Source: Indian Express 

Introduction  

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel's long-standing occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal under international law. The ICJ called for an immediate end to the occupation, criticizing Israel's settlement policy, annexation efforts, and discriminatory practices against Palestinians. This landmark decision, requested by the UN General Assembly, could have significant implications for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and international relations in the region. 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

• ICJ was established in 1945 by the United Nations charter and started working in April 1946. 
• It is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, situated at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). 
• Unlike the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (USA). 
• It settles legal disputes between States and gives advisory opinions in accordance with international law, on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. 
• It has 193 state parties, and the current President is Judge Nawaf Salam from Lebanon. 
• Indian Judges at the ICJ 
  • Judge Dalveer Bhandari: Member of the Court since 27 April 2012 
  • Raghunandan Swarup Pathak: 1989-1991 
  • Nagendra Singh: 1973-1988 
  • Sir Benegal Rau: 1952-1953 

What is Israel-Palestine Conflict? 

• 1917: Balfour Declaration supported Jewish "national home" in Palestine. 
• 1948: Britain withdrew; UN partition plan rejected by Arab nations. 
• 1948: Israel declared independence, sparking Arab-Israeli War. 
• Post-war: Jordan controlled West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. 
• 1964: Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) formed. 
• 1967: Six-Day War; Israel seized territories from Syria, Jordan, Egypt. 
• 1975: UN granted PLO observer status. 
• 1978: Camp David Accords attempted peace, largely unfulfilled. 
• 1987: Hamas founded; First Intifada began. 
• 1993: Oslo Accords; Israel and PLO mutual recognition. 
• 2005: Israel withdrew from Gaza but maintained blockade. 
• 2006: Hamas won Palestinian elections, later took control of Gaza. 
• 2012: UN upgraded Palestinian status to "non-member observer state". 
• West Bank: Controlled by Israel since 1967; settlements established. 
• Gaza: Israel occupied post-1967; withdrew settlements in 2005. 
• Golan Heights: Captured from Syria in 1967; annexed by Israel in 1981. 
• Recent: USA recognized Jerusalem and Golan Heights as part of Israel.  

How was Occupation Defined and How does It Apply to Israel's Presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? 

• Occupation in international law is defined by actual control of territory by a foreign army. 
• This definition comes from the 1907 Hague Convention and is widely accepted. 
• The 1907 Hague Convention's definition focuses on the actual control of territory by a foreign military force, rather than any claims of sovereignty. It's important because it allows for objective assessment of situations on the ground, regardless of political rhetoric or disputed claims. 
• Israel has occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem since winning the Six-Day War in 1967. 
  • These areas were previously controlled by Jordan. 
• Israel's occupation has lasted for over 50 years and significantly impacts Palestinian lives. 
  • Occupations are meant to be temporary. 
  • Occupying powers should work towards ending the occupation. 
  • Occupations cannot transfer sovereignty to the occupying power. 
  • This rule protects the rights of the occupied population. 
• International law doesn't specify a time limit for occupations. 
• The legality of an occupation is judged by the occupier's policies and practices. 
• The ICJ ruled that Israel's occupation goes beyond temporary. 
• The ICJ considered both the 57-year duration and Israel's actions in the occupied territories. 
  • The court found that Israel's occupation violates principles of international law. 
  • This ruling could have significant implications for Israel's international standing. 
  • The ICJ's decision may set a precedent for evaluating other long-term occupations. 
  • This could affect how situations like Northern Cyprus or Western Sahara are viewed legally. 
  • The ruling attempts to apply established laws to complex, modern geopolitical situations. 

What was the Settlement Policy on Violation of International Law? 

