COLIR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES
DE L'É;DIFICATION D'UN MUR
DANS LE TERRITOIRE PALESTINIEN OCCUPÉ
AVIS CONSULTATIFDU 9 JUILLET 2004
INTERNATIONAL COUOF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE OCCCrPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
ADVISORYOPINION OF 9 JULY 2004 Mode officiel de citation
Conséquencesjuridiquesde 1'édzJîcatn'un mur
dans le territoire palestinien occupé,
avisconsultatiC.1J. Recueil 200p. 136
Officia1citati:n
Legal Consequencecf the Construction of a Wu11
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory Opinion,I.C.J. Reports 200p. 136
No de vente: I
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number 883 1
TSBN92-1-070993-4 9 JUILLET 2004
AVIS CONSULTATIF
CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES
DE:L'ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR
DANS LE 'TERRITOIREPALESTINIEN OCCUPÉ
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE O('CUP1ED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
9 JULY 2004
ADVISORY OPINION 1NTER.NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2004 2004
9 July
General List
9 July 2004 No. 131
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
Jurisdiction of'the ('ourt tu give the advi.soryopinion requested.
Article 65, parugra,vh 1, qf'the Stutute - Article 96, puragruph 1, of' the
Charter - Power (?/'(?eneralA.s.semblj~to request advisory opinions .- Activi-
ties oJ A's.sembly.
Events leuding tu ~he ado~~tion cf' Generul Assembly re.solutiol~ES-10114
reyuesting the adïi.sory opinion.
Contention thut Generul Assembly acted ultra vires under the Charter -
Article 12,parugraph 1. und Article 24 of'the Charter - UniteriNations prac-
ficc concerning ~/ZCintcv-pretation9f'Article 12,paragruph 1, uf'Charter - -Ge17-
erul As.~cvnblydid no/ exceed its conlpeten<,e.
Request ,fur opinion adopted by the Tentlî Emergency Speciul Session of'
the Generul Assenzbly - Sessiorr converledpursuant tu resolution 377 A (J')
("Uniting,fir Peuce") - Conditions set by that resolution - Regularity of'
procedure ,fOlloi.2~ed
Alleged lack ofclarity oJ he terrrrsof the question - Purportedly abstruct
nature of' the question - Political aspects of the question - Motives suid to
have inspirer1the requrst and opinion's possible imp1ication.r - "Legal" nature
qf'question i~rzaflfctc,d.
Court hailingjuri.vd,ictionto give udvi.sory opinion requested
Discretionary powe,r cf' Court to ~kcide vvhether it should give an opinion.
Article 65, purugruph 1, of Stutute- Relevunce cfluck of consent ofu State
concerned - Questio,~cannot be regurded only as a bilateral matter between
Isruel and Palestine but is directly of'concern to the United Nations - Possible
~ffkcrs of'opinion on a political, negotiuted solution to the Israeli-Palc~stiniun
conjict - Questiorrr8rpre.snztingolîly ot7easpect of Isracli-Pule.~tiniunconjict
- Sujfic.ienc.yof infornzation and evidence ai~ailableto Court - U.s<fulpurpose CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 137
of opinion - Nullus commodum capere potest de sua injuria propria - Opin-
ion to he givtw to the General Assembly, not to a specijîc State or entity.
No "compelling reason" for Court to use its discretionary power not to give
an advisory opinion.
"Legal consequence5" of the construction ofa wall in the Occupied Pulestin-
ian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem - Scope of question
posed - Request for opinion limited to the legal consequences of the construc-
tion of those parts qftlle wull .situated in Occupied Palestinian Territory - Use
of'the term "wall".
Historical background.
Description of th'e i.t,all.
Applicable kzw.
United Nations Charter - General As.sembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Ille-
galitj?qfany territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force -
Right of'peoples to self-determination.
International humunitarian /au> - Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague
Convention of 1907 - Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 - Applicability of
Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Human
riglzts Iaw -- -International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Internu-
tionul Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Conventionon the
Rights of the Child - Relutionship betvveeninternational humanitarian law and
humun rights law - A,pplicability of'human rights instruments outside national
territorjj - Applicabill'ty of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-
ritory.
Settlements e.stublis/iedby Israel in breuch oj'international law in the Occu-
pied Palestiniun Territ(sïy - Construction of the wall and its ussociuted régime
create a ':fait accompr'i"on the ground that could well becorne permanent -
Risk of situation tantainount to de facto annexation - Construction of the wall
severely impedes the exercise by the Pulestinian people qf its right to self-
determination und is thereji~rea breach of Israel's obligation to respect that
right.
Applicublc>provisions of international hunzanitarian law and human rights
instruments relevant to the present case - - Destruction and requi.vitionqfprop-
c,rties - Restrictions on freedom of movement of inhabitants of'the Occupied
Palestinian Territory -- Inzpediment.r to the exercise by those concerned of the
right to ivork, to lzealt.h,to education and to an adequate stanùurd of living -
Demographic changes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Provisions of'
international lzumanituriun Iaw enabling account to be taken ofmilitary exigen-
cies - C1au.se.s in humcïnrights instrument.^qualifj'ing rights guarunteed orpro-
viding for d~7rogution - Construction of the wuIl and its associated rGgime
cannot be dustijied by militury exigencies or by the requirements of national
security or public order -- Breach hy Israel qf various of'its obligations under the applicable provisions of'international humunitariun law and human rights
instruments.
Selfldefence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imput-
able to uforeign State - Threat invoked tojustify the construction of the 1~*a11
originating ivithin a te,rritory over ivhich Israel exercises control Article 51
not relevant in the pre:ient case.
Statc of'necessity Customury internationai /air - Conditions - Con-
struction qf the wu11not the only nîeuns to sufkguard Israel's interests aguinst
the peril inv«ked
Construction of the wall and its u.vsociated rkgime are contra- to interna-
tional IUCV.
Legal consequences the violation bj Israel of its oh1igation.s.
Isruel's international responsibility - Israel obliged to comply ivith the inter-
national obligations it has hreached by the con.struction of the wall -- Israel
obliged to put un end t,othe violation oj'its international obligations - Obliga-
tinn to ceuse ,furthwith the works of'construction of the ~~zll,to dismantle it
,f'orthwitliund to repeal or render in~ifectiveforthwith the legislutive and regu-
latory acts relating to its construction, save where relevant fOr compliance by
Israel with ils obligation to make reparation fi~r the damage caused - Israel
obliged tomake reparation fur the dumuge caused to al1natural or 1egalperson.s
affected by con.struction of the ivall.
Legal consequences.f0r States other than Israel - Erga omnes churacter of'
certain obligations viohted by Israel - Obligationfor al1States not to recog-
nizcJthe illegc~lsituation resulting ,fi.orn construction uf' the itlall and not to
render aid or a,s.~istancein maintaining the situation creuted by such construc-
tion - Obligationfi>r al1States, while respecting the Charter and international
luii,.to see to it that an,yinîpediment, resultingfrom the construction of the ivu11,
to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to selfdetermination is
brought to an end - Obligation fi)r al1 States parties to the Fourtli Geneva
Convention, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure com-
pliunce by lsrael with international humunitarian luiv us embodied in that Con-
vention - Ner,djOr the United Nations, and especiully the General Assembly
and the Security Couni:.il,to consider i.vhutfurther action is required to bring to
an end the illegal situution re.sulting,from the construction qf'the ivall and its
associated rkgime, taking due account cd the Advisoj Opinion.
Construction qf'the ~~van lliust be pluced in a more general context - Obliga-
tion of'Israel and Palestine scrupulously to observe international humanitarian
a - Implementation ingoodfuith ~f'allrelevant Security Council resolutions,
in particz~larre~olutiorls242 (lY67) and 338 (1973) - "Roaclmap" - Need
,for Ifforts to be encouruged »,;tha vieiv to achieving as soon as possible, on the
basis of international Itztv,u negotiated solution to the outstanding problerns and
the establishme~it of'a Palestiniun State, ivith peacc,and security ,for al1 in the
region. CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 139
ADVISORY OPINION
Present: President SHI; Vice-President RANJEV AJudges GUILLAUMK E,OROMA,
VERESHCHETIN H,IUUINS,PARRA-ARANUUREK N, OIJMANSR ,EZEK,
AL-KHASAWPIEB HU,ERUENTHAELL,ARABY O,WADAS , IMMA,TOMKA;
Re,pistrur COUVREUR.
On the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory,
composed as above,
giivs the following /idvisury Opinion:
1. The question on which the advisory opinion of the Court has been
requested is setorth in resolution ES-10114adopted by the General Assembly
of the United Nation:; (hereinafter the "General Assembly") on 8 December
2003 at its Tenth Em~rrgencySpecial Session. By a letter dated 8 December
2003 and received in the Registry by facsimile on 10 December 2003, the origi-
nal of which reached the Registry subsequently, the Secretary-General of the
United Nations officially communicated to the Court theecision taken by the
General Assen~blyto submit the question for an advisory opinion. Certified
true copies of theEnglish and French versions of resolution ES-10114were
enclosed with theletter. The resolution reads as follows:
"The Generul ~lssemhiy,
Reuffirming its resolution ES-10113of 21 October 2003,
Guidcldby the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Awure of the established principle of international law on the inadmis-
sibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Awcire ulso that developing friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
among the purpoises and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Reculling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolu-
tion 181(11)of 29 November 1947,which partitioned mandated Palestine
into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,
Reculling ulso the resolutions of the tenth emergency special session of
the General Assernbly,
Reculling jurthcr relevant Securily Council resolutions, including reso-
lutions 242 (19671of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,
267 (1969) of3 J~ily1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971,446 (1979) of
22 March 1979, 452 (1979) of 20July 1979,465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
476 (1980) of 30June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 904 (1994) of
18March 1994, 1073(1996)of 28 September 1996,1397 (2002)of 12March
2002 and 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003, ReufJlrrningthe applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention' as well
as Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions2 to the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Reculling the Reguiations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting
the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907',
Welcoming the convening of the Conference of High Contracting Parties
to the Fourth Gerieva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, at Geneva on
15 July 1999,
E,xprrssing its.support for the declaration adopted by the reconvened
Conference of High Contracting Parties at Geneva on 5 December 2001,
Rec,alling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming
that Israeli settleiments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and
social developmerit as well as those demanding the complete cessation of
settlement activities,
Reculling relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions
taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demo-
graphic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity
and are nuIl and void,
Noting the agreements reached between the Government of Israel and
the Palestine Liberation Organization in the context of the Middle East
peace process.
Gruvelj~concerisrd at the commencement and continuation of construc-
tion by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure
from the Armistice Line of 1949(Green Line) and which has involved the
confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disrup-
tion of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto
annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous
opposition by the international community to the construction of that
wall,
Gruvc,lyc,oncer,aedalso at the even more devastating impact of the pro-
jected parts of the wall on the Palestinian civilian population and on the
prospects for solbing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and establishing peace
in the region,
Wrlcoming the report of 8 September 2003 of the Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 19674,in particular the sec-
tion regarding thi: wall,
'United Nations, Treuty Series, Vol. 75, No. 973.
Ihid, Vol. 1125,No. 17512.
See Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Hague Conventions und
Di~clrircrtiof'185)Yund IV07 (New York. Oxford University Press, 1915).
E/CN.4/2004/6. CONSTR.UCTIONOF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 141
Afjrming the riecessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-
State solution of israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and secu-
rity based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant
Security Council and General Assembly resolutions,
Having receiveidwitlzappreciation the report of the Secretary-General,
submitted in accclrdance with resolution ES-101135,
Braring in mind that the passage of time further compounds the diffi-
culties on the ground, as Israel, the occupying Power, continues to refuse
to comply with international law vis-à-vis its construction of the above-
mentioned wall, with al1its detrimental implications and consequences,
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 urgently render an advisory
opinion on the fclllowing question :
What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the
wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Pales-
tinian Territory, including in andaround East Jerusalem, as described in
the report of thieSecretary-General, considering the rules and principles
of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,
and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?
AIES- 10/248."
Also enclosed with the letter were the certified English and French texts of the
report of the Secretary-General dated 24 November 2003, prepared pursuant
to General Assembly resolution ES-10113(AIES-101248), to which resolution
ES-10114 makes reference.
2. By letters dated 10 December 2003, the Registrar notified the request for
an advisory opinion to al1States entitled to appear before theCourt, in accord-
ance with Article 66, 7paragraph 1, of the Statute.
3. By a letter dated 11 December 2003, the Government of Israel informed
the Court of its position on the request for an advisory opinion and on the
procedure to be follo~ved.
4. By an Order of 19 December 2003, the Court decided that the United
Nations and its Member States were likely, in accordance with Article 66, para-
graph 2, of the Statute, to be able to furnish information on al1aspects raised
by the question subnlitted to the Court for an advisory opinion and fixed
30 January 2004 as the time-limit within which written statements might be
submitted to it on the question in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4, of
the Statute. By the same Order, the Court further decided that, in the light of
resolution ES-10114and the report of the Secretary-General transmitted with
the request, and takirig into account the fact that the General Assembly had
granted Palestine a spircialstatus of observer and that the latter was co-sponsor
of the draft resolution requesting the advisory opinion, Palestine might also
submit a written statement on the question within the above time-limit.
5. By the aforesai'd Order, the Court also decided, in accordance withArticle 105, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, to hold public hearings during
which oral statements and comments might be presented to it by the United
Nations and its Member States, regardless of whether or not they had submit-
ted written statements, and fixed 23 February 2004 as the date for the opening
of the said hearings. By the same Order, the Court decided that, for the reasons
set out above (see par,xgraph 4), Palestine might also take part in the hearings.
Lastly, it invited the United Nations and its Member States, as well as Pales-
tine. to inform the Registry, by 13 February 2004 at the latest, if they were
intending to takepart in the above-mentioned hearings. By letters of 19Decem-
ber 2004, the Registrar informed them of the Court's decisions and transmitted
to them a copy of the Order.
6. Ruling on requests submitted subsequently by the League of Arab States
and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Court decided, in accord-
ance with Article 66 of its Statute, that those two international organizations
were likely to be able to furnish information on the question submitted to the
Court, and that consecquentlythey might for that purpose submit written state-
ments within the time-limit fixed by the Court in its Order of 19December 2003
and take part in the hearings.
7. Pursuant to Article 65, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Secretary-General
of the United Nations communicated to the Court a dossier of documents
likely to throw light upon the question.
8. By a reasoned Order of 30 January 2004 regarding its composition in the
case, the Court decided that the matters brought to its attention by the Gov-
ernment of Israel in a letter of 31 December 2003, and in a confidential letter of
15 January 2004 addressed to the President pursuant to Article 34, para-
graph 2, of the Rules of Court, were not such as to preclude Judge Elaraby
from sitting in the case.
9. Within the time-limit fixed by the Court for that purpose, written state-
ments were filed by, in1order of their receipt:Guinea, Saudi Arabia, League of
Arab States, Egypt, Cameroon, Russian Federation, Australia, Palestine,
United Nations, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Canada, Syria, Switzerland, Israel,
Yemen, United States: of America, Morocco, Indonesia, Organization of the
Islamic Conference, France, Italy, Sudan, South Africa, Germany,Japan, Nor-
way, United Kingdoni, Pakistan, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland on its own
behalf, lreland on behalf of the European Union, Cyprus, Brazil, Namibia,
Malta, Malaysia, Netherlands, Cuba, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Palau, Feder-
ated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Senegal, Democratic People's
Republicof Korea. Upon receipt of those statements,the Registrar transmitted
copies thereof to the United Nations and its Member States, to Palestine, to the
League of Arab States and to the Organization of the lslamic Conference.
10. Various commuinications were addressed to these latter by the Registry,
concerning in particullar the measures taken for the organization of the oral
proceedings. By comiriunications of 20 February 2004, the Registry transmitted
a detailed timetable of the hearings to those of the latter who, within the time-
limit fixed for that purpose by the Court, had expressed their intention of
taking part in the afoi-ementioned proceedings.
11. Pursuant to Article 106of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to make
the written statements accessible to the public, with effect from the opening of
the oral proceedings. 12. In the course oî hearings held from 23 to 25 February 2004, the Court
heard oral statements, in the following order, by:
j'ur Palestine: H.E. Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwa, Ambassador, Perma-
nent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations,
Ms Stephanie Koury, Member, Negotiations Sup-
port Unit, Counsel,
Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professor of
International Law, University of Cambridge, Mem-
ber of the Institute of International Law, Counsel
and Advocate,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Professor of International
Law, Graduate Institute of International Studies,
Geneva, Member of the Institute of International
Law, Counsel and Advocate,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Interna-
tional Law, University of Oxford, Counsel and Advo-
cate,
Mr. Jean Salmon, Professor Emeritus of Interna-
tional Law, Université libre de Bruxelles, Member
of the lnstitute of International Law, Counsel and
Advocate;
,fur the Republic H.E. Mr. Aziz Pahad, Deputy Minister for Foreign
qf'South Africu: Affairs, Head of Delegation,
Judge M. R. W. Madlanga, S.C.;
,for the People's Mr. Ahmed Laraba, Professor of International
Dernocrutic Re- Law;
public qf'Algeriu:
for the Kingdom H.E. Mr. Fawzi A. Shobokshi, Ambassador and
of'Saurii Arabia: Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia to the United Nations in New York, Head of
Delegation ;
,fur the People's H.E. Mr. Liaquat Ali Choudhury, Ambassador of
Republic of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the King-
Bangladesh : dom of the Netherlands;
,fur Belize: Mr. Jean-Marc Sorel, Professor at the University of
Paris 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne) ;
for the Republic qf' H.E. Mr. Abelardo Moreno Fernandez, Deputy
Minister for Foreign Affairs;
Cuba :
for the Republic. of H.E. Mr. Mohammad Jusuf, Ambassador of the
Indonesia : Republic of Indonesia to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, Head of Delegation;
,fur the Hushernite H.R.H. Ambassador Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein,
Kingdom c?f' Permanent Representative of the Hashemite
Jordan : Kingdom of Jordan to the United Nations, New
York, Head of Delegation,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Senior Legal Adviser to the Government of the Hashemite King-
dom of Jordan;
,/Orthe Repuhlic of' H.E. Mr. Alfred Rambeloson, Permanent Repre-
Madagascar : sentative of Madagascar to the Office of the United
Nations at Geneva and to the Specialized Agencies,
Head of Delegation ;
H.E. Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Foreign Min-
ister of Malaysia, Head of Delegation;
jOr the Republic of' H.E. Mr. Saliou Cissé,Ambassador of the Repub-
Senegul: lic of Senegal to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Head of Delegation;
,for the Repuhlicof' H.E. Mr. Abuelgasim A. Idris, Ambassador of the
the Sudan: Republic of the Sudan to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands ;
fOr the League of Mr. Michael Bothe. Professor of Law, Head of the
Arah States: Legal Team;
for the Organiza- H.E. Mr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary General
tion of the Islamic of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Conference: Ms Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Professor of
Public Law, University of Paris VII-Denis Diderot,
as Counsel.
13. When seised of a request for an advisory opinion, the Court must
first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give the opinion requested and
whether, should the answer be in the affirmative, there is any reason why
it should decline to exercise any such jurisdiction (see Legality cf the
Threut or Use of niucleur Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1996 (1), p. 232, para. 10).
14. The Court will thus first address the question whether it possesses
jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assem-
bly on 8 December 2003. The competence of the Court in this regard is
based on Article 65, paragraph 1, of its Statute, according to which the
Court "may give an ;~dvisoryopinion on any legal question at the request
of whatever body inay be authorized by or in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations to make such a request". The Court
has already had occiision to indicate that :
"It is . . . a precondition of the Court's competence that the advi-
sory opinion be requested by an organ duly authorized to seek it
under the Charter, that it be requested on a legal question, and that,
except in the case of the General Assembly or the Security Council,
that question should be one arising within the scope of the activities
of the requesting organ." (Application for Review of Judgemrnt No.
273 of the United Nutions Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opin-
ion, I.C.J. Repc~rts1982, pp. 333-334, para. 21.)
12 15. It is for the Court to satisfy itself that the request for an advisory
opinion comes from an organ or agency having competence to make it.
In the present instance, the Court notes that the General Assembly,
which seeks the advisory opinion, is authorized to do so by Article 96,
paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides: "The General Assembly or
the Security Councillmay request the International Court of Justice to
give an advisory opinion on any legal question."
16. Although the above-mentioned provision states that the General
Assembly may seek an advisory opinion "on any legal question", the
Court has sometime:~in the past given certain indications as to the rela-
tionship between the question the subject of a request for an advisory
opinion and the activities of the General Assembly (Interpretution of
Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hu~zgury and Romania, I.C. J. Reports
1950, p. 70; Legu1it.y qf the Threat or Use of Nucleur Weapons, I.C. J.
Reports 1996 (I), pp. 232 and 233, paras. 11 and 12).
17. The Court will so proceed in the present case. The Court would
observe that Article 10 of the Charter has conferred upon the General
Assembly a competence relating to "any questions or any matters" within
the scope of theChairter,and that Article 11,paragraph 2, has specifically
provided it with competence on "questions relating to the maintenance of
international peace a~ndsecurity brought before it by any Member of the
United Nations . .."and to make recommendations under certain con-
ditions fixed bythoa: Articles. As willbe explained below, the question of
the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was
brought before the General Assembly by a number of Member States in
the context of the 1TenthEmergency Special Session of the Assembly,
convened to deal with what the Assembly, in its resolution ES-1012of
25 April 1997, considered to constitute a threat to international peace
and security.
18. Before furthei- examining the problems of jurisdiction that have
been raised in thepresent proceedings, the Court considers it necessary to
describe the events ithat led to the adoption of resolution ES-10114,by
which the General P~ssemblyrequested an advisory opinion on the legal
consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory.
19. The Tenth Eniergency Special Session of the General Assembly, at
which that resolution was adopted, was first convened following the
rejection by the Security Council, on 7 March and 21 March 1997,as a
result of negative votes by apermanent member, of two draft resolutions
concerning certain Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory (see, respectively, SI19971199and SIPV.3747, and SI19971241and
SlPV.3756). By a letter of 31 March 1997, the Chairman of the Arab
Group then requested "that an emergency special session ofthe General
Assembly be convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V)entitled 'Unitingfor Peace' " with a view to discussing "Illegal Israeli actions in occupied
East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (letter
dated 31 March 199'7from the Permanent Representative of Qatar to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, AIES-1011,22 April
1997, Annex). The rnajority of Members of the United Nations having
concurred in this reqluest, the first meeting of the Tenth Emergency Spe-
cial Session of the General Assembly took place on 24 April 1997 (see
AIES-1011,22 April 1997).Resolution ES-1012was adopted the following
day ; the General Assembly thereby expressed its conviction that :
"the repeated viiolation by Israel, the occupying Power, of interna-
tional law and litsfailure to comply with relevant Security Council
and General A,ssembly resolutions and the agreements reached
between the parties undermine the Middle East peace process and
constitute a threat to international peace and security",
and condemned the "illegal Israeli actions" in occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the con-
struction of settlements in that territory. The Tenth Emergency Special
Session was then ad-journed temporarily and has since been reconvened
11 times (on 15 July 1997, 13 November 1997, 17 March 1998, 5 Febru-
ary 1999, 18 October 2000, 20 December 2001, 7 May 2002, 5 August
2002, 19 September 2003, 20 October 2003 and 8 December 2003).
20. By a letter dated 9 October 2003, the Chairman of the Arab
Group, on behalf of the States Members of the League of Arab States,
requested an immediate meeting of the Security Council to consider the
"grave and ongoing Israeli violations of international law, including
international humanitarian law, and to take the necessary measures in
this regard" (letter ol-9 October 2003 from the Permanent Representative
of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations to the President of
the Security Council. Sl20031973,9 October 2003). This letter was accom-
panied by a draft resolution for consideration by the Council, which con-
demned as illegal the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory departing from the Armistice Line of 1949. The
Security Council heltl its 4841st and 4842nd meetings on 14October 2003
to consider the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East, including
the Palestine question". It then had before it another draft resolution
proposed on the sam,eday by Guinea, Malaysia, Pakistan and the Syrian
Arab Republic, which also condemned the construction of the wall. This
latter draft resolution was put to a vote after an open debate and was not
adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Coun-
cil (SlPV.4841 and SlPV.4842).
On 15 October 2003, the Chairman of the Arab Group, on behalf of CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 147
the States Members of the League of Arab States, requested the resump-
tion of the Tenth Eniergency Special Session of the General Assembly to
consider the item of "Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (AIES-101242);this
request was supported by the Non-Aligned Movement (AIES-101243)
and the Organization of the Islamic Conference Group at the United
Nations (AIES-101244).The Tenth Emergency Special Session resumed
its work on 20 October 2003.
21. On 27 October 2003, the General Assembly adopted resolution
ES-10113,by which it demanded that
"Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which
is in departureof the Armistice Line of 1949and is in contradiction
to relevant provisions of internationalaw" (para. 1).
In paragraph 3, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General
"to report on compliance with the . . resolution periodically, with
the first report on compliance withparagraph 1 [of that resolution]
to be submitted within one month .. .".
The Tenth Emergency Special Session was temporarily adjourned and,
on 24 November 2003, the report of the Secretary-General prepared pur-
suant to General Assembly resolution ES-10113(hereinafter the "report
of the Secretary-General") was issued (AIES-101248).
22. Meanwhile, or1 19 November 2003, the Security Council adopted
resolution 1515 (2003), by which it "Endorse[d] the Quartet Perfor-
mance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian Conflict". The Quartet consists of representatives of the
United States of America, the European Union, the Russian Federation
and the United Nations. That resolution
"Cull[ed] on the parties to fulfiltheir obligations under the Road-
map in cooperation with the Quartet and to achieve the vision of
two States livingside by side in peace and security."
Neither the "Roadrnap" nor resolution 1515 (2003) contained any
specificprovision coricerning the construction of the wall, which was not
discussed by the Security Council in this context.
23. Nineteen days later, 0118 December 2003, the Tenth Emergency
Special Session of the General Assenlbly again resumed its work, follow-
ing a new request by the Chairman of the Arab Group, on behalf of the
States Members of tlhe League of Arab States, and pursuant to resolu-
tion ES-10113(letter dated I December 2003to the President of the Gen-
eral Assembly from Ihe Chargéd'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission CONSTR.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 148
of Kuwait to the Uniited Nations, AIES-101249,2 December 2003). It was
during the meeting convened onthat daythat resolution ES-10114request-
ing the present advisory opinion was adopted.
24. Having thus recalled the sequence of events that led to the adop-
tion of resolution ES-10114,the Court will now turn to the questions of
jurisdiction that have been raised in the present proceedings. First, Israel
has alleged that, given the active engagement of the Security Council with
the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, the
General Assembly acted ultra vires under the Charter when it requested
an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the
wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
25. The Court has already indicated that the subject of the present
request for an advisory opinion falls within the competence of the Gen-
eral Assembly under the Charter (see paragraphs 15-17above). However,
Article 12, paragrapli 1, of the Charter provides that:
"While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute
or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the
General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard
to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests."
A request for an advisory opinion is not in itself a "recommendation" by
the General Assembly "with regard to [a] dispute or situation". It has
however been argued in this case that the adoption by the General
Assembly of resolution ES-10114 was ultra vires as not in accordance
with Article 12. The Court thus considers that it is appropriate for it to
examine the significance of that Article, having regard to the relevant
texts and the practicii of the United Nations.
26. Under Article 24 of the Charter the Security Council has "primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
In that regard it cari impose on States "an explicit obligation of com-
pliance if for example it issues an order or command . . . under Chap-
ter VII" and can, to that end, "require enforcement by coercive action"
(Certuin E.ipcnsc.sof the United Nations (Article 17, paragruph 2, cf the
Charter), Advisory (3pinion, I. C.J. Reports 1962, p. 163). However, the
Court would emphasize that Article 24 refers to a primary, but not
necessarily exclusive, competence. The General Assembly does have
the power, inter alia, under Article 14 of the Charter, to "recommend
measures for the peaceful adjustment" of various situations (ihid).
"[Tlhe only limitation which Article 14 imposes on the General Assembly is the restriction found in Article 12, namely, that the
Assembly shoultl not recommend measures while the Security Coun-
cil is dealing with the same matter unless the Council requests it to
do so." (1.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 163.)
27. As regards the practice of the United Nations, both the General
Assembly and the lsecurity Council initially interpreted and applied
Article 12to the effect that the Assembly could not make a recommenda-
tion on a question concerning the maintenance of international peace
and security while thematter remained on the Council's agenda. Thus the
Assembly during its fourth session refused to recommend certain meas-
ures on the questiori of Indonesia, on the ground, inter alia,that the
Council remained seised of the matter (OfJicial Records of the General
Assembly, Fourth Session, Ad Hoc Politicul Committee, Summary
Records of Meetings, 27 Septemher-7 Decemher 1949, 56th Meeting,
3 December 1949,p. 339, para. 118).As for the Council, on a number of
occasions it deleted items from its agenda inorder to enable the Assem-
bly to deliberate on tlhem(for example, in respect of the Spanish question
(OfJicial Records of the Security Council, First Year: Second Series,
No. 21, 79th Meeting, 4 November 1946,p. 498), in connection with inci-
dents on the Greek border (OfJicial Records oj the Security Council,
Second Yeur, No. 89,202nd Meeting, 15September 1947,pp. 2404-2405)
and in regard to the I[slandof Taiwan (Formosa) (OJficial Records of the
Security Council, Fifith Year, No.48, 506th Meeting, 29 September 1950,
p. 5)). In the case of the Republic of Korea, the Council decided on
31 January 1951 to remove the relevant item from the list of matters of
which it was seised in order to enable the Assembly to deliberate on the
matter (Oficial Records of the Security Council, Sixth Yeu, SlPV.531,
531st Meeting, 31Jainuary 1951,pp. 11-12, para. 57).
However, this interpretation of Article 12 has evolved subsequently.
Thus the General Assembly deemed itself entitled in 1961to adopt recom-
mendations in the rnatter of the Congo (resolutions 1955 (XV) and
1600(XVI)) and in 1963in respect of the Portuguese colonies (resolution
1913 (XVIII)) while those cases still appeared on the Council's agenda,
without the Council having adopted any recent resolution concerning
them. In response to a question posed by Peru during the twenty-third
session of theGeneraI Assembly, the LegalCounsel of the United Nations
confirmed that the Assembly interpreted the words "is exercising the
functions" in Article 12of the Charter as meaning "is exercising theunc-
tions at this moment" (General Assembly, Twenty-third Session, Third
Committee, 1637th meeting, AlC.3lSR. 1637,para. 9). Indeed, the Court
notes that there has been an increasing tendency over time for the Gen-
eral Assembly and the Security Council to deal in parallel with the same
matter concerning the maintenance of international peace and security
(see, forexample, th<:matters involving Cyprus, South Africa, Angola,
Southern Rhodesia and more recently Bosnia and Herzegovina andSomalia). It is often the case that, while the Security Council has tended
to focus on the aspects of such matters related to international peace and
security, the General Assembly has taken a broader view, considering
also their humanitarian, social and economic aspects.
28. The Court considers that the accepted practice of the General
Assembly, as it has evolved, is consistent with Article 12,paragraph 1, of
the Charter.
The Court is accordingly of the view that the General Assembly, in
adopting resolution ES-10114, seeking an advisory opinion from the
Court. did not contravene the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 1. of
the Charter. The Court concludes that by submitting that request the
General Assembly did not exceed its competence.
29. It has however been contended before the Court that the present
request for an advisory opinion did not fulfil the essential conditions set
by resolution 377 A i(V)under which the Tenth Emergency Special Ses-
sion was convened and has continued to act. In this regard, it has been
said, first, that "The Security Council was never seised of a draft resolu-
tion proposing that tlheCouncil itself should request an advisory opinion
from the Court on the matters now in contention", and, that specific
issue having thus never been brought before the Council, the General
Assembly could not irelyon any inaction by the Council to make such a
request. Secondly, it has been claimed that, in adopting resolution 1515
(2003), which endorsed the "Roadmap", before the adoption by the Gen-
eral Assembly of resolution ES-10114,the Security Council continued to
exercise its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security and that, as a result, the General Assembly was not entitled to
act in its place. The validity of the procedure followed by the Tenth
Emergency Special Session, especially the Session's "rolling character"
and the fact that its meeting was convened to deliberate on the request
for the advisory opiriion at the same time as the General Assembly was
meeting in regular session, has also been questioned.
