| Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | International Court of Justice |
| Full case name | Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) |
| Started | 2023 (2023) |
| Keywords | |
|
| |
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) is a proceeding in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), stemming from a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022, requesting the Court to render an advisory opinion. In January 2023, the ICJ acknowledged a request from the UNGA for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.[1][2] Public hearings opened on Monday, 19 February 2024 in The Hague[3][4] with 52 states and three international organizations participating.[5][6]
A draft motion prepared by the State of Palestine was approved by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on 11 November 2022.[7] It was passed by a vote of 98 to 17, with 52 abstentions, and was sent to the General Assembly.[8] Nicaragua presented the draft resolution because Palestine is not a full member of the UN.[9]
On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions.[10][11][12]
On 20 January 2023, the ICJ confirmed "The request was transferred to the ICJ through a letter sent by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, on January 17, and the request was registered yesterday, Thursday."[13][14]
Paragraph 18 of the resolution[15] requests the Court to render an advisory opinion on the following questions:
(a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?
| Vote | Quantity | States |
|---|---|---|
| Approve | 98 | Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, People's Republic of China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe |
| Against | 17 | Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States |
| Abstain | 52 | Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, United Kingdom, Uruguay |
| Absent | 26 | Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia |
| Total | 193 |
| Vote | Quantity | States |
|---|---|---|
| Approve | 87 | Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chile, People's Republic of China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe |
| Against | 26 | Albania, Australia, Austria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Togo, United Kingdom, United States |
| Abstain | 53 | Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Monaco, Montenegro, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu |
| Absent | 27 | Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Gambia, Madagascar, Nepal, Niger, North Macedonia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela |
| Total | 193 |
Riyad al-Maliki, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the State of Palestine, hailed the resolution as "a diplomatic and legal success and achievement".[16] Al-Maliki expressed gratitude to the nations that supported the resolution by sponsoring it and voting in favor of it. He urged countries that did not support the resolution to "adhere to international law and avoid standing on the wrong side of history." Days prior to the final vote, in an attempt to impede the referral of the conflict to The Hague, then-Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid wrote to 50 countries urging them not to support it in the General Assembly.[17]
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) welcomed the resolution's approval by the General Assembly, "praising the positions of the countries that supported it, which confirms their commitment to international law and is consistent with their historical support for the Palestinian cause".[18]
The court fixed 25 July 2023 as the deadline for presentation of written statements and 25 October 2023 as the deadline for written comments on the statements made by other States or organizations.[19][20]
On 7 August the Court announced that 57 written statements had been filed in the Court's registry, including three written statements from international organizations (League of Arab States, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and African Union) with the others from Palestine and UN member states.[21] According to Le Monde, 57 written submissions is a record (more than have been received on any other case) since the Court's creation in 1945, which the newspaper regards as already a small victory for the Palestinians.[22]
The written statements will not be published by the Court until the start of public hearings, but according to Le Monde, a large majority of the 57 submissions recognize the jurisdiction of the Court to render an opinion on the issues raised; only around 10 or so submissions contest the referral to the Court.[22]
On 14 November, the court announced that 15 comments on the written statements were accepted by the Court.[23][24]
On 14 July 2023, the Government of Canada argued that the Court should exercise its discretion to decline to render an advisory opinion, because Israel has not accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter, and the UN Security Council has established a framework for the parties to resolve the dispute through negotiations.[25][26][27]
Although France abstained in the General Assembly on the resolution which requested the advisory opinion from the Court, France submitted a statement to the Court of around 20 pages, in which it reaffirms the illegal nature of colonization, recounts the legal obligations of the occupier in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and notes the risk of an annexation by fait accompli.[22]
The Government of Israel reportedly made submissions to the Court arguing that the Court lacks the authority to adjudicate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that it should instead be resolved by direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority.[28][29]
On 24 July 2023, during a meeting at the Hague, Palestine Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Riyad Al-Malki, delivered the Palestinian submission.[30]
The UK submission opposes the hearing of the case in the ICJ.[31]
Oral presentation of the arguments started on 19 February 2024. On that date, the Palestinian delegation presented its arguments. The following countries presented oral arguments in the case:
African Union: The AU representative, professor Mohamed Helal, stated, "The injustice being wrought against the people of Gaza makes it imperative to end Israel’s impunity and hold it accountable for the rule of law".[32]
