France says ICJ opinion must go ‘no further than necessary’
Diego Colas has opened France’s remarks by condemning Hamas’ attack of October 7 and underlining that Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel, however, must do so in compliance with international law.
“Only a two-state solution will meet both Israel’s right to security and the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians for a viable, contiguous, independent state. To this end, France calls for a decisive and credible restarting of the peace process,” Colas says. This will require security arrangements and a state that is capable to take sovereign action. The Palestinian people have a right to live side by side with Israelis within internationally recognised boundaries.
With regards to the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation, France’s believes the scope of the current ICJ proceedings must be “precisely delineated” and that the court should offer an opinion that “goes no further than it is necessary to do so”.
France condemns Israeli calls for expelling Palestinians from Gaza
- France reiterates its condemnation of illegal settlement policy by Israel, particularly in the current context. Its policy includes eviction of Palestinian families and destruction of properties.
- The war in Gaza in no way constitutes a pretext to continue to impose on the ground unilateral measures that undermine the prospects for a two-state solution, the only one that can guarantee the just and lasting peace.
- France reiterates its condemnation of pronouncement of promoting the reinstallation of settlements in Gaza and the transfer of the Palestinian population of Gaza outside this territory.
France calls for restitution or compensation for Palestinians
In his final remarks, Colas said France believes the court’s advisory opinion must demand the following:
- All damage caused to the Palestinian population as a result of policies and practices illegal under international law must be the object of restitution and, failing that, compensation.
- Israel must be required to prosecute people responsible for human rights violations.
- Other states have an obligation not to recognise any form of illegal annexation of territories. France will never recognise the illegal annexation of territories in the West Bank.
- From an economic standpoint, as requested by the UN all states must make a separation between the Israeli territories and the territories occupied since 1967 and distinguish products depending on that origin.
There is no end in sight to Israel’s occupation: The Gambia
Attorney General Dawda Jallow, agent for the Gambia, has said:
- The international system is based on certain fundamental principles of law … The international community collectively over many years has found Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories to be illegal … and collectively we have invoked Israel’s responsibility in that regard to end the occupation.
- Israel’s occupation violates the rights to Palestinian peoples’ self-determination and is therefore illegal.
- There is no end in sight to Israel’s occupation, already extending more than 56 years.
- Israel’s current leaders boast with pride of the country’s long-standing efforts to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Israel set up ‘apartheid regime’ in Palestinian territories
Jallow says the 1967 war that resulted in the occupation was a violation of the use of force from the onset. Even if the occupation of the Palestinian territories had once been lawful, its protracted nature means it cannot possibly be lawful today.
Israel has since set up an “apartheid regime” where the Palestinians continue to be deprived of their right to self-determination indefinitely, while “there is no reason for Israel’s continued use of force to maintain the occupation if there was ever one to begin with”.
Israel cannot justify its occupation as a response to threats from the occupied Palestinian territories. The maintenance of Israel’s occupation is unnecessary and disproportionate. “It is simply not possible that it has been necessary for Israel to maintain its occupation for over 56 years,” Jallow says.
The representative ended his remarks by asking the court to affirm that the occupation is illegal. The Gambia argued that Israel is under an obligation to end its occupation immediately.
Guyana says Israel’s actions threaten global peace, security and stability
Guyana’s representative Edward Craven tells the ICJ that “although situated far from the Middle East, Guyana has a close interest in the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory”. “Israel’s activities in the occupied territory, which have been brought in sharp focus by the tragic and ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, are a matter of truly global concern,” he said.
Craven added that the occupation has “significant implications not only for the state of Palestine and the Palestinian people but for all states opposed to the acquisition of territory by force”. “Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory is an offence against this bedrock principle of international law, and it is a serious and a continuing threat to a peaceful, secure and stable world”.
“Guyana’s participation in these proceedings and presence here today reflect its firm conviction that the advisory opinion by the court on the questions posed by the General Assembly will play a valuable and indeed vital role in enabling the United Nations and all of its member states to secure full compliance with international law and ultimately to achieve a permanent, just and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he said.
