Israeli settlements: What does the ICJ ruling require Britain and other states to do?
Sondos Asem writes in Middle East Eye on 8 September 2026:
On Tuesday, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced measures that appear to aim to comply with a landmark legal opinion issued by the United Nations’ highest court more than two years ago. In a long-anticipated speech in parliament, Miliband declared the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and announced both comprehensive sanctions on Israeli settlements and a ban on all arms licences and other exports that “materially contribute to the occupation”.
Miliband said his government has concluded that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank perpetrated by Israeli settlers, and accused the Israeli government of “turning a blind eye” to the abuses, while condoning the displacement of Palestinians.
“Now, for a long time, the British government has rightly said settlements are illegal. But we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful,” he said.
“Today, I announce that the official view of the British government is that the occupation is unlawful. Because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements.”
Miliband’s speech appears to be the clearest UK endorsement to date of the conclusions of the 2024 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which confirmed the illegality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and said Israeli settlers must leave occupied Palestinian territory and governments must stop helping sustain Israel’s unlawful presence.
Those findings have gained renewed urgency as Israel advances settlement expansion, including construction tenders for the E1 project. Britain and other governments warn that the development would fragment the occupied West Bank and undermine a viable Palestinian state.
On Tuesday, 11 other countries – Canada; Denmark; Finland; France; Iceland; Ireland; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Spain; and Sweden – signed a joint statement with Britain saying they “confirm their intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures”.
Below, Middle East Eye explains what the ICJ opinion entails and how Britain and the world reacted.
What did the ICJ rule in July 2024?
On 19 July 2024, the ICJ issued an authoritative advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT).
Judges found that Israel’s settlement policy breaches international law on several grounds, and that Israel’s continued presence in the OPT as a whole, not only the settlements, is unlawful. The court then set out the legal consequences flowing from that finding for Israel, other states, and the UN.
What did judges say about settlements?
The court found the transfer of Israeli civilians into the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the maintenance of their presence there, breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on an occupying power moving its own population into occupied territory.
It found Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian land for settlements breaches customary international law, that its exploitation of natural resources exceeds what an occupying power may take, and that extending Israeli domestic law over settlers is not justified under the law of occupation.
The court found that Israeli measures maintained near-complete separation between Palestinians and settlers, breaching Article 3 of the racial discrimination convention, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.
Combined with policies inducing Palestinians to leave and settler violence, Israel has largely failed to prevent, judges concluded these policies amount to de facto annexation of large parts of the territory.
What legal consequences did the court set out?
The judges said that Israel must end its presence “as rapidly as possible”, stop all new settlement activity, remove settlers, repeal discriminatory legislation and make reparations for the damage caused.
The court added that other states must not recognise the Israeli occupation of Palestine as legal, must not render aid or assistance in maintaining it, and should work towards ending Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT- including by not entering into economic or trade dealings that help sustain Israeli settlements.
Palestinian self-determination and Miliband’s statement