The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held a landmark hearing between 19 and 26 February to hear oral arguments by 51 countries and three international organizations on the legal consequences of Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian territories. The judges must consider all the arguments, including 57 written submissions, and provide an advisory opinion. No other application before the ICJ has involved this many countries, except for the 2003 West Bank wall case.
The large number of countries intervening is unsurprising, considering that the opinion was requested by a December 2022 United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution that passed with 87 votes in favour, 26 against, and 53 abstentions. Of the 40 African countries present for the vote, 26 voted in favor, four against, and 10 abstained. Palestine's legal team drew on its July 2023 written submissions and subsequent events in Gaza. The lawyers argued against the continued occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, which they referred to as colonisation, racist violence, and apartheid.
On 20 February, the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza after the US vetoed it. Four resolutions have now been vetoed, three by the US. The US presented its oral arguments at the ICJ, saying the court should not order Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories without security guarantees. The US also argued that there shouldn’t be a time limit to Israel’s occupation, and that the Security Council remained the best forum for deciding security matters.
Israel has rejected the ICJ process as illegitimate, unwarranted, and harmful. On 19 February, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated this position, saying the ICJ proceedings were “an effort designed to infringe on Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats”. With most countries aligning with Palestine’s views on the occupation, Israel may be concerned that its support base is shrinking.
Of the 63 nations that are party to the proceedings, only three (Israel, the US, and Hungary) have made statements unequivocally defending the legality of the occupation. While not rejecting the ICJ’s role, Canada, Togo, and Zambia’s written submissions argued that the proceedings could undermine stability in Israel and Palestine and ongoing negotiations, and called on the court not to issue an opinion. Other countries, like Fiji, argued that the UN General Assembly’s request was biased, politicized, and undermined the court’s integrity. France asserted Israel’s right to defend itself, but referred to the occupation as colonisation, rejecting further forceful acquisition of territories and calling on Israel to grant Palestinians protections and rights.
Most states (40), along with the League of Arab States, African Union (AU), and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, welcomed an ICJ advisory opinion to settle the issue. They argued that by transferring parts of its civilian population into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel violated Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits occupying powers from deporting or transferring parts of their civilian population into the territory they occupy. This reaffirms the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the West Bank wall.
The advisory opinion is likely to come out long before South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel on genocide in Gaza is decided. Israel had until 26 February to report on its implementation of the court’s provisional measures to prevent genocide in Gaza. Israel’s report back is likely to include humanitarian measures and efforts to deal with incitement.
