The Court responded to a request for an opinion of the General Assembly on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
The advice of the IGH is a legal opinion of the Court on matters of international law.
Unlike rulings in disputes between states, advisory opinions are non-binding and are requested by United Nations organs such as the General Assembly or the Security Council.
Although not legally binding, advisory opinions can influence international policy, increase moral pressure and trigger unilateral measures by individual states, such as sanctions.
Israel’s Obligations
In his adviceThe ICJ concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and that it is obliged to end its unlawful presence “as soon as possible”.
Israel is also “obliged to immediately cease all new settlement activities and evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the advisory continues, and “to repair the damage caused to all natural or legal persons concerned.”
Obligations of States
It further stated that “all States have the obligation not to recognize as legal the situation resulting from the unlawful presence” of Israel.
States are also obliged “not to provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
Obligations of international organizations
For international organizations, including the UN, the Court pointed to the “obligation not to recognize as legal the situation resulting from the unlawful presence” of Israel.
The ICJ further noted that the UN, and in particular the General Assembly and the Security Council, “must consider the precise modalities and further measures necessary to put an end as expeditiously as possible to the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
Call for involvement
After the advisory was issued, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated its call on the parties to resume the “long-delayed political path” to end the occupation and resolve the conflict in accordance with international law, relevant UN resolutions and bilateral agreements.
“The only viable path is the vision of two states – Israel and a fully independent, democratic, contiguous, viable and sovereign Palestinian state – living side by side in peace and security within secure and recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states,” his spokesman said in a statement. rack.
The statement also said the UN chief will immediately transmit the advice to the General Assembly, which had requested the court’s opinion.
“It is up to the General Assembly to decide how to proceed in this matter,” the statement said.
Israel’s response
According to media reports, the Israeli Foreign Ministry has rejected the ICJ’s opinion as “fundamentally wrong” and “clearly one-sided.”
It also reiterated its position that a political solution in the region can only be achieved through “direct negotiations”.
Request of the General Assembly
In December 2022, the General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting, among other things, the ICJ to give its opinion on the basis of Article 96 of the UN Charter And Article 65 of the Statute of the Court.
The advisory report sets out the legal consequences of Israel’s “continued violation” of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, resulting from its prolonged occupation, colonization and annexation of territories occupied since 1967 and discriminatory measures, including those affecting the demographic composition and status of Jerusalem.
An attempt was also made to understand how Israeli policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation and its legal consequences.
