This bill obliges the Secretary of State to “take such steps as are necessary” to give effect in UK domestic policy to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 concerning Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It sets out concrete categories of measures the Government must include in proposals to Parliament: import and investment prohibitions related to Israeli settlements, trade and targeted sanctions, an arms embargo, inclusion of Israel in existing export-control schedules, and duties on UK companies to carry out “heightened due diligence.”
The bill turns an international advisory opinion into a domestic obligation to produce an actionable plan within a tight timetable, and it prescribes enforcement architecture: use of Sanctions and Anti‑Money Laundering Act powers, an OFSI enforcement unit, a parliamentary Sanctions Oversight Committee, criminal and civil enforcement options, and annual reporting to Parliament. If enacted as written, it would force material changes across trade, defence exports, corporate compliance and UK foreign‑policy instruments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary of State to draw up and lay before Parliament, within three months of enactment, specific proposals (with an implementation timetable) to give effect to the ICJ advisory opinion using sanctions, trade measures, export controls and corporate‑due‑diligence obligations. It identifies tools—import bans, investment prohibitions, targeted travel/asset sanctions, an arms embargo, inclusion in the Export Control Order schedule, and suspension of bilateral trade instruments.
Who It Affects
UK government departments responsible for trade, defence and export licensing; the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI); UK‑domiciled and UK‑registered companies with Israeli links or supply chains; defence contractors and arms exporters; importers of goods and services tied to Israeli settlements.
Why It Matters
The bill converts a non‑binding ICJ advisory opinion into a statutory duty to propose and implement domestic measures, raising immediate compliance, trade‑law and export‑control questions. It also raises the bar for corporate human‑rights due diligence by referencing the UN Guiding Principles and builds new parliamentary oversight and enforcement architecture.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, the bill creates a statutory duty: the Secretary of State must take the steps necessary to give effect in the UK to the ICJ’s 19 July 2024 advisory opinion concerning Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The duty is broad and intentionally non‑exhaustive; the text lists illustrative obligations—ending aid that sustains the occupation, refraining from economic or investment agreements that contribute to it, and requiring UK companies to adopt “heightened due diligence” consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
The bill imposes an immediate procedural obligation: within three months of Royal Assent the Secretary of State must lay proposals before Parliament that include a timetable for implementation. Those proposals must cover a prescribed suite of measures: prohibiting importation of goods or services originating from Israeli settlements; banning investment or services by UK entities that reasonably aid the occupation; imposing trade sanctions and targeted measures (travel bans and asset freezes) on named categories of Israeli officials and actors; ceasing arms sales and export licences; including Israel in the Export Control Order schedule for embargoed countries; and suspending specified bilateral trade arrangements.For enforcement and oversight the bill demands concrete mechanisms.
It asks the Secretary of State to propose use of powers under the Sanctions and Anti‑Money Laundering Act 2018, set out criminal and civil enforcement routes and anti‑circumvention rules, and to create monitoring structures: an OFSI enforcement unit focused on this regime and a cross‑House Sanctions Oversight Committee with powers to obtain government documents and recommend further measures. Finally, the Secretary of State must publish a report within a year and then annually, assessing government policy toward Israel against the Act and international law.Several critical elements are left to ministerial specification. ‘‘Heightened due diligence’’ is to be defined by the Secretary of State with reference to UN guidance, meaning the Government will set the legal contours of corporate obligations after enactment.
The bill also gives the executive latitude to add other measures it considers necessary; it therefore functions as a directional mandate with specific required options rather than a fully finished sanctions code. Practical implementation will hinge on statutory definitions (for example, what counts as originating from an Israeli settlement), export‑licensing processes and the Government’s willingness to exercise export‑control and sanctions powers to their fullest extent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of State must lay concrete proposals and an implementation timetable within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent.
The bill would prohibit importation of goods or services originating from Israeli settlements and bar UK‑domiciled or registered companies from investing in or providing services that reasonably aid those settlements.
It requires cessation of arms sales and all export licences for arms and military parts to Israel and directs inclusion of Israel in the Export Control Order’s schedule for embargoed countries and transit control for military goods.
The measure mandates creation of enforcement structures: proposals for an OFSI enforcement unit, criminal and civil enforcement mechanisms, non‑circumvention provisions, and a parliamentary Sanctions Oversight Committee empowered to obtain evidence from Government.
The Secretary of State must report to Parliament within one year of the Act and annually thereafter, assessing UK policy toward Israel against the Act and international law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Duty to give effect to the ICJ advisory opinion
Section 1 imposes the central statutory duty: the Secretary of State must take the steps necessary to give effect to the 19 July 2024 ICJ advisory opinion. Practically, that means the executive must translate an international advisory opinion into domestic measures; the section lists illustrative categories (aid, trade, investment, military cooperation and due diligence obligations) but leaves detailed definitions and legal thresholds to ministerial specification. The provision’s breadth gives ministers discretion but also creates legal exposure if Parliament later judges the measures inadequate.
