ICJ’s 2024 Advisory Opinion: A Turning Point for Israeli Occupation

On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to deliver a groundbreaking advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This ruling could potentially reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and redefine international obligations towards the conflict.

The Core Questions

The ICJ will address two critical questions:

1. What are the legal consequences of Israel’s ongoing actions in the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967, including:
   • Violation of Palestinians’ right to self-determination
   • Prolonged occupation
   • Settlement expansion
   • Annexation attempts
   • Alterations to Jerusalem’s demographic composition and status
   • Implementation of discriminatory legislation
2. How do these policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation, and what obligations arise for other states and the United Nations?

With these two questions, the UN essentially seeks to determine whether Israel’s occupation is illegal, if Israel is guilty of apartheid, what actions Israel should take, and whether other countries are obligated to compel Israel to respect international law.

Why This Opinion Matters

Potential for Broader Interpretation

The ICJ has previously demonstrated its willingness to address issues beyond the specific questions posed. In 2004, when asked about the Israeli separation wall, the court also ruled on the illegality of settlements and affirmed Palestinians’ right to self-determination. And the wall, together with the the associated military administration, violates many human rights. The court made four significant statements:

1. States must ensure they do not contribute to maintaining the situation created by the construction of the wall.

2. States are obliged to ensure that Israel, the occupying power, complies with its obligations under the law of war.

3. States must cooperate to end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.

4. States must assist Palestinians in realizing their right to self-determination and help them establish an independent state.

Since these statements are vague, pro-Israel Western states have done almost nothing. They felt that voting on UN resolutions, giving money and advice to the Palestinians (to supposedly build the state institutions) would suffice. The judges can now say that states should do much more, such as banning products from the occupied territories and sanctioning Israel. They can also declare that practices like selling houses from the occupied territories in the West should be prohibited.

Strengthening Previous Rulings

It is also important that the judges reaffirm their 2004 statements, as this would strengthen the legal standing of their previous ruling. Additionally, the court will address a new issue: the legality of the occupation itself. International law has evolved significantly since 1900, making war and the conquest of territory illegal. This shift has led to changing perspectives on occupations, which were initially considered legal. During the hearing in February, the Netherlands argued that the annexation of occupied territory is prohibited and that an occupation must be temporary. An occupation can only be legitimate if it is necessary and proportionate in response to an armed attack and if it respects human rights and international humanitarian law (laws of war).

Potential Declaration of War Crimes

The court may follow the Netherlands’ testimony from February 2024, which suggested that settlements in occupied territories constitute war crimes. Such a ruling could have far-reaching implications, including potential indictments by the International Criminal Court.

Apartheid Designation

The ICJ could potentially rule that Israel’s discriminatory measures amount to apartheid, a severe war crime under international law. This would settle ongoing debates and could dramatically shift international perspectives on the conflict.

Implications for the International Community

While ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant weight as authoritative interpretations of international law. The 2024 opinion could:

1. Increase pressure on countries to take concrete actions against the occupation
2. Make it more difficult for Western nations to maintain a passive stance
3. Clarify and potentially expand the obligations of other states in addressing the conflict
4. Provide a legal basis for more robust international intervention