30. The Court would recall that resolution 377 A (V) States that:
"if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the perma-
nent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security in any case where
there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act
of aggression, the General Assernbly shall consider the matter imme-
diately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to
Members for collective measures . . .".
The procedure provided for by that resolution is premised on two con-
ditions, namely that the Council has failed to exercise its primary respon-
sibility for the maintenance of international peace and security as a result
of a negative vote of one or more permanent members, and that the situa-tion is one in which there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of
the peace, or act of aggression. The Court must accordingly ascertain
whether these conditions were fulfilled as regards the convening of the
Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly, in particular
at the time when the Assembly decided to request an advisory opinion
from the Court.
31. In the light of the sequence of events described in paragraphs 18to
23 above, the Court observes that, at the time when the Tenth Emergency
Special Session was convened in 1997, the Council had been unable to
take a decision on the case of certain Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, due to negative votes of a permanent member; and
that, as indicated in resolution ES-1012 (see paragraph 19 above), there
existed a threat to international peace and security.
The Court further notes that, on 20 October 2003, the Tenth Emer-
gency Special Session of the General Assembly was reconvened on
the same basis as in 1997 (see the statements by the representatives of
Palestine and Israel, AIES-IOlPV.21, pp. 2 and 5), after the rejection
by the Security Council, on 14 October 2003, again as a result of the
negative vote of a permanent member, of a draft resolution concerning
the construction by lisrael of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory. The Court considers that the Security Council again failed to act
as contemplated in resolution 377 A (V). It does not appear to the
Court that the situation in this regard changed between 20 October 2003
and 8 December 2003, since the Council neither discussed the construc-
tion of the wall nor adopted any resolution in that connection. Thus, the
Court is of the view that, up to 8 December 2003, the Council had not
reconsidered the negritive vote of 14October 2003. It follows that, during
that period, the Tenth Emergency Special Session was duly reconvened
and could properly be seised, under resolution 377 A (V), of the matter
now before the Court.
32. The Court would also emphasize that, in the course of this Emer-
gency Special Session, the General Assembly could adopt any resolution
falling within the suibject-matter for which the Session had been con-
vened, and otherwise within its powers, including a resolution seeking the
Court's opinion. It is irrelevant in that regard that no proposal had been
made to the Security Council to request such an opinion.
33. Turning now to alleged further procedural irregularities of the
Tenth Emei-gency Special Session, the Court does not consider that the
"rolling" character of that Session, namely the fact of its having been
convened in April 1997and reconvened 11 times since then, has any rele-
vance with regard to the validity of the request by the General Assembly.
The Court observes in that regard that the Seventh Emergency Special
Session of the General Assembly, having been convened on 22 July
1980,was subsequently reconvened four times (on 20 April 1982,25 June
1982, 16 August 1982 and 24 September 1982), and that the validity of C0NSTR:UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOKY OPINION) 152
resolutions or decisions of the Assembly adopted under such cir-
cumstances was never disputed. Nor has the validity of any previous
resolutions adopted during the Tenth Emergency Special Session been
challenged.
34. The Court alslonotes the contention by lsrael that it was improper
to reconvene the Tenth Emergency Special Session at a time when the
regular session of the General Assembly was in progress. The Court con-
siders that, while it may not have been originally contemplated that it
would be appropriate for the General Assembly to hold simultaneous
emergency and regular sessions, no rule of the Organization has been
identified which wo~ild be thereby violated, so as to render invalid the
resolution adopting the present request for an advisory opinion.
35. Finally, the 'Tenth Emergency Special Session appears to have
been convened in accordance with Rule 9 (hl of the Rules of Procedure
of the General Asseinbly, and the relevant meetings have been convened
in pursuance of the applicable rules. As the Court stated in its Advisory
Opinion of 21 June 1971concerning the Legul Consc~quentesfor Stutes of
the Continued Presence ofSouth Afiicu in Namibiu (Soutlz West Africa)
notitithstan~fing Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), a
"resolution of a properly constituted organ of the United Nations
which is passed in accordance with that organ's rules of procedure,
and is declared by its President to have been so passed, must be
presumed to have been validly adopted" (1.C. J. Reports 1971, p. 22,
para. 20).
In view of the foregoing, the Court cannot see any reason why that
presumption is to be rebutted in the present case.
36. The Court now turns to a further issue related to jurisdiction in the
present proceedings.,namely the contention that the request for an advi-
sory opinion by the General Assembly is not on a "legal question" within
the meaning of Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter and Article 65,
paragraph 1,of the Statute of the Court. It has been contended in this
regard that, for a question to constitute a "legal question" for the pur-
poses of these two provisions, it must be reasonably specific, since other-
wise it would not be amenable to a response by the Court. With regard to
the request made in the present advisory proceedings, it has been argued
that it is not possit~le to determine with reasonable certainty the legal
meaning of the question asked of the Court for two reasons.
First. it has been argued that the question regarding the "legal conse-
quences" of the coinstruction of the wall only allows for two possible
interpretations, each of which would lead to a course of action that isprecluded for the Court. The question asked could first be interpreted as
a request for the Court to find that the construction of the wall is illegal,
and then to giveits opinion on the legal consequences of that illegality. In
this case, it has been contended, the Court should decline to respond to
the question asked for a variety of reasons, some of which pertain to
jurisdiction and others rather to the issue of propriety. As regards juris-
diction, it is said thait, if the General Assembly had wished to obtain the
view of the Court oin the highly complex and sensitive question of the
legality of the construction of the wall, it should have expressly sought an
opinion to that effect (cf. Exchange of Greek and Turkisk Populations,
Advisory Opinion, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 10, p. 17).A second pos-
sible interpretation of the request, it is said, is that the Court should
assume that the coristruction of the wall is illegal, and then give its
opinion on the legal consequences of that assumed illegality. It has been
contended that the Court should also decline to respond to the question
on this hypothesis, since the request would then be based on a question-
able assumption and since,in any event, it would be impossible to rule on
the legal consequenciis of illegality without specifying the nature of that
illegality.
Secondly, it has been contended that the question asked of the Court is
not of a "legal" character because of its imprecision and abstract nature.
In particular, it has been argued in this regard that the question fails to
specify whether the Court is being asked to address legal consequences
for "the General Assembly or some other organ of the United Nations",
"Member States of the United Nations", "Israel", "Palestine" or "some
combination of the above, or some different entity".
37. As regards the alleged lack of clarity of the terms of the General
Assembly's request a~ndits effect on the "legal nature" of the question
referred to the Court, the Court observes that this question is directed to
the legal consequenc<:sarising from a given factual situation considering
the rules and principles of international law, including the Geneva Con-
vention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of
12August 1949(hereinafter the "Fourth Geneva Convention") and rele-
vant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The question
submitted by the Gerieral Assembly has thus, to use the Court's phrase in
its Advisory Opinion on Western Suharu, "been framed in terms of law
and raise[s] problems of international law"; it is by its very nature
susceptible of a rep1:ybased on law; indeed it is scarcely susceptible of
a reply otherwise than on the basis of law. In the view of the Court, it is
indeed a question of a legal character (see Western Sahara, Advisory
Opinion, I.(IJ. Reports 1975, p. 18,para. 15).
38. The Court would point out that lack of clarity in the drafting of a
question does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. Rather, such uncer- CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 154
tainty will require clarification in interpretation, andh necessary clari-
fications of interpretirtion have frequently been given by the Court.
In the past, both the Permanent Court and the present Court have
observed in some cases that the wording of a request for an advisory
opinion did not accurately state the question on which the Court's opin-
ion was being soughi. (Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of
1 Decetnher 1926 (Final Protucol, Article IV), Advisory Opinion, 1928,
P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 16 (I), pp. 14-16), or did not correspond to the
"true legal question"' under consideration (Interpretation of'the Agree-
ment of25 March 1951 between the WHO und Egypt, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1980, pp. 87-89, paras. 34-36). The Court noted in one
case that "the quedon put to the Court is, on the face of it, at once
infelicitously expressed and vague" (Applic'utionfor Reviel.~qf Judge-
metzt No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory
Opinion, I.C,J..Reports 1982, p. 348, para. 46).
Consequently, the Court has often been required to broaden, interpret
and even reformulate the questions put (see the three Opinions cited
above; see also Jaivc~rzinu,Advisory Opinion, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series B,
No. 8; A~ln?is.sihilityof Hearings of Petitioners hy the Committee on
South We.stA,fricu, Advisory Opinion, IC.J. Reports 1956, p. 25; Certain
E.~prnsrs of'the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Chur-
ter), Advisory Opinion, I.C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 157-162).
In the presentinstance, the Court will only have to do what it has often
done in the past, namely "identify the existing principles and rules, inter-
pret them and apply them . . ., thus offering a reply to the question posed
based on law" (Legal'ity of he Threat or Usr of Nuclear Wrupons, I.C.J.
Rc~ports1996 (I), p. 234, para. 13).
39. In the present instance, if the General Assembly requests the Court
to state the "legal consequences" arising from the construction of the
wall, the use of these terms necessarily encompasses an assessment of
whether that constru~ctionis or is not in breach of certain rules and prin-
ciples of international law. Thus, the Court is first called upon to deter-
mine whether such rules and principles have been and are still being
breachcd by the conritruction of the wall along the planned route.
40. The Court does not consider that what is contended to be the
abstract nature of the question posed to it raises an issue of jurisdiction.
Even when the matter was raised as an issue of propriety rather than one
ofjurisdiction, in the case concerning theLegality ofthe Threat or Use of
Nuclear Wpaponns,the Court took the position that to contend that it
should not deal with a question couched in abstract terms is "a mere
affirmation devoid oifany justification" and that "the Court may give an
advisory opinion on any legal question, abstract or otherwise" (I.C.J.
Reports 1996 (1), p. 236, para. 15, referring to Conditions of Admissiot~
of LIStute to Mc~mbershipin the United Nations (Article 4 of the Chur-
ter), Advisory Opinion, 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948, p. 61; Effitct of
A\vards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative
Tribunul, Advisoty Opiniotz, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 51; and Legul Con-The Court is of the view that there is no element in the present proceed-
ings which could lealdit to conclude otherwise.
42. The Court a'ccordingly has jurisdiction to give the advisory
opinion requested by resolution ES-10114of the General Assembly.
43. It has been contended in the present proceedings, however, that
the Court should de~clineto exercise its jurisdiction because of the pres-
ence of specific aspects of the General Assembly's request that would
render the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction improper and inconsistent
with the Court's judicial function.
44. The Court has recalled many times in the past that Article 65,
paragraph 1,of its Statute, which provides that "The Court may give an
advisory opinion . . ." (emphasis added), should be interpreted to mean
that the Court has a discretionary power to decline to give an advisory
opinion even if the conditions of jurisdiction are met (Legulity ef'the
Tlzreut or Use of' Nucleur Weupons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1996 (I), pp. 234-2115,para. 14). The Court however is mindful of the
fact that its answer 'toa request for an advisory opinion "represents its
participation in the activities of the Organization, and, in principle,
should not be refuse:dm(Interprctution of'Pcuce Treuties ivith Bulguriu,
Hungury und Ronîunia, First Plîu.se, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1950, p. 71: see also..for example, D{ij(ijrenceRelating to Inimunity jiorn
Legul Process of u Special Rapporteur of' tlie Commission on Hutnan
Riglîts, Advisorj, Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), pp. 78-79, para. 29.)
Given its responsibillities as the "principal judicial organ of the United
Nations" (Article 92 of the Charter), the Court should in principle not
decline to give an advisory opinion. In accordance with its consistent
jurisprudence, only ",compelling reasons" should lead the Court to refuse
its opinion (Certain Expcnses of'tlîe United Nutions (Article 17, puru-
grupIz 2,of'the Churtcr), Advi.sorj Opinion, I.C.J. R~)port.s1962, p. 155;
see also, for exampli:, Diffi>renceRrluting to Imnzunity fion? Lrgul Pro-
cess (?fa Sprcial Rczpporteuroj'tlzc Corntni,s.sionon Hunzun Rights, Advi-
.sory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), pp. 78-79, para. 29.)
The present Coui-t has never, in the exercise of this discretionary
power, declined to respond to a request for an advisory opinion. Its deci-
sion not to give the advisory opinion on the Legality of tlîe Use hj~u
Stute of Nuclear Ciéuporz.s in Armed ConJiet requested by the World
Health Organization was based on the Court's lack of jurisdiction, and
not on consideratioris of judicial propriety (see I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I),
p. 235, para. 14). Orily on one occasion did the Court's predecessor, the
Permanent Court of International Justice, take the view that it shouldnot reply to a question put to it (Status of Eastern Curelia, Advisory
Opinion, 1923, P.C..I.J., SeriesB, No. 5), but this was due to
"the very particular circumstances of the case, among which were
that the question directly concerned an already existing dispute, one
of the States parties to which was neither a party to the Statute of
the Permanent Court nor a Member of the League of Nations,
objected to the proceedings, and refused to take part in any way"
(Legalitj)of the Thrrat or Use ofNucleur Weupons, 1.C.J. Reports
1996 (I), pp. 235-236, para. 14).
45. These considerations do not release the Court from the duty to sat-
isfy itself, each time it is seised of a request for an opinion, as to the-
priety of the exercise of itsjudicial function, by reference to the criterion
of "compelling reasons" as cited above. The Court will accordingly
examine in detail and in the light of its jurisprudence each of the argu-
ments presented to it in this regard.
46. The first such argument is to the effect that the Court should not
exercise itsjurisdiction in the present casebecause the request concerns a
contentious matter between Israel and Palestine, in respect of which
Israel has not conserited to the exercise of that jurisdiction. According to
this view, thesubject-matter of the question posed by the General Assem-
bly "is an integral part of the wider Israeli-Palestiniandispute concerning
questions of terrorisrn, security, borders, settlements, Jerusalem and other
related matters". Israel has emphasized that it has never consented to the
settlement of this wider dispute by the Court or by any other means of
compulsory adjudication; on the contrary, it contends that the parties
repeatedly agreed that these issues are to be settled by negotiation, with
the possibility of an agreement that recourse could be had to arbitration.
It is accordingly contended that the Court should decline to give the
present Opinion, on the basis inter uliu of the precedent of the decision of
the Permanent Couirt of International Justice on the Stutus of Eustern
Careliu.
47. The Court observes that the lack of consent to the Court's conten-
tious jurisdiction by interested States has no bearing on the Court's juris-
diction to give an advisory opinion. In an Advisory Opinion of 1950,the
Court explained that :
"The consent of States, parties to a dispute, is the basis of the
Court's jurisdicition in contentious cases. The situation is different in
regard to advisory proceedings even where the Request for an Opin-
ion relates to a legal question actually pending between States. The
Court's reply ir;only of an advisory character: as such, it has no
binding force. lit follows that no State, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, can prevent the giving of an Advisory Opin-
ion which the United Nations considers to be desirable in order to
obtain enlightenment as to the course of action it should take. The
Court's Opinion is given not to the States, but to the organ which is
entitled to request it; the reply of the Court, itself an 'organ of the
United Nations', represents its participation in the activities of the
Organization, and, in principle, should not be refused." (Interpretu-
tion of'Peuce Treuties ivith Bulgaria, Hungur-v and Romuniu, First
Phase, Aclvisorj, Opinion, I.C' .. Reports 1950, p. 71; see also West-
ern Sahara, I.CJ. Reports 1975, p. 24, para. 31.)
It followed from this that, in those proceedings, the Court did not refuse
to respond to the request for an advisory opinion on the ground that, in
the particular circunnstances, it lacked jurisdiction. The Court did how-
ever examine the oplnosition of certain interested States to the request by
the General Assembly in the context of issues of judicial propriety. Com-
menting on its 1950 decision, the Court explained in its Advisory Opinion
on Western Sahuru fhat it had "Thus . . . recognized that lack of consent
might constitute a ground for declining to give the opinion requested if,
in the circumstances of a given case, considerations of judicial propriety
should oblige the Court to refuse an opinion." The Court continued:
"In certain circumstances . . . the lack of consent of an
interested Stati: may render the giving of an advisory opinion
incompatible vvith the Court's judicial character. An instance
of this would be when the circumstances disclose that to give
a reply would hiavethe effect of circumventing the principle that a
State is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial
settlement without its consent." ( We.stc.rnSuharu, 1.C. J. Reports
1975, p. 25, paras. 32-33.)
In applying that pririciple to the request concerning Western Suh~~ru,the
Court Sound that a legal controversy did indeed exist, but one which had
arisen during the proceedings of the General Assembly and in relation
to matters with which the Assembly was dealing. It had not arisen
independently in bilateral relations (ibid., p. 25, para. 34).
48. As regards the request for an advisory opinion now before it, the
Court acknowledges that Israel and Palestine have expressed radically
divergent views on the legal consequences of Israel's construction of the
wall, on which the Court has been asked to pronounce. However, as the
Court has itself noted, "Differences of views . . . on legal issues have
existed in practically every advisory proceeding" (Legul Conseyuencesfor
Stutes oJ 'he Corîtit?urc/Presence of South Afiicu in Numihiu (South
West A,frica) notizitlîstcrnding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970),
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 34).
49. Furthermore, the Court does not consider that the subject-matterof the General Asse:mbly'srequest can be regarded as only a bilateral
matter between 1srai:land Palestine. Given the powers and responsibili-
ties of the United Naltionsin questions relating to international peace and
security, it is the Court's view that the construction of the wall must be
deemed to be directllyof concern to the United Nations. The responsibil-
ity of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate
and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and
71 below). This resp'onsibilityhas been described by the General Assem-
bly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until
the question is resolved in al1 its aspects in a satisfactory manner in
accordance with international legitimacy" (General Assembly resolu-
tion 571107of 3 December 2002). Within the institutional framework of
the Organization, thi.sresponsibility has been manifested by the adoption
of many Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, and by the
creation of several subsidiary bodies specifically established to assist in
the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.
50. The object of the request before the Court is to obtain from the
Court an opinion which the General Assembly deems of assistance to it
for the proper exercise of its functions. The opinion is requested on a
question which is of particularly acute concern to the United Nations,
and one which is loirated in a much broader frame of reference than a
bilateral dispute. In the circumstances, the Court does not consider that
to give an opinion would have the effect of circumventingthe principle of
consent to judicial settlement, and the Court accordingly cannot, in the
exercise of its discretion, decline to give an opinion on that ground.
51. The Court now turns to another argument raised in the present
proceedings in support of the view that it should decline to exercise its
jurisdiction. Some participants have argued that an advisory opinion
from the Court on the legality of the wall and the legal consequences of
its construction couild impede a political, negotiated solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More particularly, it has been contended that
such an opinion could undermine the scheme of the "Roadmap" (see
paragraph 22 above), which requires Israel and Palestine to comply with
certain obligations iinvarious phases referred to therein. The requested
opinion, it lias been alleged, could complicate the negotiations envisaged
in the "Roadmap", and the Court should therefore exercise its discretion
and decline to reply to the question put.
This is a submission of a kind which the Court has already had to con-
sider several times iri the past. For instance, in its Advisory Opinion on
the Legulity of the 7'hreutor Use of Nucleur Weapons, the Court stated : "It has . . . been submitted that a reply from the Court in this case
might adversely affect disarmament negotiations and would, there-
fore, be contrary to the interest of the United Nations. The Court is
aware that, no matter what might be its conclusions in any opinion
it might give, they would have relevance for the continuing debate
on the matter iri the General Assembly and would present an addi-
tional element in the negotiations on the matter. Beyond that, the
effect of the opinion is a matter of appreciation. The Court has
heard contrary positions advanced and there are no evident criteria
by which it can prefer one assessment to another." (1.C.J. Rc~ports
1996 (I), p. 23;', para. 17; see also Western Suhuru, 1.C.J. Reports
1975, p. 37, para. 73.)
52. One participaint in the present proceedings has indicated that the
Court, if it were to give a response to the request, should in any event do
so keeping in mind
"two key aspects of the peace process: the fundamental principle
that permanent status issues must be resolved through negotiations;
and the need during the interini period for the parties to fulfil their
security responsibilities so that the peace process can succeed".
53. The Court is conscious that the "Roadmap", which was endorsed
by the Security Coiuncil in resolution 1515 (2003) (see paragraph 22
above), constitutes ,I negotiating framework for the resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not clear, however, what influence the
Court's opinion might have on those negotiations: participants in
the present proceedings have expressed differing views in this regard.
The Court cannot regard this factor as a compelling reason to decline to
exercise its jurisdictiisn.
54. It was also put to the Court by certain participants that the ques-
tion of the construction of the wall was only one aspect of the Israeli-
Palestinian conf ict, which could not be properly addressed in the present
proceedings. The Court does not however consider this a reason for it to
decline to reply to the question asked. The Court is indeed aware that the
question of the wall is part of a greater whole, and it would take this
circumstance carefully into account in any opinion it might give. At the
same time, the question that the General Assembly has chosen to ask of
the Court is confinecl to the legal consequences of the construction of the
wall, and the Court would only examine other issues to the extent that
they might be necessary to its consideration of the question put to it.
55. Several participants in the proceedings have raised the further CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 161
argument that the Court should decline to exerciseitsjurisdiction because
it does not have at its disposa1the requisite facts and evidence to enable
it to reach its concluisions.In particular, Israel has contended, referring to
the Advisory Opinion on the Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bul-
guria, Hungary and Romuniu, that the Court could not give an opinion
on issues which raisi: questions of fact that cannot be elucidated without
hearing al1 parties to the conflict. According to Israel, if the Court
decided to give the requested opinion, it would be forced to speculate
about essential fact,s and make assumptions about arguments of law.
More specifically, lsrael has argued that the Court could not rule on the
legal consequences of the construction of the wall without enquiring,
first, into the nature and scope of the security threat to which the wall is
intended to respond and the effectiveness of that response, and, second,
into the impact of the construction for the Palestinians. This task, which
would already be difficult in a contentious case, would be further com-
plicated in an advisory proceeding, particularly since Israel alone pos-
sesses much of the riecessary information and has stated that it chooses
not to address the merits. Israel has concluded that the Court, confronted
with factual issuesinipossible to clarify in the present proceedings, should
use its discretionand decline to conlply with the request for an advisory
opinion.
56. The Court observes that the question whether the evidence avail-
able to it is sufficient to give an advisory opinion must be decided in each
particular instance. In its Opinion concerning theInterpretation of'Peace
Treaties with Bulg~iria, Hungary and Romania (IC.J. Reports 1950,
p. 72) and again in its Opinion on the We,sternSaharu, the Court made
it clear that whatis decisive in these circumstances is
"whether the Court has before it sufficient information and evidence
to enable it to arrive at a judicial conclusion upon any disputed
questions of fact the determination of which is necessary for it to
give an opinion in conditions compatible with itsjudicial character"
(Western Suhara, I.C. J. Reports 1975, pp. 28-29,para. 46).
Thus, for instance, in the proceedings concerning the Status of Eastern
Carelia, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided to decline
to give an Opinion i,izterulbecause the question put "raised a question
of fact which coulcl not be elucidated without hearing both parties"
(Interpretation of Prace Treaties witl~Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania,
I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 72; see Status oj Eastern Carelia, P.C.I. J.,
Series B, No. 5,p. 28). On the other hand, in theWestern Suhara Opinion,
the Court observed that it had been provided with very extensive docu-
mentary evidence of the relevant facts (I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 29,
para. 47).
57. In the present instance, the Court has at its disposal the report of
the Secretary-General, as well as a voluminous dossier submitted by him
to the Court, comprising not only detailed information on the route of the wall but also on its humanitarian and socio-economic impact on the
Palestinian population. The dossier includes several reports based on on-
site visits by speciall rapporteurs and competent organs of the United
Nations. The Secreiary-General has further submitted to the Court a
written statement updating his report, which supplemented the infor-
mation contained thierein. Moreover, numerous other participants have
submitted to the Court written statements which contain information
relevant to a response to the question put by the General Assembly. The
Court notes in particular that Israel's Written Statement, although
limited to issues of jurisdiction and judicial propriety, contained observa-
tions on other matters, including Israel's concerns in terms of security,
and was accompanied by corresponding annexes;many other documents
issued by the Israeli Government on those matters are in the public
domain.
58. The Court finds that it has before it sufficient information and evi-
dence to enable it to give the advisory opinion requested by the General
Assembly. Moreover, the circumstance that others may evaluate and
interpret these facts in a subjective or political manner can be no argu-
ment for a court of law to abdicate its judicial task. There is therefore in
the present case no lack of information such as to constitute a compelling
reason for the Couri to decline to give the requested opinion.
59. In their written statements, some participants have also put for-
ward the argument that the Court should decline to give the requested
opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the wall because
such opinion would lack any useful purpose. They have argued that the
advisory opinions ol'the Court are to be seen as a means to enable an
organ or agency in need of legal clarification for its future action to
obtain that clarification. In the present instance, the argument continues,
the General Assembly would not need an opinion of the Court because it
has already declarecl the construction of the wall to be illegal and has
already determined the legal consequences by demanding that Israel stop
and reverse its construction, and further, because the General Assembly
has never made it cli:ar how it intended to use the opinion.
60. 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 iri their action. In its Opinion concerning Reservutions
to the Convention on the Prevention und Punishment of the Crime of'
Genocide, the Court observed : "The object of this request for an Opinion
is to guide the United Nations in respect of its own action." (I.C.J.
Reports 1951, p. 19.) Likewise, in its Opinion on the Leg~ilConsequences
,fiw States ~f'tlzr Coiztinurr/Presence (~f'SoutA.fric(~UZNunzibia (South CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 163
West AfLica) notwithstann'ing Security Council Resolution 276 (19701,
the Court noted: "The request is put forward by a United Nations organ
with reference to its own decisions and it seeks legal advice from the
Court on the consequences and implications of these decisions." (1. C.J.
Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 32.) TheCourt found on another occasion that
the advisory opinion it was to give would "furnish the General Assembly
with elements of a le,galcharacter relevant to its further treatment of the
decolonization of WJestern Sahara" (Western Sahara, I.C.J. Reports
1975, p. 37, para. 72).
61. With regard to the argument that the General Assembly has not
made it clear what use it would make of an advisory opinion on the wall,
the Court would recall, as equally relevant in the present proceedings,
what it stated in its Opinion on the Legality of tlzc~Tlzreat or Use of'
Nuclear Wc~upon s
"Certain States have observed that the General Assembly has not
explained to the Court for what precise purposes it seeks the advi-
sory opinion. Nevertheless, it is not for the Court itself to purport to
decide whether or not an advisory opinion is needed by the Assem-
bly for the performance of its functions. The General Assembly has
the right to decide for itself on the usefulness of an opinion in the
light of its own needs." (I.C.J. Rcjports 1996 (11, p. 237, para. 16.)
62. It follows that the Court cannot decline to answer the question
posed based on the ground that its opinion would lack any useful pur-
pose. The Court canriot substitute its assessment of the usefulness of the
opinion requested for that of the organ that seeks such opinion, namely
the General Assembly. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court con-
siders that the General Assembly has not yet determined al1the possible
consequences of its own resolution. The Court's task would be to deter-
mine in a comprehensive manner the legal consequences of the construc-
tion of the wall, while the General Assembly - and the Security Council
- may then draw conclusions from the Court's findings.
63. Lastly, the Court will turn to another argument advanced with
regard to the propriety of its giving an advisory opinion in the present
proceedings. Israel has contended that Palestine, given its responsibility
for acts of violence against Israel and its population which the wall is
aimed at addressing, cannot seek from the Court a remedy for a situation
resulting from its owniwrongdoing. In this context, Israel has invoked the
maxim n~tlluscotnmodum capere potest (le sua injuria propria, which it
considers to be as relevant in advisory proceedings as it is in contentious
cases. Therefore, Israel concludes, good faith and the principle of "clean
hands" provide a conipelling reason that should lead the Court to refuse
the General Assembl!~'~request. 64. The Court does not consider this argument to be pertinent. As
was emphasized earlier, it was the 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.
65. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes not only that
it has jurisdiction to give an opinion on the question put to it by the
General Assembly (see paragraph 42 above), but also that there is no
compelling reason lor it to use its discretionary power not to give
that opinion.
66. The Court will now address the question put to it by the General
Assembly in resolution ES-10114.TheCourt recalls that the question is as
follows :
"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, as
described in th12report of the Secretary-General, considering the
rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth
Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions?"
67. As explained in paragraph 82 below, the "wall" in question is
a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a
limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel
("fence") or by the Secretary-General ("barrier"), are no more accurate if
understood in the physical sense. In this Opinion, the Court has therefore
chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly.
The Court notes fiirthermore that the request of the General Assembly
concerns the legal consequences of the wall being built "in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem". As also
explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex
are being biiilt, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself;
the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal
consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall.
68. The question put by the General Assembly concerns the legal con-
sequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-
ritory. However, in order to indicate those consequences to the General
Assembly the Court must first determine whether or not the construction
of that wall breaches international law (see paragraph 39 above). It will CONSTP.UCTI OFNA WALL (ADVISOR YPINION) 165
therefore make this determination before dealing with the consequences
of the construction.
69. To do so, the Court will first make a brief analysis of the status of
the territory concerried, and willthen describe the works already con-
structed or in course of construction in that territory. It will then indicate
the applicable law before seeking to establish whether that law has been
breached.
70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First
World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great
Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22
of the Covenant, which provided that:
"Certain comimunities,formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire
have reached a stage of development where their existence as inde-
pendent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the ren-
dering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until
such time as they are able to stand alone."
The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the Internationul
Status c?f'SouthWest Africa,speaking of mandates in general, it observed
that "The Mandate \vas created. in the interest of the inhabitants of the
territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with
an international object- a sacred trust of civilization.(1.CJ. Reports
1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles
were considered to t~eof paramount importance: the principle of non-
annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of. . .
peoples [not yet able: to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of
civilization' (ihid.p. 131).
The territorial bouindariesof the Mandate for Palestine werelaid down
by various instruments, in particular on the eastern border by a British
memorandum of 16 September 1922and an Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty
of 20 February 1928.
71. In 1947the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete
evacuation of the m,andated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently
advancing that date to 15 May 1948. In the meantime, the General
Assembly had on 29 November 1947adopted resolution 181 (II) on the
future government of Palestine, which "Recommends to the United
Kingdom . ..and to al1other Members of the United Nations the adop-
tion and implementation . . of the Plan of Partition" of the territory, as
setforth in the resoluition,between two independent States, one Arab, the
other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régimefor
the City of Jerusaleni. The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab
States rejected this plan, contending that it was unbalanced; on 14 May1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General
Assembly resolution; armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a
number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.
72. By resolution 62 (1948)of 16November 1948,the Security Council
decided that "an armistice shall be established in al1sectors of Palestine"
and called upon the parties directly involved in the conflict to seek agree-
ment to this end. Ir1 conformity with this decision, general armistice
agreements were concluded in 1949 between Israel and the neighbouring
States through mediation by the United Nations. In particular, one such
agreement was signeclin Rhodes on 3 April 1949between Israel and Jor-
dan. Articles V and VI of that Agreement fixed the armisticedemarcation
line between Israeli and Arab forces (often later called the "Green Line"
owing to the colour i~sedfor it on maps; hereinafter the "Green Line").
Article III,paragraph 2, provided that "No element of the . . military or
para-military forces of either Party ... shall advance beyond or pass over
for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . ."It was
agreed in Article VI, paragraph 8, that these provisions would not be
"interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement
between the Parties". It was also stated that "the Armistice Demarcation
Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were]agreed upon
by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or bound-
ary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto". The Demarcation
Line was subject to such rectification as might be agreed upon by the
parties.
73. In the 1967arrned conflict, Israeli forces occupied al1the territories
which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those
known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).
