The High Representative of the EU, Kaja Kallas, announced on Monday 13 July, in the wake of the ‘Foreign Affairs’ Council, that the ministers had instructed their ambassadors to continue work on a possible ban on imports of products from settlements.
“The 27 Member States agree that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law”, the High Representative explained, adding that the current so-called ‘differentiation’ policy had not succeeded in limiting trade with the settlements because of “inconsistent implementation”. According to her, during the discussions, the option proposed by the Commission on a trade ban had “received the broadest support from Member States”.
“There is no room for hesitation. A 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice clearly states that trade in products from these settlements is illegal [...] We are upholding international law and international legality, and we therefore believe it is imperative to ban trade with the illegal settlements and the products originating from them”, Spanish minister José Manuel Albares said on arriving at the EU Council, backed by his Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Irish and Portuguese counterparts.
As a result, the ministers “instructed the ambassadors to continue the work [on the ban]”, Ms Kallas announced. She went on to add “We will probably hold an extraordinary meeting on this matter”. Noting that the next formal EU Council meeting was scheduled for October, the European Commissioner for the Mediterranean, Dubravka Šuica, specified that Ms Kallas had “proposed the possibility of organising an extraordinary videoconference meeting with ministers sooner. A written procedure could then be established” if Member States agree.
A decision taken quickly could also make it possible to avoid influencing the Israeli elections, scheduled for late October. Earlier in the day, Slovenian minister Tone Kajzer had said that ahead of the vote it was “necessary to act with caution”.
While the option chosen no longer seems to be a matter of debate, the method for taking the decision is not unanimous. So, according to a European source, a majority of Member States is in favour of the ban, but one group of Member States would like this to be decided by qualified majority and a smaller group by unanimity.
“It is still unclear whether the proposals can be adopted by qualified majority or unanimously, and guidance on this would be useful. This is not about being for or against, but simply about determining what is legally possible”, Bulgarian minister Velislava Petrova-Chamova explained. “To seriously consider these options, a proposal based on a genuinely solid legal basis, with a clear legal text, is necessary”, Austrian minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger explained.
The European Commission favours unanimity, whereas the Council Legal Service is championing qualified majority.
For the Dutch, Portuguese, Irish and Belgian ministers, this is a trade issue, and therefore one for qualified majority. However, according to Italy’s Antonio Tajani, the decision “will have to be approved unanimously, because it is a political choice rather than a trade one”. “We also have to keep unanimity among the nations when we are dealing with sensitive things and with the partnerships”, added his Lithuanian counterpart, Kęstutis Budrys.
Likewise, for Germany, the decision will have to be taken unanimously. On his arrival, the German minister had said he wanted to focus on dialogue with Israel. (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant with Justine Manaud)