Annual Report of the International Court of Justice – 1 August 2023–31 July 2024 – (A/79/4)

 

09 August 2024

Excerpts related to the Question of Palestine

General Assembly
Seventy-ninth Session
Supplement No. 4

Chapter I

Summary

1. Overview of the judicial work of the Court

1. During the period under review, the International Court of Justice handed down two judgments and one advisory opinion:

/…

• Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, advisory opinion delivered on 19 July 2024 (see paras. 253–259).

2. In addition, the Court, or its President, rendered 27 orders (presented below in chronological order):

/…

(l) By an order dated 26 January 2024, the Court indicated provisional measures in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (see paras. 216–233);

/…

0) By an order dated 28 March 2024, the Court indicated additional provisional measures in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (see paras. 216–233);

(p) By an order dated 5 April 2024, the Court fixed the time limits for the filing of the memorial of South Africa and the counter-memorial of Israel in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (see paras. 216–233);

(q) By an order dated 30 April 2024, the Court found that the circumstances were not such as to require it to exercise its power to indicate provisional measures in the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany) (see paras. 234–241);

/…

(s) By an order dated 24 May 2024, the Court reaffirmed its previous provisional measures and indicated further provisional measures in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (see paras. 216–233);

/…

(x) By an order dated 19 July 2024, the Court fixed the time limits for the filing of the memorial of Nicaragua and the counter-memorial of Germany in the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany) (see paras. 234–241);

/…

3. During the period under review, the Court held public hearings in the following 11 cases (in chronological order):

/…

e) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa held on 11 and 12 January 2024 (see paras. 216–233);

(f) Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, hearings on the request for an advisory opinion held from 19 to 26 February 2024 (see paras. 253–259);

(g) Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany), hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua held on 8 and 9 April 2024 (see paras. 234–241);

/…

(k) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), hearings on the request for the modification of the order indicating provisional measures of 28 March 2024 held on 16 and 17 May 2024 (see paras. 216–233).

4. During the period under review, the Court was seized of four new contentious cases and one request for an advisory opinion (in chronological order):

/…

(b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (see paras. 216–233);

(c)  Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany) (see paras. 234–241);

5. On 31 July 2024, the number of cases entered in the Court’s General List stood at 23 (21 contentious cases and 2 advisory proceedings) 

/…

(e) Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America) (paras. 117–120);

/..

(t) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the  Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (paras. 216–233);

/…

(u) Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany) (paras. 234–241);

Chapter II

Role and jurisdiction of the Court

/…

I. Jurisdiction in contentious cases

33. Pursuant to its Statute, the Court’s function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it by States in the exercise of their sovereignty.
34. In that respect, it should be noted that, as at 31 July 2024, 193 States were parties to the Statute of the Court by virtue of their membership of the United Nations, and thus had access to it. In addition, on 4 July 2018, the State of Palestine filed a declaration with the Registry, which reads as follows:

The State of Palestine hereby declares that it accepts with immediate effect the competence of the International Court of Justice for the settlement of all disputes that may arise or that have already arisen covered by Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (1961), to which the State of Palestine acceded on 22 March 2018.

On 31 May 2024, the State of Palestine filed a second such declaration, which reads as follows:

The State of Palestine hereby declares that it accepts with immediate effect the competence of the International Court of Justice for the settlement of all disputes that may arise or that have already arisen covered by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), to which the State of Palestine acceded on 2 April 2014

/…

Chapter III

Organization of the Court

(e)     In the case concerning Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America), Gilbert Guillaume was chosen by the State of Palestine;

/…

(n)     In the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Dikgang Ernest Moseneke was chosen by South Africa and Aharon Barak was chosen by Israel. Following the election of Dire Tladi as a member of the Court, Dikgang Ernest Moseneke ceased his functions as judge ad hoc in the case. Judge ad hoc Barak later resigned and was replaced by Ron A. Shapira;

(o)     In the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh was chosen by Nicaragua;

/…

Chapter V

Judicial activity of the Court

A. Pending contentious proceedings during the period under review

6. Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America)

117. On 28 September 2018, the State of Palestine filed an application instituting proceedings against the United States with respect to a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961. It is recalled in the application that, on 6 December 2017, the President of the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced the relocation of its Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Embassy of the United States in Jerusalem was inaugurated on 14 May 2018. The State of Palestine contended that it flowed from the Vienna Convention that the diplomatic mission of a sending State must be established on the territory of the receiving State. Thus, according to the State of Palestine, in view of the special status of Jerusalem, “[t]he relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to the Holy City of Jerusalem constitute[d] a breach of the Vienna Convention”. In its application, the State of Palestine requested the Court to recognize that violation and to order the United States to put an end to it, to take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations and to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of its unlawful conduct. As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the applicant invoked article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
118. The United States informed the Court that it did not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the applicant under the Vienna Convention or its Optional Protocol. Accordingly, in its view, the Court was manifestly without jurisdiction in respect of the application, and the case ought to be removed from the Court’s General List.
119. By an order dated 15 November 2018, the Court decided that the written pleadings in the case must first address the questions of the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application. It fixed 15 May and 15 November 2019 as the respective time limits for the filing of the memorial of the State of Palestine and the counter-memorial of the United States addressing those questions. The memorial of the State of Palestine was filed within the time limit thus fixed.
120. By a letter to the Registrar dated 12 April 2021, the State of Palestine requested the postponement of the oral proceedings that were due to be held on 1 June 2021, “in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to find a solution to [the] dispute through negotiations”. By a letter dated 19 April 2021, the Registrar was informed that the United States “ha[d] no objection to the applicant’s request”. Taking into account the views of the parties, the Court decided to postpone the hearings until further notice.