74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted
resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisi-
tion of territory by \var and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed
forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination
of al1claims or states of belligerency".
75. From 1967 oriwards, Israel took a number of measures in these
territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The
Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions "the principle
that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", con-
demned those measuires and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September
1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:
"al1 legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change
the status of the:City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land
and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the
incorporation oî the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot
change that status". Later, following the adoption by Israel on 30 July 1980 of the Basic
Law making Jerusakm the "complete and united" capital of Israel, the
Security Council, by resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, stated that
the enactment of that Law constituted a violation of international law
and that "al1legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by
Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the
character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem . . . are nuIl and void".
It fùrther decided "not to recognize the 'basic law' and such other actions
by Israel that, as a reisultof this law, seek to alter the character and status
of Jerusalem".
76. Subsequently, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994
between Israel and Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the
two States "with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate
as is shown in Annex 1 (a) . . . without prejudice to the status of any
territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967"
(Article 3, paragrapl~s 1 and 2). Annex 1 provided the corresponding
maps and added thiit, with regard to the "territory that came under
lsraeli military govei-nment control in 1967", the line indicated "is the
administrative bounclary" with Jordan.
77. Lastly, a nunlber of agreements have been signed since 1993
between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization imposing vari-
ous obligations on each Party. Those agreements intu uliu required Israel
to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities
exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by its military authoritjes
and civil administratiion. Such transfers have taken place, but, as a result
of subsequent events, they remained partial and limited.
78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law
as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the
Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague
Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually
placed under the airthority of the hostile army, and the occupation
extends only to the iterritory where such authority has been established
and can be exercised.
The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72
above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate
were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel
and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore
occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power.
Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77
above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories
(including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has con-
tinued to have the status of occupying Power. 79. It is essentially in these territories that Israel has constructed or
plans to construct the works described in the report of the Secretary-
General. The Court will now describe those works, basing itself on that
report. For developrnents subsequent to the publication of that report,
the Court will refer to complementary information contained in the
Written Statement of the United Nations, which was intended by the
Secretary-General ta' supplement his report (hereinafter "Written State-
ment of the Secretary-General").
80. The report of the Secretary-General States that "The Government
of Israel has since 1996 considered plans to halt infiltration into Israel
from the central and northern West Bank .. ." (para.4).According to
that report, a plan of this type was approved for the first time by the
Israeli Cabinet in July 2001. Then, on 14April2002, the Cabinet adopted
a decision for the construction of works, forming what Israel describes as
a "security fence", 80 kilometres in length, in three areas of the West
Bank.
The project was i.aken a stage further when, on 23 June 2002, the
Israeli Cabinet approved the first phase of the construction of a "con-
tinuous fence" in the West Bank (including EastJerusalem). On 14August
2002, it adopted the line of that "fence" for the work in Phase A, with a
view to the construction of a complex 123kilometres long in the northern
West Bank, running from the Salem checkpoint (north of Jenin) to the
settlement at Elkana. Phase B of the work was approved in December
2002. It entailed a stretch of some 40 kilometres running east from the
Salem checkpoint towards Beth Shean along the northern part of the
Green Line as far as the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, on 1 October 2003,
the Israeli Cabinet approved a full route, which, according to the report
of the Secretary-General, "will form one continuous line stretching
720 kilometres along the West Bank". A map showing completed and
planned sections was posted on the Israeli Ministry of Defence website
on 23 October 2003. According to the particulars provided on that map,
a continuous section (Phase C) encompassing a number of large settle-
ments will link the north-western end of the "security fence" built around
Jerusalem with the ,southern point of Phase A construction at Elkana.
According to the same map, the "security fence" will run for 115 kilo-
metres from the Har Gilo settlement near Jerusalem to the Carmel
settlement south-east of Hebron (Phase D). According to Ministry of
Defence documents, work in this sector is due for completion in 2005.
Lastly, there are reharences in the case file to Israel's planned construc-
tion of a "security fence" following the Jordan Valley along the mountain
range to the west.
81. According to the Written Statement of the Secretary-General, the
first part of these works (Phase A), which ultimately extends for a dis-
tance of 150 kilometres, was declared completed on 31 July 2003. It is
reported that approximately 56,000 Palestinians would be encompassed
in enclaves. During this phase, two sections totalling 19.5 kilometreswere built around Jerusalem. In November 2003 construction of a new
section was begun along the Green Line to the Westof the Nazlat Issa-
Baqa al-Sharqiya enclave, which in January 2004 was close to comple-
tion at the time wheri the Secretary-General submitted his Written State-
ment.
According to the Written Statement of the Secretary-General, the
works carried out under Phase B were still in progress in January 2004.
Thus an initial section of this stretch, which runs near or on the Green
Line to the village of al-Mutilla, was almost complete in January 2004.
Two additional sections diverge at this point. Construction started in
early January 2004 cm one section that runs due east as far as the Jor-
danian border. Construction of the second section, which is planned to
run from the Green Line to the village of Taysir, has barely begun. The
United Nations has, however, been informed that this second section
might not be built.
The Written Statement of the Secretary-General further states that
Phase C of the work, which runs from the terminus of Phase A, near the
Elkana settlement, t~othe village of Nu'man, south-east of Jerusalem,
began in December 2003. This section is divided into three stages. In
Stage Cl, between inter uliuthe villages of Rantis and Budrus, approxi-
mately 4 kilometres out of a planned total of 40 kilometres have been
constructed. Stage C2, which will surround the so-called "Ariel Salient"
by cutting 22 kilom~rtresinto the West Bank, will incorporate 52,000
Israeli settlers. S"aee C3 is to involve the construction of two "de~th
barriers"; one of these is to run north-south, roughly parallel with the
section of Stage Cl currently under construction between Rantis and
Budrus, whilst the oither runs east-west along a ridge said to be part of
the route ofHighway 45, a motorway under construction. If construction
of the two barriers were completed, two enclaves would be formed,
encompassing 72,000 Palestinians in 24 communities.
Further construction also started in late November 2003 along the
south-eastern part of the municipal boundary of Jerusalem, following a
route that, according to the Written Statement of the Secretary-General,
cuts off the suburbari village of El-Ezariya from Jerusalem and splits the
neighbouring Abu Dis in two.
As at 25 January 2004, according to the Written Statement of the Sec-
retary-General, some 190kilometres of construction had been completed,
covering Phase A and the greater part of Phase B. Further construction
in Phase C had begumin certain areas of the central West Bank and in
Jerusalem. Phase D, lplannedfor the southern part of the West Bank, had
not yet begun.
The Israeli Government has explained that the routes and timetable
as described above are subject to modification. In February 2004, for
example, an 8-kilometre section near the town of Baqa al-Sharqiya was CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOK OPINION) 170
demolished, and the planned length of the wall appears to have been
slightly reduced.
82. According to l.hedescription in the report and the Written State-
ment of the Secretai-y-General, the works planned or completed have
resulted or will resuli:in a complex consisting essentially of:
(1) a fence with electronicsensors;
(2) a ditch (up to 4 :metresdeep);
(3) a two-lane asphalt patrol road;
(4) a trace road (a strip of sand smoothed to detect footprints) running
parallel to the fence;
(5) a stack of six coils of barbed wire marking the perimeter of the com-
plex.
The complex has a width of 50 to 70 metres, increasing to as much as
100 metres in some places. "Depth barriers" may be added to these
works.
The approximately 180kilometres of the complex completed or under
construction as of the time when the Secretary-General submitted his
report included some 8.5 kilometres of concrete wall. These are generally
found where Palestiriian population centres are close to or abut Israel
(such as near Qalqiliya and Tulkarm or in parts of Jerusalem).
83. According to the report of the Secretary-General, in its northern-
most part, the wall as completed or under construction barely deviates
from the Green Line. It nevertheless lies within occupied territories for
most of its course. Tlheworks deviate more than 7.5 kilometres from the
Green Line in certain places to encompass Settlements, while encircling
Palestinian population areas. A stretch of 1 to 2 kilometres West of
Tulkarm appears to run on the Israeli side of the Green Line. Elsewhere,
on the other hand, the planned route would deviate eastward by up
to 22 kilometres. In the case of Jerusalem, the existing works and the
planned route lie well beyond the Green Line and even in some cases
beyond the eastern n~unicipal boundary of Jerusalem as fixed by Israel.
84. On the basis of that route, approximately 975 square kilometres
(or 16.6per cent of the West Bank) would, according to the report of the
Secretary-General, lit:between the Green Line and the wall. This area is
stated to be home to 237,000 Palestinians. If the full wall were completed
as planned, another 110,000 Palestinians would live in almost completely
encircled communities, described as enclaves in the report. As a result of
the planned route, riearly 320,000 Israelisettlers (of whom 178,000 in
East Jerusalem) would be living in the area between the Green Line and
the wall.
85. Lastly, it should be noted that the construction of the wall has
been accompanied by the creation of a new administrative régime.Thus
in October 2003 the Israeli Defence Forces issued Orders establishing thepart of the West Bank lying between the Green Line and the wall as a
"Closed Area". Residents of this area may no longer remain in it, nor
may non-residents eriter it, unless holding a permit or identityard issued
by the Israeli authorities. According to the report of the Secretary-
General, most residents have received permits for a limited period. Israeli
citizens, Israelipermanent residents and those eligible to immigrate
to Israel in accordance with the Law of Return may remain in, or move
freely to, from and within the Closed Area without a permit. Access to
and exit from the Closed Area can only be made through access gates,
which are opened inifrequentlyand for short periods.
86. The Court will now determine the rules and principles of inter-
national law which are relevant in assessing the legality of the measures
taken by Israel. Such rules and principles can be found in the United
Nations Charter and certain other treaties, in customary international
law and in the relevant resolutions adopted pursuant to the Charter by
the General Assembly and the Security Council. However, doubts have
been expressed by Israel as to the applicability in the Occupied Palestin-
ian Territory of certain rules of international humanitarian law and
human rights instruiments. The Court will now consider these various
questions.
87. The Court first recalls that, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4, of
the United Nations Charter:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of'any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations."
On 24 October 19713,the General Assembly adopted resolution 2625
(XXV), entitled "Declaration on Principles of International Law con-
cerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" (hereinafter
"resolution 2625 (X:YV)"), in which it emphasized that "No territorial
acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as
legal." As the Court stated in its Judgment in the case concerning Mili-
tury und Pururnilitur,yActivities in und uguinst Nicuruguu (Nicuruguu v.
United Stutrs oJ Arnericu), the principles as to the use of force incorpo-
rated in theCharter reflectcustomary international law (see 1.C.J. Reports
1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187-190); the same is true of its corollary entail-
ing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use
of force.
88. The Court also notes that the principle of self-determination of
peoples has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed
by the General Assennblyin resolution 2625(XXV) cited above, pursuant CONSTR.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 172
to which "Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action
which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . .. of their right to
self-determination." Article 1common to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of al1peoples to self-deter-
mination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the
realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provi-
sions of the United Nations Charter.
The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current devel-
opments in "international law in regard to non-self-governing territories,
as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of
self-determination applicable to al1[such territories]". The Court went on
to state that "These: developments leave little doubt that the ultimate
objective of the sacred trust" referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1,of the
Covenant of the League of Nations "was the self-determination .. . of the
peoples concerned" (Lqul Consequences ,fi)r Stutes of the Continued
Presence ~f'South AdfLicain Numihiu (South West Ajrica) notwithstund-
ing Security Council Re.solution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1.C.J.
Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The Court has referred to this prin-
ciple on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ihid.; see also Western
Suharu, Advisory O,oinion, I.C.J. report.^ 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The
Court indeed made it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination
is today a right ergu omnes (see Eust Timor (Portugul v. Austrulia),
Jucigment, 1.C. J.Re,oorts 1995, p. 102, para. 29).
89. As regards international humanitarian law, the Court would first
note that Israel is not a party to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907,
to which the Hague liegulations are annexed. The Court observes that, in
the words of the Corivention, those Regulations were prepared "to revise
the general laws ancl customs of war" existing at that time. Since then,
however, the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg has found
that the "rules laid tiown in the Convention were recognised by al1civi-
lised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and cus-
toms of war" (Judg~ient of the International Military Tribunal of Nurem-
berg, 30 September and 1October 1946, p. 65). The Court itself reached
the same conclusion when examining the rights and duties of belligerents
in their conduct of rnilitary operations (Legulity of the Threut or Use of
Nucleur Weupons, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1996 (1), p. 256,
para. 75). The Couri. considers that the provisions of the Hague Regula-
tions have become part of customary law, as is in fact recognized by al1
the participants in the proceedings before the Court.
The Court also olbserves that, pursuant to Article 154 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, that Convention is supplementary to Sections II
and III of the Hague Regulations. Section III of those Regulations,
which concerns "Military authority over the territory of the hostile
State", is particularly pertinent in the present case. 90. Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing
views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings.
Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes
the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. In particuilar, in paragraph 3 of Annex 1 to the report of the
Secretary-General, entitled "Summary Legal Position of the Government
of Israel", it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva
Convention "is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory", citing
"the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexa-
tion by Jordan and Egypt" and inferring that it is "not a territory of a
High Contracting Party as required by the Convention".
91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was
ratified by Israel on6 July 1951and that Israel is a party to that Conven-
tion. Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951.Neither of
the two States has nnade any reservation that would be pertinent to the
present proceedings.
Furthermore, Pa1t:stinegave a unilateral undertaking, by declaration
of 7 June 1982,to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention. Switzerland, as
depositary State, considered that unilateral undertaking valid. Tt con-
cluded, however, thkitit "[was] not as a depositary - in a position to
decide whether" "the request [dated 14June 19891frorn the Palestine Lib-
eration Movement in the name of the 'State of Palestine' to accede" inter
uliu to the Fourth Cieneva Convention "can be considered as an instru-
ment of accession".
92. Moreover, for the purpose of determining the scope of application
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should be recalled that under com-
mon Article 2 of the four Conventions of 12August 1949:
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to al1cases of declared
war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or
more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to al1 cases of partial or total
occupation of tlheterritory of a High Contracting Party, even if the
said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be
bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter
accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
93. After the occuipationof the West Bank in 1967,the Israeli authori-
ties 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 CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OPINION) 174
Civilian Personisin Time of War with respect to judicial procedures.
In case of conflict between this Order and the said Convention,
the Convention shall prevail."
Subsequently, the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occa-
sions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the
Fourth Geneva Coinvention within the occupied territories. However,
according to Israel's position as briefly recalled in paragraph 90 above,
that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because,
under Article 2, pariigraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of
territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party
involved in an armetl conflict. Israel explains that Jordan was admittedly
a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1967, and that an armed
conflict broke out at that time between Israel and Jordan, but it goes on
to observe that the territories occupied by lsrael subsequent to that con-
flict had no1previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty. It infers from
this that that Convention is not applicable de jure in those territories.
According however 1.0the great majority of other participants in the pro-
ceedings, the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to those territories
pursuant to Article ;!,paragraph 1,whether or not Jordan had any rights
in respect thereof prior to 1967.
94. The Court would recall that, according to customary international
law as expressed in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties of 23 May 1969, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their
context and in the light of its object and purpose. Article 32 provides
that :
"Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation,
including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances
of its conclusiori, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the
interpretation acscordingto article 31. . leaves the meaning ambigu-
ous or obscure; or . . leads to a result which is manifestly obscure
or unreasonabli:." (See Oil PlutjOrms (Islumic Republic of Iran v.
United Stutes r4fAmericu), Preliminury Objection, Judgment, 1.C.J.
Reports 1996 (II), p. 812, para. 23; see, similarly,KusikililSedudu
Islund (Botsct.unulNumibia), Judgrnent, I. C.J. Reports 1999 (II),
p. 1059, para. 18, and Sovereignty over Puluu Ligitan und Puluu
Sipudun (Indo~ze.siulMuluy~sia),Judgment, 1.C. J. Reports 2002,
p. 645, para. 37.)
95. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when
two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether
or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has
arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satis-fied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in
the course of the co:nflictby one of the contracting parties.
The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the
scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph,
by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of
one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear
that, even if occupaition effecteduring the conflict met no armed resis-
tance, the Convention is still applicable.
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. Whilst the drafters of the
Hague Regulations of 1907were as much concerned with protecting the
rights of a State whose territory is occupied, as with protecting thebi-
tants of that territory, the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention
sought to guarantee the protection of civilians in time of war,egardless
of the status of the occupied territories, as is shown by Article 47 of the
Convention.
That interpretation is confirmed by the Convention's travaux pr6paru-
toires. The Conference of Government Experts convened by the Interna-
tional Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter, "ICRC") in the after-
math of the Second World War for the purpose of preparing the new
Geneva Convention:; recommended that these conventions be applicable
to anyarmed conflict "whether [it]is or is not recognized as a state of war
by the parties" and ".incases of occupation of territories in the absence of
any state of war" (Report on the Work of the Conference of Governrnent
Experts,for tlze Stuu?of t'e Conventionsfor tlzeProtection of War Vic-
tirîz.r,Cenevu, 14-26 April 1947, p. 8). The drafters of the second para-
graph of Article 2 thus had no intention, when they inserted that para-
graph into the Convention, of restricting the latter's scope of application.
They were merely seeking to provide for cases of occupation without
combat, such as the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia by Germany in
1939.
96. The Court w'ould moreover note that the States parties to the
Fourth Geneva Convention approved that interpretation at their Confer-
ence on 15July 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, tlhe High Contracting Parties, referring in particular
to Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, once again
reaffirmed the "applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the
Occupied Palestiniari Territory, including East Jerusalem". They further
reminded the Contracting Parties participating in the Conference, the
parties to the conflict, and the State of Israel as occupying Power, of
their respectiveobligations.
97. Moreover, the:Court would observe that the ICRC, whose special
position with respect to execution of the Fourth Geneva Convention
must be "recognized and respected at al1times" by the parties pursuantto Article 142 of the Convention, has also expressed its opinion on the
interpretation to be given to the Convention. In a declaration of 5 Decem-
ber 2001, it recalled 1hat "the ICRC has always affirmed the dejure appli-
cability of the Foui-th Geneva Convention to the territories occupied
since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem".
98. The Court ncites that the General Assembly has, in many of its
resolutions, taken a position to the same effect. Thus on 10 December
2001 and 9 December 2003, in resolutions 56/60 and 58/97, it reaffirmed
"that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other
Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967".
99. The Security Council, for its part, had already on 14 June 1967
taken the view in resolution 237 (1967) that "al1 the obligations of the
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War . . .
should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict". Subse-
quently, on 15 Septizmber 1969, the Security Council, in resolution 271
(1969), called upon "Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the
Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupa-
tion".
Ten years later, the Security Council examined "the policy and prac-
tices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other
Arab territories occupied since 1967". 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 Con-
vention 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". It called "once nzore upon Israel, as the
occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by that Convention.
On 20 December 1990, the Security Council, in resolution 681 (1990),
urged "the Governrrient of Israel to accept the dejure applicability of the
Fourth Geneva Corivention . . . to al1 the territories occupied by Israel
since 1967 and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Conven-
tion". It further called upon "the high contracting parties to the said
Fourth Geneva Corivention to ensure respect by Israel, the occupying
Power, for its obligations under the Convention in accordance with
article 1 thereof '.
Lastly, in resolutions 799 (1992) of 18 December 1992 and 904 (1994)
of 18March 1994,the Security Council reaffirmed its position concerning
the applicability of theFourth Geneva Convention in the occupied terri-
tories.
100. The Court would note finally that the Supreme Court of Israel, in
a judgment dated 30 May 2004, also found that:
"The military operations of the [Israeli Defence Forces] in Rafah, CONSTI~UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 177
to the extent ti-ieyaffect civilians, are governed by Hague Conven-
tion IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 ...
and the Genev,a Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War 1949."
101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth
Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of
an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties.
Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967armed
conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is
applicable in the Pa.lestinian territories which before the conflict lay to
the east of theGreen Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied
by Israel, thereeing no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status
of those territories.
102. The participants in the proceedings before the Court also disagree
whether the international human rights conventions to which Israel is
party apply within the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Annex 1 to the
report of the Secretary-General States:
"4. Israel denies that the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, both of which it has signed, are applicable to
the occupied Palestinian territory. It asserts that humanitarianw is
the protection granted in a conflict situationuch as the one in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, whereas human rights treaties were
intended for the protection of citizens from their own Government
in times of peace."
Of the other participants in the proceedings,those who addressed this
issuecontend that, on the contrary, both Covenants are applicable within
the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
103. On 3 October 1991 Israel ratified both the International Cov-
enant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 19December 1966and
the International C'avenant on Civil and Political Rights of the same
date, as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child of 20 November 1989.It is a party to these three instruments.
104. In order to determine whether these texts are applicable in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court will first address the issue of
the relationship bei:ween international humanitarian law and human
rights law and then that of the applicability of human rights instruments
outside national territory.
105. In its Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 on the Legality of' the
Threut or Use of'Nivcleur Weupons, the Court had occasion to address
the first ofhese issues in relation to the International Covenant on Civil CONSTlZUCTlON OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 178
and Political Rights. In those proceedings certain States had argued that
"the Covenant was directed to the protection of human rights in peace-
time, but that questions relating to unlawful loss of life in hostilities
were governed by the law applicable in armed conflict" (1.C.J. Reports
1996 (I), p. 239, para. 24).
The Court rejected this argument, stating that
"the protection of the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights does not cease in times of war, except by operation of
Article 4 of the Covenant whereby certain provisions may be
derogated fromi in a time of national emergency. Respect for the
right to life is not, however, such a provision. In principle, the right
not arbitrarilyio be deprived of one's life applies also in hostilities.
The test of what is an arbitrary deprivation of life, however, then
falls to be determined by the applicable lex .speciuli.s,namely, the
law applicable in armed conflict which is designed to regulate the
conduct of hostilities." (Ibid, p. 240, para. 25.)
106. More generailly,the Court considers that the protection offered
by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict,
Save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be
found in Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. As regards i:he relationship between international humanitarian
law and human rights law, there are thus three possible situations: some
rights may be excli~sivelymatters of international humanitarian law;
others may be exclusively matters of human rights law; yet others may
be matters of both these branches of international law. In order to answer
the question put to it, the Courtwill have to take into consideration both
these branches of inlernational law, namely human rights law and, as lex
speciuli.~,international humanitarian law.
107. It remains to be determined whether the two international Cov-
enants and the Conbention on the Rights of the Child are applicable only
on the territories of the States parties thereto or whether they are also
applicable outside those territories and, if so, in what circumstances.
108. The scope of application of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights is defined by Article 2, paragraph 1, thereof, which
provides :
"Each State ]Partyto the present Covenant undertakes to respect
and to ensure to al1individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without
distinction ofaiiy kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
or other status." This provision cari be interpreted as covering only individuals who are
both present within ilState's territory and subject to that State's jurisdic-
tion. Itcan also be construed as covering both individuals present within
a State's territory and those outside that territory but subject to that
State's jurisdiction. The Court will thus seek to determine the meaning to
be given to this text.
109. The Court would observe that, while the jurisdiction of States is
primarily territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national
territory. Considering the object and purpose of the International Cov-
enant on Civil and Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even
when such is the case, States parties to the Covenant should be bound to
comply with its provisions.
The constant practice of the Human Rights Committee is consistent
with this.Thus, the Committee has Soundthe Covenant applicable where
the State exercises itsjurisdiction on foreign territory. It has ruled on the
legality of acts by UI-uguayin cases of arrests carried out by Uruguayan
agents in Brazil or Argentina (case No. 52/79, Lhpez Burgos v. Uruguuj:;
case No. 56/79, Lilian Celiherti de Cusariego v. Uruguay). It decided to
the same effect in the case of the confiscation of a passport by a Uru-
guayan consulate in Germany (case No. 106181, Montero v. Uruguay).
The ~r~uwu'p crkparutoires of the Covenant confirm the Committee's
interpretation of Article 2 of that instrument.These show that, in adopt-
ing the wording choisen,the drafters of the Covenant did not intend to
allow States to escape from their obligations when they exercisejurisdic-
tion outside their national territory. They only intended to prevent per-
sons residing abroad from asserting, vis-à-vis their State of origin, rights
that do not fa11within the competence of that State, but of that of the
State of residence (seethe discussion of the preliminary draft in the Com-
mission on Human Rights, ElCN.4lSR.194, para.46;and United Nations,
Officia1 record,^ of the Generul Assernhly, Tenth Session, Annexes,
Al2929, Part II, Chap. V, para. 4 (1955)).
110. The Court takes note in this connection of the position taken by
Israel, in relation to the applicability of the Covenant, in its communi-
cations to the Human Rights Committee, and of the view of the Com-
mittee.
In 1998,Israel stated that, when preparing its report to the Committee,
it had had to face the question "whether individuals resident in the occu-
pied territories were indeed subject to Israel's jurisdiction" for purposes
of the application of the Covenant (CCPR/C/SR.1675, para. 21). Israel
took the position that "the Covenant and similar instruments did not
apply directly to the current situation in the occupied territories" (ibid.,
para. 27).
The Committee, in its concluding observations after examination of
the report, expressecl concern at Israel's attitude and pointed "to the
long-standing presence of Israel in [the occupied] territories, Israel's CONSTRUCTION OF .4WALL (ADVISOKY OPINION) 180
ambiguous attitude towards their future status, as well as the exercise of
effective jurisdictioriby Israeli security forces therein" (CCPR/C/79/
Add.93, para. 10). In 2003 in face of Israel's consistent position, to
the effect that "the Covenant does not apply beyond its own territory,
notably in the West Bank and Gaza . . .", the Committee reached the
following conclusiori :
"in the current circumstances, the provisions of the Covenant apply
to the benefit of the population of the Occupied Territories, for al1
conduct by the lStateparty's authorities or agents in those territories
that affect the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the Covenant and
fa11within the ambit of State responsibility of Israel under the prin-
ciples of public international law" (CCPR/C0/78/1SR, para. 11).
111. In conclusioin, the Court considers that the International Cov-
enant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts done by
a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory.
112. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights contains no provision on its scope of application. This may be
explicable by the fact that this Covenant guarantees rights which are
essentially territorial. However, it is not to be excluded that it applies
both to territories over which a State party has sovereignty and to those
over which that State exercises territorial jurisdiction. Thus Article 14
makes provision for transitional measures in the case of any State which
"at the time of becoining a Party, has not been able to secure in its met-
ropolitan territory or other territories under its jurisdiction compulsory
primary education, free of charge".
lt is not without relevance to recall in this regard the position taken by
Israel in its reports to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. In its initial report to the Committee of 4 December 1998, Israel
provided "statistics indicating the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in
the Covenant by Israeli settlers in the occupied Territories". The Com-
mittee noted that, according to Israel, "the Palestinian population within
the same jurisdictional areas were excluded from both the report and the
protection of the Covenant" (E/C.12/1/Add.27, para. 8). The Committee
expressed its concerri in this regard. to which Israel replied in a further
report of 19 October 2001 that it has "consistently maintained that the
Covenant does not ;ipply to areas that are not subject to its sovereign
territory and jurisdiction" (a formula inspired by the language of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). This position,con-
tinued Israel, is "based on the well-established distinction between human
rights and humanitarian law under international law". It added: "the
Committee's mandate cannot relate to events in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, inasmucli as they are part and parcel of the context of armed
conflict as distinct from a relationship of human rights" (E/1990/6/
Add.32, para. 5).In ,viewof these observations, the Committee reiteratedits concern about Israel's position and reaffirmed "its view that the State
party's obligations under the Covenant apply to al1territories and popu-
lations under its effective control" (EIC.12IlIAdd.90, paras. 15 and 31).
For the reasons e:uplainedin paragraph 106 above, the Court cannot
accept Israel's view. [t would also observe that the territories occupied by
Israel have for over 37 years been subject to its territorial jurisdiction as
the occupying Power. In the exercise of the powers available to it on this
basis, Israelis bouncl by the provisions of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, it is under an obli-
gation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those
fields where competr:nce has been transferred to Palestinian authorities.
113. As regards the Convention on the Rights of the Child of
20 November 1989, that instrument contains an Article 2 according to
which "States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in
the .. .Convention to each child within their jurisdiction . ..". That Con-
vention is therefore a.pplicablewithin the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
114. Having determined the rules and principles of international law
relevant to reply to the question posed by the General Assembly, and
having ruled in particular on the applicability within the Occupied
Palestinian Territory of international humanitarian law and human
rights law, the Court will now seek to ascertain whether the construction
of the wall has vio1ai:edthose rules and principles.
115. In this regard, Annex II to the report of the Secretary-General,
entitled "Summary Cegal Position of the Palestine Liberation Organiza-
tien", Statesthat "Thieconstruction of the Barrier is an attempt to annex
the territory contrary to international law" and that "The de facto
annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and conse-
quently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination." This
view was echoed in certain of the written statements submitted to the
Court and in the views expressed at the hearings. Inter alia, it was con-
tended that :
"The wall severs the territorial sphere over which the Palestinian
people are entitled to exercise their right of self-determination and
constitutes a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisi-
tion of territory by the use of force."
In this connection, it was in particular emphasized that "[tlhe route of the
wall is designed to change the demographic composition of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, by reinforcing the Israelilonger in issue. Such existence has moreover been recognized by Israel in
the exchange of letteirsof 9 September 1993 between Mr. Yasser Arafat,
President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Mr.
Yitzhak Rabin, lsraeli Prime Minister. In that correspondence, the Presi-
dent of the PL0 recognized "the right of the State of Israel to exist in
peace and security" and made various other commitments. In reply, the
Israeli Prime Minister informed him that, in the light of those commit-
ments, "the Governnlent of Israel has decided to recognize the PL0 as
the representative of the Palestinian people". The Israeli-Palestinian
Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 Septem-
ber 1995 also refers a number of times to the Palestinian people and
its "legitimate rights" (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2;
Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2).The Court considers
that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General
Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions (see, for
example, resolution 9;8/163of 22 December 2003).
119. The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli
Government includes within the "Closed Area" (see paragraph 85 above)
some 80 per cent of lhe settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory. Moreover, it is apparent from an examination of the map men-
tioned in paragraph 80 above that the wall's sinuous route has been
traced in such a way as to include within that area the great majority of
the Israeli sett1emeni.sin the occupied Palestinian Territory (including
East Jerusalem).
120. As regards these settlemeilts, the Court notes that Article 49,
paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupy-
ing Power shall not dlrport or transfer parts of its ow11civilian population
into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only depor-
tations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during
the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying
Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own
population into the ciccupied territory.
In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since
1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the
establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, con-
trary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.
The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and
practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the
occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Conven-
tion and:
"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any
action which would result in changing the legal status and geo-
graphical nature and materially affecting the demographic composi-
tion of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population
into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of
22 March 1979)i.
The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July
1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it
described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population
and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant viola-
tion" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territor;! (including East Jerusalem) have been established
in breach of international law.
121. Whilst the C~ourtnotes the assurance given by Israel that the con-
struction of the wall does not amount to annexation and that the wall is
of a temporary nature (see paragraph 116 above), it nevertheless cannot
remain indifferent tc, certain fears expressed to it that the route of the
wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, and
the fear that Israel may integrate the settlements and their means of
access. The Court considers that the construction of the wall and its asso-
ciated régime creale a "fait accompli" on the ground that could
well become permarient, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal
characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to &,facto
annexatioi-i.
122. The Court recalls moreover that, according to the report of the
Secretary-General, the planned route would incorporate in the area
between the Green 1,ine and the wall more than 16 per cent of the terri-
tory of the West Bank. Around 80 per cent of the settlers living in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, that is 320,000 individuals, would reside
in that area, as well as 237,000 Palestinians. Moreover, as a result of the
construction of the wall, around 160,000 other Palestinians would reside
in almost complete1:yencircled communities (see paragraphs 84, 85 and
1 19 above).
In other terms, the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to
the illegal measures taken by lsrael with regard to Jerusalem and the
settlements, as deplored by the Security Council (see paragraphs 75 and
120above). There is also a risk of further alterations to the demographic
composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory resulting from the
construction of the wall inasmuch as it is contributing, as will be further
explained in paragraph 133below, to the departure of Palestinian popu-
lations from certain areas. That construction, along with measures taken
previously, thus severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of
its right to self-determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel's obli-
gation to respect that right.
