, East Jerusalem , East Jerusalem , Golan Heights The
International Court of Justice delivered a landmark advisory opinion in July 2024 that Israel's occupation of West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip was illegal, that Israel had "an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers" from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that Israel should "make reparation for the damage caused to all" the people of such lands. The consensus view in the
international community is that the existence of Israeli settlements in the
West Bank including
East Jerusalem and the
Golan Heights is in violation of international law. The
Fourth Geneva Convention includes statements such as "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". On 20 December 2019,
International Criminal Court chief prosecutor
Fatou Bensouda announced an
International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine into alleged war crimes committed during the
Israeli–Palestinian conflict. At present, the view of the
international community, as reflected in numerous UN resolutions, regards the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the
West Bank,
East Jerusalem and the
Golan Heights as a violation of international law.
UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the
Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the
International Court of Justice. The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies
de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself
de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. The scholar and jurist
Eugene Rostow has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements. Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100 In 2014 twelve EU countries warned businesses against involving themselves in the settlements. According to the warnings, economic activities relating to the settlements involve legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the settlements are built on occupied land not recognized as Israel's.
Illegality arguments The consensus of the international community – the vast majority of states, the overwhelming majority of legal experts, the International Court of Justice and the UN – is that settlements are in violation of international law. After the Six-Day War, in 1967,
Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the
Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." This legal opinion was sent to Prime Minister
Levi Eshkol. However, it was not made public at the time. The Labor cabinet allowed settlements despite the warning. This paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today." In 1978, the
Legal Adviser of the Department of State of the United States reached the same conclusion. The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion, has since ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living. International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the
Fourth Geneva Convention, major organs of the
United Nations, the
European Union, and
Canada, also regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."
Amnesty International, and
Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In late January 2013 a report drafted by three justices, presided over by
Christine Chanet, and issued by the
United Nations Human Rights Council declared that Jewish settlements constituted a creeping annexation based on multiple violations of the
Geneva Conventions and international law, and stated that if
Palestine ratified the
Rome Accord, Israel could be tried for "gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of
international humanitarian law." A spokesman for Israel's
Foreign Ministry declared the report 'unfortunate' and accused the UN's
Human Rights Council of a "systematically one-sided and biased approach towards Israel." The
Supreme Court of Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated that Israel's presence in the West Bank is subject to international law.
Legality arguments Four prominent jurists cited the concept of the "sovereignty vacuum" in the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War to describe the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza:
Yehuda Zvi Blum in 1968,
Elihu Lauterpacht in 1968,
Julius Stone in 1969 and 1981, and
Stephen M. Schwebel in 1970.
Eugene V. Rostow also argued in 1979 that the occupied territories' legal status was undetermined. •
Stephen M. Schwebel made three distinctions specific to the Israeli situation to claim that the territories were seized in self-defense and that Israel has more title to them than the previous holders. •
Julius Stone also wrote that "Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense." He argued that it would be an "irony bordering on the absurd" to read Article 49(6) as meaning that the State of Israel was obliged to ensure (by force if necessary) that areas with a millennial association with Jewish life shall be forever
"judenrein". Professor Ben Saul took exception to this view, arguing that Article 49(6) can be read to include voluntary or assisted transfers, as indeed it was in the advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice which had expressed this interpretation in the
Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion (2003). Israel maintains that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes is permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs. Israel argues that its settlement policy is consistent with international law, including the
Fourth Geneva Convention, while recognising that some settlements have been constructed illegally on private land. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the Civil Administration and the Military Commander in the occupied territories is limited by the entrenched customary rules of public international law as codified in the Hague Regulations. In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper". It concludesInternational law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes." Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [i.e. with the rules of the ICC]: The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law. A UN conference was held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the
International Criminal Court. Israel was opposed to a provision that included as a war crime the transfer of civilian populations into territory the government occupies. Israel has signed the statute, but not ratified the treaty. == Land ownership ==