/…

19. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)

216. On 29 December 2023, South Africa filed an application instituting proceedings against Israel concerning alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
217. The acts and omissions by Israel of which South Africa complained included killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. According to the applicant, those acts and omissions “[were] genocidal in character, as they [were] committed with the requisite specific intent … to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”. Accordingly, South Africa alleged that the conduct of Israel in relation to Palestinians in Gaza was in violation of its obligations under the Convention. South Africa contended that “Israel, since 7 October 2023 in particular, ha[d] failed to prevent genocide and ha[d] failed to prosecute the direct and public incitement to genocide”, and that “Israel ha[d] engaged in, [was] engaging in and risk[ed] further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza”.
218. South Africa sought to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on article IX of the Convention, to which both South Africa and Israel are parties.
219. The application was accompanied by a request for the indication of provisional measures in order to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention” and “to ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and to punish genocide”.
220. Public hearings on the request of South Africa were held on 11 and 12 January 2024.
221. On 26 January 2024, the Court delivered its order on the request, the operative part of which reads as follows:

“For these reasons,

The Court,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

(1)     By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:

(a)     killing members of the group;

(b)     causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and

(d)     imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

In favour: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

Against: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(2)     By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;

In favour: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

Against: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(3)     By sixteen votes to one,

The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;

In favour: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke;

Against: Judge Sebutinde;

(4)     By sixteen votes to one,

The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;

In favour: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke;

Against: Judge Sebutinde;

(5)     By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;

In favour: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

Against: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(6)     By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.

In favour: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

Against: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.”

222. On 23 January 2024, Nicaragua, referring to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, filed in the Registry an application for permission to intervene “as a party” in the case.
223. By a letter dated 12 February 2024, South Africa, referring to “the developing circumstances in Rafah”, called upon the Court urgently to exercise its power under article 75, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court.
224. On 16 February 2024, the Court, having duly considered the letter of South Africa and the observations of Israel thereon received on 15 February 2024, took the following decision, which was communicated to the parties by letters from the Registrar:

“The Court notes that the most recent developments in the Gaza Strip, and in Rafah in particular, ‘would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare with untold regional consequences’, as stated by the United Nations Secretary-General (Remarks to the General Assembly on priorities for 2024 (7 Feb. 2024)).

This perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and does not demand the indication of additional provisional measures.

The Court emphasizes that the State of Israel remains bound to fully comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and with the said Order, including by ensuring the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

225. On 6 March 2024, South Africa requested the Court “to indicate further provisional measures and/or to modify its provisional measures indicated on 26 January 2024”, with reference to Article 41 of the Statute, as well as articles 75, paragraphs 1 and 3, and 76, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court. On 15 March 2024, Israel furnished its written observations on that request.
226. The Court ruled on the request of South Africa by an order dated 28 March 2024, the operative part of which reads as follows:

“For these reasons,

The Court,

(1)     By fourteen votes to two,

Reaffirms the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 26 January 2024;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(2)     Indicates the following provisional measures:

The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation:

(a)     Unanimously,

Take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary;

(b)     By fifteen votes to one,

Ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance;

In favour: President Salam; Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Judge ad hoc Barak;

(3)     By fifteen votes to one,

Decides that the State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.

In favour: President Salam; Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Judge ad hoc Barak.”

227. By an order dated 5 April 2024, the Court fixed 28 October 2024 and 28 July 2025 as the respective time limits for the filing of the memorial of South Africa and the counter-memorial of Israel.
228. On 5 April and 10 May 2024 respectively, Colombia and Libya, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed declarations of intervention in the case.
229. On 10 May 2024, South Africa submitted to the Court an “urgent request for the modification and indication of provisional measures” pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and articles 75 and 76 of the Rules of Court. On 16 and 17 May 2024, the Court held public hearings on that request.
230. On 24 May 2024, the Court delivered its order on the request, the operative part of which reads as follows:

“For these reasons,

The Court,

(1)     By thirteen votes to two,

Reaffirms the provisional measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, which should be immediately and effectively implemented;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(2)     Indicates the following provisional measures:

The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by civilians in the Rafah Governorate:

(a)     By thirteen votes to two,

Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(b)     By thirteen votes to two,

Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(c)     By thirteen votes to two,

Take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

(3)     By thirteen votes to two,

Decides that the State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.

In favour: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.”

