Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of Israeli Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (2022)

On 30 December 2022, the GA passed resolution 77/247 requesting an ICJ advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the OPT, including East Jerusalem (A/RES/77/247). In the resolution, the GA expressed “grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power”, as well as the “tensions and violence in the recent period throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” (ibid.). The resolution also referenced the findings of a Special Committee that the GA had previously created to investigate the effect of Israeli practices,¹ and the ICJ’s previous 2004 advisory opinion on Israel’s construction of a wall in the OPT, also at the request of the GA.² First, the GA asked the Court to advise on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the “demographic composition, character and status” of Jerusalem as well as other legislation and policies. Secondly, it asked the Court to advise on the “legal status of the occupation” and the “legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status”.

The ICJ delivered its advisory opinion on 19 July 2024.³ The opinion found that a number of Israel’s policies were in violation of its obligations under international law. It determined that the transfer of settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and “forcible evictions, extensive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement” had violated Israel’s obligations under the Fourth Geneva Conventions.⁴ It found that Israel’s land policies overall, its use of natural resources and policies on water, and extension of Israeli law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem were not in conformity with the Hague regulations.⁵ The Court also observed that “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”⁶ and found 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”, was inconsistent with its legal obligations.⁷

In terms of the legal effects for other States, the ICJ determined that the GA and the SC have a particular responsibility with regard to ending Israel’s “illegal presence in the Occupied Territory and the full realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”, but that all States have a responsibility to cooperate with the UN to put these into effect.⁸ It also found that all States have obligations under the Geneva Conventions to ensure Israel’s compliance with IHL.⁹ A majority also decided 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”.¹⁰

At the start of the 79th session, Mauritania, the Syrian Arab Republic and Uganda requested that the 10th emergency special session be resumed to “consider urgent follow-up on the advisory opinion” (A/ES-10/1009). The 10th emergency special session reconvened from 17 to 18 September 2024 and adopted resolution ES-10/24 as the primary response to the ICJ opinion, although subsequent resolutions passed in the 79th session also referenced the opinion.

Resolution ES-10/24 demanded that Israel end its presence in the OPT within 12 months and called on States “to comply with their obligations under international law … as reflected in the advisory opinion” by not recognizing Israel’s occupation as legal; by not rendering “aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence” in the OPT; and by not recognizing “any change in the physical character or demographic composition” of occupied areas, including East Jerusalem (A/RES/ES-10/24, paras. 2, 4). Relatedly, the resolution called for all States to take steps to ensure that nationals, companies and entities under their jurisdiction do not facilitate the continued “unlawful” occupation or presence of settlements in the OPT, encouraged sanctions and boycotts of products originating from settlements, and supported travel bans and asset freezes for those maintaining the “unlawful presence” of settlers or facilitating settler violence (ibid., para. 5). It also called for Israel to comply with all legal obligations under international law, as stipulated by the ICJ, including putting an end to all new settlement activity, evacuating settlers from the OPT, dismantling parts of the separation wall in that territory, allowing displaced Palestinians to return and making reparations for damage caused (ibid., para. 3).

Resolution ES-10/24 included several provisions encouraging accountability for violations of international law in the OPT, including calling for a convening of the parties to the Geneva Convention and reiterating prior recommendations for an international mechanism of reparation for damage, loss or injury (ibid., paras. 9-12). The resolution also called for a conference on a two-State solution to be convened under GA auspices (ibid., para. 13).