And here you can read the entire ruling yourselves: icj-cij.org/sites/default/file…

Thanks to b9AcE@todon.eu for the link.

I'm going to highlight some interesting parts of the ruling.

This regards whether and to what extent Israel is still the occupying power after disengagement from the Gaza strip.

93. Based on the information before it, the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005. This is even more so since 7 October 2023.

94. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.

Then the court considers what is the applicable law with respect to Israel as an occupying power, and particularly whether it is bound by human rights law on territory beyond its borders but under its jurisdiction as an occupier. Spoilers: it is.

99. The Court recalls in this regard that “international human rights instruments are applicable ‘in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory’, particularly in occupied territories” (Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 243, para. 216, citing Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 178-181, paras. 107-113). The Court further recalls that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict or of occupation (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 178, para. 106). Some rights may be exclusively matters of international humanitarian law; others may be exclusively matters of human rights law; yet others may concern both these branches of international law (ibid.).

100. The Court observes that Israel remains bound by the ICCPR and the ICESCR in respect of its conduct with regard to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 180-181, paras. 111-112).

101. In relation to CERD, the Court notes that that Convention contains no provision expressly restricting its territorial application. On the contrary, several of its provisions impose obligations on States parties that are applicable “in territories under their jurisdiction” (Article 3 of CERD) or in relation to individuals “within their jurisdiction” (Article 6 of CERD; see also Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of CERD). This indicates that CERD is also applicable to conduct of a State party which has effects beyond its territory. With reference to the Occupied Palestinian Territory in particular, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter the “CERD Committee”) has taken the view that CERD is applicable to acts by Israel regarding persons in that territory (CERD Committee, “Concluding observations on the combined seventeenth to nineteenth reports of Israel”, UN doc. CERD/C/ISR/CO/17-19 (27 January 2020), paras. 9-10; CERD Committee, “Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under Article 9 of the Convention: Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Israel”, UN doc. CERD/C/304/Add.45 (30 March 1998), para. 12). In the Court’s view, Israel must comply with its obligations under CERD in circumstances in which it exercises its jurisdiction outside its territory.

The court then proceeds to analyse the conduct of Israel as an occupying power, starting with the issue of prolonged occupation and clarifying it confers no sovereignty.

108. Furthermore, it does not follow from Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that, in cases of prolonged occupation, the occupying Power acquires additional powers through the passage of time. The fact of the occupation cannot result in the transfer of title, regardless of the duration of the occupation. Therefore, the passage of time does not release the occupying Power from the obligations that it bears, including the obligation to refrain from exercising acts of sovereignty, nor does it expand the limited and enumerated powers that international humanitarian law vests in the occupying Power.

Regarding settlements, the court notes that the Israeli distinction between settlements (legal under Israeli law) and outposts (illegal under Israeli law) is irrelevant from the viewpoint of international law and both constitute part of Israeli settlement practice:

112. The Court is aware that a distinction is sometimes made between “settlements” and “outposts”, the latter having been established in contravention of domestic Israeli law. In the Court’s view, this distinction is immaterial for the purpose of ascertaining whether the communities in question form part of Israel’s settlement policy. What matters is whether they are established or maintained with Israel’s support. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel regularly takes steps retroactively to legalize outposts and that it provides them with the infrastructure necessary for their maintenance (see “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan: Report of the Secretary-General”, UN doc. A/78/554 (25 October 2023), paras. 15-20; “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, UN doc. A/HRC/52/76 (15 March 2023), paras. 14-15).

After analysing the ways in which settlement practice encourages the move of Israeli population into occupied territories (without prejudice to whether it also displaces Palestinians (the court later concludes it also does)), the court finds that settlement practice is contrary to law.

119. In light of the above, the Court considers that the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Israel’s maintenance of their presence, is contrary to the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Then the court deals with the issue of confiscation of land. Israel applies an absentee law which declares certain land as public property in the occupied territories. This land is overwhelmingly used for civilian settlements. The court finds this practice contrary to law.

