On July 19, the ICJ delivered its advisory opinion in the above case. The advisory opinion deals with two major issues. The first is whether the ICJ should give an advisory opinion on the issue of Israeli action in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as Israel is not under the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The opinion, after determining that it should still submit an advisory opinion, discusses settlement issues in the region.

The Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to give the requested advisory opinion based on Article 65, paragraph 1 of the Statute and Article 96, paragraph 1 of the Charter. It stated that the request made by the General Assembly is in accordance with the Charter and the questions submitted are of legal character. While the Court has the discretion to decide whether to give an opinion, Article 65, paragraph 1 of the Statute indicates that only "compelling reasons" can lead the Court to refuse to exercise its judicial function.

Several arguments against the Court giving the opinion are presented and subsequently refuted: (1) It relates to a dispute between two parties, one of which (Israel) has not consented to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court argues that the subject matter (international peace and security) is of interest to the UN as a whole and not just a bilateral issue. (2) The Court's response would not assist the General Assembly in its functions. The opinion counters that it is up to the requesting body to determine the usefulness of the opinion. (3) The opinion could undermine negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The Court dismisses this as conjecture and states that the Court cannot speculate on the effects of its opinion. (4) It would be detrimental to the work of the Security Council. The Court clarifies that the Security Council's primary responsibility for international peace and security is not exclusive and the General Assembly also has competence in this area. (5) The Court lacks sufficient information. The Court asserts that the Court has enough information on the facts at its disposal. (6) The questions are biased. The Court states that it is for the Court to assess the appropriateness and scope of the questions.

The Court concludes that there are no compelling reasons for the ICJ to decline to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly.

The ICJ then discusses the legal consequences of Israel's settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory, specifically in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to the Court, the term "settlement" has different interpretations, referring to either the residential communities themselves or all related infrastructure and processes. The ICJ then examined Israel's settlement policy comprehensively, encompassing both physical and non-physical aspects.

• "Settlements" vs. "Outposts": While Israel distinguishes between "settlements" and "outposts" based on their legality under Israeli law, the ICJ considers this distinction irrelevant. The key factor is whether the communities are established or maintained with Israel's support.
• Extensive Examination: The ICJ acknowledges that Israel's settlement policy has been examined extensively by various UN bodies, including the Human Rights Council and the Secretary-General. These examinations have documented the facts surrounding the establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements.
• Focus on West Bank and East Jerusalem: Although Israel's settlement policy previously included the Gaza Strip, the ICJ's analysis will focus on the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the removal of Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005.

The ICJ then examined whether Israel has in fact annexed the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The term "annexation" refers to the forcible acquisition of territory by an occupying power.

Key points:

• Annexation: The ICJ defines annexation as the forcible acquisition of occupied territory by an occupying power, integrating it into the occupying power's territory with the intent to exercise permanent control.
• Law of Occupation: The law of occupation states that an occupying power's control must be temporary, and it cannot claim sovereign title over the occupied territory simply through occupation.
• Indicators of Annexation: Actions by an occupying power that demonstrate an intent to exercise permanent control over the occupied territory may indicate annexation.
• De Jure vs. De Facto Annexation:
  • De jure annexation is a formal declaration of sovereignty over occupied territory.
  • De facto annexation involves actions short of a formal declaration that create a "fait accompli" on the ground, consolidating permanent control.
• Israel's Actions: The ICJ examines whether Israel's policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, such as the construction of the wall in the West Bank and the establishment of settlements, amount to annexation.

The majority of participants argue that Israel's actions amount to at least partial annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The ICJ will further investigate and determine if Israel's conduct constitutes annexation under international law.

Then, the ICJ addressed the issue of self-determination in the context of Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory. The ICJ found that Israel’s actions, including settlement policy, annexation, and discriminatory legislation, are in violation of international law. The ICJ examined how these actions have affected the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, which has been recognized by the ICJ as a fundamental human right and a peremptory norm of international law.\

Key points:

• Right to Self-Determination: This right is recognized in the UN Charter and international law as a basic principle and has been affirmed by the ICJ as an essential principle of contemporary international law.
• Erga Omnes Obligation: The obligation to respect the right to self-determination is owed erga omnes, meaning all states have a legal interest in protecting this right.
• Common Article 1: The right to self-determination is included as Common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
• Importance: The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that realizing the right to self-determination is crucial for effectively guaranteeing individual human rights.
• Inalienable Right: The General Assembly has repeatedly emphasized the significance of the right to self-determination as an "inalienable right," particularly in the context of decolonization.
• Peremptory Norm: In cases of foreign occupation, such as the present case, the ICJ considers the right to self-determination a peremptory norm of international law, meaning it is a fundamental principle that cannot be overridden by other legal rules or agreements.
• Scope and Effects: The ICJ will determine the scope of this right and then examine the effects of Israel's policies and practices on the Palestinian people’s exercise of this right.