Regarding Israel, the obligation of non-recognition has been reiterated in numerous UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. For instance, in 2016, the UN General Assembly applied the principle of nonrecognition in its Resolution 2234 relating to the establishment of Israeli settlements in the oPt, where it reaffirmed that “it has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”193 More recently, the General Assembly condemned the U.S. decision to transfer its embassy to Jerusalem, calling “upon States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions” in Jerusalem.194 In addition to this, the ICJ, in its Advisory Opinion on the Wall, affirmed the responsibility of the international community “not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.”195 The second obligation of abstention prohibits states from rendering aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by a serious breach, requiring states to abstain from or terminate any contribution to the maintenance of such a situation. This goes beyond the responsibilities that adhere to a case of third state complicity in the commission of an internationally wrongful act,196 as it deals with the conduct “after the fact”, independently of the continuous character of the breach.197 As part of the international community, states are required to halt all forms of cooperation with Israeli institutions that provide material support to the maintenance of the status quo generated by Israel’s violations of international law. Applications of this principle can also be found in UN Resolutions,198 and in the Advisory Opinion on the Wall, where the ICJ ruled that the international community should refrain from “render[ing] assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.”199 In this regard, the example of trade relations between Israel and the EU is worth noting. Notwithstanding the adoption of some remarkable steps, such as the decisions regarding the inapplicability of all trade agreements 193 UN General Assembly Resolution 2234/2016, 23 December 2016. Another example is given by UNGA and UNSC Resolutions on the status of the city of Jerusalem issued in the aftermath of the 1967 war: see UNGA Resolution 2235 of 4 July 1967, Resolution 2254 1967, UNSC Resolution 476 of 30 June 1980, Resolution 478 of 20 August 1980; and UNGA Resolutions 47/70 A-G of 14 December 1992. 194 UN General Assembly, Status of Jerusalem, A/ES-10/L.22, 19 December 2017, available at: https:// undocs.org/A/ES-10/L.22 [accessed 27 Jul 2018]. 195 ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Wall, supra note 15, para 146. 196 ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility, supra note 34, art. 16. 197 Ibid, 115. 198 Particularly in Resolution 465, where the UN Security Council called upon “all States not to provide any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories”, or in UN General Assembly Resolution 2334. 199 ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Wall, supra note 15, para 146. 62