The participating countries intend to introduce national and/or support EU-level restrictions on trade in goods with Israeli civilian communities established or maintained with the support of the Israeli authorities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as comprising the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit.[3] France expressly committed to adopt national trade restrictions on settlement goods. According to the joint statement, this initiative is designed to respond to certain actions viewed as a threat to the two-state solution. Some European countries have already adopted national measures.
Among other things, conduct required under these national initiatives may at the same time constitute participation in an unsanctioned foreign boycott as is prohibited under US state and federal antiboycott laws. Accordingly, companies with US operations or other US jurisdictional connections will need to assess whether actions taken to comply with European restrictions conflict with applicable US antiboycott requirements. Additionally, certain of the measures adopted by individual EU Member States do not necessarily appear compatible with EU law and further present a certain number of practical challenges.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES’ ANNOUNCED NATIONAL MEASURES
The measures adopted or proposed at a national level in the EU and in Norway specifically target trade and other economic activities connected with Israeli settlements, seeking to reduce the economic support available to settlement activity, increase pressure against further settlement expansion and help preserve the viability of a two-state solution. Announced measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
Spain: Import and Advertising Restrictions
Spain was the first European country to implement a prohibition on imports of products originating in Israeli settlements in certain Palestinian territories, in force since September 25, 2025. Advertising of settlement goods and of services provided in such settlements is also prohibited.[4] The relevant territories are identified by reference to the European Commission’s list of locations ineligible for preferential tariff treatment under the EU–Israel Association Agreement adopted in 2005 and last updated in 2025, which identifies, by locality and postal code, places in territories brought under Israeli administration since June 1967.[5] However, the Spanish list is limited to the Occupied Palestinian Territory as defined in the ICJ Advisory Opinion, and therefore excludes the occupied Syrian Golan.[6]
Ireland: Import Prohibition on Settlement Goods
An import prohibition on goods originating in designated Israeli settlements, enforceable through the Irish customs legislation, entered into force on September 15, 2026.[7] Ireland also relies on the EU list of postal codes, limited to the Occupied Palestinian Territories without extending it to the Golan Heights.
The Netherlands: Comprehensive Restrictions on Trade with Settlements
A prohibition on the import, purchase, and sale of goods originating in Israeli settlements, as well as the provision of related brokering services, entered into force in the Netherlands on September 22, 2026.[8] These restrictions extend beyond the physical importation of goods and may also apply to persons involved in arranging or facilitating relevant transactions. Of note is also a related prohibition on activities aimed at, or resulting in, the circumvention of these restrictions. For now, the Netherlands applies the latest version of the EU postal-code list and therefore covers settlements and outposts in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights. Its territorial scope is thus broader than regimes limited to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Belgium: Prior Authorization Regime
On July 18, 2026, Belgium approved a draft prior-authorization regime pursuant to which approvals for settlement imports would generally be denied.[9] The measure has not yet entered into force. The Belgian draft refers directly to the EU postal-code list, while excluding the Syrian Golan.
Norway: Proposed Restrictions on Trade, Services, and Investment
Norway is currently evaluating a broader government proposal covering a complete ban on exports to and imports from exports, as well as certain services, real-estate transactions, and investments connected with settlements in the West Bank, and is expected to finalize measures in October 2026.[10] The proposal defines Israeli settlements by reference to their location in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and expressly covers unauthorized settlement outposts. The Syrian Golan is excluded, as it does not form part of Palestinian territory. Accordingly, the proposal is geographically narrower than the EU list, but potentially broader within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, since its application does not depend on a settlement or outpost being included in the EU postal-code list. A public consultation of the draft proposal closed on September 19, 2026, and is expected to be finalized in the coming weeks.
The other signatories, including France, have committed to adopting national trade restrictions or to support European actions, but have not yet published the details of the content of the contemplated regimes.
EXISTING EU-LEVEL RESTRICTIONS
The EU has already adopted select targeted measures in reaction to settlement expansion in the West Bank, including asset freezes, prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available, and travel bans under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime,[11] as well as an exclusion of products originating in Israeli settlements from the preferential tariff treatment available to products originating in Israel under the EU-Israel Association Agreement.[12] It is expected that additional restrictions will be introduced at the EU level.
In July 2026, the European Commission presented Member States with several options to further restrict trade with Israeli settlements, including an import-licensing regime, higher tariffs, and a partial or total import ban,[13] while 114 members of the European Parliament called for a total ban on trade between the EU and Israeli settlements.[14] However, any additional measures have yet to be agreed upon.
TENSIONS BETWEEN THE ADOPTION OF NATIONAL MEASURES BY SELECT EU MEMBER STATES AND EU MEASURES
The announced national measures by select EU Member States go far beyond the existing EU framework and create significant legal uncertainty as to their effect and compatibility with EU law.
