On June 25, the Irish government introduced the Occupied Territories Bill, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at aligning Ireland’s trade policy with international law.

The bill prohibits the import and export of goods and services to and from Israeli settlements located in occupied Palestinian territory, outposts deemed illegal under international law by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The issue of Israeli settlements is not merely a political or moral concern; it is fundamentally a matter of international law. In July 2023, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion reaffirming the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court urged states to refrain from any support—whether through trade or other means—that could sustain these unlawful settlements. Ireland’s bill is explicitly framed as a step toward fulfilling these obligations, aligning national legislation with international legal standards. The opinion lends significant legal and moral weight to growing demands that states take concrete action to avoid complicity in what is widely recognized as a grave breach of international humanitarian law.

Since the 1967 Six-Day War, both the international community and the United Nations Security Council have consistently declared these settlements illegal. Key resolutions—including UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 446 (1979), and 465 (1980)—explicitly call on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories and condemn the establishment of settlements. These resolutions emphasize that such actions violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory.

In stark contrast to the ICJ ruling, Canada’s current approach undermines this international legal framework. Under the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA), goods produced in Israeli settlements enjoy tariff-free access to the Canadian market, effectively legitimizing economic ties with territories deemed illegal under international law. This economic activity helps fund settlement expansion—trade under CIFTA alone totaled nearly $2 billion in 2021. While Canada positions itself as a humanitarian leader, this trade agreement contradicts its stated commitment to upholding international law.

Ireland’s 2025 bill offers a focused and legally sound approach to addressing the issue of Israeli settlements. Unlike the broader and more ambitious 2018 proposal, this legislation is deliberately narrow in scope: it applies only to goods imported into Ireland from Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. It does not ban all trade with Israel, nor does it extend to services or other forms of economic exchange. To fully comply with international law, Canada must adopt a similar policy—banning all forms of economic activity with illegal settlements (for full details, the bill’s concise General Scheme is publicly available and outlines its provisions and intent).

Canada already has the legal tools to take decisive action. Under the Special Economic Measures Act, the government enforces targeted sanctions against individuals linked to extremist settler violence in the West Bank. However, these measures are narrow in scope and insufficient to address the broader issue. Existing customs laws also offer a framework to prohibit or restrict the import of goods originating from illegal settlements. Together, these tools provide a clear and lawful path for Canada to implement a targeted ban on settlement goods—one that aligns with international humanitarian law. Importantly, such a decision could be enacted immediately by Prime Minister Mark Carney or Minister of International Trade Maninder Sidhu, without the need for new legislation.

Since at least 2023, a majority of Canadians have recognized Israel’s policies as constituting apartheid and strongly support Palestinian rights. Public opinion reflects deep concern about settlement expansion: three in four Canadians want the government to oppose Israel’s annexation of large parts of the West Bank, and nearly half support the use of sanctions. This highlights a growing disconnect between public sentiment and Canada’s current policy, which continues to enable economic ties with illegal settlements while targeting only a handful of individuals. By failing to take decisive action, Canada not only alienates its own citizens but also damages its standing as a defender of human rights and international law.

Canada has a proven track record of enforcing trade restrictions to uphold international norms. It has imposed import bans and sanctions on goods from territories under illegal occupation, including Crimea following Russia’s annexation. Canada was also among the nations that embargoed South Africa during the apartheid era. These precedents underscore that Canada has both the legal authority and the moral responsibility to adopt, at a minimum, similar measures against the economic activity of illegal settlements—reaffirming its commitment to sovereignty and human rights on the global stage.

As settler violence and land seizures escalate, global legal bodies are issuing increasingly forceful condemnations. Ireland’s decisive action presents a model of principled leadership. Canada, equipped with the necessary legal instruments, has every reason—and every obligation—to follow suit.

To continue allowing economic ties with Israeli settlements is to be complicit in an illegal occupation. It sends a message that international law is optional, and that Canada is willing to look the other way. Such complicity exposes the gap between Canada’s self-proclaimed image as a defender of humanitarian principles and the reality of its actions, further eroding its credibility on the world stage.

Canada must act. This means enacting an immediate ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements, in line with Ireland’s example, and working toward a broader policy that rejects economic support for violations of international law. If Canada is serious about human rights, the rule of law, and peace in the region, it cannot remain a silent partner in occupation.

Kody Sider is a graduate student at Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy. He holds undergraduate degrees in international development and psychology.