Local Authorities in support of Palestinian rights


Download the full infographic: 

Local Authorities in Support of Palestinian Rights

See as well:

Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations of Local Government" by Joseph Schechla, HLRN – HIC


In cooperation with:

The Housing and Land Rights Network - Habitat International Coalition (HIC)


Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC)





Social responsibility, international solidarity: local action toward justice and a better world

1) The motion’s purpose is to express social responsibility and/or solidarity with the Palestinian people based on local democracy and respect of the legal obligations resulting for local councils from Israel’s grave violation

2) Concrete commitments local councils can make

Legal background: the duty not recognize or assist Israel’s grave violations

3) Israel’s grave violations of international law and Palestinian human rights

4) The involvement of the Israeli state, its institutions as well as Israeli and international public and private bodies in these violations

5) Third states obligations in connection with these grave violations

6) The responsibility of local governments to take corresponding action

Notes on trade and procurement rules

7)  Compliance with WTO rules

7 (a): Compliance with EU directives


Annex: Israel’s settlement project, including the construction of the Wall





Historically, local governments have had key roles in the struggle for human rights and the development of international law and world order. Certain cities have become known as the theater of local human rights movements and uprisings, as well as crucial governance experiments, agreements, treaties and processes that have shaped international norms. In a “glocal” world, governments are well placed to extend international solidarity and uphold the individual, collective, domestic and extraterritorial human rights and international law obligations of the state. As democratic local councils increasingly assume relations with international and foreign actors, the more crucial is their alignment with international law and their commitment to respect, protect and fulfill human rights - an internationally binding obligation on all spheres of government. Popular diplomacy is not only a soft power. Local governments can have significant effect on the state’s - and world’s - international law and human rights performance, either negatively or positively.

The current global debates on the “right to the city,” “human rights in the city,” “human rights city” “human rights and local government” and “human rights habitat” ultimately converge also on questions of the rights of cities and the corresponding human rights obligations of cities and local governments according to the law. Here we will address the extraterritorial human rights obligations of cities and local authorities and local spheres of government.

Local governments, unlike private entities, constitute an organic part of the state in international law and share the legal responsibilities of states in the conduct of international relations. Accordingly, many local governments, including city councils, are taking steps to ensure that their engagement with local or foreign and international actors also complies with international law. Local authorities and other spheres of government bear a legal obligation to withhold recognition, cooperation and transaction with, and/or assistance to parties in any illegal situation that breaches the peremptory norms (fundamental principles) of international law. In the case of Palestine, such illegal situations and violations include the crime of population transfer, apartheid, wars of aggression, genocide, forced labor, refugee refoulement, and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement, torture, piracy and any combination of acts such that deny a people its right to self-determination.

The duties and corresponding measures are self-executing, so they do not need require legislation, and certainly do not permit legal or other measures to interfere with their execution. However, effective implementation may call for a guiding resolution or policy to address local specificity, as well as build international solidarity in compliance with human rights and international law.

In the case of Israel’s illegal regime of occupation, settler colonialism, population transfer and apartheid, many local councils also have issued additional declarations of support to the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a form of practical and effective “glocal” solidarity. Precedents for such action include the anti-apartheid BDS that led to democratizing South Africa, similar resolutions to support Western Sahara self-determination and end the Moroccan occupation, as well as resolved policies not to procure electronic equipment that contain conflict minerals.

Civil society initiatives help remind local authorities and local-government councils of their legal obligations and call for effective solidarity through compliance with their binding obligations. In line with this movement, many councils have adopted motions declaring themselves “Israeli Apartheid Free Councils” or “Socially Responsible Councils”.

