ICJ: Occupation Illegal
Part 2: Scope of the World Court advisory opinion
It was quite an eye-opener to learn the scope of the World Court’s July 19th ruling on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. It is unfortunate that this ruling did not come a half century ago when the occupation began, but I attribute that to Israeli “exceptionalism”, which is what the world community has been applying to Israeli policies and practices for decades.
The standard response has been “It’s complicated”, and because there has been so little clarity and detailing of Israeli practices respecting the occupation, so much obfuscation, people have looked the other way. I did too, for many, many years, until 9/11 created the impulse to investigate its causes. The implicit and explicit message from the west has always been: “don’t compare Israel to other situations of oppression and inequality, or to universal principles such as equality under the law irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. You have to look at Israel differently because of the Holocaust, so therefore, park your principles of equality at the door.”
So now at last, the world’s highest court is indeed applying universally recognized principles of international law to the little rogue state, and its ruling is unequivocal. This is not a “conflict” where both sides have a “narrative” and both sides are entrenched and refuse to find peace. The Court has declared that it is a very long-standing illegal occupation which must end, and which state’s parties and the UN must endeavor to bring to an end as quickly as possible.
The Court stated that Israel’s policies and practices of:
- annexing land (East Jerusalem for starters)
- confiscation of Palestinian land & property
- exploitation of natural resources
- discriminatory legal regimes
- settlement/transfer of its own population into occupied territories
- restrictions on movement of Palestinians
- punitive demolition of Palestinian property in the West Bank & East Jerusalem
- frustration of the Palestinian right to self-determination
- violation of Palestinians’ economic, cultural and social rights
- racial segregation and apartheid (yes, it named it as such)
are all in violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
The Court then very clearly set down the obligations of Israel, states parties and the UN in light of this ruling, which I will describe next week in a piece on implications. It will be a preliminary understanding of the implications from an observer; much more is to come from the UN which will help us absorb the immense scope of this advisory opinion.
“The UN 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 territories” said the Court. The UN Commission on the oPt was mandated by the UN Human Rights Commission on 27 May, 2021. It brought the request to the UN General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion of the ICJ, which the UNGA approved in December, 2022. The Commission on the oPt will now report on the implications of this ruling, so we can expect a very specific and detailed report on what this looks like for the 193 countries, including Canada, who are automatically parties to the ICJ’s Statute under Article 93 of the UN Charter, by reason of being members of the United Nations. Canada has committed on the record to abide by ICJ decisions, and we will soon learn what our responsibilities will be in light of this very significant ruling.
(Next week: What are some implications of the ruling?)
