The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory and what it means for Canada

Sanad Hamdouna

Visual Arts Editor

Co-E.i.C.

On July 19th, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared Israel’s presence in Palestinian Territory to be unlawful. The Court found Israel to be in violation of several conventions on occupation and systematic racial discrimination, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which also condemns apartheid. Additionally, the Court’s president, President Salam, stated in his declaration that Israel’s discriminatory policies and practices are “tantamount to apartheid”. (The full declaration and other relevant documents can be found in full on the court’s website: icj-cij.org .)

It is important to mention that this ruling was not related to nor included evidence from the events of October 7th or any developments thereafter. Rather, it was a response to questions raised by the United Nations General Assembly on the 30th of December 2022, when they voted to request an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory, including the Gaza Strip, and its violations against the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. 

Put simply, an advisory opinion is legal advice provided to the party who issued the request, in this case, the UN General Assembly. Advisory opinions are non-binding, but that does not mean they are meaningless. In fact, according to the ICJ’s website, advisory opinions “carry great legal weight and moral authority”. They also “contribute to the clarification and development of international law”, meaning the court’s legal advice cannot simply be ignored and could very well affect the outcome of future court cases. 

The Court’s findings included a series of obligations for both the State of Israel and all other states, including Canada. The responsibility to ensure these obligations are respected lies not only with individual states, but also with the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. The court stated that the General Assembly and Security Council especially should consider what further action may be required to “bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

further action may be required to “bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

As for Israel’s obligations, the Court declared that the State of Israel is under the obligation to end its “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible” including the Gaza Strip, to “cease immediately all new settlement activities”, and to “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Additionally, the Court stated that Israel must make reparations and issue compensation for the damage caused to “all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. 

Israel has thus far refused to comply with international law, demarcating itself as a rogue state and emphasising the importance of the ICJ’s ruling and that all other states meet their obligations and implement the court’s advice, in addition to putting serious pressure on Israel in the form of sanctions. 

Among the Court mandated obligations of all States is the obligation to not recognize Israel’s presence in Occupied Palestinian Territory as legal and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation”. This means that all states are obliged to cease all economic, cultural, and political relations with Israel which may aid or normalise Israel’s illegal occupation and settlement projects. 

For Canada, this obligation would include—among other actions —blocking imports from companies that operate in, profit from, or support illegal settlements and blocking exports of goods that may be sold in illegal settlements or to the Israeli army. It would include preventing the transfer of any military aid or supplies to Israel, lethal or not, since there is a high likelihood that they will be used to maintain the occupation. 

Additionally, Professor Michael Lynk—a Canadian legal academic, associate professor at the University of Western Ontario, and former UN Special Rapporteur—said in an interview with CJPME that these settlements are considered a war crime under both domestic Canadian law and international law, making their support akin to complicity with a crime. He also spoke about “organisations in Canada which have a charitable status” sending tax-deductible Canadian dollars to Israel, which is then used to the benefit of these illegal settlements. 

One such organisation is the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which recently lost its charitable status. The Canada Revenue Agency did not publicly disclose the reason for their decision to revoke the JNF’s status, but many have pointed to activism by groups such as Independent Jewish Voices Canada who have consistently called-out the JNF for their financial support towards illegal settlements and the Israeli military. 

Still, according to Professor Lynk, this is not enough for Canada to meet its obligations under international and domestic law. “Not only should that money not be going to Israel through charitable status, [it] shouldn’t be going there, period.”

To truly abide by both international and domestic law, Canada will have to take serious steps to block these money transfers as well as pull out of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, which allows illegal settlement products to flow into Canadian markets tariff-free and labelled as simple products of Israel.