Based on the experiences and lessons learnt by activists leading these efforts, especially in the Spanish state and the UK, this activist guide explains the central pillars of this model motion and aims to help activists and decision makers promote and defend such motions. We discuss:

  1. Basic approaches to international solidarity, international cooperation and social responsibility of local councils and concrete actions;

  2. The international legal (state) obligations to be respected by all local councils and their policy motions;

  3. Technical considerations which ensure that these motions comply with international trade law and procurement regulations

*** BACK TO TOP ***


International solidarity, social responsibility:

Local action towards justice and a better world



1) The motion’s purpose is to express solidarity with the Palestinian people, or social responsibility, based on local democracy and the legal obligations resulting for local councils from Israel’s grave violations

Solidarity with the Palestinian people, in order to be politically coherent and effective, has to include non-cooperation with Israeli apartheid, colonialism and occupation. This approach has been applied in several of initiatives of local governments. For example:

  • The solidarity movement in the Spanish state has launched in 2014 the campaign to create ‘Israeli Apartheid Free Zones’. This campaign urges private entities, including civil society spaces, as well international law-bound local governments, to apply the principle of non-cooperation with Israeli apartheid and its accomplices on which the Palestinian civil society-led movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is based. Over 50 spanish local councils already have adopted motions of this kind.

  • The International Conference on Local Government and Civil Society Organizations in Support of the Rights of the Palestinian People organized by the UN and local government networks (Seville, 2014), in its final statement (‘Olive Declaration’) called on local governments to “commit to responsible investment, to refrain from contracting with parties and/or twinning with cities that support or benefit from occupation, or violate related prohibitions under international law”.

Local councils can adopt motions that express:

  1. Solidarity with the Palestinian people: such motions support to the global BDS movement for ending Israeli apartheid and declare the council to be an ‘Israeli Apartheid Free Council’;and/or

  2. Social responsibility: Councils that are unable to adopt a motion based on (political) solidarity can adopt motions expressing respect of the principles of social responsibility, including the commitment to abstain from activities and relationships that support Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian human rights.  Based on such motions, councils may declare themselves a ‘Socially Responsible Council.; and/or

  3. Council compliant with International Law: Since all public bodies within a territorial state in the international system bear certain international law obligations equally with the state itself. These include the obligations binding under specific treaties as well as peremptory norms binding on all states. Human rights treaties carry extraterritorial obligations to ensure that international cooperation is consistent with human rights provisions, while peremptory norms require conduct consistent with the right to self-determination and prohibitions against its denial. Local governments and authorities also are required not to recognize or cooperate with parties that engage in such denial, as well as in crimes such as apartheid, population transfer, colonial occupation, forced labor, torture, genocide, refoulement of refugees, etc. These obligations are self-executing in the sense that compliance and enforcement does not require further legislative acts. However, a municipal order, council resolution or other statement of compliance with international law and world order provides an opportunity to build local citizens’ awareness about their place, role and responsibilities in the world.

Councils adopting any combination of the above three approaches can refer to, promote and develop public education, local democracy, citizen and city diplomacy, and even city-to-city cooperation on a regional or global scale.

In June 2015, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) renewed its commitment to promote human rights and international solidarity, by adopting resolution 29/6 which inter alia “Request[ed] all States, United Nations agencies, other relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations to mainstream the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity into their activities.” In September 2015, HRC received its Advisory Committee report on the “Role of local government in the promotion and protection of human rights”, emphasizing the human rights treaty obligations of local government.

Whereas local councils historically have joined and created powerful movements in support of human rights, justice and peace, the norms of human rights, international law and world order provide a timely framework for local good governance that takes on global implications. During the global movement to overcome apartheid in South Africa, countless city councils across the world declared themselves ‘Apartheid Free Councils’, hundreds of US cities have passed motions to oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Other municipalities have pledged not to procure from companies trading in, or using conflict minerals, coincident with a corresponding UN Security Council sanctions regime.

It is not only the time, but also a duty for local councils across the globe to resolve and unite to uphold international law and world order. This they can do effectively by promoting freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people.


2) Concrete commitments to be taken by local councils  

The Councils and its organs and entities should decide to abstain from all commercial and financial engagement with any company or institution facilitating or contributing to the above violations, because the latter constitutes disrespect of international humanitarian law and grave misconduct. In particular, the Council may commit to:

  • Not procure and purchase goods, equipment or services from, and

  • Not invest pension funds or other municipal funds in, or divest from:

    • Companies that are involved in any of Israel’s breaches of internationally peremptory norms.

Furthermore, the Council and its organs and entities should decide to abstain from non-commercial/non-financial cooperation, including meetings, joint projects and activities, whether of political, academic, cultural, sports or other nature with:

  • Representatives of the Israeli government, its diplomatic missions and the Israeli military (to the extent that relations with these fall into the competence of local government), who carry primary responsibility for the violations of international law mentioned in paragraph 1;

  • Israeli municipalities: the Council will abstain from entering into twinning agreements as long as Israeli municipalities cooperate with the municipal councils of the illegal settlements within the Israeli municipal system;

  • Israeli academic and cultural institutions, as well as Israeli state-sponsored academic, cultural and sports initiatives, because of their involvement in the commission and/or legitimization of these Israeli violations of international law and Palestinian human rights.

In order to support civil society efforts to promote Palestinian rights and local democracry and participation as well as to raise awareness about the city council’s commitments and principles promoted in the city, the local council is advised to:

  • commit to encourage national and international cooperation with the BDS movement, including by municipalities and their network, in order to contribute to the success of this campaign.

  • promote the human rights of the Palestinian people by undertaking initiatives that foster cooperation, public awareness and support, such as twinning with Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps and hosting Palestinian partners for educational, cultural or sports events.  

  • inform the public about the adoption of this resolution/motion and its content and of the status of Israeli Apartheid Free City [where this is the case] through the municipal website and publications, and to disseminate this information to municipalities, businesses and the voluntary sector in the country.

  • Amend within [a set period] existing Council policies, procedure and documents pertaining to procurement, investment and international cooperation in order to incorporate the provisions of this resolution.

  • Establish a joint committee between members of the city council and civil society to facilitate and support the successful implementation of this resolution/motion, ensure accountability and develop proposals for follow-up action.

*** BACK TO TOP ***


Legal background:

The duty to not recognize or assist Israel’s grave violations



3) Israel’s grave violations of international law and human rights of the Palestinian people

Israeli violations include:

  • Violations of peremptory norms, i.e. norms from which no State may derogate, including the acquisition of territory by force, colonial domination, apartheid, violation of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people; these result in legal responsibilities for all states;

  • War crimes and crimes against humanity resulting in individual responsibility and prosecutable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular:  

    • Population transfer (crime against humanity, war crime, part of the crime of apartheid)

    • Persecution (crime against humanity, part of the crime of apartheid)

    • Apartheid (crime against humanity)

    • Grave violations of the IV Geneva Convention (war crimes)

  • Violations of human rights, which are part of the the above international crimes, including racial discrimination, the denial of the right to water, the right to adequate housing, the right to freedom of movement.

Over decades, an unparalleled number of states, multilateral organizations and all levels of UN bodies have condemned these policies and underlined the urgency for Israel and the international community to stop, prevent and remedy these actions.

Councils Free from Israeli Apartheid, ‘Socially Responsible’ municipalities and/or councils compliant with international law should clarify that they base their policies of non-cooperation with entities and non-procurement of products and services not on Israel as a country of origin or an actor’s incorporation or affiliation, but on the grounds that cooperation, contracting or procurement would enable participation in, profiting from or enabling Israel’s violations of international law and detriment to world order.

See as well: Table of Israeli violations according to most authoritative sources. (Table published in: 'Advocating for Palestinian Rights in conformity with International Law: Guidelines', Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem in cooperation with the Birzeit University Institute of Law) 


4) The Israeli state, its institutions as well as Israeli and international public and private bodies are involved in these violations

The various actors involved in the implementation of Israeli violations include:

  • The Israeli state and the collectivity of its institutions that implement the violations described in Chapter 3 since its inception with policies that are not limited to the OPT and affect the entire Palestinian people.

  • Israel’s parastatal organizations (World Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund and their affiliates) which are chartered to discriminate against the indigenous people of Palestine (and non-Jews, in general); dictate the criteria of Israeli law and policy, administer appropriated Palestinian land, natural resources, property and assets; plan and implement illegal settler colonies and other aspects of population transfer. (Despite their deep involvement in Israeli occupation, apartheid and colonialism these parastatal organizations are registered and operate as tax-exempt charities in over 50 countries.)