Diverging National Measures Risk Fragmenting the EU Trade and Internal Market Framework
In adopting or contemplating restrictions on imports from Israeli settlements, Member States intend to rely on Article 24(2)(a) of the EU Common Rules for Imports (Regulation (EU) 2015/478), which allows national prohibitions or quantitative restrictions on specified public-interest grounds, including public policy, notwithstanding the EU’s exclusive competence over the Common Commercial Policy.[15] As the CJEU confirmed in Confédération paysanne, however, that provision applies “without prejudice to other Union provisions” and therefore does not displace other applicable constraints under EU law.[16]
This reliance on national measures nonetheless raises issues of consistency with the EU customs union and internal market. Goods from third countries that have been lawfully released into free circulation in one Member State may, in principle, circulate throughout the EU under Article 29 TFEU. As a result, goods whose direct importation from Israeli settlements is prohibited by one Member State could potentially enter the EU through another Member State and subsequently reach the territory of the prohibiting State. Any restriction imposed on their subsequent intra-EU movement or marketing would therefore also have to comply with the EU rules on the free movement of goods, including Articles 34–36 TFEU[17]. The CJEU has not yet ruled on the compatibility with EU law of national restrictions specifically targeting goods from Israeli settlements. In the context of the 2021 Irish Occupied Territories Bill, the Commission nevertheless stressed that any restrictions on intra-EU free movement resulting from such national measures would have to be justified and proportionate.[18]
Choice of Legal Basis Decisive for Adoption Process and Ultimate Ability to Impose Restrictions
At the EU level, the proposed common trade restrictions on Israeli settlements raises the question of whether they would fall within the scope of the common commercial policy, allowing for adoption by qualified majority, or under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which will require a unanimous decision of all Member States. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, has recently stated that a ban on trade with Israeli settlements could be adopted as an EU trade measure by qualified majority.[19]
The Commission has previously acknowledged that import and export prohibitions relating to occupied territories may fall within Article 207 TFEU where they are intended to govern international trade and have direct and immediate effects on such trade, even if they also pursue foreign-policy objectives.[20] Only targeted restrictive measures against particular individuals or entities fall within the EU sanctions framework and require a prior CFSP decision under Article 29 TEU, which is in principle adopted unanimously pursuant to Article 31 TEU. This could be procedurally significant, as unanimity has previously enabled individual Member States (including Germany and Hungary) to block EU restrictions impacting concerning Israel. Ultimately, the type of measures and their legal basis will determine whether the unanimity requirement can be avoided.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH US FEDERAL ANTIBOYCOTT LAWS
The US antiboycott framework consists principally of two separate sets of provisions: (1) the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, Part II of the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), as implemented through Part 760 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and administered by the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) [21]; and (2) the tax antiboycott provisions of Section 999 of the Internal Revenue Code, administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).[22]
The BIS Antiboycott Regulations prohibit US persons from “taking certain actions in furtherance or support of a boycott maintained by a foreign country against a country friendly to the United States (‘unsanctioned foreign boycott’).” Specifically, the regulations generally prohibit US persons from refusing to do business with a boycotted country, businesses organized under its laws, or its nationals or residents when the refusal is made pursuant to an agreement with, requirement of, or request from or on behalf of a boycotting country.[23]
In determining whether conduct is prohibited, a key consideration is whether the covered conduct was undertaken with the intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. The prohibited conduct can include agreeing to refuse to do business with a boycotted country or with persons or entities associated with that country, providing certain boycott-related information or agreeing to discriminatory contractual terms.
The antiboycott provisions could apply not only to refusals to do business with Israel itself, but also to refusals to do business with Israeli nationals. This distinction is particularly relevant to the emerging European measures because, although those measures define restricted commercial activity by reference to Israeli settlements, compliance may require US persons to restrict dealings with Israeli nationals or residents located in those territories.
Accordingly, the fact that a European measure distinguishes between Israel and Israeli settlements for territorial purposes does not necessarily resolve the analysis under the US antiboycott rules. Rather, international companies will need to navigate compliance carefully to ensure that its compliance with the EU restrictions are not perceived as a boycott of Israeli nationals. More broadly, recent US regulatory action illustrates the potential for European measures restricting trade with Israel to trigger US countermeasures, even outside the scope of US antiboycott legislation.[24]
The IRS Antiboycott Regulations operate differently as they require US taxpayers to report operations in, with, or related to countries participating in an unsanctioned international boycott, through IRS Form 5713, and can result in the loss or reduction of certain tax benefits when the taxpayer chooses to cooperate with such a boycott. Unlike the BIS Antiboycott Regulations, the tax antiboycott rules generally do not require showing an intent to participate in or cooperate with the boycott before the relevant tax consequences apply.
IMPACT OF US STATE ANTIBOYCOTT LAWS
Since the establishment of the federal antiboycott regime, a number of US states have adopted laws restricting companies that boycott Israel, primarily by conditioning access to state government contracts and public investment on a company’s commitment not to engage in such conduct. Like the federal regime, many states antiboycott protections expand beyond Israel as a country to cover Israeli nationals. Texas and Florida have among the most significant regimes. Notably, such laws have frequently been criticized and challenged as unconstitutional on First Amendment and federal preemption grounds
Texas
On May 2, 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed into law House Bill 89 (HB 89), known as the Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions) bill, which prohibits state and local government entities from entering into contracts for goods or services valued at $100,000 or more with companies that have 10 or more full-time employees unless the company verifies that it does not and will not during the contract term boycott Israel.[25] Texas amended the original version of the law after the US District Court for the Western District of Texas determined that HB 89 was likely unconstitutional.
Florida
Florida’s antiboycott regime operates through both state investment restrictions under Section 215.4725[26] and government-contracting restrictions under Section 287.135.[27] Florida defines a “boycott of Israel” to include refusing to deal, terminating business activities, or otherwise limiting commercial relations with Israel, or with persons or entities doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner. Florida, for example, maintains a Scrutinized Companies or Other Entities that Boycott Israel List, and its current contracting provision applies to contracts of $100,000 or more.
Unlike the federal regime, the state laws generally do not prohibit a company from engaging in boycott-related conduct but instead create consequences for companies that do so through the potential loss of government contracting opportunities or investment. The broad definitions used by Texas and Florida are significant for multinational companies because they extend beyond Israel itself to certain companies or activities in Israeli-controlled territories.
