Amnesty International / July 15, 2025
Reacting to the EU’s decision not to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, Agnès Callamard Amnesty International’s Secretary General said:
“The EU’s refusal to suspend its agreement with Israel is a cruel and unlawful betrayal – of the European project and vision, predicated on upholding international law and fighting authoritarian practices, of the European Union’s own rules and of the human rights of Palestinians.
This will be remembered as one of the most disgraceful moments in the EU’s history – Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
“European leaders had the opportunity to take a principled stand against Israel’s crimes, but instead gave it a greenlight to continue its genocide in Gaza, its unlawful occupation of the whole Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), and its system of apartheid against Palestinians.
“The EU’s own review has clearly found that Israel is violating its human rights obligations under the terms of the Association Agreement. Yet, instead of taking measures to stop it and prevent their own complicity, member states chose to maintain a preferential trade deal over respecting their international obligations and saving Palestinian lives.
“This is more than political cowardice. Every time the EU fails to act, the risk of complicity in Israel’s actions grows. This sends an extremely dangerous message to perpetrators of atrocity crimes that they will not only go unpunished but be rewarded.
“Victims are entitled to far more than empty words. Member states must now take matters into their own hands and unilaterally suspend all forms of cooperation with Israel that may contribute to its grave violations of international law, including a comprehensive embargo on the export of arms and surveillance equipment and related technology, and a total ban on trade with and investment in Israel’s illegal settlements in the OPT.”
Background
On 15 July, EU foreign ministers met in Brussels to decide whether to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
Member states were presented with 10 options, including full suspension of the agreement, the EU suspension of its preferential trade and/or research pillars, an arms embargo, sanctions on Israeli ministers, halting visa-free travel for Israeli citizens to the EU, or banning trade with Israeli [Jewish] settlements.
None of these options gathered the necessary support during today’s meeting of foreign affairs ministers.
Member states must now take unilateral or concerted steps to bring their actions in line with international law, which takes precedence over both EU and national law. They can, for instance, conduct themselves as if the agreement was suspended, and should unilaterally suspend all forms of cooperation with Israel that may contribute to its grave violations of international law, including by taking steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the OPT, as outlined by the International Court of Justice in its 2024 Advisory Opinion.
_____________
ADVISORY OPINION
Amnesty International / August 28, 2024
EU/IOPT: Letter to EU member states on implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion
Ahead of the EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 29 August 2024, Amnesty International wrote to High Representative / Vice President Josep Borrell Fontelles and EU Foreign Ministers, calling on them to ensure that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 19 July 2024 is translated into effective policies to bring Israel’s violations of international law to an end.
Dear High Representative,
Dear Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
We are writing to you sharing our assessment in view of the advisory opinion (AO) issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including East Jerusalem.
On 19 July 2024, the ICJ determined that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is unlawful. Further, the ICJ determined that Israel is under an obligation to end its unlawful presence in the OPT, cease immediately all new [Jewish] settlement activities, evacuate all settlers from the OPT and make reparation for the damage caused to all those concerned in the OPT. While the European Union (EU) maintains the position that the OPT, including East Jerusalem, is occupied by Israel, the EU must now recognise that this occupation has become unlawful.
The ICJ also clearly determined that Israel has violated its obligations under international law, namely through the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank including East Jerusalem; maintenance of their presence; confiscation or requisitioning of land; exercising its regulatory authority as an Occupying Power in a manner that is inconsistent with international law; forcible evictions, extensive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement. The Court also pointed out other areas where Israel’s exploitation of natural resources and severe restriction of the access of the Palestinian population to water are inconsistent with international law. While the EU has pointed to some of these violations of international law in the past in a non-consistent manner, the EU must recognize that all these practises constitute violations of international law and of Israel’s obligations.
On violence against Palestinians, the ICJ determined that systematic failure to prevent or to punish attacks by settlers and Israel’s excessive use of force violate Israel’s obligations under international law. While the EU has rightly condemned settler violence and Israel’s responsibility to address it and taken limited measures against individuals involved in settler violence, regretfully the EU and member states have been much more reserved in pointing out Israeli forces’ excessive use of force in the OPT, including deadly strikes hitting children or in taking measures against officials involved in these violations.
