The Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories has long been a contentious issue, with the international community seeking ways to address the situation. Recently, attention has turned to the international trusteeship system, a mechanism established under Chapter XII of the UN Charter in 1945 to guide territories towards self-government or independence. Although the system has been dormant since the last trust territory, Palau, gained independence in 1994, it remains a potential tool for exerting pressure on Israel. Article 87 of the charter still allows for the examination of reports, receipt of petitions, and periodic visits to trust territories.
The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) advisory opinion in July 2024 added urgency to reconsidering the trusteeship system. The court found that Israel's legislation and measures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem breach Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This ruling provides a crucial legal foundation for a more consequential international response. However, the application of trusteeship depends on specific categories, agreements, and approval procedures, making it unlikely that Israel would voluntarily accept such an arrangement.
An alternative approach is to invoke the principles underlying trusteeship as a source of political and normative pressure. The UN General Assembly could identify a de facto vacuum of international protection and accountability and call for an examination of how the Trusteeship Council's experience might inform a contemporary response. This approach would not require Israel's consent, but a UN General Assembly declaration alone could not place the Palestinian Territories under the Trusteeship Council's jurisdiction.
Another possible avenue is to confront Israeli policies through the international prohibition of apartheid. The ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion strengthens the basis for this argument by finding that Israel's separation of Palestinians and settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem constitutes a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. However, the court did not expressly qualify this breach as apartheid or make a criminal determination.
The UN has a powerful institutional precedent in the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, established in 1962. This committee served for over three decades as a focal point for international mobilization against South Africa's racial order. A similar approach could be taken with regard to Israel, but it would likely encounter significant political resistance, particularly from the United States, which has repeatedly used its veto on resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinian question.
Despite Security Council paralysis, the UN General Assembly has options for collective action. Article 14 of the Charter empowers the General Assembly to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of situations likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations. The "Uniting for Peace" Resolution of 1950 also allows the assembly to consider and recommend measures when the Security Council is unable to act.
The 81st session of the UN General Assembly, which opens this month, carries the theme "Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations That Delivers for All." However, the session is overshadowed by the fact that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been prevented from attending the high-level gathering in New York due to a US visa denial. Abbas will address the gathering by prerecorded video, but this arrangement highlights the underlying institutional problem of US restrictions on access to UN Headquarters.
Key points
- The international trusteeship system remains a potential tool for exerting pressure on Israel.
- The ICJ's advisory opinion strengthens the basis for confronting Israeli policies through the international prohibition of apartheid.
- The UN General Assembly has options for collective action despite Security Council paralysis.
