Steven25's Blog

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website X YouTube LinkedIn

Summary Unofficial

Summary 2024/8 19 July 2024

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 Chronology of the procedure (paras 1-21)

The Court first recalls that on 19 January 2023, the Secretary-General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Court the decision taken by the General Assembly to submit the questions set forth in resolution 77/247 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (hereinafter the “General Assembly”) on 30 December 2022.

Paragraph 18 of the resolution reads as follows: “The General Assembly,

……………………………………………………….

18. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to render an advisory opinion on the following questions, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004:

1. (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?
2. (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?”

    

-2-

I. JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION (PARAS. 22-50)

At the outset the Court observes that, when seised of a request for an advisory opinion, the Court must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give the opinion requested and, if so, whether there is any reason why the Court should, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to answer the request.

A. Jurisdiction (paras. 23-29)

The Court first addresses the question whether it possesses jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion. It notes that, in accordance with the requirement in Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute, the Court must satisfy itself that the question on which it is requested to give its opinion is a “legal question”.

The Court recalls that, in the present proceedings, the General Assembly put two questions to the Court. These questions relate first to the legal consequences arising from certain policies and practices of Israel as an occupying Power in a situation of belligerent occupation since 1967. Secondly, they relate to how such policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation in light of certain rules and principles of international law and to the legal consequences which arise from this status. The Court considers that these questions are legal questions. In light of the above, the Court concludes that the request has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and of the Statute of the Court and therefore that it has jurisdiction to render the requested opinion. (…)

+++

Antwort auf diese Resolution:

Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו

@netanyahu

The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria, our historical homeland. No absurd opinion in the Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their own communities in our ancestoral home.Original (Englisch) übersetzt von

Das jüdische Volk ist kein Besatzer in seinem eigenen Land, weder in unserer ewigen Hauptstadt Jerusalem noch in Judäa und Samaria, unserer historischen Heimat. Keine absurde Meinung in Den Haag kann diese historische Wahrheit oder das gesetzliche Recht der Israelis leugnen, in ihrer eigenen Gemeinde in unserer angestammten Heimat zu leben.