The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was created to rule on disputes between nations. It also issues advisory opinions on international legal issues which are nonbinding and entirely unenforceable. Nonetheless, ICJ rulings carry some persuasive weight and have international diplomatic implications.
In January 2023, the U.N. General Assembly (by a vote of 87-23) posed a series of loaded questions to the ICJ. It requested an advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences arising “from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, [and] from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967,” and a ruling on how Israel’s “policies and practices” in the territories “affect the legal status of the occupation.”
On July 19, the 15-member ICJ issued a barrage of anti-Israel “rulings” that will undoubtedly complicate ongoing efforts to solve Israel’s war in Gaza and hostilities with Hezbollah, Israel’s efforts to quell growing unrest in the West Bank and mounting international challenges to the legitimacy of Israel’s rule over East Jerusalem and the territories.
The ICJ “ruled” that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal and that Israel’s administration within those areas constitutes apartheid. The ICJ called Israel’s occupation of the areas a “de facto annexation,” and accused Israel of “systematic discrimination, segregation and apartheid.”
The court also ruled that Israel’s West Bank settlements are illegal and that Israel must dismantle the settlements and make restitution for the illegal occupation — including the “evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.”
Concerning Gaza, the ICJ concluded that despite Israel’s withdrawal from the area in 2005, Gaza is effectively “occupied” because of Israel’s ability to control Gaza’s borders and restrict the passage of goods and people.
Nothing about the ICJ ruling was a surprise. And Israel’s outraged reaction to the offensive, one-sided nature of the rulings along with its leadership’s back of the hand dismissal of ICJ’s conclusions were fully expected and largely justified.
No one expects the ICJ ruling to trigger a policy overhaul in Israel or a material change in the positions of international governments regarding the Jewish state. But the rulings will embolden those who continue to criticize Israel’s clumsy administration of an impossible situation in its 57 years of occupation, and its repeated declarations of opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state or to annex the territories.
We agree that the ICJ ruling was one-sided and that much of what it says is wrong. We also know that the ruling is purely advisory. But Israeli leadership cannot afford to ignore it. International perception and opinion matter. Israel needs to take steps to address those concerns.
