Home Showbiz UN and EU experts believe that trading with Israel is incompatible with...

UN and EU experts believe that trading with Israel is incompatible with international law

10
0

Mariem Njeh

April 20, 2026•Updated: April 20, 2026

AA / Istanbul / Mariem Njeh

A group of independent experts from the United Nations called on the European Union (EU) to immediately suspend the association agreement that has linked Brussels and Tel Aviv since 2000, describing this measure as the “minimum required” by international law in light of documented violations committed by Israel.

In a statement released by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the experts stated that “the EU cannot credibly claim to defend human rights while maintaining preferential trade exchanges with a state whose conduct has been deemed by several international bodies as constituting genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.”

This declaration comes on the eve of a meeting of EU foreign ministers scheduled for Tuesday in Luxembourg, during which the suspension, either total or partial, of this agreement is to be discussed.

A legal obligation, according to the experts

Pointing out that Article 2 of the association agreement makes respect for human rights and democratic principles an “essential element” of the partnership, the experts argued that the serious and persistent violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed by Israel should have triggered the suspension mechanisms outlined in the agreement “a long time ago.”

They specifically mentioned the provisional measures orders issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and issued binding orders requiring Israel to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid, orders which, according to the experts, “have been ignored on several occasions.”

The experts also recalled the advisory opinion issued by the ICJ in July 2024, concluding that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories was illegal, and the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“As parties to the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, all EU member states are required to use all reasonable means to prevent genocide and ensure respect for humanitarian law. Maintaining commercial relations that contribute to or perpetuate an unlawful situation is incompatible with this obligation,” they affirmed.

Citizen and political mobilization

The UN statement comes amid increasing pressure on European institutions. A European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) calling for the suspension of the agreement has surpassed the one million signature threshold, required to compel the European Commission to officially respond. According to French MEP Manon Aubry, co-chair of the Left group in the European Parliament, this is the initiative to reach this threshold “most quickly in the history” of the mechanism.

In addition, over 350 former European ministers, ambassadors, and senior officials have sent an open letter to the leaders of the Twenty-Seven calling for the suspension of the agreement and a halt to exports of military equipment to Israel.

On the political front, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announced on Sunday that Spain would officially request the EU to terminate this agreement. “A government that violates international law cannot be a partner of the EU,” he stated, urging other member states to support the Spanish initiative, carried out in coordination with Ireland and Slovenia.

Legal Framework

Signed in 1995 and entered into force in 2000, the EU-Israel association agreement establishes a free trade area and cooperation in several areas, including research and education. It also forms the framework for Israel’s integration into the European Neighborhood Policy. In May 2025, the EU agreed to reassess the framework; a month later, the European Commission indicated it had identified “indications” of possible violations of human rights obligations without proposing concrete measures.