A brief history of boycotts and their legal foundations

Boycotts are considered to be one of the most effective tools for expressing the rejection of policies, actions and activities related to states and their alleged human rights violations, including Israel’s military occupation of Palestine. They can take several forms: economic, cultural, sports, diplomatic and legal rights-based.

Before delving into the legal aspects of a boycott and the framework of the international system, it is essential to mention briefly the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its strategy, and how it began in terms of Palestine. The BDS movement was initiated in Brazil in 2005, with participation from over 170 entities, including unions and political parties. The movement articulated three demands: ending the Israeli occupation; ending discrimination against Arab citizens within Israel; and implementing UN Resolution 194 regarding the right of return for Palestinian refugees. This initiative coincided with the first anniversary of the International Court of Justice’s 2004 advisory opinion on the separation barrier (the “Apartheid Wall”). Subsequently, universities and cultural forums worldwide joined the movement, making it a global effort to uphold Palestinian rights under international law.

BDS states that its aim is to use peaceful means to urge Israel to fulfil its international legal obligations towards enabling the Palestinian people to determine their own destiny. The movement’s official goals remain in place as noted above.

The movement builds upon earlier boycott experiences during the First Intifada (1987-93) and the British Mandate period in Palestine (1920-48). Following its inception, the BDS movement held its first conference in 2007, leading to the establishment of the National Committee for BDS in 2008. This committee, the largest Palestinian coalition comprising civil society within Palestine and the diaspora, aims to formalise the popular boycott into an official stance.

READ: Intel stops $25bn investment in Israel — ‘Biggest victory yet,’ says BDS campaign

Historically rooted within international law, the first organised boycott under the League of Nations occurred with Article 16 of its Covenant concerning economic boycotts.

This was applied against Italy following its invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Under the League’s successor, the UN, Article 41 of the UN Charter authorises economic sanctions as penalties against states committing aggression or threatening international peace and security, as seen with resolutions against South Africa in 1966 due to apartheid and Iraq in 1990 following its invasion of Kuwait.

Regarding the Arab boycott of Israel, the Arab League declared a comprehensive boycott in May 1951, issuing a unified law under Resolution 849. This boycott involved three levels: direct dealings between Arab states and Israel; dealings via intermediaries; and sanctions against companies engaging with Israel. The Arab Office for Boycott was established under Resolution 357 in 1951. During Jordanian rule over the West Bank before 1967, Jordan enacted the Unified Law for Boycotting Israel in 1958, implemented in Palestinian territories based on Arab League resolutions, later repealed.

The US took a stance against the Arab boycott, passing legislation criminalising dealings with the Arab Boycott Office, and amending the Export Administration Act of 1949 to penalise individuals or companies in Arab states involved in boycott activities.

Notably, the US itself has employed boycotts against countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Boycott is categorised into three sections: grassroots, recognised by UN General Assembly Resolution 3034 (1972) and Resolution 3246 (1974) affirming the right to self-determination and endorsing legitimate struggle against colonialism; official, stipulated by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) Article 45 and UN Charter Article 41; and legal, rights-based, affirmed by international agreements recognising boycott as a legitimate means of expression and peaceful protest, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Recently, after thorough review, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs determined that boycotting products and services from Israeli settlements is legal under the country’s laws. In an internal report issued over the weekend, the ministry announced that there are no legal obstacles to Norwegian municipalities declaring such boycotts.

READ: Arab League strengthens boycott of companies that support Israel

Boycotts represent a legitimate means within the framework of human rights and the right to defend justice. They are grounded in individuals’ rights to expression and peaceful protest. They are also considered to be a right protected by international law, specifically as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which uphold freedom of expression. Moreover, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination emphasises the right of individuals and communities to take action to boycott entities that support or engage in racial discrimination and genocide. Israel has been deemed by major human rights organisations B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to have passed the threshold for categorisation as an apartheid state, the ultimate in state-based racial discrimination. The state is also under investigation for genocide at the International Court of Justice.

In Palestine, Law No. 4 of 2010 prohibits and combats settlement products, a local legal mechanism mandating citizens to boycott Israeli products specifically from settlements established on occupied territories since 1967. This law aims to bolster the local Palestinian economy, distinct from the Paris Agreement’s challenges and the weakening of the Palestinian economy.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.