The Foundational Premise
The central legal thesis of this campaign is that corporate operations involving Israel have shifted from an "ethical controversy" to a "material legal liability."
This shift is driven by authoritative determinations from the world's highest courts (International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court) that fundamental norms of international law - including the prohibition of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes - are being violated. Under these conditions, "Business as Usual" transforms legally into "Aiding and Abetting" or "Complicity."
International Law: The "Red Lines"
A. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949)
- Article 49: Prohibits the transfer of an occupying power's population into the territory it occupies (i.e., Settlements are a war crime).
- Corporate Implication: Companies building, financing, or servicing settlements are facilitating a war crime.
The Hague Regulations (1907)
- Establishes the laws of occupation and the prohibition of pillage (theft of resources).
- Corporate Implication: Extracting natural resources (stone, minerals, water) from the OPT constitutes pillage.
B. International Criminal Law (ICL)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
- Article 25(3)(c): Establishes individual criminal liability for anyone who "aids, abets or otherwise assists" in the commission of a crime, including providing the means for its commission.
- The "Knowledge" Standard: Liability triggers when a corporate officer knows their assistance will facilitate a crime. The public rulings of the ICJ and ICC create this constructive knowledge.
The Genocide Convention (1948)
- Article III(e): Punishes "Complicity in genocide."
- Corporate Implication: Providing technology, fuel, or logistical support to a military force plausibly accused of genocide creates direct liability for complicity.
C. International Human Rights Law (IHRL) & Court Rulings
- ICJ Advisory Opinion (July 2024): The International Court of Justice declared the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory "unlawful" and stated that all States (and by extension, entities) are under an obligation "not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation."
- ICJ South Africa v. Israel (Jan 2024 onwards): Found a "plausible risk of genocide," triggering the duty to prevent.
Soft Law & Global Standards: The "Compliance Hook"
While "Soft Law" is not a criminal statute, it is the standard against which ESG ratings, insurance, and institutional investment are measured.
A. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)
- Principle 13: Companies must "seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships."
- Enhanced Due Diligence: The UNGPs specify that in occupied territories and areas of documented human rights violations, companies must conduct "Enhanced Human Rights Due Diligence." Failure to do so is a breach of the standard.
B. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
- Chapter IV (Human Rights): Mandates that enterprises respect human rights and address adverse impacts.
- National Contact Points (NCPs): This is a grievance mechanism. Campaigners can file formal complaints to the UK or US NCP against companies violating these guidelines.
Regional Legal Frameworks: The "Hard Stick"
A. United Kingdom
| Legislation | Provision | Campaign Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Companies Act 2006 | Section 172 - Directors' duty to promote success of company, having regard to "maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct" | Complicity in war crimes breaches this duty by destroying reputation and creating liability |
| International Criminal Court Act 2001 | Incorporates the Rome Statute into UK law | UK Directors can be prosecuted in UK courts for aiding war crimes abroad |
| Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) | Profits from criminal conduct (including war crimes/settlement enterprise) classified as "criminal property" | Banks handling revenue from settlement businesses may be liable for money laundering |
| Modern Slavery Act 2015 | Requires supply chain transparency | Documented forced labour of Palestinian detainees creates reporting liabilities |
B. European Union
- Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): Mandatory requirement for large companies to identify and mitigate human rights risks. Liability includes fines based on global turnover.
- France - Loi de Vigilance (Duty of Vigilance Law): Allows victims/NGOs to sue companies for harms caused by subsidiaries/supply chains.
- Germany - Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz (LkSG): Supply Chain Due Diligence Act.
C. United States
| Legislation | Provision | Campaign Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Alien Tort Statute (ATS) | 28 U.S.C. § 1350 - Allows non-US citizens to sue in US federal court for torts violating "law of nations" | Potential for civil suits against corporations for international law violations |
| Caremark Duties (Delaware Law) | Directors' fiduciary "Duty of Oversight" to ensure systems detect and prevent illegal conduct | Ignoring "Red Flags" (like ICJ rulings) creates personal liability for Directors |
| Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 307) | Prohibits importation of merchandise produced by forced labour | Products from settlements using Palestinian forced labour may be subject to import bans |
| Global Magnitsky Act | Allows US President to sanction foreign persons/entities responsible for serious human rights abuse | Potential sanctions exposure for companies facilitating documented abuses |
Navigating Anti-Boycott Laws
A major counter-argument from corporations is: "We cannot boycott due to US Anti-BDS laws."
The Legal Distinction
Political Boycott
Refusing to deal with Israel solely because it is Israel. Often targeted by Anti-BDS laws.
Risk-Based Exclusion
Refusing to deal with specific entities because their conduct creates material legal, financial, or reputational risk (e.g., money laundering, war crimes, sanctions exposure).
Campaign Strategy
We do not ask companies to "Boycott Israel" politically. We ask them to "exclude high-risk entities compliant with their fiduciary duties."
- Example framing: "We are not asking you to boycott Israel; we are asking you to adhere to your own Human Rights Policy which forbids investing in occupied territories where due diligence is impossible."
- Fiduciary Supremacy: A Director's duty to avoid criminal liability (e.g., aiding war crimes) supersedes state-level anti-boycott regulations. You cannot be forced by a state law to commit a federal or international crime.
Legal Standing for Advocacy
Why This Campaign Is Legal
- Protected Speech: In the US (First Amendment) and UK/EU (Article 10 ECHR), advocating for compliance with international law is protected political speech.
- Shareholder Rights: Shareholders have a statutory right to question governance and risk management.
- Whistleblowing: Employees disclosing complicity in crimes may be protected under PIDA (UK) or Dodd-Frank/Sarbanes-Oxley (US).
Last updated: January 2026