Breaking news: While Israel’s massacre in Palestine continues, all eyes turned to the International Court of Justice. The Court’s advisory opinion is being released today.
“PALESTINE’S LANDS ARE NOT SEGMENTED SEPARATE REGIONS”
The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice stated that “The occupied Palestinian territories are not fragmented separate regions, but a single territorial unit. Israel is an occupying power in Gaza.”
“THE OCCUPATION WILL NOT LAST THAT LONG”
Highlights from the statement are as follows:
“THE RE-DECLARATION OF JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL STRENGTHENED THE OCCUPATION”
- Israel’s policy practices, use of infrastructure and natural resources, the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel again, and the use of Israeli laws in these regions have strengthened the occupation. The intention of these policies is to remain in these regions indefinitely. These policies have led to the annexation of a large part of the occupied territories.
“IT SHOULD BE ENDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE”
Israel must end its occupation of Palestinian territories as soon as possible.
All States are obliged not to recognize Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory and not to provide aid or support to it.
- Israel must compensate for all damages resulting from its unjust practices in the occupied territories.
49 COUNTRIES AND 3 ORGANIZATIONS MADE STATEMENTS IN THE HEARINGS IN FEBRUARY 2024
In the hearings held between February 19-26, 2024 at the Court, which continues its activities at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the administrative capital of the Netherlands, 49 countries, including Turkey, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the African Union, presented their views orally to the Court regarding Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories.
Prior to this, 54 states, including Turkey, and 3 international organizations had submitted their written statements to the Court by August 2023.
Turkey was the first country to submit a written statement to the Court regarding Israel’s occupation of Palestine, its annexation of the West Bank and, in particular, the preservation of the status of East Jerusalem.
While it was the first time that so many states made written and oral statements in an advisory opinion before the Court, it was noteworthy that Israel, which made a written statement, was not present in the oral hearings.
THE MAJORITY OF STATES DEFENDED THAT THE OCCUPATION WAS UNLAWFUL
The vast majority of states participating in the hearings argued that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and its practices against Palestinians were unlawful.
In the hearings held between February 19-26, 2024, in which countries, mostly from the Middle East, including Western countries such as Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain and Norway, took part, it was argued that “Israel does not have sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territories”, “acquiring land through annexation is unlawful”, “annexation and settlement practices in Palestinian territories amount to forcibly changing the demographic structure”, “Other states have an obligation not to recognize Israel’s occupation of Palestine” and “Israel is preventing the Palestinian people from self-determination”.
Türkiye OPPOSES THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE
In its presentation on February 26, 2024, during the preparation of the ICJ advisory opinion, Turkey emphasized that Israel was obstructing the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and that it should therefore end the occupation “immediately and unconditionally.”
In its presentation, Turkey reiterated its call for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and for a permanent and lasting solution to be reached, which envisages the establishment of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, and invited the international community and organizations to fulfill their responsibilities.
Turkey had stated that changing the status of East Jerusalem in particular was contrary to international law and United Nations (UN) resolutions.
USA AND ENGLAND DEFEND ISRAEL’S THESIS
The USA and England, on the other hand, defended Israel’s arguments and asked the Court not to give any advisory opinion.
While the UK argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved through bilateral negotiations and should not be brought before the Court, the US side tried to legitimise Israel’s occupation of Palestine on the grounds of “security concerns”.
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY REQUESTED OPINION FROM ICJ
In its decision dated 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly referred two questions to the ICJ regarding the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestine since the war in 1967, based on Article 65 of the Court’s Statute.
The questions submitted to the Court by the UN General Assembly are as follows:
“1- What are the legal consequences of Israel’s continuous violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, its continuation of the occupation, its settlement and annexation activities in Palestinian territories since 1967, its activities aimed at changing the demographic structure, character and status of Jerusalem, and its adoption of relevant discriminatory legislation and measures?
2- How do the practices of Israel mentioned in the first question affect the legal status of the occupation and what are the legal consequences of this situation for all states and the United Nations?
While the request for an advisory opinion was delivered to the ICJ by the UN Secretary-General on 17 January 2023, the Court notified the UN member states and Palestine regarding their right to make written and oral statements on the questions on which an advisory opinion was requested.
WHAT IS AN ADVISORY OPINION?
The Court, the main judicial organ of the United Nations, has the following duties: firstly, to resolve legal disputes between states in accordance with international law, and secondly, to give advisory opinions on legal issues referred to it.
UN competent bodies may request an advisory opinion from the ICJ on matters of international law, provided that they are related to UN organs and their fields of activity. States cannot request an advisory opinion from the Court.
In this matter, the ICJ will issue its non-binding advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in occupied Palestine.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN ADVISORY OPINION?
It is stated that although the advisory opinions given by the ICJ are not binding, they are taken into consideration by many states and organizations and the opinions given are acted upon.
Advisory opinions indicate what the Court may decide in future cases on similar issues, and can be used as a tool of political pressure for states that act against the advisory opinion.
It is noteworthy that, after the Court determined in its advisory opinion in 2004 regarding the wall built by Israel on Palestinian territory that the wall was unlawful, many states and companies refrained from contributing to the construction of the wall in question and imposed a condition that the construction materials they sold to Israel would not be used in the construction of the wall.
Following the advisory opinion of the ICJ on 22 July 2010, which held that international law does not prohibit a state from unilaterally declaring independence, the legitimacy of Kosovo’s independence increased and the number of states recognising its independence increased.
If the ICJ decides that the occupation violates international law, and determines the consequences for Israel and other countries, it is expected that pressure will increase to end Israel’s violations in Gaza and other Palestinian territories.
In addition, it is envisaged that countries that provide military, political and financial support to Israel will have to respond to calls from the international community to end their support.
ADVISORY OPINION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE HELD IN ISRAEL’S COURT OF JUSTICE
While the case filed by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice for violations of the Genocide Convention amounts to adversarial proceedings between the two countries, the advisory opinion that will begin tomorrow does not constitute a case pitting two states against each other.
In the advisory opinion, there is no distinction between defendant and plaintiff, and the ICJ expresses its opinion on questions put to it by UN bodies or organizations regarding their fields of activity.
According to Article 66 of the Court Statute, UN member states have the right to make written and oral statements on issues on which an advisory opinion is requested.
Unlike contested cases, no ad hoc judge is appointed, so the advisory opinion will be decided by the 15 permanent judges of the ICJ.
In addition, while the genocide case only addresses the genocide crimes and violations committed in Gaza, the advisory opinion to be released tomorrow includes many violations of international law, especially occupation and annexation, in all Palestinian territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. (AA)