Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
CourtInternational Court of Justice
Full case nameLegal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion)
Started2023 (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 are scheduled to open on Monday, 19 February 2024 in The Hague.[3][4]

Background

A draft motion prepared by the State of Palestine was approved by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on 11 November 2022.[5] It was passed by a vote of 98 to 17, with 52 abstentions, and was sent to the General Assembly.[6] Nicaragua presented the draft resolution because Palestine is not a full member of the UN.[7]

On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions.[8][9][10]

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."[11][12]

The UNGA resolution

Paragraph 18 of the resolution[13] 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?

UN’s Special Political and Decolonization Committee vote

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

General Assembly vote

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

Reactions to the UNGA resolution

The resolution was hailed as "a diplomatic and legal success and achievement" according to Riyad Al-Maliki, the State of Palestine's Minister of Foreign Affairs.[14] 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, Prime Minister Yair Lapid wrote to 50 countries urging them not to support it in the General Assembly.[15]

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".[16]

Submissions to the Court

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.[17][18]

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.[19] 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.[20]

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.[20]

On 14 November, the court announced that 15 comments on the written statements were accepted by the Court.[21][22]

Canada

In a statement dated 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.[23][24][25]

France

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.[20]

Israel

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.[26][27]

Palestine

On 24 July, during a meeting at the Hague, Palestine Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Riyad Al-Malki, delivered the Palestinian submission.[28]

United Kingdom

The UK submission also opposes the hearing of the case in the ICJ a position taken by few of the 57 opinions sent to the court.[29]

See also

References

  1. ^ "World Court says it has received U.N. request for opinion on Israel occupation". Reuters. 20 January 2023. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  2. ^ "Press Release No. 2023/4: The General Assembly of the United Nations requests an advisory opinion from the Court in its resolution A/RES/77/247 on "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem"" (PDF) (Press release). International Court of Justice. 20 January 2023. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  3. ^ "No. 2023/55: Public hearings to open on Monday 19 February 2024" (PDF) (Press release). International Court of Justice. 23 October 2023. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  4. ^ "World court to hold public hearings over consequences from Israel's occupation". Reuters. 23 October 2023.
  5. ^ "Fourth Committee to refer Israel's occupation to ICJ for advisory opinion". WAFA.
  6. ^ "UN committee approves: ICJ to be asked to provide legal opinion on Israeli 'occupation'". 11 November 2022.
  7. ^ "UN agrees to ask ICJ opinion on Israel's West Bank occupation". 12 November 2022.
  8. ^ "UN seeks court opinion on 'violation' of Palestinian rights". ABC News (Australia). AP. 30 December 2022. Retrieved 29 October 2023.
  9. ^ "A.77/PV.56 (Resumption 1): General Assembly Official Records: Seventy-seventh session, 56th plenary meeting, Friday, 30 December 2022, 6 p.m., New York" (PDF). Retrieved 29 October 2023.
  10. ^ Nichols, Michelle (30 December 2022). "U.N.asks World Court to give opinion on Israel's occupation". Reuters – via www.reuters.com.
  11. ^ "ICJ confirms it has received UN request for advisory opinion on Israeli occupation". WAFA.
  12. ^ International Court of Justice (20 January 2023). "The General Assembly of the United Nations requests an advisory opinion from the Court in its resolution A/RES/77/247 on 'Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem'" (PDF).
  13. ^ "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 30 December 2022". Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  14. ^ "UN adopts Palestinian resolution to seek ICJ opinion on Israel's 'prolonged occupation'".
  15. ^ "Lapid to world leaders: Stop Palestinian push to refer conflict to the Hague". The Times of Israel.
  16. ^ "OIC hails UN vote on Israel's occupation of Palestine".
  17. ^ "Order on time-limits" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 3 February 2023. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  18. ^ "ICJ sets dates for submission of statements on Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories". WAFA.
  19. ^ "No. 2023/43: Filing of written statements" (PDF) (Press release). International Court of Justice. 7 August 2023. Retrieved 29 October 2023.
  20. ^ a b c Benjamin Barthe; Stéphanie Maupas (22 September 2023). "Palestine: l'occupation israélienne face á la justice". Le Monde (in French). p. 7.
  21. ^ "ICJ says 15 written comments were filed on legal consequences of Israeli Policies, Practices in occupied Palestinian Territory". WAFA. 16 November 2023.
  22. ^ https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20231114-pre-01-00-en.pdf
  23. ^ "Written Statement of the Government of Canada" (PDF). 14 July 2023.
  24. ^ "Canada attempting to block the ICJ advisory opinion on Palestine". Just Peace Advocates. 2023. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  25. ^ Irwin Cotler; Orde Kittrie (27 August 2023). "Opinion: Canada must continue to defend Israel against baseless United Nations attack". National Post. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  26. ^ "Israel tells ICJ it lacks authority to debate conflict, says talks are only solution". The Times of Israel. 28 July 2023. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  27. ^ Tovah Lazaroff (28 July 2023). "Israel files written submission to ICJ against its 'occupation' hearing". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  28. ^ "FM Malki hands Palestine's written submissions to ICJ for legal opinion on nature of Israeli occupation of OPT". WAFA. 24 July 2023.
  29. ^ McKernan, Bethan (24 August 2023). "UK 'seeking to block ICJ ruling' on Israeli occupation of Palestine" – via The Guardian.

External links

United Nations
Israel–Hamas war
Categories