123. The construc:tion of the wall also raises a number of issues in rela- CONSTF.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OPINION) 185
tion to the relevant ]provisionsof international humanitarian law and of
human rights instruments.
124. With regard to the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Court would
recall thatthese deal, in Section II, with hostilities and in particular with
"means of injuring the enemy, sieges, and bombardments". Section III
deals with military authority in occupied territories. Only Section III is
currently applicable in the West Bank and Article 23 (g) of the Regula-
tions, in Section II, is thus not pertinent.
Section III of the Hague Regulations includes Articles 43, 46 and 52,
which are applicabl~: in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Article 43
imposes a duty on the occupant to "take al1measures within his power
to restore, and, as far as possible, tosure public order and life, respect-
ing the laws in force in the country". Article 46 adds that private prop-
erty must be "respected" and that it cannot "be confiscated". Lastly,
Article 52 authorizi:~, within certain limits, requisitions in kind and
services for the needs of the army of occupation.
125. A distinction is also made in the Fourth Geneva Convention
between provisions applying during military operations leading to occu-
pation and those thsit remain applicable throughout the entire period of
occupation. It thus states in Article 6:
"The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any con-
flict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the
present Conven.tion shall cease on the general close of military
o~erations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present
Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military
operations; hoaiever, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the
duration of the occu~ation. to the extent that such Power exercises
the functions of govérnment in such territory, by the provisions of
the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to
34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment
may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit
by the present Convention."
Since the military operations leading to the occupation of the West
Bank in 1967ended a long time ago, only those Articles of the Fourth
Geneva Convention referred to in Article 6, paragraph 3, remain appli-
cable in that occupied territory.
126. These provisions include Articles 47, 49, 52, 53 and 59 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention.
According to Artilcle47:
"Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of
the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of
the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government
of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the
authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor
by any annexatilon by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied
territory."
Article 49 reads as follows
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the
Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not,
are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial
evacuation of al given area if the security of the population or
imperative milit,~ryreasons so demand. Such evacuations may not
involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of
the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impos-
sible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be
transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in
question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations
shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accom-
modation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the
removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health,
safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not
separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and
evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupyirig Power shall not detain protected persons in an
area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of
the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies."
According to Article 52:
"No contract, agreement or regulation shall impair the right of
any worker, whether voluntary or not and wherever he may be, to
apply to the relnresentatives of the Protecting Power in order to
request the said Power's intervention.
All nieasures aiming at creating unemployment or at restricting
the opportunities offered to workers in an occupied territory, in
order to induce them to work for the Occupying Power, are pro-
hibited." CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 187
Article 53 provides that:
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or persona1
property belonging individually or collectively to private persons,
or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or
CO-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruc-
tion is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
Lastly, according to Article 59
"If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is
inadequütely siipplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief
schemes on behialfof the said population, and shall facilitate them
by al1the means at its disposal.
Such schemei;, which may be undertaken either by States or by
impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Com-
mittee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision
of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these con-
signments and shall guarantee their protection.
A Power grainting free passage to consignments on their way to
territoryoccupi1:dby an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however,
have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage
according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably
satisfied througlh the Protecting Power that these consignments are
to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be
used for the beriefit of the Occupying Power."
127. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also
contains several relevant provisions. Before further examining these, the
Court will observe tlhat Article4 of the Covenant allows for derogation
to be made, under various conditions, to certain provisions of that instru-
ment. Israel made uiseof its right of derogation under this Article by
addressing the follovvingcommunication to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations on 71October 1991 :
"Since its estaiblishment, the State of Israel has been the victim of
continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the
life and property of its citizens.
These have t,lken the form of threats of war, of actual armed
attacks, and carnpaigns of terrorism resulting in the murder of and
injury to humari beings.
In view of the above, the State of Emergency which was pro-
claimed in May 1948has remained in force ever since.This situation
constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 (1) of
the Covenant.
The Government of Israel has therefore found it necessary, in
accordance with the said article 4, to take measures to the extent
strictly required by the exigenciesof the situation, for the defence of CONSTR.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 188
the State and for the protection of life and property, including the
exercise of powers of arrest and detention.
In so far as ariy of these measures are inconsistent with articl9of
the Covenant, lsrael thereby derogates from its obligations under
that provision."
TheCourt notes that the derogation so notified concerns only Article 9
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which deals
with the right to liberty and security of person and lays down the rules
applicable in cases of arrest or detention. The other Articles of the
Covenant therefore remain applicable not only on Israeli territory, but
also on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
128. Among these mention must be made of Article 17, paragraph 1of
which reads as follows: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or un-
lawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor
to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation."
Mention must also be made of Article 12, paragraph 1, which pro-
vides: "Everyone lavifully within the territory of a state shall, within that
territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose
his residence."
129. In addition ito the general guarantees of freedom of movement
under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, account must also be taken of specific guarantees of access to the
Christian, Jewish arid Islamic Holy Places. The status of the Christian
Holy Places in the Ottoman Empire dates far back in time, the latest pro-
visions relating thereto having been incorporated into Article 62 of the
Treaty of Berlin of 13July 1878.The Mandate for Palestine given to the
British Government on 24 July 1922included an Article 13,under which:
"Al1 responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and reli-
gious buildings or sites in Palestine. including that of preserving
existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, reli-
gious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while
ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed
by the Mandatory . . ."
Article 13 further stated: "nothing in this mandate shall be construed as
conferring .. . authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of
purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed".
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the General Assembly, in
adopting resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine,
devoted a11entire chapter of the Plan of Partition to the Holy Places, reli-
gious buildings and sites. Article 2 of this Chapter provided, in so far as
the Holy Places were concerned :
"the liberty of access, visit and transit shall be guaranteed, in con-
formity with existing rights, to al1residents and citizens [of the Arab CONSTR.UCT1ON OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 189
State, of theJevlish State] and of the City of Jerusalem, as well as to
aliens, without distinction as to nationality, subject to requirements
of national security, public order and decorum".
Subsequently, in the aftermath of the armed conflict of 1948, the 1949
General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel provided in
Article VI11for the establishment of a special committee for "the formu-
lation of agreed planisand arrangements for such matters as either Party
may submit to it" for the purpose of enlarging the scope of the Agree-
ment and of effecting improvement in its application. Such matters, on
which an agreement of principle had already been concluded, included
"free access to theHioly Places".
This commitment concerned mainly the Holy Places located to the east
of the Green Line. Fiowever, some Holy Places were located Westof that
Line. This was the case of the Room of the Last Supper and the Tomb of
David, on Mount 2:ion. In signing the General Armistice Agreement,
Israelthus undertook, as did Jordan, to guarantee freedom of access to
the Holy Places. The Court considers that this undertaking by Israel has
remained valid for the Holy Places which came under its control in 1967.
This undertaking has further been confirmed by Article 9,paragraph 1,
of the 1994 Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, by virtue of which,
in more general terms, "Each party will provide freedom of access to
places of religious and historical significance."
130. As regards the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, that instrument includes a number of relevant provi-
sions, namely: the right to work (Arts. 6 and 7); protection and assist-
ance accorded to the family and to children and young persons (Art. 10);
the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food,
clothing and housini;, and the right "to be free from hunger" (Art. 11);
the right to health(Art. 12); the right to education (Arts. 13 and 14).
131. Lastly, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child of 20 November 1989includes similar provisions in Articles 16, 24,
27 and 28.
132. From the information submitted to the Court, particularly the
report of the Secretary-General, it appears that the construction of the
wall has led to the destruction or requisition of properties under condi-
tions which contravene the requirements of Articles 46 and 52 of the
Hague Regulations of 1907and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Con-
vention.
133. That construction, the establishment of a closed area between the
Green Line and the wall itself and the creation of enclaves have moreover
imposed substantial restrictions on the freedom of movement of the
inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR YPINION) 190
Israeli citizens and those assimilated thereto). Such restrictions are most
marked in urban areas, such as the Qalqiliya enclave or the City of Jeru-
salem and its suburbs. They are aggravated by the fact that the access
gates are few in nunnber in certainsectors and opening hours appear to
be restricted and unpredictably applied. For example, according to the
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situa-
tion of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by lsrael since
1967, "Qalqiliya, a irity with a population of 40,000, is completely sur-
rounded by the Wall and residents can only enter and leave through a
single military checkpoint open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m." (Report of the
Special Rapporteur infthe Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard,
on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by
Israel since 1967, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution
199312A and entitletl "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the
Occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine", ElCN.41200416, 8 Sep-
tember 2003, para. 9.)
There have also been serious repercussions for agricultural production,
as is attested by a number of sources. According to the Special Com-
mittee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the
Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories
"an estimated 100,000 dunums [approximately 10,000 hectares] of
the West Bank's most fertile agricultural land, confiscated by the
Israeli Occupation Forces, have been destroyed during the first
phase of the wall construction, which involves the disappearance of
vast amounts of property, notably private agricultural land and olive
trees, wells, citrus grows and hothouses upon which tens of thou-
sands of Palestinians rely for their survival" (Report of the Special
Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human
Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied
Territories, Al51313, 22 August 2003, para. 26).
Further, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 states that "Much of
the Palestinian land 'onthe Israeli side of the Wall consists of fertile agri-
cultural land and soine of the most important water wells in the region"
and adds that "Maily fruit and olive trees had been destroyed in the
course of building the barrier" (ElCN.41200416, 8 September 2003,
para. 9). The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food of the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights states that construction of the
wall "cuts off Palestinians from their agricultural lands, wells and means
of subsistence" (Repcortby the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, Jean Ziegler, "The Right to Food",
Addendum, Mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ElCN.41
2004110lAdd.2, 31 October 2003, para. 49). In a recent survey conducted
by the World Food Programme, it is stated that the situation has aggra- CONSTI<UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOKO YPINION) 191
vated food insecurity in the region, which reportedly numbers 25,000 new
beneficiaries of food aid (report of the Secretary-General, para. 25).
It has further le10 increasing difficulties for the population concerned
regarding access to health services, educational establishments and pri-
mary sources of Walter.This is also attested by a number of different
information sources Thus the report of the Secretary-General states gen-
erally that "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, so
far the Barrier has separated 30 localities from health services, 22 from
schools, 8 from primary water sources and 3 from electricity networks."
(Report of the Secretary-General, para. 23.) The Special Rapporteur of
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the situation of
human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967
states that "Palestinians between the Wall and Green Line will effectively
be cut off from their land and workplaces, schools, health clinics and
other social services." (ElCN.41200416, 8 September 2003, para. 9.) In
relation specifically to water resources, the Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
observes that "By constructing the fence Israel will also effectively annex
most of the western aquifer system (which provides 51 per cent of the
West Bank's water resources)." (E1CN.4120041101Add.2,31 October 2003,
para. 51.) Similarly. in regard to access to health services, it has been
stated that, as a result of the enclosure of Qalqiliya, a United Nations
hospital in that towi~has recorded a 40 per cent decrease in its caseload
(report of the Secretary-General, para. 24).
At Qalqiliya, according to reports furnished to the United Nations,
soine 600 shops or businesses have shut down, and 6,000 to 8,000 people
have already left the region (ElCN.41200416,8 September 2003, para. 10;
E/CN.4/2004/1O/Add.2, 31 October 2003, para. 51). The Special Rappor-
teur on the Right to Food of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights has also observed that "With the fencelwall cutting communities
off from their land and water without other means of subsistence, many
of the Palestinians living in these areas will be forced to leave." (ElCN.41
2004/10/Add.2, 31 October 2003, para. 51.) In this respect also the con-
struction of the wall would effectively deprive a significant number of
Palestinians of the "freedom to choose [their] residence". In addition,
however, in the view of the Court, since a significant number of Palestin-
ians have already been compelled by the construction of the wall and its
associated régime tol depart from certain areas, a process that will con-
tinue as more of the wall is built, that construction, coupled with the
establishment of the Israeli settlements mentioned in paragraph 120
above, is tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.
134. To sum up, the Court is of the opinion that the construction of
the wall and its associated régimeimpede the liberty of movement of the
inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception C0NSTF:UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 192
of lsraeli citizens and those assimilated thereto) as guaranteed under
Article 12,paragrapl? 1,of the International Covenant on Civil and Poli-
tical Rights. They alko impede the exercise by the persons concerned of
the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of
living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child. Lastby. the construction of the wall and its associated
régime,by contributing to the demographic changes referred to in para-
graphs 122 and 133 above, contravene Article 49, paragraph 6, of the
Fourth Geneva Convention and the Security Council resolutions cited in
paragraph 120 above.
135. The Court would observe, however, that the applicable interna-
tional humanitarian law contains provisions enabling account to be
taken of military exigencies in certain circumstances.
Neither Article 46 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 nor Article 47 of
the Fourth Geneva (Convention contain any qualifying provision of this
type. With regard to forcible transfers of population and deportations,
which are prohibited under Article 49, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
paragraph 2 of that Article provides for an exception in those cases in
which "the security of the population or imperative military reasons so
demand". This exception however does not apply to paragraph 6 of that
Article. which prohibits the occupying Power from deporting or transfer-
ring parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies. As
to Article 53 concerriing the destruction of personal property, it provides
for an exception "where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary
by military operations".
The Court considers that the military exigencies contemplated by these
texts may be invoked in occupied territories even after the general close
of the military operations that led to their occupation. However, on the
material before it, the Court is not convinced that the destructions car-
ried out contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
136. The Court viould further observe that some human rights con-
ventions, and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, coritain provisions which States parties may invoke in
order to derogate, under various conditions, from certain of their con-
ventional obligations. In this respect, the Court would however recall
that the communicaiion notified by Israel to the Secretary-Generalof the
United Nations under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights concerns only Article 9 of the Covenant, relating to
the right to freedomi and security of person (see paragraph 127 above);
Israel is accordingly bound to respect al1 the other provisions of that
instrument.
The Court would note, moreover, that certain provisions of human
rights conventions ctontain clauses qualifying the rights covered by those
provisions. There is no clause of this kind in Article 17 of the Interna-tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On the other hand,
Article 12, paragraph 3, of that instrument provides that restrictions
on liberty of movement as guaranteed under that Article
"shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are pro-
vided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order
(ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of
others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the
present Covenailt".
As for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, Article 4 thereof contains a general provision as follows:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the
enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with
the present Covirnant, the State may subject such rights only to such
limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be
compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose
of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society."
The Court would observe that the restrictions provided for under
Article 12, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights are, by the very terms of that provision, exceptions to
the right of freedom of movement contained in paragraph 1. In addition, it
is not sufficient that such restrictions be directed to the ends authorized;
they must also be riecessary for the attainment of those ends. As the
Human Rights Corrimittee put it, they "must conform to the principle
of proportionality" and "must be the least intrusive instrument amongst
those which might airhieve the desired result" (CCPR/C/21/Rev.I/Add.9,
General Comment No. 27, para. 14). On the basis of the information
available to it, the Court finds that these conditions are not met in
the present instance.
The Court would fùrther observe that the restrictions on the enjoyment
by the Palestinians living in the territory occupied by Israel of theireco-
nomic, social and cultural rights, resulting from Israel's construction of
the wall, fail to meet a condition laid down by Article 4 of the Interna-
tional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that is to say
that their implementation must be "solely for the purpose of promoting
the general welfare in a democratic society".
137. To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not
convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was
necessary to attain its security objectives. The wall, along the route
chosen, and its assooiated régime gravely infringe a number of rights of
Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringe-
ments resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies
or by the requirements of national security or public order. The construc-
tion of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of variousof its obligations urider the applicable international humanitarian law
and human rights instruments.
138. The Court has thus concluded that the construction of the wall
constitutes action not in conformity with various international legal obli-
gations incumbent upon Israel. However, Annex 1 to the report of the
Secretary-General states that, according to Israel: "the construction of
the Barrier is consistent with Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations, its inherenit right to self-defence and Security Council resolu-
tions 1368(2001) and 1373(2001)". More specifically, Israel's Permanent
Representative to the United Nations asserted in the General Assembly
on 20 October 2003 that "the fence is a measure wholly consistent with
the right of States to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter";
the Security Council resolutions referred to, he continued, "have clearly
recognized the right of States to use force in self-defence against terrorist
attacks", and therefore surely recognize the right to use non-forcible
measures to that encl (AIES-10lPV.21, p. 6).
139. Under the t'crms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council
has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security."
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent
right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against
another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it
are imputable to a foreign State.
The Court also riotes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it
regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and
not outside, that teriritory. The situation is thus different from that con-
templated by Securi1.yCouncil resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (200l),
and therefore lsrael could not in any event invoke those resolutions in
support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence.
Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has
no relevance in this case.
140. The Court hiis, however. considered whether Israel could rely on
a state of necessity ,which would preclude the wrongfulness of the con-
struction of the wall. In this regard the Court is bound to note that some
of the conventions at issue in the present instance include qualifying
clauses of the rights guaranteed or provisions for derogation (see para-graphs 135 and 136 above). Since those treaties already address con-
siderations of this kind within their own provisions, it might be asked
whether a state of necessity as recognized in customary international law
could be invoked witli regard to those treaties as a ground for precluding
the wrongfulness of the measures or decisions being challenged. How-
ever, the Court will not need to consider that question. As the Court
observed iri the case concerning the GubFikovo-Nug~~rnrtrosProject
(HungarylSlovakiu), "the state of necessity is a ground recognized
by customary international law" that "can only be accepted on an
exceptional basis"; il "can only be invoked under certain strictly defined
conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied; and the State concerned
is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met" (1. C.J.
Reports IY97, p. 40, para. 51). One of those conditions was stated by the
Court in terms used by the International Law Commission, in a text
which in its present form requires that the act being challenged be "the
only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave
and imminent peril" (Article 25 of the international Law Commission's
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts;
see also former Article 33 of the Draft Articles on the International
Responsibility of States, with slightly different wording in the English
text). In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that
the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to
safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as
justification for that construction.
141. The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate
and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the
right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its
citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in con-
formity with applicable international law.
142. In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a
right of self-defence (sr on a state of necessity in order to preclude the
wrongfulness of the construction of the wall resulting from the con-
siderations mentionetri in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court
accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated
régime,are contrary to international law.
143. The Court having concluded that, by the construction of the wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jeru-
salein, and by adoptirig its associated régime, Israel has violated various
international obligations incumbent upon it (see paragraphs 114-137
above), it must now, in order to reply to the question posed by the
General Assembly, examine the consequences of those violations. CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 196
144. In their written and oral observations, many participants in the
proceedings before ithe Court contended that Israel's action in illegally
constructing this wall has legal consequences not only for Israel itself, but
also for other States and for the United Nations; in its Written State-
ment, Israel, for its part, presented no arguments regarding the possible
legal consequences of the construction of the wall.
145. As regards the legal consequences for Israel, it was contended
that Israel has, first, a legal obligation to bring the illegal situation to an
end by ceasing forthwith the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, and to give appropriate assurances and guarantees
of non-repetition.
It was argued that, secondly, Israelis under a legal obligation to make
reparation for the damage arising from its unlawful conduct. It was sub-
mitted that such reparation should first of al1take the form of restitution,
namely demolition of those portions of the wall constructed in the Occu-
pied Palestinian Territory and annulment of the legal acts associated with
its construction and the restoration of property requisitioned or expro-
priated for that purpose; reparation should also include appropriate
compensation for intlividuals whose homes or agricultural holdings have
been destroyed.
It was further coniended that Israel is under a continuing duty to com-
ply with al1of the international obligations violated by it as a result of the
construction of the via11in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and of the
associated régime. It was also argued that, under the terms of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring
before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered
to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law flow-
ing from the planning, construction and use of the wall.
146. As regards the legal consequences for States other than Israel, it
was contended before the Court that al1 States are under an obligation
not to recognize the illegal situation arising from the construction of the
wall, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation and to
CO-operatewith a view to putting an end to the alleged violations and to
ensuring that reparaiion will be made therefor.
Certain participants in the proceedings further contended that the
States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are obliged to take
measures to ensure compliance with the Convention and that, inasmuch
as the construction and maintenance of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory constitutes grave breaches of that Convention, the
States parties to that Convention are under an obligation to prosecute or
extradite the authors of such breaches. It was further observed that
"the United Nations Security Council should consider flagrant and
systematic violaition of international law norm[s] and principles by C0NSTF:UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 197
Israel, particularly ..international humanitarian law, and take al1
necessary measiires to put an end [to] these violations",
and that the Securit:~Council and the General Assembly must take due
account of the advisory opinion to be given by the Court.
147. Since the Court has concluded that the construction of the wall in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusa-
lem, and its associated régime,are contrary to various of Israel's inter-
national obligations, it follows that the responsibility of that State is
engaged under international law.
148. The Court cvill now examine the legal consequences resulting
from the violations of international law by Israel by distinguishing
between, on the one hand, those arising for Israel and, on the other,
those arising for other States and, where appropriate, for the United
Nations. The Court will begin by examining the legal consequences of
those violations for Iisrael.
149. The Court notes that Israel is first obliged to comply with the
international obligations it has breached by the construction of the wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see paragraphs 114-137 above).
Consequently, Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations
under international humanitarian law and international human rights
law. Furthermore, it must ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places
that came under its icontrol following the 1967War (see paragraph 129
above).
150. The Court observes that Israel also has an obligation to put an
end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the con-
struction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The obliga-
tion of a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act to put an
end to that act is well established in general international law, and the
Court has on a number of occasions confirmed the existence of that obli-
gation (Military anof Purumilitary Acti~~itiesirz und ugainst Nicarugilu
(Nicaruguu v. Unitcd States oJ 'mericu), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1986, p. 145); United States Diplomatic und Consulur Staff in
Tehran, Judgment, 1'C.J. ReportSv 1980, p. 44, para. 95; HUJ~U de la
Torre. Judgment, 1.C'J.. Reports 1951, p. 82).
151. Israel accordingly has the obligation to cease forthwith the works
of construction of the wall being built by it in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. Moreover, in viewof
the Court's finding (see paragraph 143above) that Israel's violations ofits international obligations stem from the construction of the wall and
from its associated régime, cessation of those violations entails the dis-
mantling forthwith of those parts of that structure situated within the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.
All legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to its construction,
and to the establishment of its associated régime, must forthwith be
repealed or rendered ineffective, except in so far as such acts, by provid-
ing for compensation or other forms of reparation for the Palestinian
population, may continue to be relevant for compliance by lsrael with the
obligations referred to in paragraph 153 below.
152. Moreover, given that the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory has, irzteraliu,entailed the requisition and destruc-
tion of homes, businesses and agricultural holdings, the Court finds
further that Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage
caused to al1 the natural or legal persons concerned. The Court would
recall that the essential forms of reparation in customary law were laid
down by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the following
terms :
"The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal
act - a principle which seems to be established by international
practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals - is
that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out al1 the conse-
quences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would,
in al1 probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.
Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum cor-
responding to thievalue which a restitution in kind would bear; the
award, if need bir, of damages for loss sustained which would not be
covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it - such are
the principles which should serve to determine the amount of com-
pensation due for an act contrary to international law." (Fuctory
ut Clzorzci,z',M,~rits, Jucigmcnt No 13, 1928, P.C.1.J., Serirs A,
No. 17, p. 47.)
153. Israel is accordingly under an obligation to return the land,
orchards, olive grov~:sand other immovable property seized from any
natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the event that such restitution should
prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate
the persons in question for the damage suffered. The Court considers
that Israel also has an obligation to compensate, in accordance with the
applicable rules of international law, al1natural or legal persons having
suffered any form of material damage as a result of the wall's construc-
tion. 154. The Court will now consider the legal consequences of the inter-
nationally wrongful acts flowing from Israel's construction of the wall as
regards other States.
155. The Court w~ouldobserve that the obligations violated by Israel
include certain obligations erga omnes. As the Court indicated in the
Barcelona Traction case, such obligations are by their very nature "the
concern of al1 States" and, "In view of the importance of the rights
involved, al1States Cainbe held to have a legal interest in their protection"
(Barcelonu Truction, Light and Power Company, Lirnited, Second Phase,
Judgment, I.C.J. Re,uorts 1970, p. 32, para. 33). The obligations erga
omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, and certain of its obligations
under international humanitarian law.
156. As regards the first of these, the Court has already observed
(paragraph 88 above) that in the East Timor case, it described as
"irreproachable" the assertion that "the right of peoples to self-determi-
nation, as it evolved 1Tomthe Charter and from United Nations practice,
has an erga omnes character" (I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).
The Court would also recall that under the terms of General Assembly
resolution 2625 (XX'V),already mentioned above (see paragraph 88),
"Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate
action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determi-
nation of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter,
and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the
responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the imple-
mentation of the principle . . ."
157. With regard to international humanitarian law, the Court recalls
that in its Advisory Opinion on the LegaIity of the Threat or Use of
Nucleur Weupons it stated that "a great many rules of humanitarian law
applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the
human person and 'i:lementary considerations of humanity' . . .",that
they are "to be observed by al1States whether or not they have ratified
the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgress-
ible principles of international customary law" (I. C.J. Reports 1996 (I),
p. 257, para. 79). In the Court's view, these rules incorporate obligations
which are essentially of an erga omnes character.
158. The Court would also emphasize that Article 1 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, a provision common to the four Geneva Conventions,
provides that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to
ensure respect for the present Convention in al1circumstances." It follows
from that provision tllat every State party to that Convention, whether or CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 200
not it is a party to a specificconflict, is under an obligation to ensure that
the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with.
159. Given the character and the importance of the rights and obliga-
tions involved, the Court is of the view that al1States are under an obli-
gation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construc-
tion of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and
around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render
aid or assistance in imaintaining the situation created by such construc-
tion. It is also forl1States, while respecting the United Nations Charter
and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the
construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its
right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, al1the States
parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of PJar of 12August 1949are under an obligation, while
respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure
compliance by lsrael with international humanitarian law as embodied in
that Convention.
160. Finally, the (Court is of the view that the United Nations, and
especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should con-
sider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situa-
tion resulting fromthe construction of the wall and the associated régime,
taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
161. The Court, being concerned to lend its support to the purposes
and principles laid down in the United Nations Charter, in particular the
maintenance of international peace and security and the peaceful settle-
ment of disputes, would emphasize the urgent necessity for the United
Nations as a whole to redouble its efforts to bring the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, which continues to pose a threat to international peace and secu-
rity, to a speedy conclusion, thereby establishing a justand lasting peace
in the region.
162. TheCourt has reached the conclusion that the construction of the
wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to inter-
national law and ha:; stated the legal consequences that are to be drawn
from that illegality. The Court considers itself bound to add that this
construction must be placed in a more general context. Since 1947, the
year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the
Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of
armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures
on the former mandated territory. The Court would emphasize that both
Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the
rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes
of which is to protect civilian life. Illegal actions and unilateral decisions
have been taken on al1 sides, whereas, in the Court's view, this tragicsituation can be brought to an end only through implementation in
good faith of al1relevant SecurityCouncil resolutions, in particular resolu-
tions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The "Roadmap" approved by Security
Council resolution 1515 (2003) represents the most recent of efforts to
initiate negotiations to this end. The Court considers that it has a duty
to draw the attention of the General Assembly, to which the present
Opinion is addresseti, to the need for these efforts to be encouraged
with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international
law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establish-
ment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other
neighbours, with peace and security for al1in the region.
163. For these reasons,
(1) Unanimously,
Finds that it has j~irisdictionto give the advisory opinion requested;
(2) By fourteen votes to one,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
IN FAVOUR P:resident Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judge~ Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh,Elaraby, Owada,Simma,Tomka;
AGAINST :Jurlge Buergenthal ;
(3) Replies in the following manner to the question put by the General
Assembly :
A. By fourteen votes to one,
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying
Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around
East Jerusalem, and its associated régime,are contrary to international
law ;
IN PAVOUR: President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh,Elaraby, Owada,Simma,Tomka;
AGAINST: Judge Buergenthal ;
B. By fourteen voles to one,
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international
law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of con-
struction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the
structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwithal1 legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with
paragraph 15 1 of this Opinion;
IN FAVOUR : PresiAnt Shi; Vice-Puesident Ranjeva: Judge.r Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada. Simma, Tomka;
AGAINSJ Tu:dge Buergenthal;
C. By fourteen votes to one,
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for al1damage caused
by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem;
IN FAVOURP :resident Shi; Vice-Prcj.sident Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Ellaraby,Owada, Simma, Tomka;
AGAINSI-: Judge Buergenthal ;
D. By thirteen votes to two,
Al1States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation
resulting from the coinstruction of the wall and not to render aid or assis-
tance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; al1States
parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Tiine of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the
obligation. while reijpecting the United Nations Charter and inter-
national law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humani-
tarian law as embodied in that Convention;
IN IAVOUR:Pr~sident Shi; Vice-Puesident Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh,
Elaraby, Owada, !jimma, Tomka;
AGAII\~S J.I(.i:ges Kooijmans, Buergenthal;
E. By fourteen votes to one,
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the
SecurityCouncil, should consider what further action is required to bring
to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall
and the associated rkgime, taking due account of the present Advisory
Opinion.
IN I AVOCJ: President Shi ; Vice-President Ranjeva ; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;
AGAINSJ Tl:l~lBuergenthal.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, Thi: Hague, this ninth day of July, two thousand andfour, in two copies,one of whichwillbe placedin the archivesof the Court
and the other transmitted to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations.
(Signed) SHIJiuyong,
President.
(Signed) Philippe COUVREUR,
Registrar.
Judges KOROMA, HIGGINSK , OOIJMANaS nd AL-KHASAWNEaH ppend
separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judge BUER-
GENTHAL appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;
Judges ELARABa Ynd OWADA append separate opinions to the Advisory
Opinion of the Court.
(Initialled) J.Y.S.
(Initialled) Ph.C.
COLIR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES
DE L'É;DIFICATION D'UN MUR
DANS LE TERRITOIRE PALESTINIEN OCCUPÉ
AVIS CONSULTATIFDU 9 JUILLET 2004
INTERNATIONAL COUOF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE OCCCrPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
ADVISORYOPINION OF 9 JULY 2004 Mode officiel de citation
Conséquencesjuridiquesde 1'édzJîcatn'un mur
dans le territoire palestinien occupé,
avisconsultatiC.1J. Recueil 200p. 136
Officia1citati:n
Legal Consequencecf the Construction of a Wu11
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory Opinion,I.C.J. Reports 200p. 136
No de vente: I
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number 883 1
TSBN92-1-070993-4 9 JUILLET 2004
AVIS CONSULTATIF
CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES
DE:L'ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR
DANS LE 'TERRITOIREPALESTINIEN OCCUPÉ
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE O('CUP1ED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
9 JULY 2004
ADVISORY OPINION COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
2004 ANNÉE 2004
9 juillet
Rôle général
no 131 9 juillet2004
CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES
DE L'ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR
DANS LE TERRITOIRE PALESTINIEN OCCUPÉ
Compétence,de la Cour pour cionner1'ai~i.cs~on.sultut~f'cleinandé.
Paragraphe 1 clel'article 65 du Statut - Parclgraphe 1 de l'urticle 96 de lu
Charte - Pouvoir de 1'As.sen~blég eénérale de.solliciter des uvi.v cot~sultutifs
- Activités de I'Assemhlée.
Evénementsayant conduit (1l'adoption de LarésolutionES-10114 de 1'A.ssenî-
hléegénéraleportant demande de l'avis c~onsultutif:
Allégation selon laquelle 1'A.s.c.emhlégeknémle aurait autrepussé lucompk-
tence que lui confère lu Charte - Paragrupke 1 de 1'urtic.le12 et article 24 de
la Charte - Pratique de 1'Organi.sationdes Nations Unies concernant I'inter-
prétation du paragraphe 1 de l'article 12 de lu Charte - A.ssemh1i.egknérale
n'ayant pus outrepu.ssésa compétence.
