United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will “promptly” forward to the UN General Assembly World court’s landmark opinion declaring that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory “is unlawful”, a UN spokesperson said Friday.

“It is for the General Assembly to decide how to proceed in this matter,” UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Aziz Haq said in a statement issued at UN Headquarters in New York.

It is the first time the ICJ has delivered a position on the legality of the 57-year occupation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), based at The Hague in the Netherlands, has been examining the issue since the beginning of last year, at the request of the UN General Assembly.

The court was specifically asked to give its view on Israel’s policies and practices towards the Palestinians, and on the legal status of the occupation.

“The (UN) Secretary-General reiterates that the parties must re-engage on the long-delayed political path towards ending the occupation and resolving the conflict in line with international law, relevant UN resolutions and bilateral agreements,” Farhan Haq, the UN Spokesperson said.

“The only viable path is the vision of two States – Israel and a fully independent, democratic, contiguous, viable and sovereign Palestinian State – living side by side in peace and security within secure and recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 lines, with Jerusalem as the capital of both States,” he said.

“The Secretary-General reiterates his urgent call for a humanitarian ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages held in Gaza.”

The advisory from the ICJ is a legal opinion provided by the Court on questions of international law.

While not legally binding, advisory opinions can shape international policies, increase moral pressure, and unilateral measures adopted by individual States such as sanctions.

In its advisory opinion, the ICJ concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and that it is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence “as rapidly as possible”.

Israel is also “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the opinion continued, as well as “reparation for the damage caused to all natural or legal persons concerned”.

It further stated that “all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence” of Israel.

States are also under the obligation to “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

For international organizations, including the UN, the Court noted the “obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence” of Israel.

The ICJ further noted that UN, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, “should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

According to media reports, Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejected the ICJ’s opinion as “fundamentally wrong” and “blatantly one-sided”.

It also repeated its stance that a political settlement in the region can only be reached through “direct negotiations”.

The General Assembly adopted a resolution in December 2022, which among other points requested the ICJ to provide its opinion under Article 96 of the UN Charter and Article 65 of the Court’s Statute.

Read more

ICJ announcing verdict in Kulbhushan Jadhav case

UN warns ‘vampiric’ water use leading to ‘imminent’ global crisis

Pakistan exempts Afghans awaiting resettlement to US from deportation

The opinion lays out the legal consequences of Israel’s “ongoing violation” of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of territories occupied since 1967, and discriminatory measures, including those affecting Jerusalem’s demographic composition and status.

It also sought to understand how these policies and practices of Israel affect the legal status of the occupation and its legal consequences