On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) fulfilled the request of the UN General Assembly (Res. 77/247) to render an Advisory Opinion about “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.
The Advisory Opinion focusses exclusively on Israel’s alleged misconduct. As several of the judges have observed, it is one-sided and biased. It This should not come as a surprise since (the phrasing of) Resolution 77/247 and the entire process leading up to the Advisory Opinion have been one-sided and biased from the start.
From the perspective of international law, the Advisory Opinion is seriously flawed in its factual, historical and legal analysis– as evidenced by the Separate Opinions of 5 judges and the Dissenting Opinion of the Vice-President of the Court, Judge Julia Sebutinde.
Six of the Court’s fifteen judges are united in their view that, as a result of the one-sided UNGA Resolution (77/247) and the biased proceedings, the Advisory Opinion has failed to consider the whole legal and historical context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, thus undermining the credibility of the Opinion’s conclusion that Israel must bring its presence in the territories to an end.
In the view of several judges, the Court’s conclusion that Israel’s presence in these territories is illegal is based on “a legally wrong path” and has “no proper basis in international law”.
The Advisory Opinion contravenes the Mandate for Palestine, a binding instrument of international law – and calls for the unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from the “Palestinian territory” – in total disregard of Israel’s legitimate territorial integrity and security concerns.
We are deeply concerned that compelling Israeli withdrawal rewards Palestinian aggression and rejectionism, and opens the door wide for Iran and its terrorist proxies and allies in the West Bank to pursue their intended destruction of the State of Israel.
In addition, the Opinion undermines the Oslo Accords and the internationally-sanctioned peace process based on negotiated settlement of the conflict. This rewards the Palestinians for using violence instead of negotiating, and threatens the UN’s primary objectives of maintaining world peace and security.
Other key conclusions in the Briefing:
- The Advisory Opinion contravenes valid binding instruments of international law, viz. the Mandate for Palestine and the Oslo Accords. This calls the integrity of the ICJ into question.
- The Advisory Opinion is non-binding because, in advisory proceedings, the International Court of Justice does not have the authority to adjudicate disputes. As the name suggests, an advisory opinion is merely an opinion.
- Member states should reject any resolution which declares Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem to be illegal or that calls for its withdrawal in the absence of a comprehensive peace agreement guaranteeing Israel’s territorial integrity and security.
Download the Executive summary of the briefing or the full briefing (see below)
Download the full report here:
