ZAHIDA RIZVI
COLOMBO : The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a historic advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, addressing the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered the legal advice, the advisory opinion, to the United Nations (UN), in compliance with Article 96 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued two critical sets of interim orders in May 2024, followed by an advisory opinion in July, addressing Israel’s actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
· May 2024: ICJ Calls for Immediate Halt in Rafah Offensive (I)
In its interim orders, the ICJ called on Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah and cease any actions that could harm the Palestinian population in Gaza. The court emphasized preventing conditions that could result in physical destruction of Palestinians, in whole or in part.
· July 2024: Advisory Opinion Declares Isreal’s Policies Unlawful (II)
The ICJ claims Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be in violation of international law. The court asserted that Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activities, repeal discriminatory legislation, and end systemic practices against Palestinians.
Declaration by ICJ President Salam (III)
In a pivotal statement accompanying the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion, Judge Salam, President of the ICJ, delivered a sharp critique of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, categorically labeling them as violations of international law.
“I fully agree with both the reasoning and conclusions of the Court in this Advisory Opinion, which is why I voted in favour of all the points in the operative part. In this declaration I would like to set out a few additional reasons that are not stated in the Advisory Opinion but which, in my view, help to justify the conclusions reached by the Court, in particular the finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and that Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end as rapidly as possible its unlawful presence and cease immediately all new settlement activities and withdraw all settlers,”Judge Salam stated in his declaration statement .
As per Judge Salam’s statement, his declaration did not shy away from addressing the broader implications of Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories. He highlighted how the violations of the prohibition on acquiring territory by force and the persistent denial of Palestinian self-determination underpin the illegality of Israel’s occupation.
“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,” Judge Salam stated in his declaration statement .
Jurisdiction and Discretion: The Court’s Authority (IV)
The Court addresses 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 the ICJ’s Statute, which requires the Court to assess whether the matter involves a “legal question.”
In its advisory opinion, the ICJ confirmed that the question posed by the UN addresses two key legal dimensions. First, it examines the consequences of policies and practices implemented by Israel as an occupying power in territories under belligerent occupation since 1967. Second, it considers how such policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation under international law, as well as the broader legal consequences arising from this status.
The ICJ claims that the issues at hand clearly constitute legal questions under the framework of international law. The Court concluded that the UN’s request was made in compliance with the provisions outlined in the UN Charter and the ICJ’s Statute, affirming its jurisdiction to provide the requested advisory opinion.
ICJ Addresses Key Arguments in Advisory Opinion on Israel-Palestinian Dispute
According to the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, it reports, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed multiple critical arguments in its advisory opinion;
Bilateral Dispute
Israel argued that the advisory opinion would improperly address a bilateral dispute without its consent. However, the court rejected this claim, emphasizing the international dimensions of the Palestinian question. The ICJ pointed to the United Nations’ longstanding involvement in addressing this conflict and reaffirmed its jurisdiction, framing the issue as one of international significance rather than a strictly bilateral matter.
Impact on Negotiations
Concerns were raised about the advisory opinion potentially interfering with the negotiation framework established under the Oslo Accords. The court dismissed these concerns as speculative, asserting that they did not constitute a valid reason to refuse providing its opinion. The ICJ maintained that its role was to clarify legal obligations, not to intervene in political negotiations.
Role of the Security Council
The United Nations Security Council, comprised of 15 member nations, serves as a critical body within the UN, tasked with upholding international peace and security. As one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it plays a pivotal role in addressing global conflicts and crises.
Israel’s argument that the advisory opinion might undermine the Security Council’s authority was also dismissed. The ICJ reiterated the General Assembly’s competence to address this issue, noting that its opinion would complement, not conflict with, the Security Council’s responsibilities.
The ICJ’s handling of these arguments underscores its commitment to addressing the legal dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without overstepping its mandate. By emphasizing its independence and reaffirming its jurisdiction, the Court seeks to provide a balanced and authoritative opinion that will contribute to international legal discourse and inform future actions by the United Nations.
ICJ’s Advisory opinion is legally non-binding and serves primarily as legal guidance. Regardless, the ICJ continues to address pressing global issues, and its advisory opinions remain a testament to the power of legal reasoning to shape international relations, even in the absence of binding enforcement mechanisms.
