A recent legal analysis by Professors Gleider Hernández and Ramses A. Wessel outlines the concrete steps the EU must take to abide by the ICJ’s landmark 2024 Advisory Opinion on Palestine. The study comes just as nine member states have called for EU follow-up on the court’s conclusions and amid an EU discussion on how to respond to Israel’s breach of the Association Agreement.
14 July 2025
By Martin Konečný
On 19 June 2025, nine EU foreign ministers sent a letter requesting the European Commission to conduct an “in-depth analysis” of the implications of the ground-breaking ICJ Advisory Opinion on Palestine of 19 July 2024 for the EU and its member states. The letter urges the EU to initiate a process “with a view to achieving full compliance with the Advisory Opinion around its first anniversary”.
By coincidence, a major independent expert study on this very topic was published on the same day, 19 June. Drafted by two leading scholars of international and EU law – Prof. Gleider Hernández (University of Leuven, President of European Society of International Law) and Prof. Ramses A. Wessel (University of Groningen) – the study was commissioned by five Members of the European Parliament from different political groups and countries: Barry Andrews (Renew Europe, Ireland), Hana Jalloul Muro (S&D, Spain), Tineke Strik (Greens, the Netherlands), Matjaž Nemec (S&D, Slovenia), and Villy Søvndal (Greens, Denmark). EuMEP assisted in facilitating the process.
Adding to the timing, the study was published just a day before the EU released its highly anticipated review that found Israel in breach of Article 2 – the human rights clause – of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, citing among others the ICJ Opinion.
In the first half of their study, Hernández and Wessel analyse the key findings of the Opinion, including the obligations the Court affirms for all UN member states, and their indirectly binding nature. These obligations include, inter alia, duties not to recognise, aid or assist Israel’s unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory; to abstain from economic or trade dealings with Israel that may entrench the occupation; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining it (paragraphs 278 and 279 of the Opinion).
Here we focus on and summarise some of the key implications of the ICJ Opinion for the EU and its member states, as identified in the second half of the Hernández-Wessel study.
Key implications for the EU and member states:
Overall: The Court’s Opinion unambiguously establishes legal obligations that are binding on the EU and its 27 members. To abide by them, the EU must revisit and reassess its policies, instruments and activities related to Israel.
EU-Israel Association Agreement: In the context of the EU’s above-mentioned review of Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement, the Court’s findings of severe violations of international humanitarian and human rights law must be properly taken into account. This alone justifies adopting “appropriate measures” under Article 79 of the Agreement, which could include suspending the Agreement in part or in full.
Trade: The EU’s existing measures – excluding settlement products from preferential trade tariffs and requiring their differentiated labelling – are legally insufficient because they are not designed to prevent trade dealings entrenching the Israeli occupation, as required by the ICJ. The EU must therefore consider stronger restrictions, including a potential ban on trade with Israeli settlements and other forms of trade with Israel that entrench the occupation.
EU funding: All funding to Israeli entities, including through Horizon Europe and the European Investment Bank, must be reviewed. The 2013 EU Guidelines excluding settlement entities and activities from funding must be updated to close existing loopholes – such as exemption for Israeli ministries based in East Jerusalem and for project (sub-)contractors – and to prevent indirect support. Ongoing funding may need to be suspended as a precautionary measure pending such review.
Investment & businesses: The EU and member states must prevent investment by EU-based companies and financial institutions that assist in maintaining the occupation. They must restrict dealings with companies listed in the UN database of businesses supporting the settlements. Government advisories for businesses and citizens on economic activities in settlements must be reinforced.
Visa & travel: Given the obligation to distinguish between Israel proper and the illegal settlements, the EU should explore the possibility of ending visa-free access for settlers or not recognising their passports, following its policy for Russian-annexed regions of Ukraine. (The study notes that the current practice – where Israeli settlers enjoy visa-free travel, while Palestinians under occupation must apply for visas – may inadvertently reinforce Israel’s policies that the Court found to constitute racial segregation and/or apartheid.)
Arms trade: In the light of the ICJ Opinion, member states must exercise special caution and re-assess any arms export licences to Israel, due to the risk that such weapons may be used in the serious violations as identified by the Court.
EU’s two intersecting tracks
The Hernández-Wessel study differs from the leaked initial assessment of the ICJ Opinion by the EU External Action Service, which suggests that the current EU policy already complies with it and that further action to revisit EU policy on imports from settlements is merely a “matter of political appreciation”.
According to Hernández and Wessel, the EU and member states are under clear international legal obligations to review their policies and bring them into compliance with the ICJ – this is not a matter of political discretion.
In this regard, the study aligns with the above-mentioned letter by nine foreign ministers, which says that the EU’s initial analysis shared with them “does not fully take into account” the ICJ Opinion “which goes beyond the current EU differentiation policy”.
The study’s recommendations also partly overlap with the ten options presented by High Representative Kaja Kallas to member states on 10 July for follow-up on Israel’s breach of Article 2 of the Association Agreement.
The EU is thus expected to proceed on two intersecting tracks: one more political (responding to the breach under the Association Agreement), the other more legal (responding to the ICJ Opinion, as requested by the nine ministers).
It should be recalled that the ICJ Opinion relates to Israel’s long-term occupation of the Palestinian territory, largely predating 7 October 2023, and only defines the minimum obligations that states must fulfil. On its basis, the Hernández-Wessel study identifies what the EU – as a political body with extensive ties to Israel as well as treaty-based commitments to international law – must do as a matter of legal duty.
The ongoing horrific catastrophe in Gaza, combined with the findings of the EU’s Association Agreement review, comes on top and imposes an even greater urgency to act. This demands measures that go significantly beyond the legal minimum established by the ICJ.
The study by Professors Hernández and Wessel can also be accessed on the websites of the University of Groningen, MEP Barry Andrews, MEP Matjaž Nemec and the Dutch alliance GroenLinks–PvdA.