  • Israeli local governments and Regional Councils that perpetuate and implement these violations in the local sphere.

  • Public and private Israeli, foreign and transnational companies that cooperate with, and profit from operations that implement or enable these grave violations.


5) Third states and their institutions in connection with these grave violations

Peremptory norms of international law have the status of jus cogens; i.e. the entire international community has the duty to respect these norms in all circumstances in their relations with each other. These are ‘erga omnes’ obligations; that is, every state (and its composite institutions) must  fulfill these duties to the entire international community through their individual, collective, domestic and extraterritorial conduct. Hence, in the face of violations of peremptory norms by other states, other states have ‘third party obligations’:

  • not to recognize, aid or assist the commission of such acts or the maintenance of the situation created by them;

  • ensure respect for international law and and human rights, to ensure accountability and remedy;

  • Proscribe, arrest and prosecute those parties alleged to have violated these principles.

These obligations are self-executing; that is, they require no further legislative act or incorporation into national law, but only the opportunity, political will and capacity to exercise them.

The United Nations has applied jus cogens in calls for states to apply non-cooperation policies and impose sanctions in order to remedy illegal situations involving colonization and/or denial of the exercise of a people’s self-determination, including in the cases of South Africa’s occupation of Namibia, the invasion and occupation of East Timor, Morocco’s analogous occupation of Western Sahara and the Turkish occupation and colonization of northern Cyprus.  

In the case of Palestine, a large set of UN bodies have urged states and state bodies to act, including:

  • UN General Assembly (GA) Resolution of 1976 “requests once again all States to desist from supplying Israel with military and other forms of aid or any assistance which would enable it to consolidate its occupation or to exploit the natural resources of the occupied territories;”

  • In 1980, the UN Security Council called upon “all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories.”

  • UN GA resolution of 1982 has deplored "any political, economic, financial, military and technological support to Israel that encourages Israel to commit acts of aggression and to consolidate and perpetuate its occupation and annexation of occupied Arab territories…"

  • The ICJ, in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on Israel’s construction of the Wall, reminds states of their duty not to recognize the illegal situation created by Israel, nor to render aid or assistance in the commission of the illegal act and the maintenance of that illegal situation. States further have to act jointly or individually to take countermeasures to remedy Israel’s violations of peremptory norms.

Local governments’ decision to exclude actors and entities involved in the violation of peremptory norms from benefits, including contracts, investments and other forms of cooperation, is not ‘arbitrary discrimination’, but the fulfillment of an obligation for all state actors and public bodies. Even ‘free trade’ principles do not supersede these peremptory prohibitions against abetting crime.

  • states may breach their international human rights law obligations where such abuse can be attributed to them, or where they fail to take appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress private actors’ abuse. Therefore, states have to enforce laws and measures that require business enterprises to respect human rights.

  • In the case of business operations in conflict-affected areas – where the risk of human rights abuses is heightened - states are required to attach appropriate consequences to any enterprise’s failure to cooperate. The Guiding Principles recommend, among others, that states deny access to public support and services, or deny their future provision for business enterprises involved with gross human rights abuses.


6) The responsibility of local governments to take action

In the eyes of international law, governments form one entity. State obligations under international law are diffuse, but not in the sense of becoming weaker the farther one gets from the center. These obligations apply to all spheres of government, not as if layered in tiers of descending responsibility. These concerns are erga omnes:

  • A legal obligation or peremptory norm applying to one part of the State is for all constituent parts.

  • Even though Ministries of Foreign Affairs are usually the actors on the global stage, all local or federal officials and state bodies, in either a federated or unitary state, must adhere to international law, in general, but most certainly to peremptory norms.

  • Where necessary to resolve any contradictions, the classic hierarchy of law prevails in which jus cogens is paramount and constantly applicable.

The UN Human Rights Committee (the predecessor of the Human Rights Council) in its commentary on the nature of human rights treaty obligations explains that they are binding on ‘every State Party as a whole’: “All branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), and other public or governmental authorities, at whatever level - national, regional or local - are in a position to engage the responsibility of the State Party."