231. On 24 May 2024, Mexico, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed a declaration of intervention in the case.
232. On 31 May 2024, pursuant to Security Council resolution 9 (1946) (adopted by the Council by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Statute), the State of Palestine filed in the Registry of the Court a declaration accepting “with immediate effect the competence of the International Court of Justice for the settlement of all disputes that may arise or that have already arisen covered by Article IX of the [Genocide Convention], to which the State of Palestine acceded on 2 April 2014”. On the same day, the State of Palestine filed an application for permission to intervene in the proceedings under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court and a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute.
233. On 28 June 2024, Spain, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed a declaration of intervention in the case.

 

20. Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany)

234. On 1 March 2024, Nicaragua filed an application instituting proceedings against Germany for alleged violations by Germany of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as “intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law” in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the Gaza Strip.
235. In its application, Nicaragua stated that “[e]ach and every Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention has a duty under the Convention to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide” and that, since October 2023, there had been “a recognised risk of genocide against the Palestinian people, directed first of all against the population of the Gaza Strip”.
236. Nicaragua further argued that, by providing political, financial and military support to Israel and by defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, “Germany [was] facilitating the commission of genocide and, in any case ha[d] failed in its obligation to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide”.
237. Nicaragua sought to found the Court’s jurisdiction on the declarations by which both States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute and on the compromissory clause contained in article IX of the Genocide Convention.
238. The application was accompanied by a request for the indication of provisional measures, in which Nicaragua requested the Court to indicate provisional measures as a matter of extreme urgency, pending the Court’s determination on the merits of the case, with respect to the “participation [of Germany] in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip”.
239. Public hearings on the request were held on 8 and 9 April 2024.
240. The Court ruled on the request by an order dated 30 April 2024, the operative part of which reads as follows:

“For these reasons,

The Court,

By fifteen votes to one,

Finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the Court, are not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures.

In favour: President Salam; Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Judge ad hoc Al-Khasawneh.”

241. By an order dated 19 July 2024, the Court fixed 21 July 2025 and 21 July 2026 as the respective time limits for the filing of the memorial of Nicaragua and the counter-memorial of Germany.

/…

B. Pending advisory proceedings during the period under review

1. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

253. On 30 December 2022, the General Assembly adopted resolution 77/247 entitled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, in which, referring to Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, it requested the Court to render an advisory opinion on the following questions:

“[C]onsidering 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?”

254. The request for an advisory opinion was transmitted to the Court by the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a letter dated 17 January 2023.
255. By an order dated 3 February 2023, the Court decided, pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 1, of its Statute, that the United Nations and its Member States, as well as the observer State of Palestine, were likely to be able to furnish information on the questions submitted to the Court for an advisory opinion. The Court fixed 25 July 2023 as the time limit within which written statements on those questions might be presented to the Court, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and 25 October 2023 as the time limit within which States and organizations having presented written statements might submit written comments on the written statements made by other States or organizations, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4, of the Statute. The Court subsequently authorized the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union to participate in the proceedings.
256. Fifty-seven written statements were filed in the Registry by (in order of receipt): Türkiye, Namibia, Luxembourg, Canada, Bangladesh, Jordan, Chile, Liechtenstein, Lebanon, Norway, Israel, Algeria, League of Arab States, Syrian Arab Republic, State of Palestine, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Egypt, Guyana, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Switzerland, Spain, Russian Federation, Italy, Yemen, Maldives, United Arab Emirates, Oman, African Union, Pakistan, South Africa, United Kingdom, Hungary, Brazil, France, Kuwait, United States, China, Gambia, Ireland, Belize, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Cuba, Mauritius, Morocco, Czechia, Malaysia, Colombia, Indonesia, Guatemala, Nauru, Djibouti, Togo, Fiji, Senegal and Zambia.
257. Fifteen sets of written comments on those statements were filed in the Registry by (in order of receipt): Jordan, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Qatar, Belize, Bangladesh, State of Palestine, United States, Indonesia, Chile, League of Arab States, Egypt, Algeria, Guatemala, Namibia and Pakistan.
258. Public hearings were held from 19 to 26 February 2024. During the hearings, the State of Palestine, 49 States Members of the United Nations and three international organizations presented oral statements (in the following order): State of Palestine, South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, United States, Russian Federation, France, Gambia, Guyana, Hungary, China, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, United Kingdom, Slovenia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Türkiye, Zambia, League of Arab States, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, African Union, Spain, Fiji and Maldives.
259. On 19 July 2024, the Court delivered its advisory opinion. It responded to the General Assembly’s request as follows:

“For these reasons,

The Court,

(1)     Unanimously,

Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;

(2)     By fourteen votes to one,

Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(3)     By eleven votes to four,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Aurescu;

(4)     By eleven votes to four,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Aurescu;

(5)     By fourteen votes to one,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(6)     By fourteen votes to one,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(7)     By twelve votes to three,

Is of the opinion that all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Abraham, Aurescu;

(8)     By twelve votes to three,

Is of the opinion that international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Abraham, Aurescu;

(9)     By twelve votes to three,

Is of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In favour: President Salam; Judges Tomka, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;

Against: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judges Abraham, Aurescu.”

/…