By Andrew Tucker, Director thinc.
On 1st May, The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation delivered a written statement to the ICJ regarding the matter of obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, international organisations and third states in and in relation to areas termed occupied Palestinian territory. This Statement is submitted in accordance with Practice Direction XII of the Practice Directions of the Court.
A statement by a non-governmental organization under this Practice Direction is to be made readily available by the Court. The Registrar is to place it in a designated location in the Peace Palace and inform all States as well as intergovernmental organizations engaged in the proceedings as to where it may be consulted.
This week, oral hearings are taking place at the Court in The Hague concerning Israel’s recent decision to terminate its cooperation with the Palestinian refugee organization UNRWA.
The Court is being overwhelmed by informationa and arguments presented by UNRWA itself, the Palestinian delegation at the UN, many UN member states, and the international organizations Organisaiton of Islamic Cooperation (OOC), League of Arab States (LAS), and the African Union (AU). All of them are accusing Israel of fundamental breaches of international law.
Only a small handful of states is defending Israel’s decision.
Israel itself has submitted written statements to the ICJ, but is not participating in the oral hearings.
The Hague Initiative has delivered to the Court a written statement setting out six arguments why Israel’s decision is justified – and necessary – under international law. We argue that the Court should decline to entertain the UN General Assembly’s request for an ICJ Advisory Opinion.
First, the advisory opinion prejudices other contentious cases under the Court’s current consideration. Two of these cases, South Africa v Israel and Nicaragua v Germany, concern allegations of genocide covering the same subject matter as the advisory opinion.
Second, the Court has inadequate information available to it to render a decision and therefore cannot do so. This failure in the evidence was noted by Judge Julia Sebutinde, vice-president of the Court, in her dissenting judgement in last year’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from policies and practices of Israel in Palestine.
Third, no State can be compelled to cooperate with corruption or terrorism. Hamas controls the UNRWA staff union and Israel alleges that more than 10% of UNRWA staff in Gaza have ties to terrorist factions and 50% have close relatives in terrorist factions. UNRWA schools and institutions glorify and support terrorism against Jews. At least 12 UNRWA terrorist employees actively participated in the October 7 massacre of Israelis.
Fourth, UNRWA is a separate instrumentality from the UN and it is not clear that the1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations even applies to UNRWA. The current position of the US State Department is that it does not. Moreover, terrorism is not a purpose of UN activities to which diplomatic protection applies. To the contrary, it is prohibited under international laws.
Fifth, the scope of diplomatic immunities and privileges are qualified by individual agreements between agencies and host states. In the case of UNRWA, that is the Comay-Michelmore agreement, which was provisional and open to replacement or cancellation. The diplomatic privileges granted to UNRWA were conditional and were lawfully terminated.
Sixth, humanitarian aid can be provided outside of UNRWA auspices. There is no legal obligation to provide humanitarian assistance specifically through UNRWA. UNRWA is not even within the top six aid providers currently active in Gaza. Education, healthcare humanitarian relief and social services can be supplied by other UN agencies and by NGOs. UNRWA causes more harm than good.
Read thinc.’s written submission here.