The Court also found that Israeli policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the OPT. While the EU has pointed out Israeli annexation, we regret that some member states have attempted to move their diplomatic representation to Jerusalem, which would clearly contradict the member states’ obligations of non-recognition of Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem.
Further, the Court found that differentiation of treatment between Palestinians and Israelis, in the OPT cannot be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim. Accordingly, the Court determined that the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the OPT constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin. The Court also found that Israel’s legislation and measures, constitute a breach of its obligation to condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction. While we welcome the EU’s 2018 statement acknowledging the reality that Israel is moving towards “entrench[ing] a one-state reality of unequal rights, perpetual occupation and conflict,” we regret that the EU refuses to acknowledge the reality of Israel’s regime of apartheid and racial segregation.
The Court’s findings also establish the responsibilities of third states, including the EU and its member states. At this time, the EU and member states are not meeting these obligations, as certain actions are contributing to maintaining the unlawful situation that Israel has created in the OPT. For example, through supplying arms, technology and equipment that are contributing to maintaining the occupation, trading with [Jewish] settlements and allowing investments into the settlements.
Equally important is that the Court has made it clear that security concerns cannot override Israel’s obligation to respect international law. Further, the Court determined that Israel cannot invoke the protection of the settlers and settlements as a ground to justify measures that treat Palestinians differently, especially in view of blanket discrimination on the basis of their identity. Moreover, the Oslo accords cannot be understood to detract from Israel’s obligations.
The ICJ is the highest court of the United Nations system. All its members states have the obligation to comply with its decisions. All EU member states are then bound to them. Disregarding the ICJ’s opinion would be against the rules-based world order that the EU supports and promotes everywhere. The EU is therefore expected to fully acknowledge and accept the findings of the Court. Failure to do so would severely undermine the EU’s credibility and the application of international law in other contexts.
In view of the ICJ’s AO, we recommend the following measures to ensure that EU policies are aligned with the ICJ’s determination:
- Ban trade and investments in Israeli settlements in the OPT, including East Jerusalem: The EU must take steps towards banning trade in settlement goods, including through the adoption of an appropriate tracking system and a punitive mechanism for violations to halt activities that entrench unlawful Israeli presence in Palestine;
- Ban investing in Israeli companies or banks that are contributing to maintain Israel’s unlawful occupation: This includes companies that produce or develop weapons, surveillance, policing equipment or technology, as well as companies involved in constructing settlements or settlements infrastructure and banks that are facilitating transactions for settlers and settlements;
- The European Commission should conduct a legal assessment to determine which aspects of EU-Israel cooperation violate international law: While the letter outlines areas of cooperation in which Amnesty International believes that the EU and member states are in violation of international law, the list is not exhaustive and an in-depth analysis must be conducted by the Commission;
- The European Commission must conduct a review to determine whether Israel has violated its obligations under article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement: To date, the Commission has not responded to the letter sent by Ireland and Spain and backed by Slovenia. As part of the EU-Israel Association Council, the Commission must conduct such a review and ensure that the findings of the ICJ are clearly reflected;
- Update the EU’s position concerning Israel and the OPT and align it with the AO: Statements by the EU must reflect the findings of the ICJ, including correctly referring to the OPT including East Jerusalem as unlawfully occupied, recognizing that Israel has unlawfully annexed parts of the OPT and recognizing that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians.
- The EU and member states must refrain from moving diplomatic missions to occupied East Jerusalem, or taking any measures that would constitute recognition of Israel’s unlawful annexation of Palestinian territory;
- The EU and member states must impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel: In particular, all arms or equipment or technology or parts that allow Israel to maintain its unlawful occupation, including policing and surveillance equipment used in the OPT;
- The EU and member states must back action at the UN to bring an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation: This includes supporting resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council that aim to bring an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation of the OPT.
We are ready to discuss these issues with you any time.
Sincerely,
Eve Geddie
Director European Institutions Office
Amnesty International
