ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israels Occupation Remains Unheeded Two Years On
Despite a landmark ruling, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza remains unchanged. On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion declaring Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) unlawful and demanding that it end “as rapidly as possible.” Two years later, on 19 July 2026, the Court’s findings have not been implemented.
The opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly in 2022, found that Israel’s occupation violated fundamental rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law. It held that the occupation contravened the prohibition on acquiring territory by force and the right of self‑determination of the Palestinian people—norms of peremptory status that cannot be derogated. Accordingly, the Court ordered Israel to immediately cease new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers from the oPt, and provide reparations for the damage caused.
Israeli authorities, however, have continued to expand settlements. According to Al‑Monitor, Israel approved 34 new settlements in the West Bank in 2026 and allocated $338 million for settlement expansion. The government also announced plans to build 450 settlement units in occupied East Jerusalem, a move that would add to the 250,000 settlers already living there. In addition, officials have resumed land registration in Area C of the West Bank, a process that has been frozen since 1967. These actions directly contradict the ICJ’s mandate for an immediate halt to settlement expansion.
The Court’s opinion treats the oPt as a single territorial unit, including Gaza. While it did not examine Israel’s conduct in Gaza following the 7 October 2023 attacks, it stated that the same legal principles apply to the Strip. Israel’s continued control over Gaza—through a blockade and a security perimeter that the UN Security Council has endorsed—effectively denies the Palestinian people in Gaza the right to self‑determination. The UN General Assembly’s resolution of 9 September 2024 demanded that Israel end its unlawful presence in the oPt within 12 months, a deadline that has long passed.
The advisory opinion also imposed obligations on third states and international organisations. All states are required not to recognise the unlawful situation, to refrain from providing aid that sustains the occupation, and to cooperate in lawful means to bring an end to the violations. The UN General Assembly’s resolution reflects this collective stance, but the Court itself has no enforcement mechanism. Consequently, Israel’s non‑compliance undermines the credibility of international law and the UN system.
Advisory opinions issued by the ICJ, while not binding in the same way as judgments in contentious cases, carry the weight of the Court’s authority and are expected to guide state practice and international policy. The 2024 opinion was therefore viewed by many legal scholars as a definitive statement on the legality of the occupation, even though it lacks a direct enforcement mechanism.
The absence of a clear enforcement route has left the international community in a precarious position. While the United Nations General Assembly and other bodies have reiterated the Court’s findings and called for compliance, practical measures such as sanctions or diplomatic isolation have been limited by geopolitical considerations and the economic interests of key allies. As a result, Israel’s continued actions not only challenge the legitimacy of international law but also test the resilience of multilateral institutions designed to uphold it.
In summary, two years after the ICJ’s advisory opinion, Israel remains in breach of international law through continued settlement expansion, land registration, and sustained control over Gaza. The UN General Assembly’s demand for an end to the occupation has not been met, and the international community faces the challenge of enforcing the Court’s findings without a formal enforcement mechanism.