Required categories of proposals: sanctions, trade and export control measures
Section 2 enumerates the specific measures the Secretary of State must include in the proposals: import bans on settlement goods and services, prohibitions on investment and services by UK entities, trade sanctions, targeted asset and travel sanctions for named categories, an arms embargo and suspension of military cooperation, inclusion of Israel in the Export Control Order schedule, and suspension of certain bilateral trade instruments. The section also compels use of powers under the Sanctions and Anti‑Money Laundering Act 2018 and asks for criminal and civil enforcement and non‑circumvention rules—so the bill contemplates both administrative and penal pathways to enforcement.
Monitoring and parliamentary oversight
Section 3 requires the proposals to include monitoring arrangements: an enforcement unit within OFSI to police compliance and a Sanctions Oversight Committee composed of members from both Houses with statutory powers to obtain government evidence and recommend further action. This creates a parallel oversight loop: executive enforcement via OFSI and parliamentary scrutiny via the Committee. How far the Committee’s investigatory powers extend and how OFSI’s remit will be resourced are left to subsequent instruments.
Reporting obligations to Parliament
Section 4 obliges the Secretary of State to lay a report within one year and then annually, assessing the Government’s policies toward Israel against the Act and international law. The requirement institutionalises parliamentary visibility and creates recurring political and legal pressure points where policy choices and legal interpretations will be tested publicly.
Territorial extent, commencement and short title
Section 5 confirms the Act would extend across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and come into force on the day it is passed. The immediate commencement clause means the three‑month clock for laying proposals starts on enactment, pressing the Government to move quickly on drafting significant secondary legislation and administrative changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Palestinian civil‑society organisations and human‑rights NGOs: the bill’s measures—if implemented—would restrict the trade, investment and military support that enable settlement expansion, creating legal and political levers these groups have sought to enforce international‑law findings.
- UK human‑rights‑focused investors and funds that already exclude settlement‑linked assets: the bill would level the playing field by converting voluntary exclusions into binding obligations on competitors, reducing regulatory arbitrage.
- Consumers and downstream businesses concerned about supply‑chain legality: clearer import prohibitions and corporate due‑diligence requirements would help those seeking to avoid settlement‑origin goods and to verify provenance.
- Parliament and scrutiny bodies: the Sanctions Oversight Committee and annual reporting requirement increase parliamentary visibility and create recurring checkpoints for evaluating executive action.
Who Bears the Cost
- UK exporters, importers and investors with ties to Israel or settlement supply chains: they face immediate compliance costs, potential asset freezes, and lost market access where product origin or services cannot be disentangled from settlement activity.
- Defence contractors and arms exporters: the cessation of arms sales and revocation of export licences, plus inclusion in the Export Control Order schedule, would remove and restrict a class of customers and require contract reassessment.
- Government departments and regulators (BEIS, DIT, MOD, FCDO, HM Treasury, OFSI): the bill imposes new enforcement, licensing, monitoring and reporting burdens that will require funding, staffing and new guidance.
- UK companies with complex international supply chains: heightened due‑diligence duties elevate compliance costs and litigation risk, particularly where provenance is opaque or intermediated through third countries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the UK should convert an international advisory finding into binding domestic consequences: doing so advances accountability and aligns UK policy with a high‑profile legal assessment, but it does so at the cost of major trade, security and administrative disruptions, and by delegating crucial scope decisions to ministers—choices that will provoke legal disputes and diplomatic fallout.
The bill creates immediate legal and implementation tensions. First, it asks domestic law to “give effect” to an ICJ advisory opinion that is not a binding judicial order; the Government will have to reconcile the advisory opinion’s findings with existing statutory export‑control frameworks, international trade obligations (including WTO commitments) and domestic human‑rights obligations.
Second, the legislative text leaves key definitions and thresholds to ministerial specification—most notably what counts as “aid or assistance,” which goods “originate” from settlements, and the precise content of “heightened due diligence.” Those delegated definitions will determine the real scope of compliance and will be focal points for litigation.
Enforcement practicality is another pressure point. Tracing the origin of goods and services to settlements is often difficult where supply chains are layered across intermediaries and third countries; non‑circumvention measures will require new customs rules, contract standards and likely international cooperation.
The bill’s criminal and civil enforcement options raise questions of evidentiary standards and prosecutorial discretion. Finally, the bill risks collateral humanitarian consequences if restrictions are not carefully tailored—humanitarian goods and services for Palestinian civilians, for example, are not expressly carved out, so implementing regulations will need to reconcile sanctions objectives with humanitarian exemptions and licensing regimes.
All of this points to a heavy administrative load and potential legal challenges from affected commercial and state actors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.