4 No. 75 JUSTICE n July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (the “ICJ” or the “Court”) issued its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (the “Advisory Opinion” or the “Opinion”), pursuant to United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/77/247 of December 30, 2022. This was not the first or only occasion on which the Court has been asked to address the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2004, it delivered its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“Wall Advisory Opinion”), finding that the construction of the barrier in what the Court defined as the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (“OPT” or the “Territories”) was contrary to international law. More recently, the Court has also been seized of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), instituted in December 2023, and of a subsequent General Assembly request (Resolution A/RES/79/232 of December 19, 2024) for an advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of Israel’s Policies and Practices regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), on which hearings were held in 2025. Against that broader background, the Opinion of July 2024 determined that Israel’s continued presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip is unlawful and should be brought to an end “as rapidly as possible.” The Court further held that Israel must cease all new settlement activity, evacuate settlers, and make reparation for damage caused in those territories, while also finding that Israel engages in discriminatory practices against Palestinians within the Territories. The “State of Palestine” submitted a statement to the Court in its capacity as an Observer State at the United Nations, alongside numerous countries – including the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Qatar. The State of Israel, on the other hand, decided not to participate in the proceedings, aside from a brief written statement submitted on July 24, 2023 challenging the appropriateness of the use of the Court’s advisory function. In that context, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (“IJL”) considered it especially important to submit its own written statement. As a non-state actor, the IJL had no right of participation in the proceedings, and it is unknown whether the judges reviewed its submission. Nevertheless, placing the IJL’s independent legal analysis on record was central to its mission, to ensure that the Court had the benefit of additional legal and factual perspectives not presented by the other participants, consistent with the IJL's vision of acting as the “legal arm of the Jewish people.” The IJL’s written statement emphasized four principal themes. First, it urged the Court to consider, as a threshold matter, whether it was judicially proper to answer the questions referred by the General Assembly, since they were framed in terms that presupposed contested legal and factual conclusions. Second, it argued that it is incorrect to assume that the Palestinians alone hold sovereign rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Drawing on a detailed historical and legal account, the IJL stressed that Israel has viable legal claims in these territories and that sovereignty remains unsettled, to be determined only through negotiations. Third, it emphasized that the governing framework for resolving the conflict lies in Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), reinforced by the Oslo Accords. These instruments remain binding: they require withdrawal from territory in the context of a peace agreement that ensures secure and recognized boundaries, and they commit both sides to resolve permanent-status issues only through negotiations. Finally, the IJL set out its view of the law of occupation: occupation is a matter of fact under the Hague Regulations; it is not rendered unlawful simply by the passage of time or by the fact that it affects self-determination; and the occupying power may use lawful force to maintain public order and security. Against the backdrop of ongoing attacks – including those of October 7, 2023 – the IJL argued that Israel’s continued presence is legally justified as a measure of self-defense, which may be invoked against non-state actors, subject to necessity and proportionality. Preface* Roy Schöndorf and Daniel Reisner * Special thanks to Ava Drai and Deyar Abu Rahal for their excellent and dedicated work on this important project. O
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=