Craven also said the countries that advocate against an advisory opinion against Israel’s occupation are wrong. For example, the US argument is based on the assumption that negotiations are ongoing between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which is not the case, Craven argued.
Permanent occupation is military conquest, annexation
Craven is now directly addressing the question of whether the occupation should be considered illegal. He made the following remarks:
- The conduct of an occupation is governed by international humanitarian law while the legality of the occupation is determined by UN Charter and general international law. The argument advanced by the US that the occupation is governed solely by international humanitarian law leaves no room for the application of the Charter, especially article 2(4) by which the acquisition of territory by force is prohibited.
- Occupation is “inherently and exclusively a temporary state of affairs”. An occupying power does not acquire “one atom” of the occupied territory and cannot make permanent changes. “Permanent occupation is military conquest, it is annexation, and annexation is of course strictly forbidden under international law,” he said.
- It is indisputable that Israel’s occupation is unlawful as a whole. Israel has annexed almost all Palestinian territories and has extended the application of its laws to that territory. It is irrefutable that Israel intends its occupation to be permanent.
- There have been unequivocal declarations on the annexation of East Jerusalem, as well as deliberate demographic manipulation that profoundly changed the character of the Holy City.
- “Israel’s occupation must end, immediately, comprehensively, irreversibly,” Craven said.
Hungary says ICJ advisory opinion could be considered as provocation in Israel’s war on Gaza
Attila Hidegh, a representative of Hungary, advises the ICJ against issuing an advisory opinion. “The proceedings brought before this esteemed court may directly contribute to the escalation of the conflict,” he said.
“We are of the view that both the present proceedings as well as the proceedings against the State of Israel on application of the Geneva Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip may be considered as provocations in the ongoing conflict, not contributing to the escalation and the immediate settlement of the conflict,” Hidegh added.
“Potential utilisation of the court in the communication war could create a narrow dividing lines and could continue to fuel tensions in one of the most severe conflicts in recent history.”
‘The court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction’: Hungary
Hungary’s second speaker, Gergo Kocsis, said the ICJ “should decline to exercise its jurisdiction.” While the court has jurisdiction over the case, it has the right to exercise discretion on whether it exercises its jurisdiction. The reasons pertain to the issue of judicial propriety and include: the specifics of the question; the essentially bilateral nature of the dispute and the lack of consent of one of the parties; the already existing legal framework for the resolution of the conflict.
There are compelling reasons why the court should refuse to give an opinion made by the UN General Assembly. Kocsis says the UN General Assembly’s questions posed to the ICJ mention unspecified Israeli practices and legislations but provide a “distinct qualification stating their illegality”. Replying to this would “require an affirmation of these statements operated in the question”.
Rendering opinion would result in ‘politicisation’ of the court: Hungary
Rendering an advisory opinion on this matter would result in the “politicisation” of the court, Kocsis argued, and could “undermine the maintenance of global peace and security”. He added that issuing an opinion would “be tantamount to adjudicating on the Palestine-Israel question”. He said the issue should instead be handled within the “already existing and accepted institutional architecture”, first and foremost: the UN Security Council.
What is needed today is not a new legal interpretation but a “renewed effort to restart peace negotiations implementing all UN Security Council resolutions”, he said. There is no alternative to a political resolution that allows the state of Israel to live side by side with a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital of both states.
This case was brought to the ICJ because the UNSC is not making any progress solving the conflict. The case was brought to the court in Januari 2023, well before the current escalation. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186
REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION
transmitted to the Court pursuant to General Assembly resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM
Resolution 77/247
https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/A.RES_.77.247_301222.pdf
Which states in the demands
18. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 6 5 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:
(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?
The already existing framework hasn't worked and Netanyahu has vowed never to let a Palestinian state happen since he first came to power in 1996 where he immediately undermined the Oslo Accords from 1993.
This case is not about the Gaza genocide, that's this case https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
Telling the court not to do their job is what will make things worse. Israel's impunity is what has led to Oct 7 and the current Gaza war.
