What are the possible implications of the Advisory Opinion for the United Kingdom and Cyprus with regard to the UK’s arms and surveillance support to Israel through its military bases in Cyprus? This post argues that the third State obligations identified by the Court, including the duty not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal situation, also apply to the current war in Gaza.
In the OPT Advisory Opinion, the ICJ considered that Israel’s abuse of its position as an Occupying Power, through de jure and de facto annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, renders Israel’s presence in the OPT unlawful. In determining the legal consequences of this illegal presence, the Court held by a vote of 12:3, that all States are under an obligation “not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This holding was not accompanied by any concretization in either the Advisory Opinion or any of the many declarations and separate opinions attached to it.
While international law accepts that States may employ otherwise prohibited actions in exceptional circumstances and within certain constraints, the Advisory Opinion firmly affirms that security cannot justify illegal actions such as annexation or prolonged occupation. The rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, cannot be compromised by security claims. The Advisory Opinion serves to limit State practices predicated upon security when those practices violate essential rights and when the security claim is based upon an illegal situation created by the very State which invokes security concerns.
This post analyses the separation between jus ad bellum / in bello as arising from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. This separation was challenged by many States appearing before the Court, some of which implied that Israel’s policies and practices, as violations of jus in bello, rendered the occupation unlawful under jus ad bellum. The Court ultimately reaffirmed the separation with a twofold argument, namely qualifying the ‘legality of the occupation’ as a jus ad bellum question, and framing Israel’s policies and practices (prolonged occupation, annexation, and settlement policy) as violations of jus ad bellum.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine, or more accurately, between the two Peoples, has persisted for over a century. A tragic reminder of the unbearable costs of this conflict is the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, and the ensuing war, which has led to horrific consequences, with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed, many severely injured, and extensive damage to the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. In these circumstances, an important question arises: what role should international law and international tribunals play in mitigating the grave harm to all those involved in the conflict?
The accepted framework for settling the Palestine question through bilateral negotiations, in legal terms, does not survive the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The degree to which the Advisory Opinion catalyses a new political framework remains to be seen. But the Advisory Opinion gives the Palestinians newfound agency in shaping one.
The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" was a groundbreaking moment in international law. It has consequences not only for Israel, but also for third States, as well as international and regional organizations, in terms of non-recognition and non-cooperation. In this blog symposium, Palestinian, Israeli, and other scholars take stock of the Advisory Opinion and its regional and global impact.
Der infolge des terroristischen Überfalls und Massenmords durch die Hamas ausgebrochene Gaza-Krieg wirft unentwegt auch rechtliche Fragen auf. Schon mehrfach hat sich dabei die deutsche Bundesregierung vor Gericht wiedergefunden. Als zweitgrößter Rüstungslieferant musste sich die Bundesrepublik vor dem IGH und deutschen Gerichten für die Unterstützung Israels angesichts zahlreicher Berichte über dessen völkerrechtswidrige Kriegsführung rechtfertigen. Jetzt hat das Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt im Eilrechtsschutz entschieden: Bestehende Genehmigungen für deutsche Rüstungsexporte nach Israel dürfen weiter genutzt werden. Die Entscheidung lässt inhaltlich viele Fragen offen und wirft methodisch einige weitere auf. Sie spricht grund- und menschenrechtliche Möglichkeiten an, wo keine bestehen. Und verwirft sie vorschnell, wo sie durchaus weiterführen könnten.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN body essentially responsible for resolving inter-state disputes, has been increasingly asked to consider matters with implications for individual criminal responsibility – a predominant concern of international criminal law. In some cases, the link is direct; for instance, in the last two years, the Genocide Convention has been invoked twice on behalf of Ukraine and Gaza. Although for the ICJ, its application is a question of State responsibility, it will give rise to questions of individual responsibility in other international and domestic fora.
Today, various commentators are asking about the purpose behind the pager attack and the subsequent communication device attack yesterday. The New York Times’s detailed report of the incidents announces in its title that Israel has built a “Modern-Day Trojan Horse”. The idea comes from Greek history, but perhaps a better comparison might be found in Greek myth. Prometheus stole fire from the gods. Today, Israel is attempting to develop secularized but God-like technological capabilities, at least in terms of their ability to generate surprise and change reality overnight. Yet, by discarding moral or political considerations in favor of pyrotechnics, Israel risks Prometheus’s ultimate fate: punishment.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters