Just over a year ago, on 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. It concluded that the occupation was unlawful, that Israel was under an obligation to bring it to an end as rapidly as possible, and that other states had a duty not to render aid or assistance to maintaining it.

Thirteen months on, it is worth asking what the opinion actually changed — and what a court can do when the party found to be in breach declines to accept the finding.

What an advisory opinion is

Two categories of ICJ decision exist and they are commonly confused. A contentious case is a dispute between two states that have agreed to accept the court’s jurisdiction; the resulting judgment binds them. An advisory opinion is issued at the request of a UN body, on a legal question referred to the court; it is authoritative but not directly binding on any state.

That distinction matters. The 2024 opinion carried the court’s full legal weight — this was fifteen judges of the world’s senior court, essentially unanimous on the core findings — but it did not carry an enforcement mechanism. It could tell states what international law required. It could not make them do it.

What the opinion actually said

The specifics are worth being clear about, because they have been widely paraphrased in ways that lose the precision.

The court found that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory — the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip — was unlawful, principally because of the settlement enterprise and associated measures, which the court found to be inconsistent with the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force and with the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.

It found Israel was under an obligation to end that presence as rapidly as possible; to cease all new settlement activity and evacuate settlers already there; and to make reparations. It also found other states were obliged not to recognise the situation as lawful, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining it.

Israel disputed the opinion in its entirety, describing it as fundamentally wrong. Its position is that any withdrawal must be negotiated bilaterally, that historical and security claims justify continued presence, and that the court exceeded its remit.

What has changed since

Directly, in the territory: nothing. Settlement construction has continued. Settler violence has increased sharply. The siege at Qusra and other incidents this month sit against the same background the opinion described.

Indirectly, in law and policy: several things. A handful of European states have recognised Palestinian statehood or moved closer to doing so. Companies and pension funds have divested from firms operating in settlements, sometimes citing the opinion as legal cover. Cases in national courts — in the UK, in Ireland, elsewhere — have referenced the opinion in challenges to arms exports, trade agreements and consular services.

The UN General Assembly in September 2024 endorsed the opinion and set a twelve-month deadline for Israel to end its unlawful presence. That deadline passed. Nothing happened at the UN level as a direct consequence, because the Security Council — where enforcement would sit — contains a permanent member willing to veto any such action.

What courts can and cannot do

This is the honest bit. International courts do not have police forces. Their power comes from the willingness of states to accept and enforce their rulings, which varies enormously depending on who the state is and what the ruling says.

What an authoritative advisory opinion can do is change the legal terrain around a dispute — making certain arguments harder to make, giving domestic litigants a foothold they did not have before, and shifting the diplomatic cost of a policy. What it cannot do is produce a withdrawal that the occupying state has decided not to make.

Whether that counts as failure or as slow-motion accumulation of pressure depends on the timescale you measure against. Rulings that seem unenforceable in the year they are handed down have, historically, sometimes turned out to be the framework a settlement eventually rested on. And sometimes they have not.

Sources

Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, 19 July 2024; UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/24 of September 2024; contemporaneous coverage and analysis in international law journals.