London: Britain's formal conclusion that Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful marks a significant legal and political shift, but international law scholars say London's response still falls short of what that recognition demands. British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced Tuesday that the UK government had formally concluded that the occupation was unlawful, bringing its position into line with a central finding of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2024 advisory opinion.

According to Anadolu Agency, the announcement marks a departure from London's previous position, as the government had not formally expressed a view on the legality of the occupation as a whole. But while the UK has announced measures targeting Israeli settlements and settlement expansion, the broader relationship with Israel remains largely untouched -- a distinction some legal scholars question.

'The legal and political shift is honestly huge, although insufficient,' Luigi Daniele, an associate professor of international law at the University of Molise in Italy, told Anadolu. The ICJ ruled in July 2024 that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, was unlawful and that Israel was under an obligation to bring that presence to an end as rapidly as possible. The court also said Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity and evacuate all occupiers from the occupied territory.

Gerhard Kemp, a professor of criminal law at the University of the West of England, Bristol, said Britain's conclusion was significant because it brought the government's position in line with the ICJ's findings on the occupation. "It is a good thing that the UK clearly concluded that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is unlawful," he told Anadolu. But Kemp noted that the ICJ's advisory opinion went further, also addressing Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territory, including segregation and apartheid -- issues not specifically addressed in the British statement. He said the British position appeared to be based not only on the ICJ's work, but also on its own assessment of the factual and legal situation on the ground.

Miliband announced a ban on imports of goods from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, alongside measures targeting companies and individuals that provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. 'The sanctions itself are very targeted and limited to goods and some services from the settlements and the sanctions are not broadly aimed at Israel,' Kemp said. The UK also announced sanctions on a further group of extremist occupiers who have supported or incited violence against Palestinian communities. For Kemp, however, the measures leave the central issue unresolved. 'The sanctions are aimed to stop the expansion of the illegal settlements. So, one can say this is an important first step, but more would be required to address the central issue -- namely the unlawful occupation itself.'

For Daniele, another key limitation is that Britain has stopped short of characterizing Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. "Miliband has spoken clear words about the illegality of the situation in the occupied territory, although he hasn't mentioned in any way genocide at all," Daniele said. "I would say this is the main issue." British foreign secretary said Tuesday that the UK supports full and fair judicial processes to consider allegations of genocide, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British government reaches its own conclusion. Daniele, however, argued that Britain's approach risks creating an artificial distinction between Israel and its actions in occupied Palestinian territory.

"Miliband seems to cultivate, with (UK Prime Minister) Andy Burnham and the other countries announcing these measures, the illusion that there is a good and lawful Israel within the green line, with which it's ok to continue trade, military assistance, surveillance assistance ... and then there is somehow it's a bad and unlawful Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory,' he said. "But we know that this construct is false." Daniele argued that such an approach allows governments to condemn settlements and sanction individual occupiers while continuing other forms of economic, military and security cooperation with Israel.

Daniele also questioned whether measures targeting individual occupiers can be effective without addressing what he described as the broader political and institutional system supporting settlement activity. 'It is simply impossible to just target the most blatant cases and actors of this rogue and criminal dynamic without targeting the state of Israel as exactly as it was done during apartheid in South Africa,' he said. He argued that one of the most significant changes in Israeli politics over the past decade has been the growing influence of the occupier movement. 'Settlers have become a governing force of the state of Israel, with their movement and with their political expression,' he said.

The issue of occupier violence further complicates attempts to isolate settlement activity from the Israeli state, Daniele said. In the occupied West Bank, he added, a network of actors openly seeking to "de-Palestinize entirely the land" has the support of Israeli institutions and political networks. He pointed to Israeli banks, bonds and the World Zionist Organization as part of what he described as a broader system supporting settlement activity. Daniele said the measures need to target Israel as a whole until future governments demonstrate that they intend to respect the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, starting with their right to self-determination.

Daniele emphasized that Britain's shift also shows that sustained public pressure can influence government policy. 'I think we should salute this development positively because it shows that the pressure of civil society mobilization has meaning and can radically affect how governments deal with the situation when they don't want to lose the consent of the majority of the working people in Western society,' he said. But rather than viewing Britain's decision as an endpoint, Daniele argued that pro-Palestinian movements should build on it to push for more significant results in the coming years. "We should also use this opening as an indication that we need to relaunch the global movement in a better organized manner," he said.