PALESTINE activists have expressed concern at government plans to block the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from ruling on the legal consequences of Israeli policies and practices in occupied Palestinian territory.

Ministers set out their opposition to the expected ICJ advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the “occupation, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian land in a legal opinion seen by the Guardian newspaper. 

Although the ICJ, the top United Nations court for dealing with disputes between countries, has no power to enforce its binding rulings, the legal action is seen as important as there has never been a judgement on whether the occupation itself is or has become unlawful.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said on Friday that Britain’s position “reflects a disturbing pattern” of the government shielding Israel “from accountability for its violations against Palestinians.”

“By attempting to obstruct the ICJ’s hearing, the UK sends a dangerous message that Israel is above international law, and that Palestinians have been abandoned in their search for justice,” a spokesman added.

PSC director Ben Jamal said: “At a time when Israel’s most extreme right-wing government is ramping up violence against Palestinians and illegally annexing more territory, the UK should be standing on the side of justice, rather than undermining the credibility of international institutions and the foundation of a rules-based international order.

“Palestinians, like all oppressed people, should have access to accountability and justice to address violations of their rights, including through crucial international bodies like the ICJ.”

A UN general assembly resolution asked the ICJ last December to give the advisory opinion on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

Britain was among a number of Western states, also including Israel, the United States and Germany, which voted against the resolution, claiming that it would push the parties away from negotiations.

In its submission to the ICJ last month, the government asserted that an advisory opinion would amount to settling Israel’s “bilateral dispute” without Tel Aviv’s consent and that the court was not equipped to examine a “broad range of complex factual issues concerning the entire history of the parties’ dispute.”

Britain also claimed that an advisory opinion would conflict with existing agreements between the parties and negotiation frameworks endorsed by the UN and that the request asked the court to “assume unlawful conduct on the part of Israel.”