Demande d2ai~ixadopt~5epur lu dixiètne .se.vsione'ttraordinaire d'urgence de
l'Assembléegénérale Session çoni~oqués eur lahase de luré.solzitio377 A (V)
(« L'union pour le maintien 11.lupaix») - Conclition.~prevues pur cette résolu-
tion- Régularité cl eu procédure suivie.
Manque de clartéalléguédu libelléde b question - Nature prétendument
abstraite de la question - Aspects politiques de la question - Mobiles qui
auraient inspiré10requêteet implications q~lepourrait avoir l'avis - Carcictgre
((juridique)) de lu question non ufj<ecté.
Cour compétentepour donner 1'uvi.sconsultutif'u'L.mandc~.
Pouvoir discrétionnairede lu Cour rledéciders'il échet de donnerun avis.
Paragraphe 1 de l'article 65 du Statut - Pertinence du d6fuut de consente-
nzent d'un Etat intéressé - Question ne pouvunt êtreconsidkréeseulement
comme une question bilatéral^entre Israël et la Pule.stine, mai.v intéressant
directement I'Orgunisation des Nations Unies - EiYktspo.s.sihlesde 1I'avi.svur un
rkglement politique négociédu conflit israélo-pule.stinien - Question ne consti-
ruant qu'un nspect du conflit isruélo-p~llesfii~ie -n Suffisuncc~cles renseigne- 1NTER.NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2004 2004
9 July
General List
9 July 2004 No. 131
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
Jurisdiction of'the ('ourt tu give the advi.soryopinion requested.
Article 65, parugra,vh 1, qf'the Stutute - Article 96, puragruph 1, of' the
Charter - Power (?/'(?eneralA.s.semblj~to request advisory opinions .- Activi-
ties oJ A's.sembly.
Events leuding tu ~he ado~~tion cf' Generul Assembly re.solutiol~ES-10114
reyuesting the adïi.sory opinion.
Contention thut Generul Assembly acted ultra vires under the Charter -
Article 12,parugraph 1. und Article 24 of'the Charter - UniteriNations prac-
ficc concerning ~/ZCintcv-pretation9f'Article 12,paragruph 1, uf'Charter - -Ge17-
erul As.~cvnblydid no/ exceed its conlpeten<,e.
Request ,fur opinion adopted by the Tentlî Emergency Speciul Session of'
the Generul Assenzbly - Sessiorr converledpursuant tu resolution 377 A (J')
("Uniting,fir Peuce") - Conditions set by that resolution - Regularity of'
procedure ,fOlloi.2~ed
Alleged lack ofclarity oJ he terrrrsof the question - Purportedly abstruct
nature of' the question - Political aspects of the question - Motives suid to
have inspirer1the requrst and opinion's possible imp1ication.r - "Legal" nature
qf'question i~rzaflfctc,d.
Court hailingjuri.vd,ictionto give udvi.sory opinion requested
Discretionary powe,r cf' Court to ~kcide vvhether it should give an opinion.
Article 65, purugruph 1, of Stutute- Relevunce cfluck of consent ofu State
concerned - Questio,~cannot be regurded only as a bilateral matter between
Isruel and Palestine but is directly of'concern to the United Nations - Possible
~ffkcrs of'opinion on a political, negotiuted solution to the Israeli-Palc~stiniun
conjict - Questiorrr8rpre.snztingolîly ot7easpect of Isracli-Pule.~tiniunconjict
- Sujfic.ienc.yof infornzation and evidence ai~ailableto Court - U.s<fulpurpose137 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
ments et élémentsde preuve a la disposition de la Cour - Utilité lie l'avis
- Nullus commodum capere potest de sua injuria propria - Avis donnéri
l'Assembléegénéraleet non a un Etat ou une entité déterminé.^.
Absence de «raisons décisives))pour que la Cour use de son pouvoir discré-
tionnaire ck ne pas donner 1'avi.scon.sultatif:
«Conséquencesjuridiques)) de I'édljîcationd'un mur dans le territoire pales-
tinien occupé,y compris a l'intérieuret sur le pourtour de Jéru.salem-Est --
Portéede la question posée - Demande d'avis liniitéeau.~con.,équence.jsuri-
diques de la construction des parties du lunursituéesclansle territoire palestinien
occupé -- Emploi du terme ((mur)).
Contexte hi.storique.
Description du mur.
Droit applicuhle.
Charte des Nations Unies - Résolution2625 (XXV) de 1'A.s.semhlég eéné-
rale - Illici'itéde toute acqui.sition de territoire ré.suitantde lu nlenace ou de
l'emploi de laforce - Droit des peuples ù disposer d'eux-mênîes.
Droit international humanitaire - Réglementannexé Li la quatrième conven-
tion de Lu Haye de 1907- Quatrième convention de Genéve de 1949 - Appli-
cahilité de la quatrième convention de Genève dans le territoire palestinien
occupé - Droits de I'homme - Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et
politiques - Pacte internutional relatif au.^ droits économiques, sociau.~ et
czilturels - Convention relative aux droits de l'enjunt - Rupport entre droit
international humanitaire et droits de l'homme - Applicahilitéciesin.strument.s
re1atif.i aux droits de I'homme hors du territoire national - Applicubilité
de ces instrument.^dans le territoire palestinien occupé.
Colonies depeuplement installéespar I.sraël en méconnaissance dudroit inter-
national dans le territoire palestinien occupé - Construction du nmuret régime
qui lui est associé créans tur le terrain un «,fait accompli» .susceptiblede devenir
permanent - Risque d'une situation équivalant à une annexion de facto -
Construction dumur dressant un obstacle grave a l'exercice par lepeuple pales-
tinien cieson droit ù l'autodétermination etviolant de ce,fuit l'obligation incom-
bant ù 1.sraël de respecter ce droit.
Dispositions app1icahle.sdu droit international humanitaire et des conr3entions
re1ative.saux droits de I'hommepertinentes en I'espéce - Dc.structionet réyuisi-
tion de propriétés - Restrictions ri lu liberté de circulationdes huhitants du
territoire palestinien occupé - Entraves cil'exercicepar les inttre.s.sé.d ses droits
au travail. à la santé.a l'éducationet à un niveau de vie .suffisant - Change-
*., -
ments démographiques dans le territoire palestinien occupé - Dispositions du
droit interrzationalhumanitaire ~ermettant de tenir comute des in1uératifSmili-
taires - Clauses de limitation des droits garantis et clauses de déiogationu'ans
les conventions relatives aux droits de I'homme - Construction du mur et
régime quilui est associé nepouvant êtrejust~jiéspar des impérat(f~m s mi1itaire.s
ou des nécessités u' sécuriténationale ou d'ordrepuhlic - Violation par L~raël CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 137
of opinion - Nullus commodum capere potest de sua injuria propria - Opin-
ion to he givtw to the General Assembly, not to a specijîc State or entity.
No "compelling reason" for Court to use its discretionary power not to give
an advisory opinion.
"Legal consequence5" of the construction ofa wall in the Occupied Pulestin-
ian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem - Scope of question
posed - Request for opinion limited to the legal consequences of the construc-
tion of those parts qftlle wull .situated in Occupied Palestinian Territory - Use
of'the term "wall".
Historical background.
Description of th'e i.t,all.
Applicable kzw.
United Nations Charter - General As.sembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Ille-
galitj?qfany territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force -
Right of'peoples to self-determination.
International humunitarian /au> - Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague
Convention of 1907 - Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 - Applicability of
Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Human
riglzts Iaw -- -International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Internu-
tionul Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Conventionon the
Rights of the Child - Relutionship betvveeninternational humanitarian law and
humun rights law - A,pplicability of'human rights instruments outside national
territorjj - Applicabill'ty of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-
ritory.
Settlements e.stublis/iedby Israel in breuch oj'international law in the Occu-
pied Palestiniun Territ(sïy - Construction of the wall and its ussociuted régime
create a ':fait accompr'i"on the ground that could well becorne permanent -
Risk of situation tantainount to de facto annexation - Construction of the wall
severely impedes the exercise by the Pulestinian people qf its right to self-
determination und is thereji~rea breach of Israel's obligation to respect that
right.
Applicublc>provisions of international hunzanitarian law and human rights
instruments relevant to the present case - - Destruction and requi.vitionqfprop-
c,rties - Restrictions on freedom of movement of inhabitants of'the Occupied
Palestinian Territory -- Inzpediment.r to the exercise by those concerned of the
right to ivork, to lzealt.h,to education and to an adequate stanùurd of living -
Demographic changes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Provisions of'
international lzumanituriun Iaw enabling account to be taken ofmilitary exigen-
cies - C1au.se.s in humcïnrights instrument.^qualifj'ing rights guarunteed orpro-
viding for d~7rogution - Construction of the wuIl and its associated rGgime
cannot be dustijied by militury exigencies or by the requirements of national
security or public order -- Breach hy Israel qf various of'its obligations underde diverses ob1igation.slui incombant en vertu des disposition.^applicables du
droit international humanitaire et des conventions relatives aux droits de
l'homme.
Légitime défense - Article 51 de la Charte - Violences contre Israël non
imputables ù un Etat étranger - Menace invoquéepour justifier la construction
du mur trouvant son origine a l'intérieurd'un territoire sur lequel Israël exerce
son contrôle - Article 51 sans pertinence au cas particulier.
Etat de nécessité - Droit international coutunîier - Conditions - Cons-
truction du mur ne constituant pus le seul moyen de protégerles intérêtd s'Israël
contre le périlinvoqué.
Construction du mur et régime qui luiest associéétant contraires au droit
international,
Conséquencesjuridiques de lu violation des obligations incombant ù Israël.
Responsabilité internationale d'Israël - Israël tenu de re.specter les obliga-
tions internationales auxquelle.s il a contrevenu par lu con.struction du mur
- Israël tenu de mettre un terme ù lu violation de .sesobligations internatio-
nales - Obligation de cesser immédiatementles travaux d'édificationdu mur, de
démanteler inîmédiatement celui-ci et d'abroger immédiatement ou de priver
in~rnédiatementd'ejjet les actes 16gi.slatiJSet réglementaire,sadoptés en vue de
son éd$rcation,sous réservedes actes pertinents dans 1. contexte du rrepect pur
Israël de son obligation de réparerles domn~ugescau.sés Israël tenu de r6pa-
rer tous les c1ommage.scausés ù toutes lespersonnes pkysique.~ou morales ufj>c-
téespar ka con.struction du mur.
Conséquencesjuridiques pour les Etats autres qu'Israël - Caractère erga
omnes de certaines obligations violées parIsruël - Obligcition de tous les Etats
de ne pas reconnaître lu situcltion illicite découlant de la construction du mur et
dc~ne pas prêteruide ou ~~ssistanceau maintien de la situation crééepar cette
construction - Obligation de tou.s les Etats de veiller, dans le respect de la
Charte et du droit international, ù ce qu'il.soitmi.s,finaux entraves, ré.sultantde
lu construction du nmr, ù l'exercice par le peuple palestinien de son droit ù
l'autodétermination --- Obligation de tous les Etats parties ù la quatrième
convention de Genève,dans le respect de la Chartc et du droit international, de
,firire respecter pur Israël le droit international lzumanitaire incorporéduns II
convention - Nc~cessité pour l'Organisation des Nations Unies,et sp6cialernent
1'A.s.semblég eénéraleet le Conseil de sécurité,d'examiner, en tenant dûnîent
compte de l'avis con.sultutij;que1le.snouve1le.smesures doivent êtreprises ajïn de
mettre' un terme ula situation illicite découlantde la con.rtructiondu nmuret du
régimequi lui est ussoci~;.
Construction du nzur devant êtrereplacée dans un contexte plus général
- Obligation inconmbant ù Israël et à la Palestine de respecter de manière .scru-
puleuse le droit international humanitaire - Mise clncruvre de bonne jbi de
toutes les ré.so1ution.psertinentes du Conseil rie.skcuritc, en particulier les rkso-
lutions 242 (1 Y67) et 338 (1 973) - ((F~uillede route)) - Nécessité d'encourager
les c~ffortsen vued'aboutir leplus tôt possible, .surh base du droit international,
à une solution négociée desprohlèrnes pendants et ù la constitution d'un Etut
palestinien. et d'assurer ù chacun dalans lu rkgioizpaix et sécurité. the applicable provisions of'international humunitariun law and human rights
instruments.
Selfldefence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imput-
able to uforeign State - Threat invoked tojustify the construction of the 1~*a11
originating ivithin a te,rritory over ivhich Israel exercises control Article 51
not relevant in the pre:ient case.
Statc of'necessity Customury internationai /air - Conditions - Con-
struction qf the wu11not the only nîeuns to sufkguard Israel's interests aguinst
the peril inv«ked
Construction of the wall and its u.vsociated rkgime are contra- to interna-
tional IUCV.
Legal consequences the violation bj Israel of its oh1igation.s.
Isruel's international responsibility - Israel obliged to comply ivith the inter-
national obligations it has hreached by the con.struction of the wall -- Israel
obliged to put un end t,othe violation oj'its international obligations - Obliga-
tinn to ceuse ,furthwith the works of'construction of the ~~zll,to dismantle it
,f'orthwitliund to repeal or render in~ifectiveforthwith the legislutive and regu-
latory acts relating to its construction, save where relevant fOr compliance by
Israel with ils obligation to make reparation fi~r the damage caused - Israel
obliged tomake reparation fur the dumuge caused to al1natural or 1egalperson.s
affected by con.struction of the ivall.
Legal consequences.f0r States other than Israel - Erga omnes churacter of'
certain obligations viohted by Israel - Obligationfor al1States not to recog-
nizcJthe illegc~lsituation resulting ,fi.orn construction uf' the itlall and not to
render aid or a,s.~istancein maintaining the situation creuted by such construc-
tion - Obligationfi>r al1States, while respecting the Charter and international
luii,.to see to it that an,yinîpediment, resultingfrom the construction of the ivu11,
to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to selfdetermination is
brought to an end - Obligation fi)r al1 States parties to the Fourtli Geneva
Convention, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure com-
pliunce by lsrael with international humunitarian luiv us embodied in that Con-
vention - Ner,djOr the United Nations, and especiully the General Assembly
and the Security Couni:.il,to consider i.vhutfurther action is required to bring to
an end the illegal situution re.sulting,from the construction qf'the ivall and its
associated rkgime, taking due account cd the Advisoj Opinion.
Construction qf'the ~~van lliust be pluced in a more general context - Obliga-
tion of'Israel and Palestine scrupulously to observe international humanitarian
a - Implementation ingoodfuith ~f'allrelevant Security Council resolutions,
in particz~larre~olutiorls242 (lY67) and 338 (1973) - "Roaclmap" - Need
,for Ifforts to be encouruged »,;tha vieiv to achieving as soon as possible, on the
basis of international Itztv,u negotiated solution to the outstanding problerns and
the establishme~it of'a Palestiniun State, ivith peacc,and security ,for al1 in the
region. ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
AVIS CONSULTATIF
Présents: M. SHI,président; M. RANJEVA v,ice-président; MM. GUILLAUME,
KOROMA V,ERESHCHETIN, Mme H~GGINSM , M. PARRA-ARANGUREN,
KOOIJMANSR , EZEK,AL-KHASAWNEHB , UERGENTHAE LL,ARABY,
OWADA, SIMMAT ,OMKA j,ges; M. COUVREUg Rr,efier.
Sur les conséquences juridiques de l'édificationd'un mur dans le territoire
palestinien occupé,
ainsi composée,
donne l'avis consultatif suivant:
1. La question sur laquelle un avis consultatif est demanàéla Cour est
énoncéedans la résolution ES-10114 que l'Assemblée générald ees Nations
Unies (ci-après dénomméel'«Assembléegénérale))) aadoptée le 8 décembre
2003lors de sa dixième session extraordinaired'urgence. Par une lettre datéedu
8 décembre2003 et reçue au Greffe par télécopiele 10 décembre2003. dont
l'original estparvenu au Greffe ultérieurement,le Secrétairegénéralde l'Orga-
nisation des Nations Unies a officiellement communiqué la Cour la décision
prise par l'Assembléegénéralede lui soumettre cette question pour avis consul-
tatif. Des copies certifiéesconformes des versions française et anglaise de la
résolution ES-10114étaientjointesà cette lettre. La résolution se lit comme
suit:
«L'Assemblée générale,
Réafjrmant sa résolution ES-10113du 21 octobre 2003,
Guidéepar les principes énoncésdans la Charte des Nations Unies,
Tenant compte du principe, reconnu en droit international, de I'inadmis-
sibilitéde l'acquisition de territoire par la force,
Consciente que le développemententre les nations de relations amicales
fondéessur le respect du principe de l'égalitéde droits des peuples et de
leur droità disposer d'eux-mêmesfait partie des buts et des principes
énoncésdans la Charte des Nations Unies,
Rappelant ses résolutions pertinentes, notamment la résolution 181(II)
du 29 novembre 1947,qui portait partition de la Palestine sous mandat en
deux Etats, l'un arabe, l'autre juif,
Rappelant égalementles résolutionsde sa dixième session extraordinaire
d'urgence,
Rappelant en outre les résolutions pertinentes du Conseil de sécurité,
notamment les résolutions242 (1967)du 22 novembre 1967,338 (1973)du
22 octobre 1973,267 (1969) du 3juillet 1969,298 (1971) du 25 septembre
1971,446 (1979)du 22 mars 1979,452 (1979)du 20juillet 1979,465 (1980)
du 1" mars 1980,476 (1980)du 30juin 1980,478 (1980)du 20 août 1980,
904 (1994) du 18 mars 1994, 1073 (1996) du 28 septembre 1996, 1397
(2002) du 12mars 2002 et 1515 (2003)du 19 novembre 2003, CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 139
ADVISORY OPINION
Present: President SHI; Vice-President RANJEV AJudges GUILLAUMK E,OROMA,
VERESHCHETIN H,IUUINS,PARRA-ARANUUREK N, OIJMANSR ,EZEK,
AL-KHASAWPIEB HU,ERUENTHAELL,ARABY O,WADAS , IMMA,TOMKA;
Re,pistrur COUVREUR.
On the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory,
composed as above,
giivs the following /idvisury Opinion:
1. The question on which the advisory opinion of the Court has been
requested is setorth in resolution ES-10114adopted by the General Assembly
of the United Nation:; (hereinafter the "General Assembly") on 8 December
2003 at its Tenth Em~rrgencySpecial Session. By a letter dated 8 December
2003 and received in the Registry by facsimile on 10 December 2003, the origi-
nal of which reached the Registry subsequently, the Secretary-General of the
United Nations officially communicated to the Court theecision taken by the
General Assen~blyto submit the question for an advisory opinion. Certified
true copies of theEnglish and French versions of resolution ES-10114were
enclosed with theletter. The resolution reads as follows:
"The Generul ~lssemhiy,
Reuffirming its resolution ES-10113of 21 October 2003,
Guidcldby the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Awure of the established principle of international law on the inadmis-
sibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Awcire ulso that developing friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
among the purpoises and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Reculling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolu-
tion 181(11)of 29 November 1947,which partitioned mandated Palestine
into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,
Reculling ulso the resolutions of the tenth emergency special session of
the General Assernbly,
Reculling jurthcr relevant Securily Council resolutions, including reso-
lutions 242 (19671of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,
267 (1969) of3 J~ily1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971,446 (1979) of
22 March 1979, 452 (1979) of 20July 1979,465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
476 (1980) of 30June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 904 (1994) of
18March 1994, 1073(1996)of 28 September 1996,1397 (2002)of 12March
2002 and 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003, Réujjrmant I'applicabilité au territoire palestinien occupé, y compris
Jérusalem-Est, de la quatrième convention de Genève' et du protocole
additionnel 1 aux conventions de Genève',
Rappelant le règlement annexé à la convention de La Haye concernant
les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre de 1907',
Sejélicitunt de la tenueà Genève, le 15juillet 1999,de la conférence des
Hautes Parties contractantes Ala quatrième convention de Genève sur les
mesures à prendre pour assurer l'application de la convention dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé, y compris Jérusalem,
Se déclarantfuvorable à la déclaration adoptée par la conférence des
Hautes Parties contractantes réuniede nouveau AGenévele 5 décembre
2001,
Rappelant en particulier les résolutions pertinentes des Nations Unies
dans lesquelles il est affirmé que les colonies de peuplement israéliennes
dans le territoire palestinien occupé, y compris Jérusalem-Est, sont illé-
gales et constituent un obstacleà la paix et au développement économique
et social, ainsi que les résolutions exigeant la cessation complète des acti-
vitésd'implantation de colonies de peuplement,
Rappelant les résolutions pertinentes des Nations Unies dans lesquelles
il est affirméque les mesures prises par Israël, puissance occupante, pour
modifier le statut et la composition démographique de Jérusalem-Est occu-
péen'ont aucun fondement juridique et sont nulles et non avenues,
Notunt les accords auxquels sont parvenus le Gouvernement israélienet
l'organisation de libération de la Palestine dans le contexte du processus
de paix au Moyen-Orient,
Gruvement préoccupéepar le fait qu'Israël, puissance occupante, a com-
mencéetcontinue àconstruire un murdans le territoire palestinien occupé,
y compris à l'intérieuret sur le pourtour de Jérusalem-Est, dont le tracé
s'écartede la ligne d'armistice de 1949 (Ligne verte) et qui a entraîné la
confiscation et la destruction de terres et de ressources palestiniennes, le
bouleversement de la vie de milliers de civilsjouissant d'une protection et
l'annexion de fait de vastes parties du territoire, et soulignant que la com-
munauté internationale tout entière est opposée à la construction de ce
mur,
Gravement préoccupéeégulementpar les effets encore plus dévastateurs
qu'auraient les parties du mur dont la construction est prévuesur la popu-
lation civile palestinienne et sur les perspectives de réglement du conflit
israélo-palestinien et l'établissementde la paix dans la région,
Prenant note uvec ,rutisjùction du rapport du rapporteur spécialde la
Commission des droits de l'homme, en date du 8 septembre 2003, sur la
situation des droits de l'homme dans les territoires palestiniens occupés
par Israël depuis 19674,en particulier la partie du rapport relative au mur,
'Nations Unies, Recueil des traités,vol. 75, no 973.
Ihirt., vol. 1125,no 17512.
Voir Dotation Carnegie pour la paix internationale, Les conventionslum-
tions cieLu Haye de11899et 1907, New York, Oxford University Press, 1918.
EICN.4/2004/6. ReufJlrrningthe applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention' as well
as Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions2 to the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Reculling the Reguiations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting
the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907',
Welcoming the convening of the Conference of High Contracting Parties
to the Fourth Gerieva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, at Geneva on
15 July 1999,
E,xprrssing its.support for the declaration adopted by the reconvened
Conference of High Contracting Parties at Geneva on 5 December 2001,
Rec,alling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming
that Israeli settleiments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and
social developmerit as well as those demanding the complete cessation of
settlement activities,
Reculling relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions
taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demo-
graphic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity
and are nuIl and void,
Noting the agreements reached between the Government of Israel and
the Palestine Liberation Organization in the context of the Middle East
peace process.
Gruvelj~concerisrd at the commencement and continuation of construc-
tion by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure
from the Armistice Line of 1949(Green Line) and which has involved the
confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disrup-
tion of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto
annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous
opposition by the international community to the construction of that
wall,
Gruvc,lyc,oncer,aedalso at the even more devastating impact of the pro-
jected parts of the wall on the Palestinian civilian population and on the
prospects for solbing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and establishing peace
in the region,
Wrlcoming the report of 8 September 2003 of the Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 19674,in particular the sec-
tion regarding thi: wall,
'United Nations, Treuty Series, Vol. 75, No. 973.
Ihid, Vol. 1125,No. 17512.
See Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Hague Conventions und
Di~clrircrtiof'185)Yund IV07 (New York. Oxford University Press, 1915).
E/CN.4/2004/6.141 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
Ajjrmunt qu'il est nécessairede mettre fin au conflit sur la base d'une
solution permettant aux deux Etats, Israël et la Palestine, de vivre côàe
côte dans la paix et la sécuritéet dans le respect de la ligne d'armistice de
1949, conformément aux résolutions pertinentes du Conseil de sécuritéet
de l'Assembléegénérale,
Ayant reçu avec .sati.sjuction le rapport du Secrétaire général établein
application de la résolution ES-10/135,
Ayant ù l'esprit que les difficultéssur le terrain ne font que s'aggraver
avec le temps, Israël, puissance occupante, continuanà refuser de respec-
ter le droit international pour ce qui est de I'édificationdu mur susmen-
tionné, avec toutes les répercussions et conséquences néfastes qu'elle
entraîne,
Décide,en vertu de I'article 96 de la Charte des Nations Unies, de
demander à la Cour internationale de Justice, conformément aux disposi-
tions de I'article 65 du Statut de la Cour, de rendre d'urgence un avis
consultatif sur la question suivante:
Quelles sont en droit lesconséquencesde I'édificationdu mur qu'Israël,
puissance occupante, est en train de construire dans le territoire palesti-
nien occupé,y compris à l'intérieuret sur le pourtour de Jérusalem-Est,
selon ce qui est exposédans le rapport du Secrétaire général,compte
tenu des règles et des principes du droit international, notamment la
quatrième convention de Genève de 1949et les résolutions consacrées à
la question par le Conseil de sécuritéet l'Assembléegénérale?
'AIES-101248.»
Etaient également joints à la lettre les textes français et anglais certifiés
conformes du rapport du Secrétaire généraldaté du 24 novembre 2003 et
établi en application de la résolution ES-10113de l'Assembléegénérale(AIES-
101248),auquel la résolution ES-10114fait référence.
2. Par des lettres en date du 10décembre2003, le greffier a notifié larequête
pour avis consultatifà tous les Etats admis à ester devant la Cour, conformé-
ment au paragraphe 1de l'article 66 du Statut.
3. Par une lettre en date du 11 décembre 2003, le Gouvernement d'Israël a
informéla Cour de sa position à l'égardtant de la requêtepour avis consultatif
que de la procédure à suivre.
4. Par une ordonnance en date du 19 décembre2003, la Cour a décidéque
l'organisation des Nations Unies et ses Etats Membres étaient susceptibles de
fournir des renseignements sur l'ensemble des aspects soulevéspar la question
soumise à la Cour pour avis consultatif, conformément au paragraphe 2 de
l'article 66 du Statut, et a fixéau 30janvier 2004 la date'expiration du délai
dans lequel des exposés écritspourraient lui êtreprésentéssur cette question
conformément au paragraphe 4 de l'article 66 du Statut. Par la mêmeordon-
nance, la Cour a décidépar ailleurs que, au vu de la résolution ES-10114et du
rapport du Secrétaire général transmis avecla requcte, et compte tenu du fait
que l'Assembléegénéraleavait accordé à la Palestine un statut spéciald'obser-
vateur et que celle-ci était coauteur du projet de résolution demandant l'avis
consultatif, la Palestine pourrait également soumettre un exposé écritsur la
question posée,dans le délaisus-indiqué.
5. Par ladite ordonnance, la Cour a en outre décidé,conformément au para- CONSTR.UCTIONOF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 141
Afjrming the riecessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-
State solution of israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and secu-
rity based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant
Security Council and General Assembly resolutions,
Having receiveidwitlzappreciation the report of the Secretary-General,
submitted in accclrdance with resolution ES-101135,
Braring in mind that the passage of time further compounds the diffi-
culties on the ground, as Israel, the occupying Power, continues to refuse
to comply with international law vis-à-vis its construction of the above-
mentioned wall, with al1its detrimental implications and consequences,
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 urgently render an advisory
opinion on the fclllowing question :
What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the
wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Pales-
tinian Territory, including in andaround East Jerusalem, as described in
the report of thieSecretary-General, considering the rules and principles
of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,
and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?
AIES- 10/248."
Also enclosed with the letter were the certified English and French texts of the
report of the Secretary-General dated 24 November 2003, prepared pursuant
to General Assembly resolution ES-10113(AIES-101248), to which resolution
ES-10114 makes reference.
2. By letters dated 10 December 2003, the Registrar notified the request for
an advisory opinion to al1States entitled to appear before theCourt, in accord-
ance with Article 66, 7paragraph 1, of the Statute.
3. By a letter dated 11 December 2003, the Government of Israel informed
the Court of its position on the request for an advisory opinion and on the
procedure to be follo~ved.
4. By an Order of 19 December 2003, the Court decided that the United
Nations and its Member States were likely, in accordance with Article 66, para-
graph 2, of the Statute, to be able to furnish information on al1aspects raised
by the question subnlitted to the Court for an advisory opinion and fixed
30 January 2004 as the time-limit within which written statements might be
submitted to it on the question in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4, of
the Statute. By the same Order, the Court further decided that, in the light of
resolution ES-10114and the report of the Secretary-General transmitted with
the request, and takirig into account the fact that the General Assembly had
granted Palestine a spircialstatus of observer and that the latter was co-sponsor
of the draft resolution requesting the advisory opinion, Palestine might also
submit a written statement on the question within the above time-limit.
5. By the aforesai'd Order, the Court also decided, in accordance with142 EDIFICATIOND'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
graphe 4 de l'article 105du Règlement, de tenir des audiences publiques au
cours desquelles des exposés et observations pourraient être présentésdevant
elle par l'organisation des Nations Unies et ses Etats Membres, qu'ils aient ou
non déposédes exposés écrits,et a fixéau 23 février 2004 ladate d'ouverture
desdites audiences. Toujours par la mêmeordonnance, la Cour a décidéque,
pour les motifs exposés ci-dessus (voir paragraphe 4), la Palestine pourrait
également participer à la procédure orale. Elle a enfin prié I'Organisation
des Nations Unies et ses Etats Membres, ainsi que la Palestine, de faire
connaître au Greffe, le 13 février 2004au plus tard, s'ils entendaient prendre
part aux audiences susmentionnées. Par des lettres du 19 décembre 2004,
le greffier les a informésdes décisionsde la Cour et leur a fait tenir copie de
l'ordonnance.
6. Statuant sur des demandes présentées ultérieurementpar la Ligue des
Etats arabes et I'Organisation de la Conférence islamique, la Cour a décidé,
conformément à l'article 66 de son Statut, que ces deux organisations interna-
tionales étaient susceptibles de fournir des renseignements sur la question dont
la Cour est saisie, et qu'en conséquenceelles pourraient présentàcette fin des
exposés écritsdans le délaifixépar la Cour dans son ordonnance du 19 dé-
cembre 2003 et participer à la procédure orale.
7. Conformément au paragraphe 2 de l'article 65 du Statut, le Secrétaire
généralde I'Organisation des Nations Unies a communiqué à la Cour un dos-
sier contenant des documents pouvant servir à éluciderla question.
8. Par une ordonnance motivéeen date du 30 janvier 2004 concernant sa
composition en l'espèce,la Cour a décidéque les éléments portés à son atten-
tion par le Gouvernement d'Israël dans une lettre du 31 décembre2003, ainsi
que dans une lettre confidentielle du 15janvier 2004 adresséeau président en
vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 34du Règlement, n'étaientpas de nature à
empêcherlejuge Elaraby de siégeren l'espèce.
9. Dans le délaifixépar la Cour à cette fin, des exposés écritsont été dépo-
sés,selon l'ordre de réception, par: la Guinée, l'Arabie saoudite, la Ligue des
Etats arabes, I'Egypte, le Cameroun, la Fédération de Russie, l'Australie, la
Palestine, I'Organisation des Nations Unies, la Jordanie, le Koweït, le Liban, le
Canada, la Syrie, la Suisse, Israël, le Yémen,les Etats-Unis d'Amérique,le Ma-
roc, l'Indonésie, I'Organisation de la Conférence islamique, la France, l'Italie,
le Soudan, l'Afrique du Sud, l'Allemagne, le Japon, la Norvège, le Royaume-
Uni, le Pakistan, la République tchèque, la Grèce, l'Irlande en son nom propre,
l'Irlande au nom de l'Union européenne, Chypre, le Brésil,la Namibie, Malte,
la Malaisie, les Pays-Bas, Cuba, la Suède, l'Espagne, la Belgique, Palau, les
Etats fédérésde Micronésie, les Iles Marshall, le Sénégalet la République
populaire démocratique de Corée.Dèsréceptionde ces exposés,le greffier en a
transmis le texteàl'organisation des Nations Unies et ses Etats Membres, à la
Palestine,à la Ligue des Etats arabes, ainsi qu'à I'Organisation de la Confé-
rence islamique.
