UN’s top court requested to provide advisory opinion following General Assembly vote Outcome of case seen as critical by Israel, Palestine LONDON: The UK has been accused by international law experts and Palestinian rights activists of attempting to block the International Court of Justice from making a fair appraisal on the Israeli occupation of Palestine, The Guardian reported. A 43-page legal opinion submitted by the UK to the UN’s top court opposes an expected ICJ advisory ruling on the legal consequences of the “occupation, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian land. So far, 57 opinions have been sent to the court ahead of the advisory ruling, which is viewed as critical to the future prospects of both Israel and Palestine. But the UK’s stance is firmly in the minority, with legal experts and rights activists warning that the country’s opinion ignores Israel’s activities and is a “complete endorsement of Israeli talking points.” Victor Kattan, an assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham, said: “This is a rather weak and uninformed document that portrays Israel’s longstanding occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its annexation of East Jerusalem, as a bilateral dispute between two states.” Though the ICJ lacks the power to enforce any decisions, its rulings are legally binding according to international law. Since the occupation began in 1967, no legal judgment has classified the Israeli strategy as a whole as unlawful, though various aspects have been deemed illegal. Last December, a UN General Assembly resolution urged the ICJ to reach an advisory opinion, but the UK, Israel and several other Western countries voted against the move, claiming that it would push the two sides away from peace. In its submission, the UK argues that any ICJ opinion would settle Israel’s “bilateral dispute” without consent, and that the court itself is ill-equipped to resolve the “complex factual issues” at play between both sides. It adds that an advisory opinion could undermine existing peace arrangements between the two sides, and claims that the request is flawed on the grounds that it “assumes unlawful conduct on the part of Israel.” Daniel Machover, of Hickman & Rose solicitors in London, said: “It is a matter of concern that the UK is seeking to block the court from addressing such important matters, something I am sure it would not do were the court asked to address comparable issues … such as Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory.” The UK submission also ignores pertinent UN findings since 2016 that highlight Israel’s failure to uphold the rights of Palestinians. One senior Palestinian source said: “The UK submission is a complete endorsement of Israeli talking points. “They are not arguing that this is not the right time to go to the ICJ, because the peace process is working. They are saying the Israeli violations Palestinians point out are not as important as negotiation frameworks from decades ago.” Submissions to the court will remain open until Oct. 25, with deliberations expected to last a year if the ICJ accepts the UN request to provide an advisory opinion. Israel has criticized the move, with UN envoy Gilad Erdan labeling the General Assembly vote a “moral stain” that undermines his country. A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office said: “The UK is committed to working with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to advance a peaceful two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital. “We are deeply concerned by instability in the West Bank and call on all sides to work together to urgently de-escalate the situation.”