122. According to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, private property must be respected and cannot be confiscated. The Court observes that this prohibition of confiscation of private property is unqualified: it does not allow for exceptions, whether for military exigencies or on any other ground (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 192, para. 135). In addition, Article 52 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that requisitions in kind shall not be demanded from inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. Public real property, in turn, is to be administered by the occupying Power in accordance with the rules of usufruct under Article 55 of the Hague Regulations. In the Court’s view, this entails that the occupying Power bears the duty to administer public property for the benefit of the local population or, exceptionally, to meet the needs of the army of occupation. In the present case, however, the public property confiscated or requisitioned for the development of Israeli settlements benefits the civilian population of settlers, to the detriment of the local Palestinian population. The Court, therefore, concludes that these land policies are not in conformity with Articles 46, 52 and 55 of the Hague Regulations.

According to the law of occupation, the occupier is only an administrator of the natural resources in occupied territory, and is not allowed to exploit them in unsustainable ways. The occupier must guarantee adequate supplies of foodstuffs and water to the local population. The court analyses the Israeli use of natural resources in the occupied territories and concludes it is unlawful.

133. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considers that Israel’s use of the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with its obligations under international law. By diverting a large share of the natural resources to its own population, including settlers, Israel is in breach of its obligation to act as administrator and usufructuary. In this connection, the Court recalls that the transfer by Israel of its own population to the Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to international law (see paragraph 119 above). Therefore, in the Court’s view, the use of natural resources in the occupied territory cannot be justified with reference to the needs of that population. The Court further considers that, by severely restricting the access of the Palestinian population to water that is available in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel acts inconsistently with its obligation to ensure the availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality (Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). The Court notes that, while the Oslo II Accord regulates water and sewage in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Article 40 of Appendix I of Annex III of the Oslo II Accord), that agreement cannot be understood to detract from Israel’s obligation under international humanitarian law to provide water in sufficient quantity and quality (see paragraph 102 above). In light of the above, the Court also concludes that Israel’s policy of exploitation of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with its obligation to respect the Palestinian people’s right to permanent sovereignty over natural resources.

Israel extends its law to the occupied territories, establishing its military law to apply to non-Israelis and its domestic law to its own citizens, creating a dual system of law. Under the law of occupation, the occupier may only extend its own laws over occupied territory due to justified grounds, and it may not deprive the occupied from regulatory power altogether. The court finds this extension of law improper.

139. In the present case, the Court is not convinced that the extension of Israel’s law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem is justified under any of the grounds laid down in the second paragraph of Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In this connection, the Court recalls that the transfer by Israel of its civilian population to the West Bank and East Jerusalem is contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (see paragraph 119 above); therefore, it cannot be invoked as a ground for regulation in these territories. Furthermore, the comprehensive application of Israeli law in East Jerusalem, as well as its application in relation to settlers throughout the West Bank, cannot be deemed “essential” for any of the purposes enumerated in the second paragraph of Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Next the court gets to the issue of forcible transfer of population. We remember that earlier on the court already found the (voluntary) transfer of its own population to occupied territory through settlement is illegal. Now it deals with the displacement of Palestinians, pointing out that physical force is not required to constitute forcible transfer, but only the fact people are given no choice. It further reminds that evacuations, where necessary, must be exceptional and temporary.

147. The Court considers that Israel’s policies and practices, which it discusses in greater detail below (see paragraphs 180-229), including its forcible evictions, extensive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement, often leave little choice to members of the Palestinian population living in Area C but to leave their area of residence. The nature of Israel’s acts, including the fact that Israel frequently confiscates land following the demolition of Palestinian property for reallocation to Israeli settlements, indicates that its measures are not temporary in character and therefore cannot be considered as permissible evacuations. In the Court’s view, Israel’s policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Regarding violence, the court finds that settlers and Israeli security forces exercise violence on protected persons, sometimes unlawfully depriving them of life. It also finds there is a pattern of gender-based violence against girls and women. It concludes Israel, as an occupying power, is not fulfilling its obligations to the protected persons in the occupied territories.

