Israeli settlements: What does the ICJ ruling require Britain and other states do?
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.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
"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 to it.
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.
They also 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
Judges found that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is an absolute norm of international law in this case, and that Israel, as occupying power, must not impede its exercise, including the Palestinian people's right to an independent and sovereign state over the whole of the OPT.
The court set out four ways Israel's conduct breaches that right: its settlement policy and annexation have fragmented Palestinian territory and undermined its integrity; its policies have induced the displacement of Palestinians and altered the territory's demographic composition; its exploitation of natural resources has denied Palestinians permanent sovereignty over their own resources; and Palestinian dependence on Israel for basic goods and services, a product of these same policies, has impaired Palestinians' ability to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Judges concluded that the decades-long, prolonged character of Israel's policies "aggravates" this violation.
Miliband's statement to the Commons uses the word "self-determination" twice, but not in connection with this finding.
Ralph Wilde, a professor of international law at University College London who represented the League of Arab States in the case, told Middle East Eye, speaking in a personal capacity, that the omission mattered because self-determination ultimately underpinned the court's ruling.
"The point was that Israel should not be there. It is not Israel’s sovereign territory and its presence is a violation of Palestinian self-determination," he said.
"It is incorrect to omit the most important thing, which is that it is a violation of Palestinian self-determination," he added. "That omission misleadingly suggests a narrower test than simply the denial of Palestinian freedom itself. That denial has existed since 1967."
Has Israel complied?
No. Settlement expansion accelerated after the ruling, with 2025 seeing the highest rate of expansion since 2017, with roughly 12,815 housing units added annually on average. The number of Israeli settlements and outposts grew from 141 in 2022 to around 210.
Israel has also pressed ahead with the E1 project near Jerusalem, which would further sever the occupied West Bank's territorial contiguity and block any prospect for a Palestinian state.
What did the UN do with the ruling?
On 18 September 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 by 124 votes to 14, with 43 abstentions, translating the court's findings into concrete demands. Israel was given 12 months, until September 2025, to end its unlawful presence, and states were told to stop importing settlement products and halt arms transfers that might be used in the occupied territory.
The UK abstained, saying it did not dispute the court's core findings but felt the resolution lacked "sufficient clarity" to advance a negotiated settlement.
The September 2025 deadline passed without Israeli compliance.
Have other states acted on their obligations since the ruling?
States have largely failed to comply with the ruling or the UN General Assembly deadline. But a number of European countries have taken steps that seek to fulfil their obligations.
Spain banned imports of settlement goods in September 2025, while Ireland enacted legislation in July 2026 prohibiting such imports, excluding services.
Belgium approved an import ban that month, and the Netherlands adopted restrictions on importing, purchasing and selling settlement goods, due to take effect on 22 September. Slovenia introduced restrictions in 2025, but its new government lifted the settlement-import ban in June 2026.
Norway strengthened its business guidance following the ICJ opinion in 2024, advising companies against activities sustaining Israel’s occupation of Palestine. In June 2026, it opened consultation on proposed legislation covering settlement imports, exports and certain property transactions and services.
Britain and France, alongside Canada, have now pledged national bans on settlement goods trade. Their joint statement with nine other countries also includes governments supporting European restrictions or still considering measures; it does not establish a uniform ban across all signatories.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
