The United Nations General Assembly recently held its 79th session, beginning on September 10th, 2024. Resolution ES-10/24 was overwhelmingly passed on Wednesday, September 18th, demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine within the next twelve months. The vote concluded with 124 countries voting in favor of the resolution, 12 against it, and 43 abstaining. What will be the outcomes of this resolution, and can we expect to see a change within the next twelve months?
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is an open forum where leaders can debate international political issues concerning peace and conflict, economic development, and social, humanitarian, and cultural issues. In a historic moment, Palestine took a non-member observer state status for the first time this year when President Mahmoud Abbas was seated on the floor of the General Assembly. In November 2012, the UNGA approved the recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine, upgrading its status from observer to “non-member” state. As a result, Palestinians were allowed to submit proposals and amendments in addition to sitting alongside member states.
This new status in the UNGA allowed Palestine to successfully introduce its own draft resolution for voting. Specifically, this resolution demanded that “Israel brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character entailing its international responsibility, and do so no later than 12 months.”
There are two major components of the resolution. The first demands that Israel comply with international law, withdrawing their troops and immediately putting a stop to any new settlement activity. It entails the dismantling of the separation wall it constructed inside the occupied West Bank, as well as the evacuation of all settlers from the occupied land. The second orders Israel to return land and other “immovable property,” including assets that were seized as far back as 1967, when the occupation began. (Notably, this implies all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions.) Ultimately, the resolution demands that Israel allows all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their places of origin and make reparations for the damage caused by their occupation. The resolution was rooted in the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion set forth in July 2024, in which it declared that Israel’s occupation in Palestine is “unlawful” and that “all states are under an obligation not to recognize” the decades-long occupation.
What change can be prompted by this resolution? While the answer should be identical to the conditions the wording recognizes, the answer is quite the opposite. All UNGA resolutions not specifically addressing matters internal to the UN are considered legally non-binding. This means that unless enacted by member states, there will be no enforcement of the resolution. Thus, it is unlikely to create change for the occupied Palestinian people within the foreseeable future. Although there is a time limit for the resolution, it remains improbable given the lack of enforcement and punitive consequences.
Citizens of member states of the UNGA can create something out of the resolution, however. Take DAWN, a nonprofit organization that seeks to reform U.S. policy in the Middle East and hold human rights abusers in the region accountable, for example. They have advised the adoption of a “Uniting for Peace” resolution aimed at fostering collective, multilateral efforts, as they expect the Security Council will not take action to end the occupation—a consequence of the lack of unanimity among the permanent members. DAWN councils for governments internationally to suspend weapons transfers and to prompt sanctions against Israel until they comply with the International Court of Justice.
The reliance on the resolution and compliance with the International Court of Justice’s decision depends on members actively working to ensure the outcomes. It has become clear that this will be where they fall short. By looking at a deeper analysis of the 12 countries that voted against Resolution ES-10/24 and the 43 that abstained, one can easily reach the conclusion that they may not prioritize international law over special political interests. While these states could argue that they are acting in political neutrality, international law is clear on the matter of occupation: it is a criminal act. In this context, it may be safe to assume that the resolution and the International Court of Justice’s decisions condemning Israel may have little effect unless countries actively begin to prioritize human rights over strategic interests.
***
This article was edited by Ainsley Coates.
