In Law for Palestine Webinar: Experts Urge States to Impose Economic Sanctions and Trade Restrictions on Israel Following ICJ Advisory Opinion on Palestine

On 21 January 2025, Law for Palestine, in collaboration with the Independent Commission for Human Rights – Palestine (ICHR) and the ETO Consortium, hosted an online webinar via Zoom and streamed live on YouTube titled “Economic Responsibility of Third-Party States Arising from the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Palestine”. 

The webinar, the third in Season 3 of the Jurists for Palestine Forum, explored the economic responsibilities of third-party states in light of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) recent Advisory Opinion on Palestine. The session provided critical insights into the obligations of states to take effective measures against Israel’s unlawful occupation, including suspending economic, financial, and trade relations that contribute to the perpetuation of the occupation. The discussion underscored the duty of states to enforce corporate compliance with international law, address anti-boycott laws, and leverage trade and investment mechanisms to uphold human rights and accountability. 

Moderated by Wesam Ahmad, Head of the Law Center for Applied International Law at Al-Haq Organisation, the event featured five distinguished experts: Shahd Hammouri (Lecturer in Law at Kent University and Senior Advisor at Law for Palestine), Lara Elborno (International Arbitration Lawyer), Kinda Mohamadieh (Senior Researcher and Legal Advisor at Third World Network), Mark Taylor (Author of War Economies and International Law), and Tara Van Ho (Senior Lecturer at University of Essex Law School).

Shahd Hammouri on the General Economic Third-state Responsibility Under International Law

In her remarks, Hammouri framed the discussion around the fundamental premise that Palestinian self-determination is inherently a process of decolonization. She emphasised that the reading of the ICJ Advisory Opinion should be Palestinian-led and rooted in the experiences of the Global South. Economic Sanctions Israel ICJ Palestine

She underscored that the ICJ’s findings reaffirm Israel’s violation of three peremptory norms of international law: the prohibition against aggression, racial discrimination and apartheid, and the right to self-determination. She traced the historical trajectory of international law’s treatment of Palestine, highlighting that Israel’s persistent denial of the Palestinian right of return constitutes an accumulated international wrongdoing.

The world that we live in has worked through colonial erasure, as well as the erasure of the experiences of the global South, in order to deem such a logical conclusion actually quite absent

She critiqued the limitations of conventional interpretations of self-determination, arguing that statehood alone is insufficient and that the process must ensure economic non-exploitation and non-domination. Building on this premise, she set the foundation for the discussion on third-state economic responsibility. She emphasised that the ICJ’s decision requires states to suspend all economic activity where Israel purports to act on behalf of the occupied Palestinian territory. This responsibility extends beyond settlement-related trade to all economic ties that sustain the occupation.

In her closing remarks she warned against a reductive reading of the decision and called for robust economic restrictions, including targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and financial disengagement from Israel’s war economy. Economic Sanctions Israel ICJ Palestine

Kinda Mohamadieh on the Legal Duty of States to Impose Trade Measures Against Israel

In her discussion, Mohamadieh talked about the legal basis for third states to impose trade measures against Israel following the ICJ advisory opinion. She argued that such measures are not only allowed but required under international law due to Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The role of Israel as an occupying power cannot be understood as an act isolated from the overall operations of the Israeli state and the Israeli economy

She highlighted states’ obligations under state  responsibility, which mandate cooperation to end serious breaches and prohibit aiding in maintaining an illegal situation. She also explained that World Trade Organization (WTO) law, specifically Article 21C of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), provides exceptions allowing trade restrictions in line with UN obligations.

Mohamadieh emphasised that trade actions should go beyond targeting illegal settlements as Israel’s broader economic integration with the occupied territory sustains its violations. She concluded that comprehensive measures are necessary to fulfill legal obligations and address systemic exploitation. Economic Sanctions Israel ICJ Palestine

Lara Elborno on the Economic Legal Implications of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion

During the webinar, Elborno analyzed how states’ obligations under the opinion could affect Israel’s 36 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other investment agreements. 

She outlined three key obligations: to refrain from treaty relations with Israel when it acts as though the oPt is part of its territory, to avoid economic dealings with Israel concerning the oPt that may reinforce its unlawful presence there, and to take measures to prevent investment relations that contribute to sustaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the oPt

She discussed legal arguments in favor of a full economic embargo, including terminating BITs, while also examining the potential consequences. She explored whether such termination would deter foreign investment in Israel or merely serve as a symbolic gesture, noting that past examples suggest foreign direct investment is not necessarily linked to BITs. 

Elborno concluded her remarks by drawing parallels with cases against Russia, raising a critical question about the ability of BITs to provide a legal avenue for Palestinians with foreign nationalities to sue Israel for damages to investments in the oPt.

Mark Taylor: on economic sanctions as part of state responsibility to dismantle systems of apartheid and occupation

In his remarks, Taylor distinguished between different types of sanctions, including comprehensive and targeted sanctions, as well as unilateral and multilateral measures. He highlighted the historical roots of sanctions as economic weapons of war and tools of enforcement for international norms.

Do sanctions work? Do they change the behavior of their target? And the answer to that is frankly not on their own and not quickly. But they do have effects

Mark further discussed the precedent for sanctions against Israel, highlighting recent measures such as the US and UK sanctions on Israeli settlers in the West Bank. He also contextualised these actions within the historical use of sanctions in cases of apartheid and occupation, drawing parallels to the situation in Palestine. He emphasised the strategic value of sanctions in enforcing international law and preventing businesses from contributing to violations. According to him, sanctions are most effective when viewed not as punitive measures but as tools for regulating behavior and signaling to the market.

Mark concluded his remarks by addressing the need for strategic thinking in sanctions policy and resistance to anti-boycott laws, underscoring the importance of civil society engagement with policymakers to design and implement targeted sanctions effectively.

Tara Van Ho on Corporate Responsibility and Business Ethics in Conflict Zones

Van Ho discussed corporate responsibility within the context of international law and human rights frameworks. During the webinar, she examined the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and their relevance to the situation in Gaza and occupied Palestine, particularly in light of recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions. She outlined how these principles serve as a framework for holding businesses accountable for human rights violations.

She focused on  the responsibility of states and businesses to respect human rights, especially in situations of extraterritorial impact. Tara discussed how the UNGPs require businesses to conduct human rights due diligence, emphasising the potential harm business activities can cause, especially in conflict zones. She also addressed the concept of “conflict-sensitive” business practices and highlighted the importance of businesses considering how their operations might perpetuate or mitigate violence in areas like Palestine.

Tara argued that businesses operating in Israel and Palestine have a responsibility to cease harmful conduct and provide reparations when their actions contribute to violations. She also stresses the importance of leveraging business influence to drive change and ensure accountability for corporate actors.

The webinar offered crucial insights into the economic responsibilities of states and businesses in addressing Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory. Expert discussions highlighted the importance of international law, corporate accountability, and the strategic use of economic measures—such as sanctions and trade restrictions—in holding both states and businesses accountable. The event underscored the urgent need for targeted actions to uphold human rights, enforce international law, and promote justice in Palestine, providing a vital framework for fostering accountability and advancing the cause of Palestinian self-determination.

* To read the full transcript of this webinar, click here