Failure of federal governments to comply with the state’s obligations does not exonerate other spheres of government within a territory, not least the local sphere. These pillars of international law and world order uphold the entire architecture.

*** BACK TO TOP ***


Notes on trade and procurement rules


7)  Compliance with WTO rules

The Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), a treaty under World Trade Organization, and its non-discrimination clause are sometimes invoked by opponents of resolutions committing local governments to policies that aim at excluding actors involved in Israel’s violations of peremptory norms.

It is important to understand that:

  • The scope of the non-discrimination clause prevents differentiated treatment based on place of origin (so-called ‘arbitrary’ or ‘unjustifiable’ discrimination), prohibiting the granting to one country of a special favour without applying this rule to all other WTO members and guaranteeing imported and locally-produced goods, services, trademarks, copyrights and patents should be treated equally.

  • Important: The non-discrimination clause does NOT prevent public actors from excluding companies from tenders or contracts based on their actions or policies.

  • Article III.(2) of the GPA even highlights cases, in which exclusion is possible, such as: “nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from imposing or enforcing measures [...] necessary to protect public morals, ...”

    • Violations of peremptory norms and involvement in international crimes constitute breaches of public morals.  

    • Exclusion of actors that participate in the implementation of Israel’s violations of peremptory norms are not ‘arbitrary’ but regulations aimed at implementing UN resolutions and erga omnes third state obligations.

Moreover, under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void. The GPA would not have legal validity, would it not allow states and state actors to comply with their erga omnes obligations. Efforts by local governments to exclude actors of the Israeli state or private institutions or international actors on the basis of their role in the implementation of violations of peremptory norms of international law, even under the GPA, remain not only legal but a legal obligation of local authorities.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is not discriminating against Israel on the basis of ethnicity, certainly not religion, or even spatial or geographic origin, but stands up to long-proscribed behaviours and grave violations and lawlessness. In fact the call for BDS is to be upheld only until Israel ceases the fundamental violations of Palestinian inalienable rights and peremptory norms.

In the particular case of actors based in the settler colonies or products or services partially or fully originating from the settler colonies, the GPA does not apply to enterprises from these settlement territories whose purpose it is to conduct economic activity for its own profit or for the benefit of the State of Israel because:

  • Israeli settlements in the oPt are illegal under international law and violate peremptory norms of international law. Any economic benefit from the occupation for the State of Israel is prohibited under the same norms.


For local governments in the EU - 7 (a): Compliance with EU directives

Under the European Union Directive 2014/24/EU a public body may exclude an economic operator from bidding for a public contract or may reject any such bid where it is found "that the economic operator is guilty of grave professional misconduct, which renders its integrity questionable”.

The EU directive of 2014 integrates the GPA and, in this case it is the ‘grave professional misconduct’ that allows the exclusion of companies from the tenders and procurement.

Any interpretation of the EU directive that would force local authorities to follow policies contrary to peremptory norms and the relevant erga omnes obligations are void or question the validity of the EU directive.


*** BACK TO TOP ***



Israel’s settlement project, including the construction of the Wall


We highlight Israel’s illegal settlement project, including the construction of the Wall, because of the particular focus it has received by the UN system and states.

We will detail the composite nature of international law violations that result from the settlement enterprise, how different actors contribute to this project and what actions states and local authorities are urged to undertake to comply with their obligations under international law.  

Yet, it is important to understand that Israeli settlement project, i.e. the entire Israeli illegal colonial operation in the OPT including the construction of the Wall, the checkpoint regime, the pillage of natural resources etc, is only one of numerous Israeli illegal policies that trigger third state obligations and elicit international solidarity.


  1. Violations of international law resulting from the settlement enterprise (chapter 3)

The settlement project constitutes among other the following violations of international law:

  • Breach of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force, which is essential for safeguarding the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Both are peremptory norms of international law

  • Grave violations of international humanitarian law (IV Geneva Convention, The Hague Regulations), which among others prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory, from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area, from forced population transfer of the occupied population.

  • Violations of international human rights law, including the right to property, freedom of movement, health, education, work and to an adequate standard of living.

  • The crime of apartheid

For more details, see Al Haq/Ingrid Jaradat, 'State Responsibility in Connection with Israel’s Illegal Settlement Enterprise in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'.


  1. Actors involved in the settlement project (chapter 4)

This policy and the related violations are implemented and made viable by:

  • The state of Israel and its official organs, public and private entities and persons that make up the organizational fabric of the Israeli State and society, which all have institutionalized recognition and support to the sustainability of these violations in their routine-operations.

  • business that deals with the Israeli settlement enterprise, thereby implementing and profiting from the violations connected with the settlement project, recognizing and “normalizing” the illegal settlements and contribution to their socio-economic sustainability.

  • The Fact-Finding Mission of the UN Human Rights Council (2013) has defined business operations that have, directly and indirectly, enabled, facilitated and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements as including:

    • The supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements and the wall, and associated infrastructures

    • The supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements, the wall and checkpoints directly linked with settlements

    • The supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property, the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olives groves and crops

    • The supply of security services, equipment and materials to enterprises operating in settlements

    • The provision of services and utilities supporting the maintenance and existence of settlements, including transport

    • Banking and financial operations helping to develop, expand or maintain settlements and their activities, including loans for housing and the development of businesses

    • The use of natural resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes

    • Pollution, and the dumping of waste in or its transfer to Palestinian villages

    • Captivity of the Palestinian financial and economic markets, as well as practices that disadvantage Palestinian enterprises, including through restrictions on movement, administrative and legal constraints

    • Use of benefits and reinvestments of enterprises owned totally or partially by settlers for developing, expanding and maintaining the settlements”

  • In its 2015 report to the General Assembly, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories grouped the activities of corporations involved in settlements into three broad categories (para. 19): (a) Israeli industry engaged in the construction of Israeli settlements, in production in settlements or in the provision of services to settlements; (b) control of the Palestinian population by constructing the wall and checkpoints, and the provision of private security or specialized equipment, such as surveillance and crowd control weapons; and (c) economic exploitation by using Palestinian workers, Palestinian natural resources or the Palestinian captive market. The Special Committee stressed that corporate actors needed to be held accountable for the impact of their activities on human rights.

Israel’s 2011 ‘Anti-Boycott’ Law has made calls for boycott for anyone and any company or institution under its jurisdiction a civil wrong and allows for them to be excluded from tenders and state benefits if they have ‘committed to take part in a boycott, including a commitment not purchase goods and/or services produced and/or provided in Israel, by one of its institutions, or in an area under its control’. Hence, no actor under Israeli jurisdiction is allowed to guarantee they are not involved, in the Israeli settlement project.

Estimates of the proportion of Israeli exports that partially or fully originate from illegal Israeli settlements vary from 2% to 33%, with the larger estimates including exports partially produced in settlements. These estimates seem reasonable considering that 6.49% of the Israeli population resides in settlements and that government investment in settlement businesses is consistently higher than in Israel and can be as high as 22% of the total budget for business investment.


  1. International duties in front of Israel’s settlement project (chapter 5)

A number of UN organs have warned from cooperation with and called on the international community to boycott enterprises involved in the settlement project:

  • The 2012 report of the at that time UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, concluded “that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted, until such time as they bring their operations fully into line with international human rights standards and practice.”

  • The UN Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/31/L.39 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, recalls much of the legal arguments on the issue, including the ICJ decision and UN resolutions and:

    • Calls “upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan”

    • Emphasizes “the importance for States to act in accordance with their own national legislation on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law with regard to business activities that result in human rights abuses”

    • Expresses concern “that economic activities facilitate the expansion and entrenchment of settlements, and aware that the conditions of harvesting and production for products made in settlements involve the breach of applicable legal norms, inter alia, the exploitation of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and calling upon all States to respect their legal obligations in this regard”

    • Urges all States: “(a) To ensure that they are not taking actions that either recognize or assist the expansion of settlements or construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including with regard to the issue of trading with settlements, consistent with their obligations under international law; (b) To implement the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.


Select (Ctrl+A) and Copy (Ctrl+C)