154. The Court considers that the violence by settlers against Palestinians, Israel’s failure to prevent or to punish it effectively and its excessive use of force against Palestinians contribute to the creation and maintenance of a coercive environment against Palestinians. In the present case, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Court is of the view that Israel’s systematic failure to prevent or to punish attacks by settlers against the life or bodily integrity of Palestinians, as well as Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinians, is inconsistent with the obligations identified in paragraph 149 above.

As we saw earlier, the law of occupation is temporary and the occupier may not acquire the land. The court considers whether and to what extent the measures Israel takes amount to territorial annexation and finds that Israel is effectively annexing territory through creating permanent situations.

173. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s policies and practices, including the maintenance and expansion of settlements, the construction of associated infrastructure, including the wall, the exploitation of natural resources, the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the comprehensive application of Israeli domestic law in East Jerusalem and its extensive application in the West Bank, entrench Israel’s control of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, notably of East Jerusalem and of Area C of the West Bank. These policies and practices are designed to remain in place indefinitely and to create irreversible effects on the ground. Consequently, the Court considers that these policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

And therefore, the court finds these measures are illegal.

179. The Court has found that Israel’s policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is the view of the Court that to seek to acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory, as shown by the policies and practices adopted by Israel in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, is contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and its corollary principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force. The manner in which the annexation affects the legal status of the occupation, and thereby the legality of the continued presence of Israel, is discussed below (see paragraphs 252-254).

I'm limiting myself to reviewing the operative findings, or I would be reposting the entire ruling, but while the court analyses the issue of discrimination, it reminds us that the existence of the Palestinian people is not at issue.

190. Common to all of these provisions is the concept of differential treatment between persons belonging to different groups. The Court observes, in this connection, that the existence of the Palestinian people is not at issue. Thus, in the Court’s view, differential treatment of Palestinians can give rise to discrimination. The Court is mindful that differential treatment might not be experienced by all members of the Palestinian group in the same way, and that some members of the group might be subjected to differential treatment on multiple grounds.

The court reviews the ways in which Israel discriminates against Palestinians. There's a dual analysis: first whether there is differential treatment, and then whether the differential treatment can be justified. We get the following conclusions:

On residence:

196. In the Court’s view, the differential treatment imposed by Israel’s residence permit policy in East Jerusalem is not justified, because it does not serve a legitimate public aim. In particular, the permit system is implemented as a result and in furtherance of Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, which the Court has already considered to be unlawful (see paragraph 179 above). The Court thus considers that no differential treatment can be justified with reference to the advancement of Israel’s settlement policy or its policy of annexation.

197. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s residence permit policy amounts to prohibited discrimination under Articles 2, paragraph 2, 23 and 26 of the ICCPR, and Articles 2, paragraph 2, and 10, paragraph 1, of the ICESCR.

Restrictions of movement:

205. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considers that, through its practice of restricting movement, Israel differentiates in its treatment of Palestinians with reference to their freedom of movement. With respect to the question of the potential justification of Israel’s differentiation in treatment, the Court has taken note of Israel’s security concerns, as identified by some participants in the proceedings, that might justify restrictions on movement. To the extent that such concerns pertain to the security of the settlers and the settlements, it is the Court’s view that the protection of the settlers and settlements, the presence of which in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to international law, cannot be invoked as a ground to justify measures that treat Palestinians differently. Moreover, the Court considers that Israel’s measures imposing restrictions on all Palestinians solely on account of their Palestinian identity are disproportionate to any legitimate public aim and cannot be justified with reference to security.

