In an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations regarding the legal and economic aspects of the International Court of Justice’s decision to call the Israeli regime’s occupation of Palestinian lands illegal, Reza Nasri said: This advisory decision of the Court is historic and very important. Previously, the Court had dealt with many disputed legal aspects regarding Israel in the “Separation Wall” case. But this time, it has gone much further and raised very important and significant points.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories “as rapidly as possible” and make full reparations for its “internationally wrongful acts” in a sweeping advisory opinion that says the occupation violates international law.

He noted several points that affect this vote’s political and diplomatic actions for Iran, especially in the regional cooperation framework. He said: The central point of this vote is that the occupation and continued presence of the Israeli regime in the occupied territories is unlawful.

This senior international law expert added: Another point is that, in this advisory vote, a list of duties of the Israeli regime is presented, one of which is to assert the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and to allow the return of displaced persons and refugees.

Nasri stated: The court has also set duties for other governments and international organizations, which are very important. In this regard, the Court ruling has two very important paragraphs (paragraphs 278 and 279), which can practically be called a “map” for diplomatic and political actions at the international level.

In paragraph 278, it says that not only do the governments have the duty not to recognize any of the actions of the Israeli regime that stabilize the occupation and the continued presence of this regime, but they must also refrain from entering into any treaty or agreement the Israeli regime claims to represent the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) or a part of it negotiates, refuse. This task includes economic, commercial, and investment treaties and agreements and the establishment of diplomatic missions (such as embassies and consulates) in the occupied territories.

He added: In addition, according to the judgment of the Court, third countries are obliged to take positive measures – such as preventing investment – to foil stabilization of the illegal situation created by the Israeli regime. In other words, there is an element of “sanctions” in the vote, which not only weakens the basis of treaties such as the “EU-Israel Association Agreement” (EU-Israel Association Agreement) but, in practice, restricts economic measures. It has also been legitimized by governments and civil movements such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Interestingly, this vote could challenge the efforts of some Western parliaments – including the US Congress – to ban the BDS campaign.

Nasri said: In fact, this vote creates a legal basis for the treatment of the South African apartheid regime by the international community to be applied to the Israeli regime as well. Since the Court’s advisory opinion in paragraphs 225 and 229 deals with the issue of the “Convention on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination” and the violation of its Article 3 by the Israeli regime, these international measures can also include the issue of “Apartheidclec. For example, relying on this vote, the United Nations General Assembly can now take actions such as reviving the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid – which was established in 1962 against the apartheid regime in South Africa – with additional legitimacy and determination. – Take measures to deal with the apartheid of the Israeli regime.

In response to how effective this vote can be? He stated: Considering that the capacities of the previous consultative vote of the court were not used in the case of the “Separation Wall,” in this case, too, it can be predicted that there will be a lot of resistance from the supporters of the Israeli regime to prevent the formation of a global consensus against Tel Aviv. Of course, today, the public opinion of the world – unlike last time – firmly stands against the actions of the Israeli regime, and Western governments are also under pressure to deal with this regime. In addition, there is a more suitable platform for the governments that oppose the Israeli regime to cooperate and build a consensus against this occupying apartheid regime.

This lawyer said: In fact, a combination of what is going on in Gaza today, the actions taken at the level of the International Criminal Court (ICC) against senior Israeli officials, and what the International Court of Justice stated in the recent advisory opinion, in practice tipped the scales. The interests of the opponents of the Israeli regime have been weighed down, and it has created a suitable ground for extensive regional and international cooperation.

Nasri pointed out that, in this regard, the new government of Iran can—within the framework of its plan—strengthen cooperation with the region’s countries around the category of “strong region.”

The issue should also be dealt with seriously. In fact, legal capacities cannot be exploited without resolve and political and diplomatic action, and therefore, regional and international cooperation should be placed on the agenda of the new government’s diplomatic apparatus.