Chris Hipkins is right to put International Law at the forefront of New Zealand’s Foreign Policy

OPINION: Chris Hipkins is right to put international law at the forefront of New Zealand’s response to the alleged genocide happening in the Gaza strip and the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Labour leader says a government he leads after the 2026 general election would formally recognise Palestine and support sanctions on Israel. That position will be politically contested, but it is not a rejection of the rules-based international system. It is an argument that New Zealand should apply those rules consistently.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

Successive New Zealand governments have said they support Palestinian self-determination and a negotiated two-state solution. Recognition would give diplomatic weight to that position. It would say that Palestinian statehood cannot remain an indefinite promise while the territory on which that state is supposed to exist continues to be fragmented by settlement expansion.

The legal context is extremely important when speaking about the situation happening overseas.

The International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and said all states have obligations not to recognise as legal the situation created by that unlawful presence, or provide aid or assistance in maintaining it. The Court also reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

That does not mean international law automatically requires New Zealand to recognise Palestine tomorrow, nor does the advisory opinion itself prescribe Hipkins’ exact sanctions policy. It means Hipkins is operating within a framework already established by international law, rather than inventing a new one for partisan convenience.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

The case for targeted measures has also moved beyond symbolic politics.

Britain, France and Canada have announced plans to ban trade in goods from Israeli settlements, alongside a wider group of countries considering or supporting restrictions.

The stated purpose is to respond to settlements regarded as illegal under international law and to protect the viability of a two-state solution.

Image: Labour leader Chris Hipkins speaks to an audience in Lower Hutt about Labour’s plans to help Kiwis get ahead, including how the party would approach government policy if elected at the 2026 general election. (Supplied)

The strength of international law comes from consistency, especially when applying it is politically uncomfortable.

Hipkins’ position should be judged on that standard.

Recognition of Palestine and carefully designed sanctions are legitimate tools of statecraft. They can be debated, narrowed or strengthened, but treating them as somehow outside the international order misses the point.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

Hipkins is arguing that New Zealand should make its foreign policy match the legal principles it says it supports, and New Zealanders should take that seriously.

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Advertisement