Dr. Susan Power:

I thank the members for their questions. The prohibition of annexation is implicit in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It is useful to point out that Article 8 is of the Rome Statute, in criminalising acts of aggression and acts of annexation as acts of aggression, speaks to any annexation. We are talking about any type of annexation, be it partial, total, de facto or de jure. They all fall under the same umbrella. In considering the UN Charter, in particular, the jurisprudence from the International Court of Justice is particularly relevant in interpreting the relevant provisions. We have already had an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in the wall case. This is specific to the occupied Palestinian territories. The court observed that the wall and its associated regime could well become permanent and hence might become tantamount to a de facto annexation. The advisory opinion was issued more than 15 years ago. Based on this and many other examples that we have, we are seeing a de facto annexation on the ground. It is not just a matter of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in the wall case; we also see references to de facto annexation in the findings of the UN War Crimes Commission on crimes committed in Ethiopia during the Italo–Abyssinian war. This is related to recognition by third states of the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy. It was recognised by some states de jureand by some states de facto. These are important contributions in the jurisprudence. Other examples include separate opinions from two International Court of Justice judges, both related to the Namibia case. Both opinions refer to the de facto annexation of the territory of Namibia. There are many other examples. The EU Parliament has examples on the visa regime of Russia in respect of Georgia. Reference is made to de facto annexation in that case. The European Court of Human Rights references creeping annexation, which is also de facto annexation. There are many references to this throughout. While we say de facto annexation, let me outline the main difference we are talking about. Having regard to the types of domestic legislation that Israel is passing, I do not believe we are actually going to see de jure annexation like we have seen in East Jerusalem, whereby Israel formally absorbs the territories. It is too easy to get away with continually expanding the colonisation without that. We really saw that last year when Israel pulled back. The situation on the ground is the exact same. It is still a matter of annexation. It is an international crime of annexation amounting to an act of aggression.

A question was asked on the kinds of measures that could be implemented at UN and EU levels. Dr. Meehan spoke about this. At UN level, there is the UN database on businesses active in the settlements. This is before the Human Rights Council. The database was released last year and should be updated every year. Corporations that are active in the settlements are placed on it.

The continuation of this database is under threat. It would be great if Ireland could ensure the continuation and the annual update of the database and not just that, but if Ireland could also use the database in its public procurement it would be very beneficial. At UN level, we have spoken about apartheid as well. It would be good to see a push for the convening of a special committee on apartheid that could examine and oversee issues of apartheid as well. We should really push for this at the UN General Assembly.

In terms of EU countermeasures, we have seen this before with the EU's response to Russia's annexation of Crimea, where the EU implemented countermeasures against Russia. We want to see the exact same types of countermeasures implemented against Israel for its annexation of the Palestinian territory. We must see consistency in international responses. Michael Lynk, the special rapporteur for Palestine, has also supported the types of EU countermeasures that we could see, for example, a freezing of diplomatic relations between Ireland and Israel, the imposition of individual restrictive measures such as asset freezes and travel restrictions on individuals who are part of a policy and plan to commit crimes against the Palestinian people, including crimes such as annexation and crimes related to the settlements such as appropriation, pillage of property and so forth. Importantly, I think we could see restrictions on economic relations between Ireland and Israel, similar to the kind of economic restrictions that we saw regarding Crimea and Sevastopol, and restrictions on economic co-operation. For example, at EU level if we could see the freezing of the Horizon 2021-27 programme, that would be quite powerful and the withdrawal or suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and other such agreements, for example, the aviation agreement. We need to see serious countermeasures in place for acts that are grave violations of international law. We must remember that there are third state responsibilities and obligations to intervene to bring the illegal situation to an end in response to violations and acts of aggression such as annexation. Ireland has a responsibility to ensure there are suitable countermeasures that are commensurate to the crime. This is a denial of the Palestinian people as a whole to their collective right to self-determination in regard to the unlawful acquisition of territory through use of force. I will let Dr. Erakat continue the response.