10. Diverses correspondances ont étéadresséespar le Greffe à ces derniers,
concernant notamment les dispositions prises pour l'organisation de la procé-
dure orale. Par des communications du 20 février2004, le Greffe a fait tenir le
calendrier détaillé des audiences ceux d'entre eux qui avaient manifesté,dans
le délaifixépar la Cour à cet effet, leur intention de prendre paàtladite pro-
cédure.
11. Conformément à l'article 106du Règlement, la Cour a décidéde rendre
accessible au public le texte des exposés écriàsla date d'ouverture de la pro-
cédureorale.Article 105, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, to hold public hearings during
which oral statements and comments might be presented to it by the United
Nations and its Member States, regardless of whether or not they had submit-
ted written statements, and fixed 23 February 2004 as the date for the opening
of the said hearings. By the same Order, the Court decided that, for the reasons
set out above (see par,xgraph 4), Palestine might also take part in the hearings.
Lastly, it invited the United Nations and its Member States, as well as Pales-
tine. to inform the Registry, by 13 February 2004 at the latest, if they were
intending to takepart in the above-mentioned hearings. By letters of 19Decem-
ber 2004, the Registrar informed them of the Court's decisions and transmitted
to them a copy of the Order.
6. Ruling on requests submitted subsequently by the League of Arab States
and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Court decided, in accord-
ance with Article 66 of its Statute, that those two international organizations
were likely to be able to furnish information on the question submitted to the
Court, and that consecquentlythey might for that purpose submit written state-
ments within the time-limit fixed by the Court in its Order of 19December 2003
and take part in the hearings.
7. Pursuant to Article 65, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Secretary-General
of the United Nations communicated to the Court a dossier of documents
likely to throw light upon the question.
8. By a reasoned Order of 30 January 2004 regarding its composition in the
case, the Court decided that the matters brought to its attention by the Gov-
ernment of Israel in a letter of 31 December 2003, and in a confidential letter of
15 January 2004 addressed to the President pursuant to Article 34, para-
graph 2, of the Rules of Court, were not such as to preclude Judge Elaraby
from sitting in the case.
9. Within the time-limit fixed by the Court for that purpose, written state-
ments were filed by, in1order of their receipt:Guinea, Saudi Arabia, League of
Arab States, Egypt, Cameroon, Russian Federation, Australia, Palestine,
United Nations, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Canada, Syria, Switzerland, Israel,
Yemen, United States: of America, Morocco, Indonesia, Organization of the
Islamic Conference, France, Italy, Sudan, South Africa, Germany,Japan, Nor-
way, United Kingdoni, Pakistan, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland on its own
behalf, lreland on behalf of the European Union, Cyprus, Brazil, Namibia,
Malta, Malaysia, Netherlands, Cuba, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Palau, Feder-
ated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Senegal, Democratic People's
Republicof Korea. Upon receipt of those statements,the Registrar transmitted
copies thereof to the United Nations and its Member States, to Palestine, to the
League of Arab States and to the Organization of the lslamic Conference.
10. Various commuinications were addressed to these latter by the Registry,
concerning in particullar the measures taken for the organization of the oral
proceedings. By comiriunications of 20 February 2004, the Registry transmitted
a detailed timetable of the hearings to those of the latter who, within the time-
limit fixed for that purpose by the Court, had expressed their intention of
taking part in the afoi-ementioned proceedings.
11. Pursuant to Article 106of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to make
the written statements accessible to the public, with effect from the opening of
the oral proceedings.143 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
12. Au cours d'audiences tenues du 23 au 25 février 2004,la Cour a entendu
en leurs exposésoraux et dans l'ordre suivant:
pour la Palestine: S. Exc. M. Nasser Al-Kidwa, ambassadeur,
observateur permanent de la Palestine auprès de
l'organisation des Nations Unies,
Mm' Stephanie Koury, membre du groupe d'appui
aux négociations, conseil,
M. James Crawford, S.C., professeur de droit inter-
national à l'université de Cambridge (chaire
Whewell), membre de l'Institut de droit international,
conseil et avocat,
M. Georges Abi-Saab, professeur de droit interna-
tionalà l'Institut universitaire de hautes études inter-
nationales de Genève, membre de l'Institut de droit
international, conseil et avocat,
M. Vaughan Lowe, professeur de droit internatio-
nal à l'université d'Oxford (chaire Chichele), conseil
et avocat,
M. Jean Salmon, professeur éméritede droit inter-
national à l'université libre de Bruxelles, membre de
l'Institut de droit international, conseil et avocat;
pour la Rkpublique S. Exc. M. Aziz Pahad, vice-ministre des affaires
sud-africaine: étrangères,chef de délégation,
M. M. R. W. Madlanga, S.C., juge;
pour la Rkpublique M. Ahmed Laraba, professeur de droit internatio-
algériennedkmo- nal;
crutique et popu-
laire:
pour le Royuume S. Exc. M. Fawzi A. Shobokshi, ambassadeur et
d'Arabie saou- représentant permanent du Royaume d'Arabie
dite: saoudite auprès de l'organisation des Nations Unies
New York, chef de délégation;
pour lu Rkpublique S. Exc. M. Liaquat Ali Choudhury, ambassadeur
populaire du de la République populaire du Bangladesh auprès du
Bangladesh : Royaume des Pays-Bas;
pour Belize: M. Jean-Marc Sorel, professeur à l'université de
Paris 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne) ;
pour la République S. Exc. M. Abelardo Moreno Fernandez, vice-
de Cuba: ministre des affaires étrangères;
pour la République S. Exc. M. Mohammad Jusuf, ambassadeur de la
d'Indonésie: République d'Indonésie auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas, chef de délégation;
pour le Royaume S. A. R. Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, ambassa-
hachkrnite de deur, représentant permanent du Royaume haché-
Jordanie: mite deJordanie auprèsdel'organisation des Nations
Unies, chef de délégation,
sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., conseillerjuri- 12. In the course oî hearings held from 23 to 25 February 2004, the Court
heard oral statements, in the following order, by:
j'ur Palestine: H.E. Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwa, Ambassador, Perma-
nent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations,
Ms Stephanie Koury, Member, Negotiations Sup-
port Unit, Counsel,
Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professor of
International Law, University of Cambridge, Mem-
ber of the Institute of International Law, Counsel
and Advocate,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Professor of International
Law, Graduate Institute of International Studies,
Geneva, Member of the Institute of International
Law, Counsel and Advocate,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Interna-
tional Law, University of Oxford, Counsel and Advo-
cate,
Mr. Jean Salmon, Professor Emeritus of Interna-
tional Law, Université libre de Bruxelles, Member
of the lnstitute of International Law, Counsel and
Advocate;
,fur the Republic H.E. Mr. Aziz Pahad, Deputy Minister for Foreign
qf'South Africu: Affairs, Head of Delegation,
Judge M. R. W. Madlanga, S.C.;
,for the People's Mr. Ahmed Laraba, Professor of International
Dernocrutic Re- Law;
public qf'Algeriu:
for the Kingdom H.E. Mr. Fawzi A. Shobokshi, Ambassador and
of'Saurii Arabia: Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia to the United Nations in New York, Head of
Delegation ;
,fur the People's H.E. Mr. Liaquat Ali Choudhury, Ambassador of
Republic of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the King-
Bangladesh : dom of the Netherlands;
,fur Belize: Mr. Jean-Marc Sorel, Professor at the University of
Paris 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne) ;
for the Republic qf' H.E. Mr. Abelardo Moreno Fernandez, Deputy
Minister for Foreign Affairs;
Cuba :
for the Republic. of H.E. Mr. Mohammad Jusuf, Ambassador of the
Indonesia : Republic of Indonesia to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, Head of Delegation;
,fur the Hushernite H.R.H. Ambassador Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein,
Kingdom c?f' Permanent Representative of the Hashemite
Jordan : Kingdom of Jordan to the United Nations, New
York, Head of Delegation,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Senior Legal dique principal du Gouvernement du Royaume
hachémite deJordanie ;
pour la République S. Exc. M. Alfred Rambeloson, représentant per-
de Madugascar ; manent de Madagascar auprèsde l'Officedes Nations
Unies et des institutions spécialiséei Genève,chef
de délégation;
pour la Malai.siir S. Exc. Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, ministre des
affaires étrangères,chef de délégatio;
pour la République S. Exc. M. Saliou Cissé,ambassadeur de la Répu-
du Sénégal: blique du Sénégaa luprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
chef de délégation;
pour la République S. Exc. M. Abuelgasim A. Idris, ambassadeur de la
duSoudan: Républiquedu Soudan auprèsdu Royaume des Pays-
Bas ;
pour la Ligue des M. Michael Bothe, professeur de droit, chef de
Etats arabes: l'équipejuridique;
pour I'Orgarzisation S. Exc. M. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secrétaire géné-
rila ConJrrence ral de l'organisation de la Conférence islamique,
i.darnique: Mm" Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, professeur de
droit public i l'université Paris VII-Denis Diderot,
conseil.
13. Lorsqu'elle est saisie d'une demande d'avis consultatif, la Cour
doit commencer par déterminer si elle a compétence pour donner l'avis
demandé et, dans l'affirmative, s'il existe une quelconque raison pour elle
de refuser d'exercer une telle compétence (voir Licéitk de la menace ou de
l'emploi d'armes nucléaires, avis consultut$ C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I),
p. 232, par. 10).
14. La Cour se penchera donc en premier lieu sur la question de savoir
si elle a compétence pour donner l'avis consultatif demandé par 1'Assem-
bléegénéralele 8 décembre 2003. La compétence de la Cour en la matière
est fondée sur le paragraphe 1 de l'article65 de son Statut, aux termes
duquel la Cour «peut donner un avis consultatif sur toute question juri-
dique, à la demande de tout organe ou institution qui aura été autorisé
par la Charte des Nations Unies ou conformément à ses dispositions a
demander cet avis)). La Cour a déjàeu l'occasion d'indiquer que:
((pour qu['elle] ait compétence, il faut que l'avis consultatif soit
demandé par un organe dûment habilité à cet effet conformément à
la Charte, qu'il porte sur une question juridique et que, sauf dans le
cas de l'Assemblée généraleet du Conseil de sécurité,cette question
se pose dans le cadre de l'activitéde cet organe» (Demande de réfbr-
mation du jugernent no 273 du Tribunul adïninistrutif' des Nations
Unies, avis consultatij; C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 333-334, par. 21). Adviser to the Government of the Hashemite King-
dom of Jordan;
,/Orthe Repuhlic of' H.E. Mr. Alfred Rambeloson, Permanent Repre-
Madagascar : sentative of Madagascar to the Office of the United
Nations at Geneva and to the Specialized Agencies,
Head of Delegation ;
H.E. Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Foreign Min-
ister of Malaysia, Head of Delegation;
jOr the Republic of' H.E. Mr. Saliou Cissé,Ambassador of the Repub-
Senegul: lic of Senegal to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Head of Delegation;
,for the Repuhlicof' H.E. Mr. Abuelgasim A. Idris, Ambassador of the
the Sudan: Republic of the Sudan to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands ;
fOr the League of Mr. Michael Bothe. Professor of Law, Head of the
Arah States: Legal Team;
for the Organiza- H.E. Mr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary General
tion of the Islamic of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Conference: Ms Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Professor of
Public Law, University of Paris VII-Denis Diderot,
as Counsel.
13. When seised of a request for an advisory opinion, the Court must
first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give the opinion requested and
whether, should the answer be in the affirmative, there is any reason why
it should decline to exercise any such jurisdiction (see Legality cf the
Threut or Use of niucleur Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1996 (1), p. 232, para. 10).
14. The Court will thus first address the question whether it possesses
jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assem-
bly on 8 December 2003. The competence of the Court in this regard is
based on Article 65, paragraph 1, of its Statute, according to which the
Court "may give an ;~dvisoryopinion on any legal question at the request
of whatever body inay be authorized by or in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations to make such a request". The Court
has already had occiision to indicate that :
"It is . . . a precondition of the Court's competence that the advi-
sory opinion be requested by an organ duly authorized to seek it
under the Charter, that it be requested on a legal question, and that,
except in the case of the General Assembly or the Security Council,
that question should be one arising within the scope of the activities
of the requesting organ." (Application for Review of Judgemrnt No.
273 of the United Nutions Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opin-
ion, I.C.J. Repc~rts1982, pp. 333-334, para. 21.)
12 15. C'està la Cour qu'il appartient de s'assurer que la demande d'avis
consultatif émane d'un organe ou d'une institution ayant compétence
pour ce faire. Dans la présenteespèce, la Cour relèveque l'Assemblée
générale,qui demande l'avis consultatif, est autoriséeà le faire en vertu
du paragraphe 1de l'article 96 de la Charte, qui dispose que «[l]'Assem-
blée généralo eu le Conseil de sécurité peutdemander à la Cour interna-
tionale de Justice un avis consultatif sur toute question juridique)).
16. Bien que la disposition précitée prévoiqeue l'Assemblée générale
peut demander un avis consultatif «sur toute question juridique)), la
Cour a parfois, dans le passé,donnécertaines indications quant à la rela-
tion entre la question faisant l'objet d'une demande d'avis consultatif et
les activitésde l'Assembléegénérale(Interprétationdes truités depaix
conclus aveclu Bulgurie, la Hongrie et lu Roumanie, C.I.J. Recueil 1950,
p. 70; Licéitéde la rîzenuceou (te I'clmploid'armes nucléaires, C.I.J.
Recueil 1996 (I), p. 232 et 233, par. 11 et 12).
17. La Cour fera de mêmeen l'espèce.Elle relèvera à cet égard que
l'article 10de la Charte a conféré l'Assemblée générau lene compétence
à l'égardde ((toutes questions ou affaires)) entrant dans le cadre de la
Charte, et que le paragraphe 2 de l'article1lui a spécifiquementdonné
compétence à l'égardde ((toutes questions serattachant au maintien de la
paix et de la sécuritéinternationales dont elle aura étésaisie par l'une
quelconque des Nations Unies...)) et pour faire des recommandations
sous certaines conditions poséesdans ces deux articles. Comme il sera
expliquéplus loin, la question de la construction du mur dans le territoire
palestinien occupé a été soumise a l'Assemblée généralp ear un certain
nombre d'Etats Membres dans le cadre de sa dixième sessionextraordi-
naire d'urgence, convoquéepour examiner ce que l'Assemblée,dans sa
résolution ES-1012du 25 avril 1997,avait considéré commeconstituant
une menace iila paix età la sécuritéinternationales.
18. Avant de se pencher plus avant sur les questions de compétence
qui ont étésoulevéesdans la présente affaire,la Cour estime nécessairede
décrire les événementsqui ont conduit a l'adoption de la résolution
ES-10114,par laquelle l'Assemblée généraa ledemandéun avis consulta-
tif sur les conséquencesjuridiques de la construction du mur dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé.
19. La dixième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence de l'Assemblée géné-
rale, au cours de laquelle a étéadoptée cette résolution, fut convoquée
pour la première foisaprèsque, les 7 et 21 mars 1997,le Conseil de sécu-
rité,du fait du vote négatifde l'un de sesmembres permanents, eut rejeté
deux projets de résolutionrelatifs certaines colonies israéliennesdans le
territoire palestinien occupé (voir, respectivement, SI19971199 et
SlPV.3747, SI19971241et SlPV.3756). Par une lettre du 31 mars 1997,le
présidentdu Groupe arabe demanda alors «que l'Assemblée généras loit
convoquée ensession extraordinaire d'urgence, conformément a la réso- 15. It is for the Court to satisfy itself that the request for an advisory
opinion comes from an organ or agency having competence to make it.
In the present instance, the Court notes that the General Assembly,
which seeks the advisory opinion, is authorized to do so by Article 96,
paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides: "The General Assembly or
the Security Councillmay request the International Court of Justice to
give an advisory opinion on any legal question."
16. Although the above-mentioned provision states that the General
Assembly may seek an advisory opinion "on any legal question", the
Court has sometime:~in the past given certain indications as to the rela-
tionship between the question the subject of a request for an advisory
opinion and the activities of the General Assembly (Interpretution of
Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hu~zgury and Romania, I.C. J. Reports
1950, p. 70; Legu1it.y qf the Threat or Use of Nucleur Weapons, I.C. J.
Reports 1996 (I), pp. 232 and 233, paras. 11 and 12).
17. The Court will so proceed in the present case. The Court would
observe that Article 10 of the Charter has conferred upon the General
Assembly a competence relating to "any questions or any matters" within
the scope of theChairter,and that Article 11,paragraph 2, has specifically
provided it with competence on "questions relating to the maintenance of
international peace a~ndsecurity brought before it by any Member of the
United Nations . .."and to make recommendations under certain con-
ditions fixed bythoa: Articles. As willbe explained below, the question of
the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was
brought before the General Assembly by a number of Member States in
the context of the 1TenthEmergency Special Session of the Assembly,
convened to deal with what the Assembly, in its resolution ES-1012of
25 April 1997, considered to constitute a threat to international peace
and security.
18. Before furthei- examining the problems of jurisdiction that have
been raised in thepresent proceedings, the Court considers it necessary to
describe the events ithat led to the adoption of resolution ES-10114,by
which the General P~ssemblyrequested an advisory opinion on the legal
consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory.
19. The Tenth Eniergency Special Session of the General Assembly, at
which that resolution was adopted, was first convened following the
rejection by the Security Council, on 7 March and 21 March 1997,as a
result of negative votes by apermanent member, of two draft resolutions
concerning certain Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory (see, respectively, SI19971199and SIPV.3747, and SI19971241and
SlPV.3756). By a letter of 31 March 1997, the Chairman of the Arab
Group then requested "that an emergency special session ofthe General
Assembly be convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V)entitled 'Uniting 146 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
lution 377A (V)intitulée((L'unionpour le maintien de la paix)))),en vue
de débattre des ((mesures illégales prisespar les autorités israélienàes
Jérusalem-Est occupée ainsi que dans le reste du territoire palestinien
occupé))(lettre du 31 mars 1997, adresséeau Secrétaire générap lar le
représentant permanent du Qatar auprès de l'organisation des Nations
Unies, AIES-1011, 22avril 1997,annexe). Cette demande ayant recueilli
l'agrémentde la majorité des Membres de l'organisation des Nations
Unies, la première séance dela dixième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence
de l'Assemblée généraleeut lieu le 24avril 1997(voir AIES-1011,22 avril
1997). Dans sa résolution ES-1012adoptée le jour suivant, l'Assemblée
généralese déclarait convaincue que
((les violations répétéesu droit international par Israël, puissance
occupante, et la non-application par ce pays des résolutions perti-
nentes du Conseil de sécuritéet de l'Assemblée générale et des
accords auxquels sont parvenues les parties, portent atteinte au pro-
cessus de paix au Moyen-Orient et constituent une menace à la paix
età la sécuritéinternationales)),
et condamnait les ((mesures illégalesprises par Israël))à Jérusalem-Est
occupéeet dans le reste du territoire palestinien occupé, en particulier la
construction de colonies dans ce territoire. La dixième sessionextraordi-
naire d'urgence fut ensuite temporairement ajournée, et a étédepuis lors
convoquée à nouveau onze fois (les 15juillet 1997, 13 novembre 1997,
17mars 1998,5 février1999, 18octobre 2000, 20 décembre2001, 7 mai
2002, 5 août 2002, 19 septembre 2003, 20 octobre 2003 et 8 décembre
2003).
20. Par une lettre du 9 octobre 2003, le président du Groupe arabe,
agissant au nom des Etats membres de la Liguedes Etats arabes, demanda
que le Conseil de sécuritéseréunissesans délaipour examiner les ((graves
violations du droit international, y compris le droit international huma-
nitaire, qu'Israël continue de commettre et [prendre] les mesures qui
s'imposent en la matière))(lettre du 9 octobre 2003,adresséeau président
du Conseil de sécuritépar le représentant permanent de la République
arabe syrienne auprès de l'organisation des Nations Unies, Sl20031973,
9 octobre 2003). Cette lettre était accompagnéed'un projet de résolution
soumis a l'examen du Conseil, projet qui condamnait comme illicite la
construction par Israël d'un mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé
selon un tracé s'écartant dela ligne d'armistice de 1949. Le Conseil de
sécuritétint ses4841cet 4842' séancesle 14octobre 2003 pour examiner
le point intituléLa situation au Moyen-Orient, y compris la question de
Palestine)). Un autre projet de résolution lui avait été soumisle même
jour par la Guinée, la Malaisie, le Pakistan et la République arabe
syrienne, condamnant également laconstruction du mur. Ce dernier pro-
jet de résolution, mis aux voix au terme d'un débat ouvert,fut rejeté en
raison du vote négatif de l'un des membres permanents du Conseil
(SlPV.4841 et SlPV.4842).
Le 15octobre 2003,le présidentdu Groupe arabe, agissant au nom desfor Peace' " with a view to discussing "Illegal Israeli actions in occupied
East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (letter
dated 31 March 199'7from the Permanent Representative of Qatar to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, AIES-1011,22 April
1997, Annex). The rnajority of Members of the United Nations having
concurred in this reqluest, the first meeting of the Tenth Emergency Spe-
cial Session of the General Assembly took place on 24 April 1997 (see
AIES-1011,22 April 1997).Resolution ES-1012was adopted the following
day ; the General Assembly thereby expressed its conviction that :
"the repeated viiolation by Israel, the occupying Power, of interna-
tional law and litsfailure to comply with relevant Security Council
and General A,ssembly resolutions and the agreements reached
between the parties undermine the Middle East peace process and
constitute a threat to international peace and security",
and condemned the "illegal Israeli actions" in occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the con-
struction of settlements in that territory. The Tenth Emergency Special
Session was then ad-journed temporarily and has since been reconvened
11 times (on 15 July 1997, 13 November 1997, 17 March 1998, 5 Febru-
ary 1999, 18 October 2000, 20 December 2001, 7 May 2002, 5 August
2002, 19 September 2003, 20 October 2003 and 8 December 2003).
20. By a letter dated 9 October 2003, the Chairman of the Arab
Group, on behalf of the States Members of the League of Arab States,
requested an immediate meeting of the Security Council to consider the
"grave and ongoing Israeli violations of international law, including
international humanitarian law, and to take the necessary measures in
this regard" (letter ol-9 October 2003 from the Permanent Representative
of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations to the President of
the Security Council. Sl20031973,9 October 2003). This letter was accom-
panied by a draft resolution for consideration by the Council, which con-
demned as illegal the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory departing from the Armistice Line of 1949. The
Security Council heltl its 4841st and 4842nd meetings on 14October 2003
to consider the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East, including
the Palestine question". It then had before it another draft resolution
proposed on the sam,eday by Guinea, Malaysia, Pakistan and the Syrian
Arab Republic, which also condemned the construction of the wall. This
latter draft resolution was put to a vote after an open debate and was not
adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Coun-
cil (SlPV.4841 and SlPV.4842).
On 15 October 2003, the Chairman of the Arab Group, on behalf of147 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
Etats membres de la Liga 2des Etats arabes. demanda la remise de la
dixième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence de l'Assemblée généraleen vue
d'examiner le point intitulé ((Mesuresillégales prisespar Israëlà Jérusa-
lem-Est occupéeet dans le reste du territoire palestinien occupé))(AIES-
101242);cette demande fut soutenue par le Mouvement des pays non
alignés (AIES-101243)et par le groupe de l'organisation de la Conférence
islamique à l'organisation des Nations Unies (AIES-101244).La dixième
session extraordinaire d'urgence reprit ses travaux le 20 octobre 2003.
21. Le 27 octobre 2003, l'Assemblée générala edoptait la résolution
ES-10113,par laquelle elle exigeait que
((Israël arrêtela construction du mur dans le territoire palestinien
occupé,y compris Jérusalem-Est et ses alentours, et revienne sur ce
projet, qui s'écartede la ligne d'armistice de 1949et qui est contraire
aux dispositions pertinentes du droit international>)(par. 1).
Au paragraphe 3, elle priait le Secrétaire général
«de rendre compte périodiquement de la façon dont la ..résolution
[serait] respectée, son premier rapport sur l'application du para-
graphe 1 [de ladite résolution] devant êtreprésentédans un délai
d'un mois ..D.
La clôture de la dixième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence fut temporaire-
ment prononcée,et le rapport du Secrétaire généraé l tablien application
de la résolution ES-10113de l'Assemblée générale (ci-aprè dénomméle
«rapport du Secrétairegénéral)))futpubliéle 24 novembre 2003 (AIES-
101248).
22. Entre-temps, le 19 novembre 2003, le Conseil de sécuritéavait
adoptéla résolution 1515 (2003),par laquelle i« [a]pprouv[ait] la feuille
de route axéesur les résultatsen vue d'un règlementpermanent du conflit
israélo-palestinien prévoyant deux Etats, établie par le Quatuor)). Le
Quatuor est composédes représentants des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, de
l'Union européenne, dela Fédération deRussie et de l'organisation des
Nations Unies. La résolution
«[d]emand[ait] aux parties de s'acquitter des obligations ... leur
incomb[a]nt en vertu de la feuille de route, en coopération avec le
Quatuor, et de concrétiserla vision de deux Etats vivant côte à côte
dans la paix et la sécurité)).
Ni ladite((feuillede route)) ni la résolution 1515(2003)ne contenaient de
disposition concernant explicitement la construction du mur, question
qui ne fut pas alors examinéepar le Conseil de sécurité.
23. Dix-neuf jours plus tard, le 8 décembre2003, la dixième session
extraordinaire d'urgence de l'Assemblée généralre eprenait ses travaux,à
la suite d'une nouvelle demande présentéepar le présidentdu Groupe des
Etats arabes, au nom des Etats membres de la Ligue des Etats arabes, et
conformément à la résolution ES-10113 (lettre du 1"' décembre 2003,
adresséeau présidentde l'Assemblée généralpear le chargéd'affaires par CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 147
the States Members of the League of Arab States, requested the resump-
tion of the Tenth Eniergency Special Session of the General Assembly to
consider the item of "Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (AIES-101242);this
request was supported by the Non-Aligned Movement (AIES-101243)
and the Organization of the Islamic Conference Group at the United
Nations (AIES-101244).The Tenth Emergency Special Session resumed
its work on 20 October 2003.
21. On 27 October 2003, the General Assembly adopted resolution
ES-10113,by which it demanded that
"Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which
is in departureof the Armistice Line of 1949and is in contradiction
to relevant provisions of internationalaw" (para. 1).
In paragraph 3, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General
"to report on compliance with the . . resolution periodically, with
the first report on compliance withparagraph 1 [of that resolution]
to be submitted within one month .. .".
The Tenth Emergency Special Session was temporarily adjourned and,
on 24 November 2003, the report of the Secretary-General prepared pur-
suant to General Assembly resolution ES-10113(hereinafter the "report
of the Secretary-General") was issued (AIES-101248).
22. Meanwhile, or1 19 November 2003, the Security Council adopted
resolution 1515 (2003), by which it "Endorse[d] the Quartet Perfor-
mance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian Conflict". The Quartet consists of representatives of the
United States of America, the European Union, the Russian Federation
and the United Nations. That resolution
"Cull[ed] on the parties to fulfiltheir obligations under the Road-
map in cooperation with the Quartet and to achieve the vision of
two States livingside by side in peace and security."
Neither the "Roadrnap" nor resolution 1515 (2003) contained any
specificprovision coricerning the construction of the wall, which was not
discussed by the Security Council in this context.
23. Nineteen days later, 0118 December 2003, the Tenth Emergency
Special Session of the General Assenlbly again resumed its work, follow-
ing a new request by the Chairman of the Arab Group, on behalf of the
States Members of tlhe League of Arab States, and pursuant to resolu-
tion ES-10113(letter dated I December 2003to the President of the Gen-
eral Assembly from Ihe Chargéd'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission148 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
intérimde la mission permanente du Koweït auprès de l'Organisation des
Nations Unies, doc. AIES-101249,2 décembre 2003). C'est au cours de la
séanceconvoquée ce jour-là qu'a étéadoptée la résolution ES-10114por-
tant demande du présent avis consultatif.
24. Ayant ainsi rappeléla chronologie des événementsqui ont conduit
a l'adoption de la résolution ES-10114,la Cour abordera maintenant les
questions de compétence soulevées en la présente espèce.Tout d'abord,
Israël a prétendu que, compte tenu du rôle actif joué par le Conseil de
sécuritéà l'égardde la situation au Moyen-Orient, y compris la question
palestinienne, l'Assemblée généralee ,n demandant un avis consultatif sur
les conséquences juridiques de l'édification du mur dans le territoire
palestinien occupé, avait outrepassé la compétence que lui confère la
Charte.
25. La Cour a déjàindiqué que l'objet de la requêteportant demande
du présent avisconsultatif relevait de la compétencede l'Assemblée géné-
rale en vertu de la Charte (voir paragraphes 15 à 17ci-dessus). Le para-
graphe 1 de I'article 12 de la Charte dispose toutefois que:
«Tant que le Conseil de sécurité remplit,à l'égardd'un différend
ou d'une situation quelconque, les fonctions qui lui sont attribuées
par la présente Charte, l'Assemblée généralene doit faire aucune
recommandation sur ce différend ou cette situation, moins que le
Conseil de sécurité nele lui demande. »
Une requêtepour avis consultatif ne constitue pas en soi une ((recom-
mandation» de l'Assemblée générale «sur [un] différend ou [une] situa-
tion». 11a cependant été soutenu en I'espéceque l'adoption de la résolu-
tion ES-10114par l'Assemblée générala evait outrepassé la compétencede
celle-ci, en tant qu'elle n'était pas conforme à I'article 12. Aussi la Cour
juge-t-elle opportun d'examiner le sens qu'il convient de donner à cet
article, compte tenu des textes pertinents et de la pratique des Nations
Unies.
26. En vertu de l'article 24 de la Charte, le Conseil de sécuritéa «la
responsabilité principale du maintien de la paix et de la sécuritéinterna-
tionales)). Ainsi a-t-il à cet égardla faculté d'imposer aux Etats ((l'obliga-
tion explicite de se conformer aux ordres qu'il peut émettre au titre du
chapitre VII» et, iicette fin, de ((prescrire des mesures d'exécution par
une action coercitive » (Certaines &penses des Nations Unies (article 17,
paragraphe 2 de 111Churte), avis consultatiJ, C.J. Recueil 1962, p. 163).
La Cour relèvera toutefois que I'article 24 fait mention d'une compétence
principale, mais pas nécessairement exclusive. L'Assemblée généralea
par exemple le pouvoir, en vertu de I'article 14 de la Charte, de «recom-
mander les mesures propres a assurer l'ajustement pacifique)) de diverses
situations (ihid).
«[L]a seule restriction que l'article 14 impose à l'Assembléegéné- CONSTR.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 148
of Kuwait to the Uniited Nations, AIES-101249,2 December 2003). It was
during the meeting convened onthat daythat resolution ES-10114request-
ing the present advisory opinion was adopted.
24. Having thus recalled the sequence of events that led to the adop-
tion of resolution ES-10114,the Court will now turn to the questions of
jurisdiction that have been raised in the present proceedings. First, Israel
has alleged that, given the active engagement of the Security Council with
the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, the
General Assembly acted ultra vires under the Charter when it requested
an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the
wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
25. The Court has already indicated that the subject of the present
request for an advisory opinion falls within the competence of the Gen-
eral Assembly under the Charter (see paragraphs 15-17above). However,
Article 12, paragrapli 1, of the Charter provides that:
"While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute
or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the
General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard
to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests."
A request for an advisory opinion is not in itself a "recommendation" by
the General Assembly "with regard to [a] dispute or situation". It has
however been argued in this case that the adoption by the General
Assembly of resolution ES-10114 was ultra vires as not in accordance
with Article 12. The Court thus considers that it is appropriate for it to
examine the significance of that Article, having regard to the relevant
texts and the practicii of the United Nations.
