By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ on 23 February 2024
Edit Thread

Day 5 of the ICJ hearings




Namibia remembers painful colonial history in ICJ remarks on Israel’s occupation

Namibia’s Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab has taken the floor at the ICJ, demanding the court recognises Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal. She made the following points:

  • “Namibia considers it a moral duty and a sacred responsibility to appear before this court” and address the question of the “indefensible occupation of Palestine by Israel.”
  • The parallels between Palestine and Namibia are “striking and painful”. Instead of exerting their right to govern themselves, “Palestinians and Namibians suffered the loss of human dignity … and the outright theft of their land and natural resources”.
  • Namibia still suffers from the effects of a long and unlawful occupation. The ICJ “played a vital role in our liberation struggle”. In its 1971 opinion, the court confirmed the right to self-determination as a “legal imperative”, paving the way to Namibia’s independence in 1990.
  • Because of Namibia’s experience with apartheid, “we cannot look the other way in the face of the brutal atrocities committed against the Palestinian people”. We ask the court “not to look away either”, she added.

Norway at ICJ: Israel’s occupation is ‘de facto annexation’

Norway has presented its arguments on the fifth day of the ICJ hearings on the lawfulness of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Here are the main points:

  • Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem constitute a chief obstacle to any prospects for a lasting peace in the region.
  • In its advisory opinion in 2004, the ICJ found that the construction of a wall in and around occupied East Jerusalem violates international law.
  • Numerous UN resolutions assessed that settlements are in flagrant breach of international law and stressed the need to reverse the “negative trends on the ground that are steadily eroding the possibility of a two-state solution”.
  • Developments on the ground “give reason to ask whether the occupation is turning into a de-facto annexation.”
  • Annexation is a unilateral act and is prohibited under customary international law.
  • The legal consequences arising from such a prolonged occupation violate the principle of self-determination and every state has the duty to refrain from any action that deprives people of this right.

Palestinians living in ‘injustice, daily humiliation’, Oman tells ICJ

Abdullah bin Salem bin Hamad Alharthy, representing Oman at the ICJ, tells the court that the people of Palestine “have been living under occupation, oppression, injustice and daily humiliation, while the international community failed to assist them in realising their aspirations to an independent state”. He also made the following points:

  • The transfer of settlers by Israel over the decades is “designed to perpetuate the occupation and make it permanent”.
  • The forcible displacement of Palestinians and the transfer of citizens of the occupying power is prohibited under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  • “The 75-year occupation and settlement policy of the State of Israel preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state is an affront to international law.”
  • The court should find that the legal consequences for the government of Israel include the immediate cessation of all illegal acts including settlements and “associated illegal administrative frameworks”.
  • Third states are under a clear obligation not to recognise or facilitate the illegal situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and ensure Israel’s compliance to international humanitarian law.

Pakistan tells ICJ Israeli occupation ‘not irreversible’

Taking the floor on behalf of Pakistan, Minister for Law and Justice Ahmed Irfan Aslam says that while Israel has sought to make its occupation of Palestinian territories irreversible, history shows that reversibility is possible. Aslam made the following points:

  • “Annexation” now applies to the entire Palestinian territories and this “might have been the intention all along”.
  • Israel has sought to create irreversible facts on the ground that make it impossible to end Israel’s occupation.
  • But it is not impossible to reverse the facts on the ground, and it has been done before, such as when France withdrew more than a million settlers from Algeria in 1962.
  • French settlers were not only more numerous than Israel’s in occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank but also better established.
  • The two-state solution “must be the basis for peace”.
  • The court’s advisory opinion will assist negotiation efforts “by making it possible for the parties to make process on the sound basis of international law”.

Indonesia’s foreign minister at ICJ: ‘Blatant violation of humanitarian law committed by Israel’

Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi tells the ICJ that she had left the G20 meeting in Brazil to personally address the court in The Hague and “express the solidarity of the Indonesian people on a matter of supreme importance”.

“I stand before you to defend justice against a blatant violation of international humanitarian law that is being committed by Israel,” she said while also making the following remarks:

  • “Israel’s unlawful occupation and its atrocities must stop and should not be normalised or recognised. It is clear that Israel has zero intention to abide by international legal obligations.”
  • No state should be granted “free rein to do anything it wants against weaker states. This is why we have international law.”
  • There is no ground for the court to decline giving an advisory opinion. Some countries have argued that doing so would undermine the peace process, but this argument is invalid because there are no viable negotiations taking place at the moment and the court is not called on to decide on the conflict as a whole.
  • All actions that preclude the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination “shall be unlawful”. It is clear that the continuation of Israel’s “apartheid regime” is in breach of international law.

Qatar says ‘credibility of international legal order’ depends on ICJ opinion

Senior Qatari diplomat Mutlaq al-Qahtani has told the ICJ there is growing perception that some basic tenants of international law “apply to some but not to others, that some people are seen as deserving security, freedom and self-determination but others are not”. “Some children are deemed worthy of protection while others are killed in their thousands,” he said.

“Qatar rejects such double standards. International law must be upheld in all circumstances. It must be applied to all and there must be accountability,” al-Qahtani said as he made the following points:

  • Israel has “ethnically cleansed and colonised” the Palestinian territories and implemented an “apartheid regime” with the intent of “maintaining the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians”.
  • Israel’s illegal discriminatory practices are the “tools of a longstanding settler colonial project.” Settler policies are designed for the “permanent colonisation of the [occupied Palestinian territories] for the exclusive benefit of Jewish settlers … and are the root cause of the cycle of violence there”.
  • Statements by Israeli government members suggest the besieged Gaza Strip may be the next part of the Palestinian territories to be subject to Israeli settlements.
  • Israel’s occupation is illegal as it violates the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people; the prohibition of apartheid; the prohibition of the use of force; the prohibition of annexation; the obligation for it to be temporary, carried out in good faith and in the best interest of the occupied population.
  • The court has the “clear mandate and indeed the responsibility to remedy to this unacceptable situation. The credibility of the international legal order depends on your opinion and the stakes cannot be higher.”




The UK joins the US, Canada and Hungary in trying to get the court to dismiss the case

UK calls on ICJ to decline issuing an advisory opinion

Speaking at the ICJ, UK representatives said Israel’s occupation is illegal and called for a two-state negotiated solution, but argued against the court giving an advisory opinion on a number of grounds:

  • The court would be inappropriately ruling on a bilateral dispute. Where a request is directly related to the main point of a dispute, the court should refrain from giving an opinion.
  • The court’s advisory jurisdiction cannot be used to provide a form of judicial recourse for parties, nor should the court resolve disputes between the parties using its advisory jurisdiction.
  • Issuing an opinion would undermine the current security framework led by the UN Security Council.
  • Israel has not agreed to the ICJ giving its opinion on the matter and the so-called non-circumvention principle compels the court to decline giving an opinion when there is a lack of consent.
  • The scope of a fact-finding mission would be too broad in the context of an ongoing and active conflict where the situation on the ground is rapidly shifting. The court “may draw legal conclusions on an incorrect factual basis”.