that act had not been committed.”74 In other words, it is obliged to restore the status quo ante the commission of the international wrong.75 Based on this legal framework, Israel is obliged to (1) end all of its colonial-apartheid laws, policies and practices, (2) provide reparations for all injuries caused in the form of return, restitution, compensation, and satisfaction,76 and (3) provide assurances of non-repetition. However, since Israel continues to refuse to meet its obligations under international law (which is primarily based on the regime’s inherent nature of racial elimination and domination), third-party states have a responsibility to intervene. Pursuant to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, serious breaches of peremptory norms, which include both colonization and apartheid, prompt the liability of third states in two ways: a positive duty to “cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any breach,” and a negative duty not to “recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach [...] nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.”77 3.2. A Contextualized Application of Legal Principles of State Responsibility in Decolonizing Palestine To elaborate on how the legal principles of ceasing the act, reparations, and non-repetition have engendered the following framework for decolonization 74 ILC, Draft Articles on State Responsibility (n 71), 91-94. 75 This is a principle that recognizes the obligation of reparation vis-à-vis states and, as IHRL and IHL have developed, particularly with regards to peremptory norms, so too has the understanding and acceptance through customary international law that obligations with respect to reparations apply also to the benefit of individuals wronged by breaches of international legal principles. This evolution in state practice is reflected in the Draft Articles on State Responsibility and in the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinion on the Apartheid Wall: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (ICJ Advisory Opinion) 2004 <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/ files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf> accessed 5 April 2023. 76 ILC, Draft Articles on State Responsibility (n 71), art 34-38. 77 Ibid, art 41(2). 22