A Commentary on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19 July 2024 Regarding Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

Abstract

This article pays attention to the most controversial issues raised by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter also — the Court) in its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 Regarding Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. This Advisory Opinion is the second to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and is a logical continuation of the first one. The Court confirmed what has been already obvious to the majority of the international community — the fact of Israel's violation of international law in Palestine. Even Judge Sebutinde, who disagreed with the majority on almost every point, called this task “a straightforward mathematical exercise”. Nevertheless, not only the Court named Israeli violations, which is important, but the Advisory Opinion raises ambiguous issues on which the Court could not demonstrate unanimity. In particular, the Court, on the ground of jus in bello violations, recognised the occupation as illegal per se, which, in turn, led the Court to conclude that Israel is obliged to leave the territory of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem “as rapidly as possible”. Despite the fact that the global community will probably welcome the result of the Court's work, achieved by an overwhelming majority, it remains interesting and uncertain how the Court came to such a result. The judges came to the same conclusions, which may also look as bias caused by the wording of the request and the political situation; however, the dissenting opinions and declarations show that there are disagreements on the way to reach these outcomes. By comparing the text of the Advisory Opinion with the dissenting opinions and declarations of the judges in this article, the following issues are analysed: the problem of bilateral dispute as the subject of the advisory proceedings, the problem of determining the facts for the Court’s inquiry, the ground of discrimination, the right of people to self-determination as a jus cogens norm, the problem of ongoing occupation and annexation, the issue of occupation’s unlawfulness due to violations of jus in bello norms, and the issue of responsibility.