Thread by @Marianhouk

Today marks the 14th anniversary of the International Court of Justice's
9 July 2004 Advisory Opinion on
"Legal Consequences of the Construction Of A Wall
in The Occupied Palestinian Territory"
icj-cij.org/files/case-rel…

Nasser Al-Qudwa, Palestinian former Ambassador to the UN/New York (+ later Palestinian Foreign Minister), was the man who worked to bring about this ICJ Advisory Opinion -- it is the direct result of a request emanating from the membership of the UN General Assembly.

The UNGA asked the ICJ this Question in 2003: "What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in + around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the SG..

"...considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?"

The ICJ ruled. despite opposition, that it did have jurisdiction to respond to the UNGA's question. "As is clear from the Court's jurisprudence, advisory opinions have the purpose of furnishing to the requesting organs the elements of law necessary for them in their action"...

And it wrote, in the Advisory Opinion, that "The Court's task would be to determine
in a comprehensive manner the legal consequences of the construction of the wall, while the General Assembly - and the Security Council - may then draw conclusions from the Court's findings".

"... [I]t was the (UN) General Assembly which requested the advisory opinion, and
the opinion is to be given to the General Assembly, and not to a specific State or entity", the ICJ wrote.

The UNGA Question, again, asked: "What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem"...

The ICJ reasoned that before dealing with the consequences of building the wall,
it "must first determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law"...

And, "To do so, the Court will first make a brief analysis of the status of the territory concerned +will then describe the works already constructed or in course of construction in that territory. It will then indicate the applicable law"
b4 deciding if that law's been breached

The ICJ: The territory "between the Green Line...and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate" were occupied by Israel during the 1967 armed conflict between Israel + Jordan, and "All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories"...

"...and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power" = ICJ 2004 Advisory Opinion, paragraph 78,
icj-cij.org/files/case-rel…
(Find it here icj-cij.org/en/decisions/a… )

This is one of the important findings of the International Court of Justice in its 2004 Advisory Opinion, given in response to a request from the United Nations General Assembly.

In para 93, the ICJ writes: "After the occuipation of the West Bank in 1967, the Israeli authorities issued an order No. 3 stating in its Article 35 that: "the Military Court . . . must apply the provisions of the Geneva Convention dated 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection

"...of Civilian Personis in Time of War with respect to judicial procedures. In case of conflict between this Order and the said Convention, the (Geneva) Convention shall prevail".

The ICJ noted: "a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance w/ the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms" + that the 4th Geneva Convention "ls applicable when 2 conditions are fulfilled": 1) there's an armed conflict 2) that's arisen between 2 contracting parties

ICJ Advisory Opinion: "If those two conditions are satisfied, the (Geneva) Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties".

ICJ Advisory Opinion: "This interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever
way, in the hands of the occupying Power"...

ICJ Advisory Opinion: "...the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention sought to guarantee the protection of civilians in time of war, regardless of the status of the occupied territories"...

ICJ Advisory Opinion: "The Court would moreover note that the States parties to the
Fourth Geneva Convention approved that interpretation at their Conference
on 15 July 1995. They issued a statement in which they 'reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention...

"...'to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem'. '
"Subsequently, on 5 December 2001, the High Contracting Parties...once again
reaffirmed the 'applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem'.."

And the ICRC, too = "In a declaration of 5 December 2001, it recalled that 'the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem".

The ICJ Advisory Opinion then noted that "many" UN General Assembly resolutions have "taken a position to the same effect", and a number of UN Security Council resolutions (starting with UNSC Res 237 of 14 June 1967 on POWs, then UNSC 271 of 15 September 1969, which ...

"...called upon 'Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation"...

Ten years later, the UN SC was addressing the matter of Israeli settlements:
"In resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, the Security Council considered that those settlements had 'no legal validity' and affirmed 'once more that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection

"...of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".
And "It called 'once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously' by that (Geneva) Convention".

The ICJ lists a few more UNSC resolutions + a decision of Israel's Supreme Court, and then said that "the Court considers that the 4rth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between 2 or more High Contracting Parties..

"...Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict,

"were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories".
(That's paragraph 101.)