7 Fall 2025 temporary security measure, particularly in light of the events of October 7, 2023. The Court, however, reached a different conclusion. It found that Israel’s occupation has been rendered unlawful by its policies and practices, which the Court considered to demonstrate an intent to establish permanent control and amount to annexation. It linked this to violations of the Palestinian right to self-determination, Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights treaties. On this basis, the Court concluded that Israel must withdraw from the “OPT” “as rapidly as possible.” Separate and dissenting opinions revealed deep division. Judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu sharply criticized the majority for failing to provide a coherent legal basis for declaring the occupation unlawful. They argued that while specific policies may breach international law, this does not mean the occupation itself is unlawful, and they faulted the Court for disregarding Israel’s legitimate security concerns. Vice-President Sebutinde similarly rejected the finding of illegality, emphasizing that the Court should not have bypassed the framework of negotiation under Resolutions 242 and 338. Additional Issues Covered by the Court The Court also addressed issues that were not the subject of the IJL’s submission. These included findings that certain Israeli measures in the Territories constitute prohibited discrimination under international human rights law – for example, restrictions on residence and movement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – and that Israel breached Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), namely the obligation to prevent, prohibit and eradicate racial segregation and apartheid. The Court itself did not label the situation “apartheid,” though some judges used that term in their separate declarations and opinions. The Court further examined the question of natural resources, concluding that Israel’s exploitation of resources in the Territories is inconsistent with the Palestinian people’s right to permanent sovereignty over natural resources. On Gaza, the Court adopted a functional approach following Israel’s 2005 disengagement, holding that Israel remains bound by obligations under the law of occupation commensurate with the degree of its effective control (notably over borders, airspace, and maritime areas). The Court’s conclusion that Israel’s continued presence is unlawful was applied to the entire Territories, including Gaza. Several judges expressed reservations. Judge Iwasawa stressed that Israel is not required to withdraw “immediately and unconditionally,” particularly in view of the hostilities since October 7, 2023. In their Joint Opinion, Judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu criticized the majority for lacking a sufficient legal basis to declare the occupation unlawful across the whole Territories, including Gaza. The Court also clarified that the Opinion did not address Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict postOctober 7, 2023. Conclusion The Advisory Opinion of July 19, 2024, marks a significant moment in the Court’s engagement with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but it is also a deeply contested one. The divisions within the Court – evident in the separate and dissenting opinions and declarations – highlight the complexity of the legal and political questions at stake. In choosing to publish its submission in these pages, the IJL seeks to ensure that its analysis forms part of the broader legal conversation on these issues. As an association of jurists, it had no formal role in the proceedings, and it remains unknown whether its submission was considered by the Court. Yet, the arguments it placed on record underscore central points that remain unresolved: the question of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the continuing legal force of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the Oslo Accords, and the proper understanding of occupation under international law. This special issue of JUSTICE presents the IJL’s submission in full. By placing it on record here, the IJL affirms the importance of articulating positions grounded in international law and of ensuring that the legal voice of the Jewish people continues to be heard in international fora. n Dr. Roy Schöndorf heads the International Dispute Resolution practice at Herzog Fox & Neeman, representing governments and multinational clients in complex cross-border disputes. From 2013 to 2022, he served as Israel’s Deputy Attorney General (International Law) and represented Israel before international tribunals including the ICJ and ICC. Adv. Daniel Reisner heads the international law, international trade and national security practice at Herzog Fox & Neeman in Tel Aviv. He is one of Israel’s leading public international lawyers, with a rich previous career in government and the IDF. He serves as the IJL's Deputy-President.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=