Libya: The Libyan representative stated Palestinians have the right to self determination.[33]
Namibia: Namibian Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab stated, "Palestinians and Namibians suffered the loss of human dignity… and the outright theft of their land and natural resources… we cannot look the other way in the face of the brutal atrocities committed against the Palestinian people".[34]
South Africa: South Africa argued that Israel's occupation amounted to colonial apartheid, that the settlements need to be dismantled, and reparations need to be paid to Palestinians.[35]
Sudan: The Sudanese representative urged the court to issue an advisory opinion for Israelis and Palestinians to "redouble their efforts to achieve peace and security".[36]
Belize: The Belize representative argued Gaza is still occupied despite Israel's 2005 withdrawal.[37]
Bolivia: The representative from Bolivia argued that Israel's occupation policies and practices violated international law.[38]
Brazil: The Brazilian attorney advocated for a two-state solution and argued Israel's occupation was a violation of international law.[39]
Chile: The Chilean representative stated, "By virtue of its actions, including the exploitation of natural resources, the policies of settlements, the erection of the wall, the legalisation of outposts, among others, Israel has demonstrated its intention to control indefinitely the occupied Palestinian territory".[40]
United States: The occupation must continue for Israel's self defense.[41]
Bangladesh: Bangladesh argued Israel must withdraw its forces in the occupied territories and dismantle all settler structures.[42]
China: The Chinese representative argued that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resistance.[43]
Indonesia: Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi stated, "Israel’s unlawful occupation and its atrocities must stop and should not be normalised or recognised. It is clear that Israel has zero intention to abide by international legal obligations."[44]
Japan: The legal advisor to Japan’s Foreign Ministry stated a "two-state solution where Israel and the future independent Palestinian state live side by side in peace and dignity remains the only viable path for both peoples".[45]
Pakistan: The Minister for Law and Justice Ahmed Irfan Aslam stated that Israel's occupation was reversible, citing France's withdrawal of 1 million settlers in Algeria in 1962.[46]
Ireland: The Irish representative stated, "By its prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory, and the settlement activities it has conducted there for more than half a century, Israel has committed serious breaches of a number of peremptory norms of general international law."[47]
Belgium: The legal expert representing Belgium stated Israel's occupation sought a permanent demographic alteration and violates the fundamental rules of international law.[48]
Luxembourg: The lawyer representing Luxembourg argued that Israel's "activities of colonisation cannot be justified under self-defence" and suggested that its actions had violated the Fourth Geneva Convention.[49]
Netherlands: Netherlands representative René JM Lefeber argued that people under occupation have a right to self-determination.[50]
Norway: Norwegian foreign minister Espen Barth Eide stated "the injustice to which the Palestinians are subjected must stop" and argued a two-state solution was "the only solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine".[51]
Russia: The Russian representative stated Israel needed to "stop all settlement activities in the occupied territory".[52]
Slovenia: Slovenia argued that Palestinians have the "fundamental human right" to self-determination and that the Israeli occupation was an impediment to it.[53]
Switzerland: The Swiss representative stated Israel's occupation "cannot be justified under security requirements because it affects the well-being of the population and is discriminatory in nature".[54]
United Kingdom: The British representative acknowledged that the Israeli occupation was illegal but argued the court should not issue a ruling on it.[55]
Arab League: Representing the Arab League, Ralph Wilde stated there was no "backdoor legal basis" for Israel to maintain the occupation; he ended by quoting the Palestinian poet Refaat Alareer, stating, "If I must die, you must live to tell my story. If I must die, let it bring hope. Let it be a story."[56]
Iran: Iran stated that it was a "collective legal and moral responsibility" to end the occupation and "we should not leave [Palestinians] alone and let them down".[57]
Iraq: The Iraqi representative stated Iraq is "deeply concerned about the humanitarian suffering inflicted on the Palestinians throughout the state of Palestine".[58]
Jordan: Michael Wood, representing Jordan, stated, "the only way for the [Palestinian] right to self-determination to be exercised is for the [Israeli] occupation to come to an end".[59] Ayman Safadi further stated, "The occupation is unlawful, it is inhumane, it must end, yet Israel has been systematically consolidating the occupation".[60]
Kuwait: The Kuwaiti representative stated, "The occupying power has waged an illegitimate war on the Palestinians in Gaza characterised by numerous international law violations."[61]
Lebanon: The Lebanese representative stated, "Since 1967, Israel has been committing a crime of aggression, illegally occupying territories before annexing them."[62]
Oman: The Omani representative stated Palestinians "have been living under occupation, oppression, injustice and daily humiliation, while the international community failed to assist them in realising their aspirations to an independent state".[63]
Qatar: The Qatari lawyer stated that the ICJ holds a "clear mandate and indeed the responsibility to remedy to this unacceptable situation. The credibility of the international legal order depends on your opinion and the stakes cannot be higher."[64]
Saudi Arabia: Saudi envoy Ziad al-Atiyah stated that Israel has committed "egregious violations of its fundamental international obligations" toward Palestinians under occupation.[65]Daniel Levy, a political analyst, stated the ICJ case would cause third parties to reckon with the consequences of being "complicit in this violation of international law and in guaranteeing impunity for the violating party, namely Israel".[66]