206. In its Wall Advisory Opinion, the Court was of the opinion “that the construction of the wall and its associated régime impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of Israeli citizens and those assimilated thereto) as guaranteed under Article 12, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.” (I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 191-192, para. 134.)
In the Court’s view, the entire régime of restrictions on the movement of Palestinians throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory has a discriminatory effect on their enjoyment of these rights, as well as to the right to be protected from arbitrary or unlawful interference with family life, as guaranteed under Article 17 of the ICCPR. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s policies restricting freedom of movement amount to prohibited discrimination under Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD.

More on discrimination.

House demolitions:

210. In this regard, the Court observes that, although several thousand Palestinian homes have been demolished (see paragraph 208 above), the measure of punitive demolition appears never to have been used against properties connected to Israeli civilians having committed similar offences (“Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem: Report of the Secretary-General”, UN doc. A/78/502 (2 October 2023), para. 27). In this respect, the application of Israel’s measure of punitive demolition amounts to differential treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the enjoyment of their right to be protected from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family and home, as guaranteed under Article 17, paragraph 1, of the ICCPR.

Demolitions constitute collective punishment:

212. Moreover, while linked in some way to the individual having committed specific offences, the properties under demolition are commonly used or owned by a wide circle of people, including the individual’s family or relatives. In this regard, the Court observes that the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” This provision follows from the general principle of individual criminal responsibility, which prohibits attributing responsibility to an individual for acts of another. In the Court’s view, punitive demolition of property amounts to punishment of other persons living in or using this property for acts that they have not committed, and it is therefore contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also recalls that the occupying Power is authorized to repeal or suspend penal laws in force in the occupied territory in so far as they constitute, inter alia, “an obstacle to the application of [that] Convention” (second paragraph of Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). This provision implies that, even if Palestine Defence (Emergency) Regulation 119 remains in force as a matter of domestic law, it may not be relied on by Israel to act in a manner that is inconsistent with its international obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in particular its obligation to refrain from imposing collective punishment.

In conclusion, home demolitions are prohibited discrimination:

213. Israel’s practice of punitive demolitions of Palestinian property, being contrary to its obligations under international humanitarian law, does not serve a legitimate public aim. The Court considers that, because this practice treats Palestinians differently without justification, it amounts to prohibited discrimination under Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD.

Discrimination in planning policy, and demolition due to lack of building permits.

220. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considers that Israel’s planning policy in relation to the issuance of building permits, and its practice of property demolition for lack of a building permit, constitutes differential treatment of Palestinians in the enjoyment of their right to be protected from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family and home, as guaranteed under Article 17, paragraph 1, of the ICCPR.

221. In the Court’s view, this practice cannot be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim. In particular, there is nothing in the material before the Court to indicate that the refusal of building permits to Palestinians, or the demolition of structures for lack of such permits, at such a sweeping scale, serves a legitimate aim. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that, in so far as Israel grants building permits for settlers and settlements, it acts in breach of international law (see paragraphs 119 and 155 above).

222. In light of the above, the Court considers that Israel’s planning policy in relation to the issuance of building permits, and in particular its practice of property demolition for lack of a building permit, which treats Palestinians differently from settlers without justification, amounts to prohibited discrimination, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD.

The thorny issue of apartheid. The court is careful not to give us a sound-byte on a single paragraph, so we have to synthesize a little, but the conclusion is clear:

224. A number of participants have argued that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to segregation or apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of CERD.

...

229. The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.

Regarding self-determination, the court goes through the importance and different facets of this principle, and the way in which the Israeli occupation hinders Palestinian self-determination, and concludes:

243. The prolonged character of Israel’s unlawful policies and practices aggravates their violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. As a consequence of Israel’s policies and practices, which span decades, the Palestinian people has been deprived of its right to self-determination over a long period, and further prolongation of these policies and practices undermines the exercise of this right in the future. For these reasons, the Court is of the view that Israel’s unlawful policies and practices are in breach of Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The manner in which these policies affect the legal status of the occupation, and thereby the legality of the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, is discussed below (see paragraphs 255-257).

