On 19th July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its ruling in the case formally known as Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 

This case was initiated by the United Nations General Assembly on 30th December 2022, when it asked the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on:

1. What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 … and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
2. How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to . . . above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?¹

ICJ’s ruling

In its response to these specific questions, the ICJ’s 83-page advisory opinion contained the following conclusion:

• the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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
• the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested the 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 (emphases added).²

As listed above, since the ICJ’s ruling is an “advisory opinion” and is non-binding, it is destined to go before the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council where consideration should be given to further action that is dedicated to ending Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “rapidly as possible”.

The United States is likely to veto any Security Council resolution which supports the ICJ’s ruling and proposes an action plan. In contrast, the General Assembly, representing all member states, does have the power to endorse the ICJ’s ruling, together with an action plan to end Israel’s unlawful presence.

Violations of international law identified

In arriving at its conclusion, the ICJ examined systemic discrimination plus violations of international law committed by Israel including:

• forcible evictions, extensive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement;
• the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem and maintenance of their presence;
• its failure to prevent or to punish attacks by settlers;
• restricting the access of the Palestinian population to vital water resources;
• Israel’s exploitation of the natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territory;
• the extension of Israel’s law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The court also rejected any argument that Israel has sovereignty over the territories, despite Israel’s predictable claims to the contrary. The court described Israel’s laws in the occupied territories as “tantamount to the crime of apartheid”.³

As indicated above, the ICJ emphasised that other nations were obliged “not to render aid or assistance” in sustaining Israel’s illegal occupation. In particular, it stated that Israel must end settlement construction immediately and that existing settlements must be removed.

Albanese government’s lamentable response

On 20th July, following the ICJ’s ruling, Foreign Minister Penny Wong published a statement on X which said that the Albanese government had been “firm and consistent” in claiming that Israel’s settlement activity was illegal under international law and a “significant obstacle” to peace.

She urged Israel to take “concrete steps” to end its settlement expansion program and to crack down on extremist settler violence. She added that the federal government was “carefully considering” the detail of ICJ’s advisory opinion in order to “fully understand the conclusions reached”.⁴

The above statement is demonstrably an inadequate response to the ICJ’s ruling.

To repeat, the ICJ’s ruling unambiguously requires Israel to at least:

• “bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible”;
• “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory”;
• “make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

Foreign Minister’s Penny Wong’s limited response totally ignores the above elements in the ICJ’s ruling.

It also fails to address the ICJ’s ruling for all states “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”.

In particular, the government has failed to hold the US government accountable for its crucial diplomatic and military support for Israel in this regard and it still refuses to formally recognise the Palestinian state, unlike the majority of United Nations’ members.⁵

The Albanese government’s resistance to imposing any meaningful sanctions on Israel for its genocidal war on Gaza is unacceptable. It now appears that it will follow suit by failing to apply any significant pressure on Israel to implement key elements of the ICJ’s ruling as listed above.

While such weak responses by the Albanese government to ICJ’s rulings may be welcomed by the Zionist lobby and the complicit US administration, they are blatantly at odds with defending the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, not to mention upholding international and humanitarian law.

“No aid, no assistance, no complicity …”

In responding to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Maliki told reporters in The Hague that the ruling represented a “watershed moment for Palestine, for justice and for international law”.

He stated: “The ICJ fulfilled its legal and moral duties with this historic ruling. All states must now uphold their clear obligations: no aid, no assistance, no complicity, no money, no arms, no trade, no nothing – no actions of any kind to support Israel’s illegal occupation.”⁶

It is time the Albanese government followed ICJ rulings and enacted sanctions against Israel in keeping with these rulings, not only in relation to settler violence in the occupied West Bank. It also needs to consistently support a UN rule-based international order, rather than a broken, hypocritical global order dominated by the United States.⁷

Notes
1. ICJ, ‘Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem: The Court gives its Advisory Opinion and responds to the questions posed by the General Assembly’, Press Release, Jul 19, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. ICJ, ‘Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Summary of the Advisory Opinion’, Jul 19, 2024.
4. Senator Penny Wong, ‘Statement on the International Court of Justice ruling on Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories’, X post, Jul 20, 2024. Refer also to Caitlin Cassidy, ‘Australia urges Israel to stop settler violence in Palestinian territory in wake of ICJ ruling’, The Guardian, Jul 20, 2024.
5. Refer to MPG’s post ‘Spain, Ireland and Norway have recognised a Palestinian state – what’s stopping Australia?’
6. Al Jazeera, ‘ICJ says Israel’s presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful’, News, Jul 19, 2024.
7. Michael T. Klare, ‘Biden’s “Rule-Based International Order” Is Broken’, The Nation, Nov 7, 2023.