, including those aimed at advancing annexation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
while in resolution 32/161 (1977), the General Assembly called upon “all States, international organizations, specialized agencies, investment corporations and all other institutions not to recognize, or cooperate with or assist in any manner in, any measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the resources of the occupied territories or to effect any changes in the demographic composition or geographic character or institutional structure of those territories”.
¶ 279: "Moreover, the Court considers that, in view of the character and importance of the rights and obligations involved, all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is for all States, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.”
¶ 280: "The duty of non-recognition specified above also applies to international organizations, including the United Nations, in view of the serious breaches of obligations erga omnes under international law. . . . In view of the character and importance of the obligations erga omnes involved in the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the obligation to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory apply also to the United Nations.”
¶ 282: "The Court considers it important to stress as it did in its Wall Advisory Opinion, “the urgent necessity for the United Nations as a whole to redouble its efforts to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which continues to pose a threat to international peace and security, to a speedy conclusion, thereby establishing a just and lasting peace in the region”.”
¶ 285: "For these reasons, THE COURT
(1) Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;
(2) Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
(3) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;
(4) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;
(5) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
(6) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
(7) Is of the opinion that all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
(8) Is of the
opinion that international
organizations, including the
United Nations, are under an
obligation not to recognize
as legal the situation
arising from the unlawful
presence of the State of
Israel in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory; and
(9) Is of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially 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 the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."