• The court identified several ways in which Israel's settlement activities breach established legal norms:   
  • Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Article 49 of this convention explicitly prohibits an occupying power from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory.  
    • The ICJ found that Israel's settlement policy, combined with its military measures, has forced Palestinians to leave parts of the occupied territories against their will.      
  • Breach of the Hague Regulations: The court determined that Israel's expansion of settlements through "confiscation or requisitioning of large areas of land" violates Articles 46, 52, and 55 of the Hague Regulations.  
    • These articles protect private property, civilian objects, and the natural environment in occupied territories.      
  • Disregard for Local Laws: Article 43 of the Hague Regulations requires occupying powers to respect the laws in force in occupied territories.  
    • The ICJ observed that Israel treats its settlements and occupied East Jerusalem "as its own national territory, where Israeli law is applied in full and to the exclusion of any other domestic legal system."   
• The ICJ defined annexation as permanent control over occupied territory. 
• The court found that Israel's policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are designed to create irreversible effects. 
• The ICJ identified four main actions by Israel contributing to de facto annexation:  
  • Maintaining and expanding settlements  
  • Exploiting Palestine's natural resources  
  • Declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital  
  • Applying Israeli domestic law in East Jerusalem and the West Bank 
• These actions are considered contrary to the prohibition of force in international relations. 
• The court stated that these measures directly affect the legality of Israel's continued occupation. 
• The ICJ's findings highlight the gradual erosion of Palestinian sovereignty. 
• The court's opinion suggests these actions threaten the potential for a two-state solution. 
• The ICJ's ruling on annexation is significant in light of recent global events, such as Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine. 
• The opinion reaffirms the international community's rejection of territorial acquisition through force. 
• The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining territorial integrity in occupied areas. 
• This ruling provides a legal framework for assessing similar situations of potential annexation globally. 
• The ICJ's opinion strengthens the legal basis for opposing annexation attempts in various international contexts.

How Does Systemic Discrimination Impede Palestinian Rights? 

• ICJ found systemic discrimination against Palestinians in occupied territories. 
• Israeli legislation treats Palestinians differently based on race, religion, or ethnic origin. 
• This discrimination violates three major international agreements:  
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1954) 
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1954) 
  • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD, 1965) 
• ICJ observed "near-complete separation" between settlers and Palestinians. 
• Court concluded Israel violates Article 3 of ICERD. 
• Article 3 of ICERD requires states to eradicate apartheid and racial segregation. 
• ICJ's assessment goes beyond individual incidents, pointing to a pervasive pattern. 
• Court highlights fundamental undermining of Palestinian rights and dignity. 
• Discrimination is characterized as systemic, not isolated. 
• ICJ's framing elevates the discussion to a broader level of human rights concerns. 
• Opinion suggests discrimination is inherent in Israel's occupation policies. 
• Court's findings imply long-term, structural issues in Israel's treatment of Palestinians. 

What's at Stake in the Palestinian Right to Self-Determination? 

• ICJ emphasized the right to self-determination as a fundamental principle of international law. 
• Court stated Israel's occupation violates Palestinians' right to self-determination. 
• ICJ declared Palestinians have been deprived of this right for a long period. 
• Court warned that prolonging current policies undermines future exercise of self-determination. 
• The right to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
• ICJ's framing places Palestinian struggle in context of decolonization and national liberation movements. 
• This aspect of the ruling may resonate strongly with nations in the Global South. 
• Court's opinion could galvanize increased international support for Palestinian statehood. 
• Ruling may put additional pressure on Israel to end its occupation. 
• ICJ's statement condemns both past and present actions by Israel. 
• The court's opinion has far-reaching implications for the future of the region. 
• Framing the issue as self-determination elevates it to a fundamental human rights concern. 

Conclusion

The ICJ's ruling on Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a landmark decision with far-reaching implications. By declaring the occupation illegal under international law, criticizing settlement policies, and highlighting systemic discrimination, the court has provided a strong legal basis for addressing the long-standing conflict. The emphasis on Palestinians' right to self-determination places the issue within the broader context of human rights and decolonization, potentially galvanizing international support for Palestinian statehood and increasing pressure on Israel to end its occupation.