On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly passed resolution A/RES/77/247 in which it asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to opine on two questions:

First, what are the legal consequences arising from the violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination by Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 (OPT),  including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?

Second, how do these Israeli policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the UN from that status?<

On 19 July 2024, 20 years and 10 days since the ICJ rendered its Wall advisory opinion, the world court delivered a bombshell. All ICJ judges agreed that the above questions fall with the court’s jurisdiction and all but one of the 15 judges (Vice-President Sebitunde) decided that the court should comply with the request for an advisory opinion (given it has discretion whether to do so). The same resounding majority found that ‘Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the OPT’ and that it ‘has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the OPT’.

A smaller yet significant majority, 11-4 (Vice-President Sebitunde joined by judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu) found that ‘Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful’ and that it ‘is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible’. The court reached this conclusion in light of the violation of two key principles of international law: the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and the right of peoples (in this case, the Palestinian people) to self-determination. The aims and realities of the settlement project in cementing Israel’s presence in the OPT rendering the occupation’s temporariness a façade, and in instituting a discriminatory regime whereby two populations, Israelis and Palestinians, living in the same occupied territory, are subject to different legal regimes, played a crucial role in the court’s determination that the entire Israeli presence in the OPT has become illegal.

When it comes to the responsibilities of other states, by a 12-3 majority (Vice-President Sebitunde joined by judges Abraham and Aurescu) the ICJ found that

‘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 OPT and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the OPT’.

They also found that:

‘international organisations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT.’

Finally, they found 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 OPT.’

This advisory opinion is ground-breaking: by ripping the mask of temporality off the face of Israel’s prolonged occupation, by identifying the settlement project as its core ongoing harm, and by highlighting the critical role the international community (can and must) play in bringing the unlawful situation to a rapid end.