Key Points From the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Legitimacy of Israel’s Policies
On July 19, the ICJ’s significant advisory opinion shed light on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine. The Court determined that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is a clear breach of international law and amounts to apartheid.
The ICJ’s recent ruling has urged the United Nations to take decisive action highlighting that the international community’s failure to enforce earlier recommendations has exacerbated Israel’s disregard for international legal norms.
To help keep you in the loop with the details of this latest advisory ruling, here are the key points that ICJ judges have made.
FWTW, our Muslim Girl founder Amani has created a condensed video to demystify the entire situation.
Judges Agreeing with the ICJ’s Findings
- President Salam
- Supported the ICJ’s conclusions about the unlawfulness of Israel’s presence in Palestine and called for immediate withdrawal.
- Criticized Israel’s illegal policies and practices, including apartheid, and urged effective actions against these violations.
- Judge Tladi
- Fully agreed with the ICJ’s finding of Israel’s presence as unlawful and the need for rapid withdrawal.
- Emphasized the international community’s role, critiqued the Court’s discretion in advisory opinions, supported recognizing the right of self-determination, and discussed obligations for the UN.
- Judge Xue
- Supported the ICJ’s findings and emphasized the peremptory nature of the right to self-determination.
- Stressed that Israel’s policies could not be justified by security concerns and must cease immediately.
- Judges Nolte and Cleveland
- Agreed that Israel’s continued presence is unlawful and must end rapidly.
- Critiqued the exclusion of Gaza from the Opinion and the justification for Israel’s territorial claims.
- Judge Charlesworth
- Supported the Court’s conclusions but called for more detailed reasoning on discrimination and the legal basis for Israel’s occupation.
- Argued that Israel’s occupation lacks a valid legal basis and is not justified by self-defense principles.
- Judge Iwasawa
- Generally agreed with the Court’s findings but notes some limitations.
- Pointed out the temporal limitation regarding Gaza and the need for more detailed treatment of discriminatory practices.
Judges Disagreeing with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion
- Vice-President Sebutinde
- Criticized the Advisory Opinion for lack of balanced information and procedural issues.
- Believed the Opinion bypasses the existing negotiation framework and criticizes the impracticality of the proposed timeline for withdrawal.
Follow Muslim Girl on all social media platforms for more frequent updates about the situation in Palestine.
