International Court of Justice

On Monday evening, the International Court of Justice heard oral arguments from three advocacy teams presenting their cases in an Advisory Opinion: The Legal Consequences of the Constructruction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This case was referred to the Court by a resolution adopted during a meeting of the Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly, requesting the Court issue an Advisory Opinion regarding the legal implications of the construction of a barrier wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Egypt firmly contended that, despite claims by Israel that the barrier wall was constructed in the interest of defending national security, the construction of the wall instead reveals the “true nature of Israel’s constant attempts to deprive Palestinians” of access to farmland, water, and humanitarian aid through the expropriation and militarization of their historical land. Rebuking suggestions that the wall is necessary to guard against radical Islamist terrorism, the Egyptian Advocate recalled Jerusalem’s origins as a multi-national, religiously-diverse Holy Land. This, they claimed, illuminates Israel’s persecution of a specific ethnic group, as opposed to defense from Jihadist terrorism. They additionally focused their attention on highlighting the humanitarian impacts of Israel’s actions, and described what they saw as discrepancies between the defense capabilities of either power. 

Advocates from Palestine then took the podium and began their arguments by affirming the statements of the Egyptian Advocate. The Palestinian advocacy team focused first on proposing to the Justices an establishment for jurisdiction, claiming that the question brought before the Court was within the competency of the General Assembly to refer. The Advocates presented statistics regarding rising casualties that they claimed were a direct result of increased military presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and that this results in a violation of GCIV provisions for the protection of civilians in areas of combat. The Palestinian Advocates clarified their position by positing that Israel’s acts were “in clear contradiction to” United Nations resolutions that outlined the formerly agreed-upon “Green Line” boundaries between each powers’ territories.

Following Palestine’s presentation, Israel’s Advocate began their oral arguments by firmly claiming that the Court does not have jurisdiction in this case. The Israeli Advocate countered arguments made about the General Assembly’s alleged obligation to intervene due to inaction by the Security Council, sharing their determination that the Security Council had acted decisively and appropriately via their reaffirmation of an international commitment to following the “Roadmap to to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” through their adoption of S/RES/1515. The Advocate from Israel denounced suggestions that their actions were offensive in nature, instead sharing with the Court their claim that over 20,000 acts of terrorism by radical Islamist groups such as al-Aqsa had been attempted to varying degrees of success since the Second Intifada alone, thus proving the barrier wall absolutely necessary for the protection of national security interests.

The Court must now deliberate on the above arguments, determining first whether they have jurisdiction to issue an opinion on the case. Should the Court find such a basis, they must then consider the obligations of each party under International Law to determine what they may advise.

Read the decision here.