Surprisingly, the court leverages the analysis on self-determination to assess the legality of the occupation and of its continuation.

257. The above-described effects of Israel’s policies and practices, resulting, inter alia, in the prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, constitute a breach of this fundamental right. This breach has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court is of the view that occupation cannot be used in such a manner as to leave indefinitely the occupied population in a state of suspension and uncertainty, denying them their right to self-determination while integrating parts of their territory into the occupying Power’s own territory. The Court considers that the existence of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination cannot be subject to conditions on the part of the occupying Power, in view of its character as an inalienable right.

258. In light of the above, the Court will now turn to the examination of the legality of the
continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

...

261. The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.

262. This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967. This is the territorial unit across which Israel has imposed policies and practices to fragment and frustrate the ability of the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self-determination, and over large swathes of which it has extended Israeli sovereignty in violation of international law. The entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also the territory in relation to which the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its right to self-determination, the integrity of which must be respected.

263. Three participants have contended that agreements between Israel and Palestine, including the Oslo Accords, recognize Israel’s right to maintain its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, inter alia, in order to meet its security needs and obligations. The Court observes that these Accords do not permit Israel to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to meet its security needs. Nor do they authorize Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for such security needs.

Finding that the occupation is illegal, the court draws its consequences, first for Israel: cessation of conduct, and reparations, including restitution of the land, and right of return:

267. With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.
Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible. As the Court affirmed in its Wall Advisory Opinion, the obligation of a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act to put an end to that act is well established in general international law, and the Court has on a number of occasions confirmed the existence of that obligation (Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019 (I), p. 139, para. 178; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 197, para. 150).
268. The Court further observes that, with respect to the policies and practices of Israel referred to in question (a) which were found to be unlawful, Israel has an obligation to put an end to those unlawful acts. In this respect, Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity. Israel also has an obligation to repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as all measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.

269. Israel is also under an obligation to provide full reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons concerned (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 198, para. 152). The Court recalls that the essential principle is that “reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” (Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 47). Reparation includes restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction.

270. Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.

271. In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate, in accordance with the applicable rules of international law, all natural or legal persons, and populations, where that may be the case, having suffered any form of material damage as a result of Israel’s wrongful acts under the occupation.

Then, the consequences to states: obligation not to recognise Israeli territorial annexation, not to cooperate with settlers, and to distinguish Israeli from occupied territory.

278. Taking note of the resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, the Court is of the view that Member States are under an obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem, except as agreed by the parties through negotiations and to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Court considers that the duty of distinguishing dealings with Israel between its own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory encompasses, inter alia, the obligation to abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part thereof on matters concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part of its territory; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory; to abstain, in the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic missions in Israel, from any recognition of its illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, pp. 55-56, paras. 122, 125-127).

279. Moreover, the Court considers that, in view of the character and importance of the rights and obligations involved, all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is for all States, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

And the same consequence applies to the UN itself:

280. The duty of non-recognition specified above also applies to international organizations, including the United Nations, in view of the serious breaches of obligations erga omnes under international law. As noted above, the General Assembly has already called, in some of its resolutions, on international organizations and specialized agencies not “to recognize, or co-operate with or assist in any manner in, any measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the resources of the occupied territories or to effect any changes in the demographic composition or geographic character or institutional structure of those territories” (resolution 32/161 (1977)). In view of the character and importance of the obligations erga omnes involved in the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the obligation to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory apply also to the United Nations.

And then the operative clauses which I quoted at the start, so here's the end of my thread. Congratulations if you got here. sorry for boring you all. I think this is tremendously important though.

The ruling is very closely reasoned. I only gave you the conclusions, but there's lots of factual content hidden in it as well, so if you can handle legal text, I recommend you to take a look at it at some point. It for example points out the number of people affected by the discriminatory residence policies and so on.

If I were a sighted user, I'd probably give you a kitten picture now or something. :)

Sorry to fill your timelines this afternoon.