26. Under Article 24 of the Charter the Security Council has "primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
In that regard it cari impose on States "an explicit obligation of com-
pliance if for example it issues an order or command . . . under Chap-
ter VII" and can, to that end, "require enforcement by coercive action"
(Certuin E.ipcnsc.sof the United Nations (Article 17, paragruph 2, cf the
Charter), Advisory (3pinion, I. C.J. Reports 1962, p. 163). However, the
Court would emphasize that Article 24 refers to a primary, but not
necessarily exclusive, competence. The General Assembly does have
the power, inter alia, under Article 14 of the Charter, to "recommend
measures for the peaceful adjustment" of various situations (ihid).
"[Tlhe only limitation which Article 14 imposes on the General149 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
rale est celle qui figual'article 12,c'est-à-dire que l'Assembléene
peut recommander de mesures tant que le Conseil de sécuritétraite
de la mêmequestion, à moins que [celui-ci] ne le lui demande.))
(C.Z.. Recueil 1962, p. 163.)
27. S'agissant de la pratique de l'organisation des Nations Unies,
l'Assemblée générale et le Conseil de sécurité interprétèrent et appli-
quèrent l'un et l'autre, dans un premier temps, l'article 12comme faisant
obstacle à ce que l'Assemblée puisseformuler des recommandations sur
une question relative au maintien de la paix et de la sécuritéinternatio-
nales restant inscritel'ordre dujour du Conseil. Ainsi l'Assembléerefu-
sa-t-elle, durant sa quatrième session, de recommander certaines mesures
concernant la question indonésienne,au motif, entreautres,que leConseil
demeurait saisi de la question (Documents qfjciels de lu quatrième ses-
sion de I'Assernhlégknérule,CommiLssiop izolitique spéciale, comptes ren-
dus unulytiques des séunces,27 septembre-7 décembre1949, 56' séance,
3 décembre1949,p. 361, par. 118).Le Conseil lui-mêmeraya aplusieurs
reprises certains points de son ordre du jour afin de permettàe1'Assem-
bléede délibérersur ceux-ci (par exemple, en ce qui concerne la question
espagnole (Procès-verhuux ojJcie1.s du Conseil de sécurité, première
année: secondesérie, no21,79' séance,4 novembre 1946,p. 498), certains
incidents à la frontière grecque (Procès-verbaux of$ciels du Conseil de
sécurité,deuxième année, no89, 202' séance,15septembre 1947,p. 2404-
2405)et l'îlede Taïwan (Formose) (Procès-verhuuxofficie1.sdu Conseil de
sécurité,cinquième année, no 48, 506' séance,29 septembre 1950,p. 5)).
Dans le cas de la République de Corée,le Conseil décidale 31janvier
1951de retirer le point pertinent de la liste des questions dont il étaitsaisi
afin de permettre à l'Assembléede délibérer à cet égard (Procès-verhuux
qficiels du Conseil de sécurité,sixième unnée,SlPV.531, 531" séance,
31janvier 1951,p. 11-12,par. 57).
Cette interprétation de l'article2 devait cependant évoluer par la
suite. Ainsi l'Assemblée générale estima-t-ellouvoir adopter des recom-
mandations sur la question du Congo en 1961(résolutions 1955(XV) et
1600(XVI)) et sur celle des colonies portugaises en 1963(résolution 1913
(XVIII)), alors que ces questions étaient toujours inscrites l'ordre du
jour du Conseil, sans que celui-cieût adopté de résolutionsrécentesleur
égard.En réponse à une question poséepar le Péroulors de la vingt-troi-
sièmesession de l'Assembléegénérale,le conseillerjuridique de I'Organi-
sation des Nations Unies confirma que l'Assembléeavait interprétéles
mots ((remplit ...les fonctions)) employés à l'article 12 de la Charte
comme signifiant ((remplit ...les fonctions en ce moment)) (Assemblée
générale, vingt-troisièmesession, Troisième Commission, 1637"séance,
AlC.3lSR.1637, par. 9). De fait, la Cour relève l'existenced'une tendance
croissante à voir l'Assemblée générae lt le Conseil de sécurité examiner
parallèlement une mêmequestion relative au maintien de la paix et de la
sécuritéinternationales (voir, par exemple, lescas de Chypre,de l'Afrique
du Sud, de l'Angola, de la Rhodésiedu Sud et, plus récemment,de la Assembly is the restriction found in Article 12, namely, that the
Assembly shoultl not recommend measures while the Security Coun-
cil is dealing with the same matter unless the Council requests it to
do so." (1.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 163.)
27. As regards the practice of the United Nations, both the General
Assembly and the lsecurity Council initially interpreted and applied
Article 12to the effect that the Assembly could not make a recommenda-
tion on a question concerning the maintenance of international peace
and security while thematter remained on the Council's agenda. Thus the
Assembly during its fourth session refused to recommend certain meas-
ures on the questiori of Indonesia, on the ground, inter alia,that the
Council remained seised of the matter (OfJicial Records of the General
Assembly, Fourth Session, Ad Hoc Politicul Committee, Summary
Records of Meetings, 27 Septemher-7 Decemher 1949, 56th Meeting,
3 December 1949,p. 339, para. 118).As for the Council, on a number of
occasions it deleted items from its agenda inorder to enable the Assem-
bly to deliberate on tlhem(for example, in respect of the Spanish question
(OfJicial Records of the Security Council, First Year: Second Series,
No. 21, 79th Meeting, 4 November 1946,p. 498), in connection with inci-
dents on the Greek border (OfJicial Records oj the Security Council,
Second Yeur, No. 89,202nd Meeting, 15September 1947,pp. 2404-2405)
and in regard to the I[slandof Taiwan (Formosa) (OJficial Records of the
Security Council, Fifith Year, No.48, 506th Meeting, 29 September 1950,
p. 5)). In the case of the Republic of Korea, the Council decided on
31 January 1951 to remove the relevant item from the list of matters of
which it was seised in order to enable the Assembly to deliberate on the
matter (Oficial Records of the Security Council, Sixth Yeu, SlPV.531,
531st Meeting, 31Jainuary 1951,pp. 11-12, para. 57).
However, this interpretation of Article 12 has evolved subsequently.
Thus the General Assembly deemed itself entitled in 1961to adopt recom-
mendations in the rnatter of the Congo (resolutions 1955 (XV) and
1600(XVI)) and in 1963in respect of the Portuguese colonies (resolution
1913 (XVIII)) while those cases still appeared on the Council's agenda,
without the Council having adopted any recent resolution concerning
them. In response to a question posed by Peru during the twenty-third
session of theGeneraI Assembly, the LegalCounsel of the United Nations
confirmed that the Assembly interpreted the words "is exercising the
functions" in Article 12of the Charter as meaning "is exercising theunc-
tions at this moment" (General Assembly, Twenty-third Session, Third
Committee, 1637th meeting, AlC.3lSR. 1637,para. 9). Indeed, the Court
notes that there has been an increasing tendency over time for the Gen-
eral Assembly and the Security Council to deal in parallel with the same
matter concerning the maintenance of international peace and security
(see, forexample, th<:matters involving Cyprus, South Africa, Angola,
Southern Rhodesia and more recently Bosnia and Herzegovina and150 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
Bosnie-Herzégovine etde la Somalie). Il est souvent arrivé que, alors que
le Conseil de sécuritétendaità privilégierles aspects de ces questions tou-
chant a la paix et à la sécuritéinternationales, l'Assemblée générallees
envisage sius un angle plus large et en examine également les aspects
humanitaires, sociaux et économiques.
28. La Cour estime que la pratique acceptéede l'Assemblée générale,
telle qu'elle a évolué, estcompatible avec le paragraphe 1de l'article 12
de la Charte.
La Cour est en conséquence d'avisque l'Assemblée générale, ea ndop-
tant la résolution ES-10114portant demande d'un avis consultatif de la
Cour, n'a pas enfreint les dispositions du paragraphe 1 de l'article 12 de
la Charte. Elle conclut que, en présentant la demande d'avis consultatif,
l'Assemblée générale n'p aas outrepassé sa compétence.
29. 11a cependant été soutenu devant la Cour que la présentedemande
d'avis consultatif ne satisfaisait pas aux conditions essentielles énoncées
dans la résolution 377 A (V), au titre de laquelle la dixième session extra-
ordinaire d'urgence a étéconvoquéeet a poursuivi ses travaux. A ce pro-
pos, il a tout d'abord étéaffirméque «[l]e Conseil de sécuritén'a jamais
été saisid'un projet de résolution visanta ce qu'il demande lui-même un
avis consultatif à la Cour sur les questions aujourd'hui en cause»; le
Conseil n'ayant jamais été saiside cette question précise, l'Assemblée
générale nepouvait, selon cet argument, invoquer un quelconque défaut
d'action du Conseil pour soumettre une telle demande. Il a ensuite été
prétendu que, en adoptant sa résolution 1515 (2003) approuvant la
((feuille de route» avant que l'Assemblée généralp erenne sa résolution
ES-10114, leConseil de sécuritéavait continuéd'exercer sa responsabilité
en matière de maintien de la paix et de la sécuritéinternationales et que,
partant, l'Assemblée généraln e'était pas en droit d'agirà sa place. La
régularité dela procédure suivie par la dixième session extraordinaire
d'urgence, en particulier le ((caractèrecontinu)) de cette session, ainsi que
le fait qu'elle ait été convoquéepour débattre de la demande d'avis
consultatif au moment où l'Assemblée générale siégeait esn ession ordi-
naire ont égalementété contestés.
30. La Cour rappellera que, aux termes de la résolution 377 A (V):
«dans tout cas où paraît exister une menace contre la paix, une rup-
ture de la paix ou un acte d'agression et ou, du fait que l'unanimité
n'a pas pu se réaliserparmi ses membres permanents, le Conseil de
sécuritémanque à s'acquitter de sa responsabilité principale dans le
maintien de la paix et de la sécuritéinternationales, l'Assemblée
généraleexaminera immédiatement la question afin de faire aux
Membres les recommandations appropriées sur les mesures collec-
tivesà prendre ...».
Pour que la procédure prévuepar cette résolution puisseêtreenclenchée,
deux conditions doivent être remplies,à savoir, d'une part, que le Conseil
ait manqué à s'acquitter de sa responsabilité principale en matière de
maintien de la paix et de la sécuritéinternationales du fait du vote négatifSomalia). It is often the case that, while the Security Council has tended
to focus on the aspects of such matters related to international peace and
security, the General Assembly has taken a broader view, considering
also their humanitarian, social and economic aspects.
28. The Court considers that the accepted practice of the General
Assembly, as it has evolved, is consistent with Article 12,paragraph 1, of
the Charter.
The Court is accordingly of the view that the General Assembly, in
adopting resolution ES-10114, seeking an advisory opinion from the
Court. did not contravene the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 1. of
the Charter. The Court concludes that by submitting that request the
General Assembly did not exceed its competence.
29. It has however been contended before the Court that the present
request for an advisory opinion did not fulfil the essential conditions set
by resolution 377 A i(V)under which the Tenth Emergency Special Ses-
sion was convened and has continued to act. In this regard, it has been
said, first, that "The Security Council was never seised of a draft resolu-
tion proposing that tlheCouncil itself should request an advisory opinion
from the Court on the matters now in contention", and, that specific
issue having thus never been brought before the Council, the General
Assembly could not irelyon any inaction by the Council to make such a
request. Secondly, it has been claimed that, in adopting resolution 1515
(2003), which endorsed the "Roadmap", before the adoption by the Gen-
eral Assembly of resolution ES-10114,the Security Council continued to
exercise its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security and that, as a result, the General Assembly was not entitled to
act in its place. The validity of the procedure followed by the Tenth
Emergency Special Session, especially the Session's "rolling character"
and the fact that its meeting was convened to deliberate on the request
for the advisory opiriion at the same time as the General Assembly was
meeting in regular session, has also been questioned.
30. The Court would recall that resolution 377 A (V) States that:
"if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the perma-
nent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security in any case where
there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act
of aggression, the General Assernbly shall consider the matter imme-
diately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to
Members for collective measures . . .".
The procedure provided for by that resolution is premised on two con-
ditions, namely that the Council has failed to exercise its primary respon-
sibility for the maintenance of international peace and security as a result
of a negative vote of one or more permanent members, and that the situa-151 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVICSONSULTATIF)
de l'un ou de plusieurs de sesmembres permanents et que, d'autre part, la
situation soit de cellesdans lesquelles paraît exister une menace contre la
paix, une rupture de la paix ou un acte d'agression. La Cour doit en
conséquencedéterminer si ces conditions étaient effectivement remplies
lors de la convocation de la dixième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence de
l'Assemblée générale, en particulielrorsque celle-ci a décide demander
un avis consultatifà la Cour.
31. Au vu de la série d'événementd sécrits aux paragraphes 18à 23 ci-
dessus, la Cour constate que, lorsque la dixième sessionextraordinaire
d'urgence fut convoquéeen 1997,le Conseil s'était effectivementtrouvé,
en raison du vote négatifd'un membre permanent, dans l'incapacitéde
prendre une décisionconcernant l'implantation de certaines colonies de
peuplement dans le territoire palestinien occupéet que, comme l'indique
la résolutionES-1012(voir paragraphe 19ci-dessus),ilexistait une menace
à la paix età la sécuritéinternationales.
La Cour constate en outre que la dixième session extraordinaire
d'urgence, convoquée à nouveau le 20 octobre 2003, le fut sur la même
base qu'en 1997(voir les déclarationsdes représentants dela Palestine et
d'Israël,AIES-101PV.21,p. 2 et 5), après le rejet par le Conseil de sécu-
rité,le14octobre 2003, d'un projet de résolutionportant sur la construc-
tion par Israël du mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé,du fait une
nouvelle fois du vote négatifd'un membre permanent. La Cour considère
que le Conseil de sécuritéalà encore manqué à agir au sens de la résolu-
tion 377A (V). Il ne semble pas à la Cour que la situationàcet égardait
évoluéentre le 20 octobre 2003 et le 8 décembre2003.le Conseil de sécu-
ritén'ayant ni débattu de la construction du mur, ni adopté une quel-
conque résolution sur ce point. La Cour estime donc que, à la date du
8 décembre 2003, le Conseil n'était pas revenusur le vote négatif du
14octobre 2003. Il s'ensuit aue. au cours de cette ~ériode.la dixième ses-
sion extraordinaire d'urgence a étédûment convoquée à nouveau et pou-
vait régulièrement, envertu de la résolution 377 A (V), êtresaisie de la
question dont la Cour doit aujourd'hui connaître.
32. La Cour relèvera aussiqu'au cours de cette session extraordinaire
d'urgence l'Assemblée généralpeouvait adopter toute résolution ayant
traità la question pour laquelle avait étéconvoquéela session, et entrant
par ailleurs dans les compétences de l'Assemblée, y compris une résolu-
tion demandant un avis à la Cour. Qu'il n'aitpas étéproposéau Conseil
de sécuritéde solliciter un tel avis est sans pertinenceet égard.
33. Abordant maintenant les autres irrégularités procéduralesdont
serait entachée la dixième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence, la Cour ne
considère pas que le fait que cette session ait présentéun caractère
((continu))- ayant étéconvoquéeen avril 1997et convoquée à nouveau
onze fois depuis lors - ait quelque pertinence que ce soit en ce qui
concerne la validitéde la demande de l'Assemblée générale L.a Cour fait
observer à cet égard quela septième sessionextraordinaire d'urgence de
l'Assemblée généralec,onvoquée le 22 juillet 1980, fut, par la suite,
convoquée à nouveau àquatre reprises (les 20 avril, 25 juin, 16 août ettion is one in which there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of
the peace, or act of aggression. The Court must accordingly ascertain
whether these conditions were fulfilled as regards the convening of the
Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly, in particular
at the time when the Assembly decided to request an advisory opinion
from the Court.
31. In the light of the sequence of events described in paragraphs 18to
23 above, the Court observes that, at the time when the Tenth Emergency
Special Session was convened in 1997, the Council had been unable to
take a decision on the case of certain Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, due to negative votes of a permanent member; and
that, as indicated in resolution ES-1012 (see paragraph 19 above), there
existed a threat to international peace and security.
The Court further notes that, on 20 October 2003, the Tenth Emer-
gency Special Session of the General Assembly was reconvened on
the same basis as in 1997 (see the statements by the representatives of
Palestine and Israel, AIES-IOlPV.21, pp. 2 and 5), after the rejection
by the Security Council, on 14 October 2003, again as a result of the
negative vote of a permanent member, of a draft resolution concerning
the construction by lisrael of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory. The Court considers that the Security Council again failed to act
as contemplated in resolution 377 A (V). It does not appear to the
Court that the situation in this regard changed between 20 October 2003
and 8 December 2003, since the Council neither discussed the construc-
tion of the wall nor adopted any resolution in that connection. Thus, the
Court is of the view that, up to 8 December 2003, the Council had not
reconsidered the negritive vote of 14October 2003. It follows that, during
that period, the Tenth Emergency Special Session was duly reconvened
and could properly be seised, under resolution 377 A (V), of the matter
now before the Court.
32. The Court would also emphasize that, in the course of this Emer-
gency Special Session, the General Assembly could adopt any resolution
falling within the suibject-matter for which the Session had been con-
vened, and otherwise within its powers, including a resolution seeking the
Court's opinion. It is irrelevant in that regard that no proposal had been
made to the Security Council to request such an opinion.
33. Turning now to alleged further procedural irregularities of the
Tenth Emei-gency Special Session, the Court does not consider that the
"rolling" character of that Session, namely the fact of its having been
convened in April 1997and reconvened 11 times since then, has any rele-
vance with regard to the validity of the request by the General Assembly.
The Court observes in that regard that the Seventh Emergency Special
Session of the General Assembly, having been convened on 22 July
1980,was subsequently reconvened four times (on 20 April 1982,25 June
1982, 16 August 1982 and 24 September 1982), and that the validity of24 septembre 1982), sans que la validitédes résolutions ou des décisions
adoptéespar elle dans ce contexte aitjamais été contestée.La validité des
résolutions précédemmentadoptées dans le cadre de la dixième session
extraordinaire d'urgence n'a pas davantage été contestée.
34. La Cour note aussi l'argument avancépar Israël selon lequel la
nouvelle convocation de la dixièmesession extraordinaire d'urgence était
inappropriée, une session ordinaire de l'Assembléegénéraleétant alorsen
cours. Elle observe que, mêmesi, à l'origine, il a pu ne pas sembler
approprié que l'Assembléegénérale tiennesimultanément une session
extraordinaire d'urgence et une session ordinaire, aucune règleconstitu-
tionnelle de l'organisation n'a étéidentifiée, dont la méconnaissance
aurait rendu nulle la résolution portant adoption de la demande d'avis
consultatif en l'espèce.
35. Enfin. la Cour relèvera aue la dixième session extraordinaire
d'urgence a été convoquée conformément à l'alinéh) de l'article 9 du
règlementintérieurde l'Assemblée générale e,t que les séancespertinentes
ont étéconvoquéesselon les règlesen vigueur. Ainsi que la Cour l'a dit
dans son avis consultatif du 21juin 1971sur les CorzLséyuence.sjuridique.s
pour les Etuts de lu présence continu^ de 1I'Afiiyucrh Sud en Nunzihie
(Sud-Ouest ufricain) not~ohstuntlu résolution276 (1970) du Conseil de
sécurité,une
«résolution émanant d'un organe des Nations Unies régulièrement
constitué, prise conformément à son règlement et déclaréeadoptée
par son président,doit êtreprésuméevalable)) (C.I.J. Recueil 1971,
p. 22, par. 20).
La Cour ne voit aucune raison d'écarter cette présomptionen l'espèce.
36. La Cour abordera a présentune autre question soulevée à l'égard
de sa compétenceen l'espèce, à savoir que la demande d'avis consultatif
émanant de l'Assembléegénéralene porterait pas sur une ((question juri-
dique)) au sens du paragraphe 1de l'article 96 de la Charte et du para-
graphe 1de I'articl65 du Statut de la Cour. Il a étésoutenu acet égard
que, pour constituer une question juridique au sens des deux dispositions
susmentionnées, une question doit être raisonnablementprécise,faute de
quoi elle ne saurait se prêteà une réponsede la Cour. S'agissant de la
demande formuléedans la présenteprocédure consultative, il a étéfait
valoir qu'il n'était paspossible d'appréhender avec une certitude raison-
nable le sens juridique de la question poséea la Cour, et ce pour deux
raisons.
En premier lieu, il a été prétenduque la question concernant les
«conséquences» «en droit)) de la construction du mur n'admettait que
deux interprétations possibles, et que chacune de ces interprétations C0NSTR:UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOKY OPINION) 152
resolutions or decisions of the Assembly adopted under such cir-
cumstances was never disputed. Nor has the validity of any previous
resolutions adopted during the Tenth Emergency Special Session been
challenged.
34. The Court alslonotes the contention by lsrael that it was improper
to reconvene the Tenth Emergency Special Session at a time when the
regular session of the General Assembly was in progress. The Court con-
siders that, while it may not have been originally contemplated that it
would be appropriate for the General Assembly to hold simultaneous
emergency and regular sessions, no rule of the Organization has been
identified which wo~ild be thereby violated, so as to render invalid the
resolution adopting the present request for an advisory opinion.
35. Finally, the 'Tenth Emergency Special Session appears to have
been convened in accordance with Rule 9 (hl of the Rules of Procedure
of the General Asseinbly, and the relevant meetings have been convened
in pursuance of the applicable rules. As the Court stated in its Advisory
Opinion of 21 June 1971concerning the Legul Consc~quentesfor Stutes of
the Continued Presence ofSouth Afiicu in Namibiu (Soutlz West Africa)
notitithstan~fing Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), a
"resolution of a properly constituted organ of the United Nations
which is passed in accordance with that organ's rules of procedure,
and is declared by its President to have been so passed, must be
presumed to have been validly adopted" (1.C. J. Reports 1971, p. 22,
para. 20).
In view of the foregoing, the Court cannot see any reason why that
presumption is to be rebutted in the present case.
36. The Court now turns to a further issue related to jurisdiction in the
present proceedings.,namely the contention that the request for an advi-
sory opinion by the General Assembly is not on a "legal question" within
the meaning of Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter and Article 65,
paragraph 1,of the Statute of the Court. It has been contended in this
regard that, for a question to constitute a "legal question" for the pur-
poses of these two provisions, it must be reasonably specific, since other-
wise it would not be amenable to a response by the Court. With regard to
the request made in the present advisory proceedings, it has been argued
that it is not possit~le to determine with reasonable certainty the legal
meaning of the question asked of the Court for two reasons.
First. it has been argued that the question regarding the "legal conse-
quences" of the coinstruction of the wall only allows for two possible
interpretations, each of which would lead to a course of action that is153 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
conduirait la Cour à adopter une ligne de conduite qu'elle nesaurait rete-
nir. La question poséepourrait tout d'abord être interprétée commu ene
invitation faite la Cour de constater I'illicéide la construction du mur,
puis de donner son avis sur les conséquencesjuridiques de cette illicéité.
Dans ce cas, a-t-il étésoutenu, la Cour devrait refuser de répondre à la
question poséepour plusieurs raisons, certaines d'entre elles concernant
la compétence,et d'autres plutôt l'opportunité. S'agissant de la compé-
tence, il a étdit que, si'Assembléegénéraleavait voulu obtenir l'avisde
la Cour sur la question particulièrement complexe et délicatede la licéité
de la construction du mur, elleaurait demandé expressémentun avis à cet
effet (voirEcl~angedes populutiorzs grecques et turques. avisconsultatif;
1925, C. P.J.I.sérieB no 10,p. 17).Il a été affirmqu'une seconde inter-
prétation possible de la demande consisterait pour la Cour à présumer
illicite la construction du mur, pour ensuite se prononcer sur les consé-
quencesjuridiques de cette illicéitéprésuméD e.ans cette hypothèse aussi,
la Cour devrait refuser de répondre à la question posée, puisque la
demande serait alors fondée sur un postulat contestable et qu'il serait
en tout état de cause impossible de se prononcer sur les conséquences
juridiques de cette illicéitésans avoir préciséla nature de cette der-
nière.
11a étéprétenduen second lieu que, en raison de son manque de clarté
et de son caractère abstrait, la question poséeà la Cour ne serait pas de
nature ((juridique)). En particulier,il a étésoutenu à cet égard que la
question ne précisepas si les conséquences juridiques que la Cour est
priée d'examiner concernent «l'Assembléegénéraleou quelque autre
organe des Nations Unies)), les ctEtats Membres de l'organisation des
Nations Unies D, IsraëlD,la ((Palestine))ou ((certaines des entitéspréci-
tées.ou aLenaue autre entité)).
37. En ce qui concerne lemanque declartéalléguédes termes employés
dans la reauêtede l'Assembléegénéraleet son incidence sur la «nature
"
juridique)) de la question soumise à la Cour, celle-ci observera tout
d'abord que cette question vise les conséquencesjuridiques d'une situa-
tion de fait donnée, compte tenu des règleset des principes du droit inter-
national, notamment de la convention de Genève relative à la protection
des personnes civiles en temps de guerre, du 12 août 1949 (ci-après
dénomméela ((quatrième convention de Genève))), et des résolutions
consacrées à la question par le Conseil de sécurité et l'Assemblée géné-
rale. La question poséepar l'Assemblée généralaedonc, pour reprendre
les termes employéspar la Cour dans son avis consultatif sur le Suhara
occidental, «étélibell[ée]en termes juridiques et soulèv[e]des problèmes
de droit international)); elle est, par sa nature même, susceptible derece-
voir une réponse fondéeen droit; ellene serait guère susceptible d'ailleurs
de recevoir une autre réponse. La Cour est d'avis que cette question a
bien un caractère juridique (voir Sulzuru occidentul, avis consul tut^^
C. 1J. Recueil 1975, p. 18, par. 15).
38. La Cour fera observer qu'un manque de clartédans le libelléd'une
question ne saurait priver la Cour de sa compétence.Tout au plus, du faitprecluded for the Court. The question asked could first be interpreted as
a request for the Court to find that the construction of the wall is illegal,
and then to giveits opinion on the legal consequences of that illegality. In
this case, it has been contended, the Court should decline to respond to
the question asked for a variety of reasons, some of which pertain to
jurisdiction and others rather to the issue of propriety. As regards juris-
diction, it is said thait, if the General Assembly had wished to obtain the
view of the Court oin the highly complex and sensitive question of the
legality of the construction of the wall, it should have expressly sought an
opinion to that effect (cf. Exchange of Greek and Turkisk Populations,
Advisory Opinion, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 10, p. 17).A second pos-
sible interpretation of the request, it is said, is that the Court should
assume that the coristruction of the wall is illegal, and then give its
opinion on the legal consequences of that assumed illegality. It has been
contended that the Court should also decline to respond to the question
on this hypothesis, since the request would then be based on a question-
able assumption and since,in any event, it would be impossible to rule on
the legal consequenciis of illegality without specifying the nature of that
illegality.
Secondly, it has been contended that the question asked of the Court is
not of a "legal" character because of its imprecision and abstract nature.
In particular, it has been argued in this regard that the question fails to
specify whether the Court is being asked to address legal consequences
for "the General Assembly or some other organ of the United Nations",
"Member States of the United Nations", "Israel", "Palestine" or "some
combination of the above, or some different entity".
37. As regards the alleged lack of clarity of the terms of the General
Assembly's request a~ndits effect on the "legal nature" of the question
referred to the Court, the Court observes that this question is directed to
the legal consequenc<:sarising from a given factual situation considering
the rules and principles of international law, including the Geneva Con-
vention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of
12August 1949(hereinafter the "Fourth Geneva Convention") and rele-
vant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The question
submitted by the Gerieral Assembly has thus, to use the Court's phrase in
its Advisory Opinion on Western Suharu, "been framed in terms of law
and raise[s] problems of international law"; it is by its very nature
susceptible of a rep1:ybased on law; indeed it is scarcely susceptible of
a reply otherwise than on the basis of law. In the view of the Court, it is
indeed a question of a legal character (see Western Sahara, Advisory
Opinion, I.(IJ. Reports 1975, p. 18,para. 15).
38. The Court would point out that lack of clarity in the drafting of a
question does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. Rather, such uncer- CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 154
tainty will require clarification in interpretation, andh necessary clari-
fications of interpretirtion have frequently been given by the Court.
In the past, both the Permanent Court and the present Court have
observed in some cases that the wording of a request for an advisory
opinion did not accurately state the question on which the Court's opin-
ion was being soughi. (Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of
1 Decetnher 1926 (Final Protucol, Article IV), Advisory Opinion, 1928,
P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 16 (I), pp. 14-16), or did not correspond to the
"true legal question"' under consideration (Interpretation of'the Agree-
ment of25 March 1951 between the WHO und Egypt, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1980, pp. 87-89, paras. 34-36). The Court noted in one
case that "the quedon put to the Court is, on the face of it, at once
infelicitously expressed and vague" (Applic'utionfor Reviel.~qf Judge-
metzt No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory
Opinion, I.C,J..Reports 1982, p. 348, para. 46).
Consequently, the Court has often been required to broaden, interpret
and even reformulate the questions put (see the three Opinions cited
above; see also Jaivc~rzinu,Advisory Opinion, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series B,
No. 8; A~ln?is.sihilityof Hearings of Petitioners hy the Committee on
South We.stA,fricu, Advisory Opinion, IC.J. Reports 1956, p. 25; Certain
E.~prnsrs of'the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Chur-
ter), Advisory Opinion, I.C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 157-162).
In the presentinstance, the Court will only have to do what it has often
done in the past, namely "identify the existing principles and rules, inter-
pret them and apply them . . ., thus offering a reply to the question posed
based on law" (Legal'ity of he Threat or Usr of Nuclear Wrupons, I.C.J.
Rc~ports1996 (I), p. 234, para. 13).
39. In the present instance, if the General Assembly requests the Court
to state the "legal consequences" arising from the construction of the
wall, the use of these terms necessarily encompasses an assessment of
whether that constru~ctionis or is not in breach of certain rules and prin-
ciples of international law. Thus, the Court is first called upon to deter-
mine whether such rules and principles have been and are still being
breachcd by the conritruction of the wall along the planned route.
40. The Court does not consider that what is contended to be the
abstract nature of the question posed to it raises an issue of jurisdiction.
Even when the matter was raised as an issue of propriety rather than one
ofjurisdiction, in the case concerning theLegality ofthe Threat or Use of
Nuclear Wpaponns,the Court took the position that to contend that it
should not deal with a question couched in abstract terms is "a mere
affirmation devoid oifany justification" and that "the Court may give an
advisory opinion on any legal question, abstract or otherwise" (I.C.J.
Reports 1996 (1), p. 236, para. 15, referring to Conditions of Admissiot~
of LIStute to Mc~mbershipin the United Nations (Article 4 of the Chur-
ter), Advisory Opinion, 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948, p. 61; Effitct of
A\vards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative
Tribunul, Advisoty Opiniotz, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 51; and Legul Con-1954, p. 51 ; et Conséquences juridiquespour les Etats de la présence
continue de l'Afrique du Sud en Namibie (Sud-Ouest africain) nonobstant
la résolution 276(1970) du Conseil de sécuritéa , visconsultat~ C.I.J.
Recueil 1971, p. 27, par. 40). En tout étatde cause, la Cour considèreque
la question qui lui a été poséq euant aux conséquencesjuridiques de la
construction du mur n'est pas de nature abstraite et que c'est en outre à
elle qu'il appartiendrait de déterminer à l'égardde qui ces conséquences
devraient êtreprécisées.
