Model UN Background Guide

Committee: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Topic: Israel’s Obligations Regarding the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory)

Conference Year: 2026

Topic Background

The question of Israel’s obligations in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) remains one of the most complex and enduring issues in international law and diplomacy. The territory in question primarily includes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, areas captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Since then, the legal status of these territories and Israel’s responsibilities under international law have been fiercely contested.

The ICJ’s involvement traces back to 2004, when it issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the West Bank, concluding that the barrier violated international law and Israel’s obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since then, questions about Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, including settlement activity, treatment of the Palestinian population, and the status of East Jerusalem, have persisted.

The topic remains urgent in 2026 due to several recent developments: renewed settlement expansions, ongoing tensions and violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and increased calls from Palestinian representatives and some UN member states for legal clarity on Israel’s responsibilities. Additionally, the ICJ has received new requests for advisory opinions concerning Israel’s obligations under international law, particularly in light of evolving circumstances such as annexation plans, changes in Israeli domestic law affecting the OPT, and shifts in regional diplomacy.

This advisory mandate places the ICJ at the center of a highly sensitive legal-political nexus, tasked with clarifying Israel’s duties while navigating the broader geopolitical implications.

Key Actors

States

• Israel: Central party, whose policies and actions in the OPT are under scrutiny. Israel disputes the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories and argues that its presence is not an occupation in the traditional sense.
• Palestine: Seeks recognition of its rights and statehood claims over the OPT, advocating for Israel’s compliance with international law and cessation of settlement activity.
• United States: Historically Israel’s closest ally, often supports Israel’s security concerns and has at times shielded it from international criticism, though U.S. policy has shown fluctuations depending on administration.
• European Union (EU) Member States: Generally advocate for a two-state solution and call for adherence to international law, often criticizing settlement expansion and supporting Palestinian rights.
• Arab States: Countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf Cooperation Council members support Palestinian claims and press for enforcement of Israel’s obligations. Some Arab states have normalized relations with Israel but maintain concerns over the occupation.

International Organizations

• United Nations: Various UN bodies, including the General Assembly and Security Council, are engaged in resolutions and debates on the issue. The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) plays a humanitarian role for Palestinian refugees.
• International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): Acts as a guardian of international humanitarian law and monitors compliance with the Geneva Conventions.
• Quartet on the Middle East (UN, EU, US, Russia): Mediates peace efforts and promotes adherence to international legal frameworks.

Bloc Positions

1. Pro-Israel Bloc

Led by the United States and some Central and Eastern European countries, this bloc emphasizes Israel’s right to security and self-defense. They often reject the characterization of the territories as “occupied” in the strictest legal sense and oppose measures that could delegitimize Israel’s presence or sovereignty claims. They stress bilateral negotiations over unilateral legal actions.

2. Pro-Palestinian/Arab States Bloc

Includes Arab League members, Turkey, and many Non-Aligned Movement countries. This bloc demands Israel’s full compliance with international humanitarian law, cessation of settlement activity, and recognition of Palestinian statehood. They support strong UN action and legal rulings affirming Israel’s obligations as an occupying power.

3. European Union and Western Allies

Generally support a two-state solution and adherence to international law. While critical of Israeli settlement policies, they often seek balanced language that encourages negotiations and avoids alienating Israel. They support UN resolutions condemning settlement expansion but also back humanitarian assistance and conflict de-escalation efforts.

4. Neutral/Non-Aligned States

Some countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America maintain a more neutral stance, calling for peaceful resolution through dialogue and respect for international law without strongly siding with either party. They emphasize humanitarian concerns and the need for both parties to uphold their obligations.

Past UN Action

• UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967): Called for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the Six-Day War and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
• UN Security Council Resolution 338 (1973): Called for ceasefire and implementation of Resolution 242.
• UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016): Reaffirmed that Israeli settlements have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law; called for cessation of settlement activity.
• UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 (2012): Upgraded Palestine to non-member observer state status, increasing its ability to engage in international legal forums.
• ICJ Advisory Opinion (2004): On the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, concluding that the barrier violated international law and Israel’s obligations as an occupying power.

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

1. What specific legal obligations does Israel have under international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, in the OPT?
2. How should Israel’s settlement activity be addressed in light of international legal standards?
3. What are the legal implications of Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem?
4. How can the protection of Palestinian civilians and their rights under occupation be ensured?
5. What mechanisms should be recommended for monitoring and enforcing Israel’s compliance with its obligations?
6. How should the ICJ’s advisory role complement other UN efforts toward a peaceful resolution?
7. What guidance can the ICJ provide regarding the status of the OPT and the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis under international law?

Further Reading

• UN Documents: Official Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, ICJ advisory opinions, reports by the UN Secretary-General and Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the OPT, and documents from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). These provide authoritative legal and political frameworks and updates on developments.

• Think-Tank Reports: Analyses from institutions specializing in international law and Middle East policy such as the International Crisis Group, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Brookings Institution. These sources offer detailed legal interpretations, policy recommendations, and assessments of political dynamics.

• News Outlets: Reputable international media such as Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and Reuters provide current events coverage, including Israeli government announcements, Palestinian Authority responses, and international diplomatic reactions. These help contextualize legal debates within ongoing political realities.

This background guide aims to equip delegates with the necessary historical, legal, and political context to engage meaningfully in the ICJ’s advisory deliberations on Israel’s obligations in the occupied Palestinian territory in 2026.