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 |
Keywords | |
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is a proceeding before 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.
Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories, which comprises the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, since 1967, making it the world's longest military occupation in modern history. [1] In 2004, the ICJ delivered an advisory opinion on the Israeli West Bank barrier, deciding that it contravened international law and should be torn down. 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 territories. [2] [3]
Public hearings opened on 19 February 2024 in The Hague [4] [5] with 52 states and three international organizations participating, making it one of the most participated-in hearings in the ICJ's history. [6] [7] [1] [8] The court's advisory opinion was delivered on 19 July 2024, and determined that the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that they had been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, as well as declaring that the creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources to be in violation of international law. The court also ruled that this occupation amounted to a form of segregation in the occupied territories, although it did not decide whether the segregation was in fact apartheid. [9] [10]
Israel countered the opinion by emphasizing that a political settlement can only be attained through diplomatic negotiations. [11] Israeli leaders and politicians decried the ICJ ruling as antisemitic. [12] The court's opinion was criticized by the United States, who stated it would complicate efforts to resolve the conflict. [11] [13]
A draft motion prepared by the State of Palestine was approved by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on 11 November 2022. [14] It was passed by a vote of 98 to 17, with 52 abstentions, and was sent to the General Assembly. [15] Nicaragua presented the draft resolution because Palestine is not a full member of the UN. [16]
On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions. [17] [18] [19]
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." [20] [21]
Paragraph 18 of the resolution [22] 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, Turkey, 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". [23] 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. [24]
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". [25]
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. [26] [27]
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. [28] 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. [29]
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. [29]
On 14 November, the court announced that 15 comments on the written statements were accepted by the Court. [30] [31]
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. [32] [33] [34]
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. [29]
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. [35] [36]
On 24 July 2023, during a meeting at the Hague, Palestine Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Riyad Al-Malki, delivered the Palestinian submission. [37]
The UK submission opposes the hearing of the case in the ICJ. [38]
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:
The ICJ delivered its ruling on 19 July 2024. [72] It concluded that Israel should put an end to its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established. It further concluded that where Palestinians have lost land and property, that Israel should pay reparations. [73] In relation to the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the court found that Israeli laws "implement a separation" between Palestinians and settlers in the occupied territories in physical and juridical senses, "breach[ing]" Article 3 of CERD. [74] [75]: 65 It also found that all states, and institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly, are under an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal nor "render aid or assistance" toward maintaining Israel's presence in the occupied territories. [76] [77]
Among the breaches of international law, the court identified practices such as forcible evictions, pervasive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement, the transfer and retention of settlers into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the failure to protect Palestinians from settler violence, placing restrictions on access to water, the extension of Israeli law into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the exploitation by Israel of resources in the occupied territories. [78] While raising the issue of Israel's separation policy, noting a distinction between segregation and apartheid, it stopped short of ruling that the policy fell under the provisions of international law regarding apartheid. It has been speculated that this may have been related to a concern to achieve a great majoritarian consensus among the presiding judges. [10]
The court further wrote that: [75]
The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.
The court stated that the Israeli–Palestinian peace process did not prevent international law from applying to the situation. [79] The ICJ stated that the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council are required to determine the method of ending Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied territorites, and that all states are obliged to cooperate with the non-recognition of the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories. [80]
Israeli leaders and politicians decried the ICJ ruling as antisemitic: [12]
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 |
Keywords | |
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is a proceeding before 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.
Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories, which comprises the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, since 1967, making it the world's longest military occupation in modern history. [1] In 2004, the ICJ delivered an advisory opinion on the Israeli West Bank barrier, deciding that it contravened international law and should be torn down. 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 territories. [2] [3]
Public hearings opened on 19 February 2024 in The Hague [4] [5] with 52 states and three international organizations participating, making it one of the most participated-in hearings in the ICJ's history. [6] [7] [1] [8] The court's advisory opinion was delivered on 19 July 2024, and determined that the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that they had been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, as well as declaring that the creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources to be in violation of international law. The court also ruled that this occupation amounted to a form of segregation in the occupied territories, although it did not decide whether the segregation was in fact apartheid. [9] [10]
Israel countered the opinion by emphasizing that a political settlement can only be attained through diplomatic negotiations. [11] Israeli leaders and politicians decried the ICJ ruling as antisemitic. [12] The court's opinion was criticized by the United States, who stated it would complicate efforts to resolve the conflict. [11] [13]
A draft motion prepared by the State of Palestine was approved by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on 11 November 2022. [14] It was passed by a vote of 98 to 17, with 52 abstentions, and was sent to the General Assembly. [15] Nicaragua presented the draft resolution because Palestine is not a full member of the UN. [16]
On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions. [17] [18] [19]
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." [20] [21]
Paragraph 18 of the resolution [22] 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, Turkey, 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". [23] 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. [24]
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". [25]
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. [26] [27]
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. [28] 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. [29]
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. [29]
On 14 November, the court announced that 15 comments on the written statements were accepted by the Court. [30] [31]
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. [32] [33] [34]
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. [29]
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. [35] [36]
On 24 July 2023, during a meeting at the Hague, Palestine Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Riyad Al-Malki, delivered the Palestinian submission. [37]
The UK submission opposes the hearing of the case in the ICJ. [38]
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:
The ICJ delivered its ruling on 19 July 2024. [72] It concluded that Israel should put an end to its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established. It further concluded that where Palestinians have lost land and property, that Israel should pay reparations. [73] In relation to the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the court found that Israeli laws "implement a separation" between Palestinians and settlers in the occupied territories in physical and juridical senses, "breach[ing]" Article 3 of CERD. [74] [75]: 65 It also found that all states, and institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly, are under an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal nor "render aid or assistance" toward maintaining Israel's presence in the occupied territories. [76] [77]
Among the breaches of international law, the court identified practices such as forcible evictions, pervasive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement, the transfer and retention of settlers into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the failure to protect Palestinians from settler violence, placing restrictions on access to water, the extension of Israeli law into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the exploitation by Israel of resources in the occupied territories. [78] While raising the issue of Israel's separation policy, noting a distinction between segregation and apartheid, it stopped short of ruling that the policy fell under the provisions of international law regarding apartheid. It has been speculated that this may have been related to a concern to achieve a great majoritarian consensus among the presiding judges. [10]
The court further wrote that: [75]
The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.
The court stated that the Israeli–Palestinian peace process did not prevent international law from applying to the situation. [79] The ICJ stated that the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council are required to determine the method of ending Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied territorites, and that all states are obliged to cooperate with the non-recognition of the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories. [80]
Israeli leaders and politicians decried the ICJ ruling as antisemitic: [12]