Change ), You are commenting using your Facebook account. The Admission of Judges Ad Hoc in Advisory Proceedings: Some Reflections in the Light of the Namibia Case, The Use of Experts by the International Court, in Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice 30 Oil Platforms, supra note 29, para. The Court responds to the question as follows: The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law”; Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”; Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”; All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”; The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”. icj10@stopthewall.org, International Court of Justice on the Wall, State Responsibility in Connection with Israel’s Illegal Settlement Enterprise in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, On 10th Anniversary of Historic Ruling against Israel’s Wall, Legal Scholars Call on World to Act, 10 Years after the Advisory Opinion on the Wall in Occupied Palestine: Time for Concrete Action. . In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. 159 (2004), available at (emphasis added). The European Union, as a third member of the “Quartet” sponsoring the road map, together with the ten acceding states to the European Union and fifteen other states, urged the Court to decline to render any advisor)’ opinion at all because of the “compelling” circumstances of the peacemaking process. 5 Countries taking this position included Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Change ), www.stopthewall.org . The International Law of Belligerent Occupation and Human Rights, The President’s News Conference with Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority (July 25, 2003), http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=484, http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/operational.htm, http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.i1/Pages/ENG/execution.htm#5, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/, http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/88July31.html, http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/91030600.html, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mepp/roadmap.htm, Indeterminacy and Control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Rethinking the International Law of Occupation, Ethical Values and Foreign Policy in Practice: the Role of the Union in the Middle East Peace Process and Relations with the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The prohibition to contribute to the maintenance of the situation is a special obligation which arises because of the continuing and composite character of Israel’s serious breaches and directly relates to all acts that may contribute the viability of the settlement project and the Wall. 378, 383 The Court ascertains whether the construction of the wall has violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Dinstein, Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation and Human Rights, v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ REP. 14 (June 27). 37 SC Res. See also U.S. Dep’t of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 (Apr. Additionally, it is doubtful, with regard to the Roadmap, when consideration is had to the conditions of acceptance of that effort, whether the meeting of minds necessary to produce mutual and reciprocal obligations exists. There is no doubt that the Green Line was initially no more than an armistice line in an agreement that expressly stipulated that its provisions would not be “interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties” and that “the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto” (Advisory Opinion, para. . Whatever the true significance of that line today, two facts are indisputable: (1) The Green line, to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory” (CR 2004/3, p. 64). 50 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion (Int’l Ct. Justice July 9, 2004), 43 ILM 1009 (2004) [hereinafter Advisory Opinion], Separate Opinion of Judge Owada, 43ILM at 1091, para. See also . The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 2004 recognised that Israel’s Wall and its associated legislative and regulatory regime are a component of the larger settlement enterprise in the OPT. . 23 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, Apr. 1 Editor’s Note: This entry was originally written in February of 2007 by the late Sir Arthur Watts, QC (1931–2007). ( Log Out /  at 85. . The Court concludes from the foregoing that there is no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion. 113 (Beth El case), translated in 1 The hope for some coherence in the approach of the international community to the resolution of a difficult and violent conflict is not otiose, especially where a stable settlement will require ongoing diplomatic, economic, and security support. It finds that the “construction [of the wall], along with measures taken previously ... severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is, therefore, a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right”. The Court states that, when it is seized of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give that opinion. 12. 13. . 32 United Nations, A More Secure World : Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, UN Doc. 355, 374 THE ICJ'S ADVISORY OPINION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF ISRAEL'S CONSTRUCTION OF A SEPARATION BARRIER IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTIAN TERRITORIES: A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR AN IMPEDIMENT TO PEACE? 2005. Reg. For Resolutions 1368 and 1373, see note 39 infra. ) (stating that “although the Court has broad flexibility and wide powers in matters relating to evidence, it has not in fact used them to their full potential”); Highet, Keith, . In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. But these points pale into insignificance beside the cardinal principle that the laws of war, including the law on occupations, are widely viewed as applying equally to all states, whether aggressors or victims of aggression. Whatever the merits and demerits of the Jordanian title in the West Bank might have been, and Jordan would in all probability argue that its title there was perfectly valid and internationally recognized and point out that it had severed its legal ties to those territories in favour of Palestinian self-determination, the fact remains that what prevents this right of self-determination from being fulfilled is Israel’s prolonged military occupation with its policy of creating faits accomplis on the ground. :  + 31 70 302 23 37); e-mail address:  information@icj-cij.org. Usage data cannot currently be displayed. The Court accordingly finds that the convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice Demarcation line established between Israel and Jordan (The Green Line) and which were occupied during that conflict by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of these territories.”, International Conferences and Side Events, Responsibilities of Civil Society Partners, ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT – Separate opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh – ICJ document, 1. Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Note by the Secretary-General 1. IT-94-1-T (May 7, 1997). Reports 1950, p. 131). 43 Roberts, supra note 33, at 67. 21, A/165-10/6-S/1997/494. Similarly the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Committee of the Red Cross “have retained their consensus that the convention”, i.e. a number of obligations under humanitarian and human rights law, including the prohibition on forced population transfer; the obligation to respect Palestinian private and public property; the obligation to refrain from introducing changes in government or institutions of the OPT that deprive the Palestinian population of the status and rights enshrined in the Fourth Geneva Convention; and the obligation to protect the rights enshrined in the ICESCR and CRC, in particular the rights of Palestinians to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living. A summary of the Advisory Opinion is published in the document entitled “Summary No. HEAD AGAINST THE WALL? The Court was composed as follows:  Judge Shi, President; Judge Ranjeva, Vice-President; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma and Tomka; Registrar Couvreur. It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”. . . 86-98). See Elements of Crimes, Art. Israel’s War Against Terror: The Tanzim, at (visited Jan. 12, 2005). that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.