ICJ to Hold Public Hearings on UN’s Request for an Advisory Opinion in Respect of the Legal Consequences Arising From the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Israel: “Any decision from a judicial body which receives its mandate from the morally bankrupt and politicized U.N. is completely illegitimate.”
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has decided to hold public hearings on the UN’s request for an advisory opinion in respect of the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
Public hearings are to be held from February 19, 2024 to February 26, 2024 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court.
Fifty-two States and three international organizations have expressed their intention to participate in the oral proceedings before the Court.
Background
On December 30, 2022, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution A/RES/77/247, in which, referring to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, it requested the ICJ to give an advisory opinion. The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows:
“The General Assembly,
18. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 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 July 9, 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?”
By a letter dated January 17, 2023, the Secretary-General of the United Nations transmitted the request for an advisory opinion to the Court. By letters dated January 19, 2023, the Registrar gave notice of that request to all States entitled to appear before the Court, pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 1, of the Statute.
By an Order dated February 3, 2023, the Court decided “that the United Nations and its Member States, as well as the observer State of Palestine, are considered likely to be able to furnish information on the questions submitted to the Court for an advisory opinion and may do so within the time-limits fixed in the Order”. Pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 2, of its Statute, the Court fixed July 25, 2023 as the time-limit for the presentation of written statements on the questions. Fifty-seven written statements were filed in the Registry within that time-limit.
By the same Order, the Court fixed October 25, 2023 as the time-limit within which States and organizations having presented written statements may submit written comments on the written statements made by other States or organizations, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4, of its Statute.
The Court subsequently authorized, at their request, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union to participate in the proceedings.
Pursuant to Article 106 of the Rules of Court, the Court may decide to make the written statements accessible to the public on or after the opening of the oral proceedings in the case.
ICJ Advisory Opinions
The ICJ explains, “Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases where it is expressly provided that they shall have binding force (for example, as in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, and the Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America), the Court’s advisory opinions are not binding. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to decide, as it sees fit, what effect to give to these opinions.
Despite having no binding force, the Court’s advisory opinions nevertheless carry great legal weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and help to keep the peace. In their own way, advisory opinions also contribute to the clarification and development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations between States.”
Israel’s Opinion of the Rule of Law
The request for an advisory opinion in respect of the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory was made in resolution A/RES/77/247 adopted by the General Assembly with 87 votes in favor. Israel, the United States and 24 other members voted against, while 53 abstained.
“No international body can decide that the Jewish people are ‘occupiers’ in their own homeland. Any decision from a judicial body which receives its mandate from the morally bankrupt and politicized U.N. is completely illegitimate,” Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan said in a statement ahead of the vote.
Conclusion
Given that the United Nations, the ICJ, the ICC, and the U.S. federal judicial system are powerless to stop the ongoing slaughter of one million Palestinian children by Israel and the U.S. in Gaza, the Palestinian people must rely on the international community to directly pursue justice on their behalf. The slaughter will not stop until Israel is forced to stop, either politically of militarily.