The court has repeatedly ruled that Int'l CUSTOMARY law is automatically part of the "laws of Israel", so this court can (and should) consider the legality of the state claim to be able to apply Israeli law to East Jerusalem. The court will NOT consider that question, precisely because it knows the answer i.e. int'l customary law says that this is illegal, and so the original proclamation in 1967 is without merit under the very laws that the court recognizes as applying to the state. So don't say that the court is "obligated" in this matter, when the correct word is that it is "complicit" in this matter.
Clashes between IDF and protesters in Bethlehem and East Jerusalem (Reuters)
from the article: Israel's chief justice lashes out over illegal West Bank building