41. La Cour ne saurait par ailleurs accepter le point de vue, également
avancéau cours de la procédure, selon lequel elle n'aurait pas compé-
tence en raison du caractère ((politique)) de la question posée. Ainsi qu'il
ressort à cet égardde sa jurisprudence constante, la Cour estime que le
fait qu'une question juridique présente également des aspects politiques,
((comme c'est, par la nature des choses, le cas de bon nombre de
questions qui viennent à se poser dans la vieinternationale, ne suffit
pas A la priver de son caractère de ((questionjuridique)) it((enlever
à la Cour une compétence qui lui est expressément conférép ear son
Statut))(Demande de r&formationdu jugement no 158 du Tribunal
administratif des Nations Unies, avis consultatiJC.I.J. Recueil 1973,
p. 172,par. 14).Quels que soient les aspects politiques de la question
posée,la Cour ne saurait refuser un caractère juridique à une ques-
tion qui l'invite a s'acquitter d'une tâche essentiellementjudiciaiàe,
savoir l'appréciation dela licéitde la conduite éventuelled'Etats au
regard des obligations que le droit international leur impose (voir
Conditions de 1'udmi.s.siond'un Etat comnze Membre des Nations
Unies (article 4 de la CIzurte), avi~con~ultütiJ;1948, C.1.J. Recueil
1947-1948, p. 61-62; Compétence de l'Assemblée généralepour
l'admission d'un Etat aux Nations unie^, avis consultat~, C.I.J.
Recueil 1950, p. 6-7; Certaines dipenses des Nations Unies (ar-
ticle 17, paragraphe 2, de la Charte), avis con.sultatif; C.I.J.
Recueil 1962, p. 155).» (Licéitéde lu menace ou de l'emploid'armes
nucléaires, aviscon.sultutif;C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (l), p. 234, par. 13.)
Dans son avis concernant l'Interprétationde l'accord du 25 murs 1951
entre l'OMS et I'Egypte, la Cour a même souligné que
((lorsque des considérations politiques jouent un rôle marquant il
peut être particulièrementnécessaire à une organisation internatio-
nale d'obtenir un avis consultatif de la Cour sur les principes juri-
diques applicables àla matièreen discussion ..))(C.Z.J.Recueil 1980,
p. 87, par. 33).
La Cour a en outre affirmé,dans son avis sur la Licéitéde la menace ou
de l'emploi d'armes nucléaires, que
«la nature politique des mobiles qui auraient inspiré la requête eltes
implications politiques que pourrait avoir l'avisdonné sontsans per-
tinence au regard de l'établissementde sa compétencepour donner
un telavis)) (C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 234, par. 13). ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
156
La Cour estime qu'il n'existe en l'espèce aucun élément susceptible de
l'amener aconclure différemment.
42. La Cour en conséquence a compétence pour donner l'avis consul-
tatif demandé par la résolution ES-10114de l'Assemblée générale.
43. Il a cependant étésoutenu au cours de la procédure que la Cour
devrait refuser d'exercer sa compétence en raison de la présence,dans la
requête del'Assemblée généraled,'un certain nombre d'élémentsqui ren-
draient l'exercice par la Cour de sa compétence malvenu et étranger A sa
fonction judiciaire.
44. La Cour a maintes fois eu par le passé l'occasionde rappeler que le
paragraphe 1 de l'article 65 de son Statut, selon lequel «[l]a Cour peut
donner un avis consultatif ...» (les italiques sont de la Cour), devait être
interprété comme reconnaissant a la Cour le pouvoir discrétionnaire de
refuser de donner un avis consultatif mêmelorsque les conditions pour
qu'elle soit compétente sont remplies (Licéitkde la nzenaceou de l'emploi
d'urrnes riuclt.aire.s,avis consultatif; C.1.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 234-235,
par. 14). La Cour n'en garde pas moins présent à l'esprit que sa réponse
à une demande d'avis consultatif ((constitue [sa] participation ...a l'ac-
tion de l'organisation et [que], en principe, elle ne devrait pas être refu-
sée»(Irzterpr6tation des trait6.ck paix conclus avec lu Bulgarie, la Hon-
grie et la Roumanie, première phase, avis consultatif;C.IJ. Recueil 1950,
p. 71; voir également,par exemple, DijjZrend relat~fu l'immuniti. de,juri-
diction d'un rapporteur .spt.ciallie la Commission (lrs droits de l'konirne,
uvis consultatij; C.1.J. Recueil 1999 (I), p. 78-79, par. 29). Compte tenu
de ses responsabilités en tant qu'«organe judiciaire principal des Nations
Unies)) (article 92 de la Charte), la Cour ne devrait pas en principe refu-
ser de donner un avis consultatif. Conformément à la jurisprudence cons-
tante de la Cour, il faudrait des «raisons décisives))pour l'amener a
opposer un tel refus (Certaines Liéprnsesdes Nations Unies (article 17,
purugruphe 2, de la Charte), avis consultatif;CCI..JRecueil 1962, p. 155;
voir également, par exemple, DijJirenrl relutif'u l'immunitk de,juridiction
d'un rapporteur sp6cial de la Cornmission de.s droits de l'homme, avis
con.sultatif~C.I.J. Recueil 1999 (I), p. 78-79, par. 29).
La Cour actuelle n'a jamais, dans l'exercice de ce pouvoir discrétion-
naire, refuséde répondre 6 une demande d'avis consultatif. La décision
de ne pas donner l'avis consultatif que sollicitait l'organisation mondiale
de la Santé sur la Lickitc;(le l'utilisation des arnzesnuclkairrs pur un Etut
duns un conflit urm6 a été fondée surle défaut de compétence de la Cour,
et non sur des considérations touchant iil'opportunité judiciaire (voir
C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 235, par. 14). La devancière de la Cour, la
Cour permanente de Justice internationale, estima une seule fois ne pasThe Court is of the view that there is no element in the present proceed-
ings which could lealdit to conclude otherwise.
42. The Court a'ccordingly has jurisdiction to give the advisory
opinion requested by resolution ES-10114of the General Assembly.
43. It has been contended in the present proceedings, however, that
the Court should de~clineto exercise its jurisdiction because of the pres-
ence of specific aspects of the General Assembly's request that would
render the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction improper and inconsistent
with the Court's judicial function.
44. The Court has recalled many times in the past that Article 65,
paragraph 1,of its Statute, which provides that "The Court may give an
advisory opinion . . ." (emphasis added), should be interpreted to mean
that the Court has a discretionary power to decline to give an advisory
opinion even if the conditions of jurisdiction are met (Legulity ef'the
Tlzreut or Use of' Nucleur Weupons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1996 (I), pp. 234-2115,para. 14). The Court however is mindful of the
fact that its answer 'toa request for an advisory opinion "represents its
participation in the activities of the Organization, and, in principle,
should not be refuse:dm(Interprctution of'Pcuce Treuties ivith Bulguriu,
Hungury und Ronîunia, First Plîu.se, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1950, p. 71: see also..for example, D{ij(ijrenceRelating to Inimunity jiorn
Legul Process of u Special Rapporteur of' tlie Commission on Hutnan
Riglîts, Advisorj, Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), pp. 78-79, para. 29.)
Given its responsibillities as the "principal judicial organ of the United
Nations" (Article 92 of the Charter), the Court should in principle not
decline to give an advisory opinion. In accordance with its consistent
jurisprudence, only ",compelling reasons" should lead the Court to refuse
its opinion (Certain Expcnses of'tlîe United Nutions (Article 17, puru-
grupIz 2,of'the Churtcr), Advi.sorj Opinion, I.C.J. R~)port.s1962, p. 155;
see also, for exampli:, Diffi>renceRrluting to Imnzunity fion? Lrgul Pro-
cess (?fa Sprcial Rczpporteuroj'tlzc Corntni,s.sionon Hunzun Rights, Advi-
.sory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), pp. 78-79, para. 29.)
The present Coui-t has never, in the exercise of this discretionary
power, declined to respond to a request for an advisory opinion. Its deci-
sion not to give the advisory opinion on the Legality of tlîe Use hj~u
Stute of Nuclear Ciéuporz.s in Armed ConJiet requested by the World
Health Organization was based on the Court's lack of jurisdiction, and
not on consideratioris of judicial propriety (see I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I),
p. 235, para. 14). Orily on one occasion did the Court's predecessor, the
Permanent Court of International Justice, take the view that it should 157 ED~FICAT~ON D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
devoir répondre à la question qui lui avait été posée(Statut de la Carilie
orientale, avis consultatif; 1923, CP.J.1. sgrieB no 5), mais cela en rai-
son des
«circonstances toutes particulières de l'espèce,à savoir, notamment,
[du fait] que cette question concernait directement un différend déjà
néauquel étaitpartie un Etat qui n'avait pas adhéré auStatut de la
Cour permanente, n'était pas membre de la Société desNations,
s'opposait à la procédure et refusait d'y prendre part de quelque
manière que ce [fût])) (Licfitc; de la menace OU de l'emploi d'armes
nucléaires, avis consultut$ C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (1) , p. 235-236,
par. 14).
45. Ces considérations ne dispensent pas la Cour de l'obligation de
s'assurer, chaque fois qu'elle est saisie d'une demande d'avis, de I'oppor-
tunité d'exercer sa fonction judiciaire, sur la base du critère des ((raisons
décisives))telque rappeléci-dessus. La Cour examinera donc en détail,et
à la lumière de sa jurisprudence, chacun des arguments qui lui a été pré-
sentéà cet égard.
46. Selon le premier de ces arguments, la Cour ne devrait pas exercer
sa compétence en l'espèce,au motif que la demande concernerait un dif-
férendentre Israël et la Palestine à l'égardduquel Israël n'a pas accepté la
juridiction de la Cour. Ainsi, l'objet de la question poséepar l'Assemblée
générale ferait«partie intégrante du différend israélo-palestinien plus
large qui concerne des questions liéesau terrorisme, à la sécurité,aux
frontières, aux colonies de peuplement, à Jérusalem et à d'autres ques-
tions connexes)). Israël a insistésur le fait qu'il n'avait jamais consenti à
voir ce différend plus large tranché par la Cour ou dans le cadre de tout
autre mode de règlement obligatoire; il affirme au contraire que les
parties ont convenu à plusieurs reprises que ces questions devaient être
régléespar la voie de la négociation, le recours à l'arbitrage étant envi-
sageable en cas d'accord. Il est donc soutenu que la Cour devrait refuser
de donner l'avis qui lui est demandé, en s'appuyant notamment sur le
précédentconstitué par la décision de la Cour permanente de Justice
internationale relative au Statut de lu Curflie orientale.
47. La Cour relève que l'absence de consentement à la juridiction
contentieuse de la Cour de la part des Etats intéressés estsans effet sur la
compétence qu'a celle-ci de donner un avis consultatif. Dans un avis
consultatif de 1950, la Cour a expliquéque:
«Le consentement des Etats parties à un différend est le fonde-
ment de la juridiction de la Cour en matière contentieuse. Il en est
autrement en matière d'avis, alors mêmeque la demande d'avis a
trait à une question juridique actuellement pendante entre Etats. La
réponsede la Cour n'a qu'un caractère consultatif: comme telle, elle
ne saurait avoir d'effet obligatoire. Il en résulte qu'aucun Etat,not reply to a question put to it (Status of Eastern Curelia, Advisory
Opinion, 1923, P.C..I.J., SeriesB, No. 5), but this was due to
"the very particular circumstances of the case, among which were
that the question directly concerned an already existing dispute, one
of the States parties to which was neither a party to the Statute of
the Permanent Court nor a Member of the League of Nations,
objected to the proceedings, and refused to take part in any way"
(Legalitj)of the Thrrat or Use ofNucleur Weupons, 1.C.J. Reports
1996 (I), pp. 235-236, para. 14).
45. These considerations do not release the Court from the duty to sat-
isfy itself, each time it is seised of a request for an opinion, as to the-
priety of the exercise of itsjudicial function, by reference to the criterion
of "compelling reasons" as cited above. The Court will accordingly
examine in detail and in the light of its jurisprudence each of the argu-
ments presented to it in this regard.
46. The first such argument is to the effect that the Court should not
exercise itsjurisdiction in the present casebecause the request concerns a
contentious matter between Israel and Palestine, in respect of which
Israel has not conserited to the exercise of that jurisdiction. According to
this view, thesubject-matter of the question posed by the General Assem-
bly "is an integral part of the wider Israeli-Palestiniandispute concerning
questions of terrorisrn, security, borders, settlements, Jerusalem and other
related matters". Israel has emphasized that it has never consented to the
settlement of this wider dispute by the Court or by any other means of
compulsory adjudication; on the contrary, it contends that the parties
repeatedly agreed that these issues are to be settled by negotiation, with
the possibility of an agreement that recourse could be had to arbitration.
It is accordingly contended that the Court should decline to give the
present Opinion, on the basis inter uliu of the precedent of the decision of
the Permanent Couirt of International Justice on the Stutus of Eustern
Careliu.
47. The Court observes that the lack of consent to the Court's conten-
tious jurisdiction by interested States has no bearing on the Court's juris-
diction to give an advisory opinion. In an Advisory Opinion of 1950,the
Court explained that :
"The consent of States, parties to a dispute, is the basis of the
Court's jurisdicition in contentious cases. The situation is different in
regard to advisory proceedings even where the Request for an Opin-
ion relates to a legal question actually pending between States. The
Court's reply ir;only of an advisory character: as such, it has no
binding force. lit follows that no State, whether a Member of the158 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVICSONSULTATIF)
Membre ou non membre des Nations Unies, n'a qualitépour empê-
cher que soit donné suite à une demande d'avis dont les Nations
Unies, pour s'éclairer dans leur action propre, auraient reconnu
I'opportunité. L'avis est donné par la Cour non aux Etats, mais à
l'organe habilité pour le lui demander; la réponse constitue une par-
ticipation de la Cour, elle-même((organe des Nations Unies)), i l'ac-
tion de l'organisation et, en principe, elle ne devrait pas êtrerefu-
sée.))(Interprc;tution des truitésde puix conc1u.suvec lu Bulgurie, 10
Hongrie et lu Roumanie, prerîzi~rephase, C.I.J. Recueil 1950, p. 71;
voir égalementSahara occidontul, C.I.J. Re1.uri11975, p. 24, par. 1.)
Il en résulteque, dans cette affaire, la Cour n'a pas refuséde répondre A
la demande d'avis consultatif au motif que, dans les circonstances en
question, elle n'aurait pas eu compétence pour ce faire. Elle a toutefois
examiné l'opposition marquée par certains Etats intéressésà la requête
émanant de l'Assemblée générals eous l'angle de I'opportunité judiciaire.
Commentant sa décision de 1950, la Cour a expliqué dans son avis
consultatif sur le Suhuru occidontu1 qu'elle avait «ainsi reconnu que le
défautde consentement pourrait l'amener à ne pas émettre d'avis si, dans
les circonstances d'une espèce donnée, des considérations tenant à son
caractère judiciaire imposaient un refus de répondre)). Et la Cour de
poursuivre :
«le défaut de consentement d'un Etat intéressépeut, dans certaines
circonstances, rendre le prononcé d'un avis consultatif incompatible
avec le caractère judiciaire de la Cour. Tel serait le cas si les faits
montraient qu'accepter de répondre aurait pour effet de tourner le
principe selon lequel un Etat n'est pas tenu de soumettre un diffé-
rend au règlement judiciaire s'il n'estpas consentant. ))(Suhuru occi-
detztul, C.IJ. Recueil 1975, p. 25, par. 32-33.)
Appliquant le principe ainsi libelléà la demande relative au Suhura occi-
dental, la Cour constata qu'existait certes une controversejuridique, mais
une controverse qui avait surgi lors des débatsde l'Assembléegenéraleet
au sujet de problèmes traitéspar celle-ci. Cette controverse n'était pas née
indépendamment, dans le cadre de relations bilatérales (ihid, p. 25,
Dar. 341.
48. S'agissant de la requêtepour avis consultatif dont elle est saisie, la
Cour prend acte du fait qu'Israël et la Palestine ont exprimé des vues
radicalement opposées sur les conséquencesjuridiques de l'édificationdu
mur par Israël, sur lesquelles la Cour a étépriéede se prononcer. Tou-
tefois, ainsi que la Cour l'a elle-mêmenoté, «[p]resque toutes les procé-
dures consultatives ont été marquées par des divergences de vues» (Consé-
quences juridiques pour les Etut.s de lu présencecontinue de /'Afrique du
Sud en Numihie (Sud-Ouest ufricuin) nonohstunt lu rksolution 276 (1970)
du Conseil de sécurité,avis consultutif, C.I.J. Recueil 1971, p. 24, par. 34).
49. En outre, la Cour n'estime pas que la question qui fait l'objet de la United Nations or not, can prevent the giving of an Advisory Opin-
ion which the United Nations considers to be desirable in order to
obtain enlightenment as to the course of action it should take. The
Court's Opinion is given not to the States, but to the organ which is
entitled to request it; the reply of the Court, itself an 'organ of the
United Nations', represents its participation in the activities of the
Organization, and, in principle, should not be refused." (Interpretu-
tion of'Peuce Treuties ivith Bulgaria, Hungur-v and Romuniu, First
Phase, Aclvisorj, Opinion, I.C' .. Reports 1950, p. 71; see also West-
ern Sahara, I.CJ. Reports 1975, p. 24, para. 31.)
It followed from this that, in those proceedings, the Court did not refuse
to respond to the request for an advisory opinion on the ground that, in
the particular circunnstances, it lacked jurisdiction. The Court did how-
ever examine the oplnosition of certain interested States to the request by
the General Assembly in the context of issues of judicial propriety. Com-
menting on its 1950 decision, the Court explained in its Advisory Opinion
on Western Sahuru fhat it had "Thus . . . recognized that lack of consent
might constitute a ground for declining to give the opinion requested if,
in the circumstances of a given case, considerations of judicial propriety
should oblige the Court to refuse an opinion." The Court continued:
"In certain circumstances . . . the lack of consent of an
interested Stati: may render the giving of an advisory opinion
incompatible vvith the Court's judicial character. An instance
of this would be when the circumstances disclose that to give
a reply would hiavethe effect of circumventing the principle that a
State is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial
settlement without its consent." ( We.stc.rnSuharu, 1.C. J. Reports
1975, p. 25, paras. 32-33.)
In applying that pririciple to the request concerning Western Suh~~ru,the
Court Sound that a legal controversy did indeed exist, but one which had
arisen during the proceedings of the General Assembly and in relation
to matters with which the Assembly was dealing. It had not arisen
independently in bilateral relations (ibid., p. 25, para. 34).
48. As regards the request for an advisory opinion now before it, the
Court acknowledges that Israel and Palestine have expressed radically
divergent views on the legal consequences of Israel's construction of the
wall, on which the Court has been asked to pronounce. However, as the
Court has itself noted, "Differences of views . . . on legal issues have
existed in practically every advisory proceeding" (Legul Conseyuencesfor
Stutes oJ 'he Corîtit?urc/Presence of South Afiicu in Numihiu (South
West A,frica) notizitlîstcrnding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970),
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 34).
49. Furthermore, the Court does not consider that the subject-matter159 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
requête del'Assemblée générale puissê e treconsidérée seulementcomme
une question bilatéraleentre Israël et la Palestine. Compte tenu des pou-
voirs et responsabilités del'organisation des Nations Uniesà l'égard des
questions se rattachant au maintien de la paix et de la sécuritéinterna-
tionales, la Cour est d'avis que la construction du mur doit êtreregardée
comme intéressant directement l'organisation des Nations Unies. La res-
ponsabilité de l'Organisation à cet égard trouve égalementson origine
dans le mandat et dans la résolution relativeau plan de partage de la
Palestine (voir paragraphes 70 et 71 ci-après). Cette responsabilitéa été
décritepar l'Assemblée généralceomme «une responsabilitépermanente
à assumer en ce qui concerne la question de Palestine jusqu'à ce qu'elle
soit régléesous tous ses aspects de manière satisfaisante etdans le respect
de la légitimitéinternationale)) (résolution 571107de l'Assembléegéné-
rale, en date du3 décembre2002). Dans le cadre institutionnel de l7Orga-
nisation, cette responsabilité s'est concrétiséear l'adoption de nom-
breuses résolutions du Conseil de sécurité etde l'Assemblée générale,
ainsi que par la création deplusieurs organes subsidiaires spécifiquement
établis pour Œuvrer a la réalisation desdroits inaliénables du peuple
palestinien.
50. L'objet de la requêtedont la Cour est saisieest d'obtenir de celle-ci
un avis que l'Assemblée générale estime utilp eour exercer comme il
convient ses fonctions. L'avis est demandé a l'égardd'une question qui
intéressetout particulièrement les Nations Unies, et qui s'inscrit dans un
cadre bien plus large que celui d'un différendbilatéral.Dans ces condi-
tions, la Cour estime que rendre un avis n'aurait pas pour effet de tourner
le principe du consentement au règlement judiciaire et qu'elle ne saurait
dèslors, dans l'exercicede son pouvoir discrétionnaire, refuser de donner
un avis pour ce motif.
51. La Cour passera maintenant à un autre argument avancéau cours
de la présenteprocédure pour étayerla thèse selon laquelle elle devrait
refuser d'exercer sacompétence.Certains participants ont soutenu qu'un
avis consultatif de la Cour sur la licéidu mur et les conséquencesjuri-
diques de son édificationpourrait faire obstaclea un règlement politique
négocié du conflit israélo-palestinien.En particulier, selon cette thèse, une
telle opinion pourrait porter atteintà la «feuille de route» (voir para-
graphe 22 ci-dessus), qui prescrit Israël eà la Palestine le respect d'un
certain nombre d'obligations au cours des différentes phasesqui y sont
prévues. 11a étéaffirméque l'avisdemandé pourrait compliquer lesnégo-
ciations envisagéesdans la «feuille de route» et que la Cour devrait en
conséquence exercerson pouvoir discrétionnaire et refuser de répondre à
la question qui lui a été posée.
La Cour a déjàété appelée à examiner des arguments analogues plu-
sieurs fois par le passé. Ainsi,dans son avis consultatif sur laitéde la
menace ou de l'emploi d'armes nucléairrs, la Cour a-t-elle déclaré:of the General Asse:mbly'srequest can be regarded as only a bilateral
matter between 1srai:land Palestine. Given the powers and responsibili-
ties of the United Naltionsin questions relating to international peace and
security, it is the Court's view that the construction of the wall must be
deemed to be directllyof concern to the United Nations. The responsibil-
ity of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate
and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and
71 below). This resp'onsibilityhas been described by the General Assem-
bly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until
the question is resolved in al1 its aspects in a satisfactory manner in
accordance with international legitimacy" (General Assembly resolu-
tion 571107of 3 December 2002). Within the institutional framework of
the Organization, thi.sresponsibility has been manifested by the adoption
of many Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, and by the
creation of several subsidiary bodies specifically established to assist in
the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.
50. The object of the request before the Court is to obtain from the
Court an opinion which the General Assembly deems of assistance to it
for the proper exercise of its functions. The opinion is requested on a
question which is of particularly acute concern to the United Nations,
and one which is loirated in a much broader frame of reference than a
bilateral dispute. In the circumstances, the Court does not consider that
to give an opinion would have the effect of circumventingthe principle of
consent to judicial settlement, and the Court accordingly cannot, in the
exercise of its discretion, decline to give an opinion on that ground.
51. The Court now turns to another argument raised in the present
proceedings in support of the view that it should decline to exercise its
jurisdiction. Some participants have argued that an advisory opinion
from the Court on the legality of the wall and the legal consequences of
its construction couild impede a political, negotiated solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More particularly, it has been contended that
such an opinion could undermine the scheme of the "Roadmap" (see
paragraph 22 above), which requires Israel and Palestine to comply with
certain obligations iinvarious phases referred to therein. The requested
opinion, it lias been alleged, could complicate the negotiations envisaged
in the "Roadmap", and the Court should therefore exercise its discretion
and decline to reply to the question put.
This is a submission of a kind which the Court has already had to con-
sider several times iri the past. For instance, in its Advisory Opinion on
the Legulity of the 7'hreutor Use of Nucleur Weapons, the Court stated : «Il a ..étésoutenu qu'une réponse de la Cour en l'espècepourrait
êtrepréjudiciable aux négociations sur le désarmement et serait, en
conséquence, contraire k l'intérêtde l'organisation des Nations
Unies. La Cour sait que, quelles que soient les conclusions aux-
quelles elle pourrait parvenir dans l'avis qu'elle donnerait, ces
conclusions seraient pertinentes au regard du débat qui se pour-
suit à l'Assemblée généralee ,t apporteraient dans les négociations
sur la question un élémentsupplémentaire. Mais, au-delà de cette
constatation, l'effet qu'aurait cet avis est une question d'apprécia-
tion. Des opinions contraires ont été exposéedsevant la Cour et il n'est
pas de critère évident qui permettrait à celle-ci de donner la préfé-
rence a une position plutôt qu'à une autre.)) (C.1.J.Recueil 1996 (I),
p. 237, par. 17; voir également Suhuru occidentul, C.I.J. Recueil
1975, p. 37, par. 73.)
52. Un participant à la présente procédure a dit que la Cour, si elle
devait répondre à la requête,devrait en tout cas garder présentsà l'esprit
«deux aspects essentiels du processus de paix: le principe fondamen-
tal selon lequel les questions relatives au statut définitif doivent être
résolues par la négociation; et le fait que le processus de paix ne
pourra aboutir que si, pendant la période intérimaire, les parties
s'acquittent de leurs responsabilités en matière de sécurité)).
53. La Cour n'ignore pas que la «feuille de route)), entérinéepar le
Conseil de sécuritédans sa résolution 1515 (2003) (voir paragraphe 22
ci-dessus), constitue un cadre de négociation visant au règlement du
conflit israélo-palestinien. L'influence que l'avis de la Cour pourrait avoir
sur ces négociations n'apparaît cependant pas de façon évidente: les par-
ticipants à la présente procédure ont expriméà cet égarddes vues diver-
gentes. La Cour ne saurait considérer ce facteur comme une raison déci-
sive de refuser d'exercer sa compétence.
54. Certains participants ont par ailleurs affirmédevant la Cour que la
question de la construction du mur n'étaitqu'un aspect du conflit israléo-
palestinien, à l'examen duquel la présente procédure ne saurait servir de
cadre approprié. Toutefois, la Cour estime que cela ne saurait justifier
qu'elle refuse de répondre a la question posée. La Cour est certes cons-
ciente que la question du mur fait partie d'un ensemble, et elle prendrait
soigneusement en considération cette circonstance dans tout avis qu'elle
pourrait rendre. En même temps, laquestion que l'Assemblée générala e
choisi de lui soumettre pour avis est limitéeaux conséquences juridiques
de la construction du mur, et la Cour ne tiendrait compte d'autres élé-
ments que dans la mesure où ceux-ci seraient nécessairesaux fins de I'exa-
men de cette question.
55. Plusieurs participants a la procédure ont encore soutenu que la "It has . . . been submitted that a reply from the Court in this case
might adversely affect disarmament negotiations and would, there-
fore, be contrary to the interest of the United Nations. The Court is
aware that, no matter what might be its conclusions in any opinion
it might give, they would have relevance for the continuing debate
on the matter iri the General Assembly and would present an addi-
tional element in the negotiations on the matter. Beyond that, the
effect of the opinion is a matter of appreciation. The Court has
heard contrary positions advanced and there are no evident criteria
by which it can prefer one assessment to another." (1.C.J. Rc~ports
1996 (I), p. 23;', para. 17; see also Western Suhuru, 1.C.J. Reports
1975, p. 37, para. 73.)
52. One participaint in the present proceedings has indicated that the
Court, if it were to give a response to the request, should in any event do
so keeping in mind
"two key aspects of the peace process: the fundamental principle
that permanent status issues must be resolved through negotiations;
and the need during the interini period for the parties to fulfil their
security responsibilities so that the peace process can succeed".
53. The Court is conscious that the "Roadmap", which was endorsed
by the Security Coiuncil in resolution 1515 (2003) (see paragraph 22
above), constitutes ,I negotiating framework for the resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not clear, however, what influence the
Court's opinion might have on those negotiations: participants in
the present proceedings have expressed differing views in this regard.
The Court cannot regard this factor as a compelling reason to decline to
exercise its jurisdictiisn.
54. It was also put to the Court by certain participants that the ques-
tion of the construction of the wall was only one aspect of the Israeli-
Palestinian conf ict, which could not be properly addressed in the present
proceedings. The Court does not however consider this a reason for it to
decline to reply to the question asked. The Court is indeed aware that the
question of the wall is part of a greater whole, and it would take this
circumstance carefully into account in any opinion it might give. At the
same time, the question that the General Assembly has chosen to ask of
the Court is confinecl to the legal consequences of the construction of the
wall, and the Court would only examine other issues to the extent that
they might be necessary to its consideration of the question put to it.
55. Several participants in the proceedings have raised the furtherCour devrait refuser d'exercer sacompétenceparce qu'ellene dispose pas
des faits et des élémentsde preuve nécessairespour lui permettre de for-
muler des conclusions. Israël a en particulier fait valoir, en se référant
l'avis consultatif relatà l'Interprétation des traités depaix conclus avec
la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et lu Roumanie, que la Cour ne saurait donner un
avis sur des questions soulevant des points de fait qui ne peuvent être
éclaircisque contradictoirement. Selon Israël, si la Cour décidaitde don-
ner l'avis demandé, elle en serait réduite à des conjectures sur des faits
essentiels etàdes hypothèses sur des arguments de droit. Israël a précisé
que la Cour ne pourrait se prononcer sur les conséquencesjuridiques de
l'édificationdu mur sans examiner, d'une part, la nature et la portéedes
menaces pour la sécurité auxquellesle mur entend répondre, ainsi que
l'efficacitéde cette réponse, et,d'autre part, l'effetde la construction du
mur pour les Palestiniens. Cette tâche, qui serait déjàdifficile dans une
affaire contentieuse, serait encore plus complexe dans une procédure
consultative, d'autant qu'Israël serait seulà posséder unegrande partie
des renseignements nécessaireset qu'il a indiqué avoir choisi de ne pas
traiter du fond. Israël a conclu que la Cour, face àdes questions de fait
impossibles à éclaircirdans la présente procédure, devrait user de son
pouvoir discrétionnaire et refuser de donner suite à la demande d'avis
consultatif.
56. La Cour fera observer que la question de savoir si les éléments de
preuve dont elle dispose sont suffisants pour donner un avis consultatif
doit être tranchéedans chaque cas particulier. Dans son avis relatif à
l'Interprétation destraitésdepaix conclus avec la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et
la Roumanie (C.I.J. Recueil 1950, p. 72), et de nouveau dans son avis
relatif auSahara occidental, la Cour a bien indiqué quece qui étaitdéci-
sif dans ces circonstances était de savoir
«si la Cour dispose de renseignements et d'éléments de preuve suffi-
sants pour êtreà mêmede porter un jugement sur toute question de
fait contestée et qu'illui faudrait établir pour se prononcer d'une
manière conforme à son caractère judiciaire))(Suharu occidental,
C.1.J. Recueil 1975, p. 28-29, par. 46).
Ainsi, par exemple, dans la procédure concernant le Statut de la Carilie
orientale,la Cour permanente de Justice internationale a décidéde refu-
ser de donner un avis, entre autres, parce que la question posée «soule-
vait des points de fait qui ne pouvaient êtreéclaircisque contradictoire-
ment» (Interprétation des traités de paix conclus avec lu Bulgarie, la
Hongrie et la Roumanie, C.I.J. Recueil 1950, p. 72; voir Statut de la
Carélieorientale, C.P.J.I sérieB no 5, p. 28). En revanche, dans l'avissur
leSahara occidental, la Cour a notéqu'elleavait reçu une trèsabondante
documentation permettant d'établir les faits pertinents(C.I.J. Recueil
1975, p. 29, par. 47).
57. En l'espèce, laCour a à sa disposition le rapport du Secrétaire
général, ainsiqu'un dossier volumineux soumis par celui-ci a la Cour, qui
contient des informations détailléesnon seulement quant au tracédu mur CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 161
argument that the Court should decline to exerciseitsjurisdiction because
it does not have at its disposa1the requisite facts and evidence to enable
it to reach its concluisions.In particular, Israel has contended, referring to
the Advisory Opinion on the Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bul-
guria, Hungary and Romuniu, that the Court could not give an opinion
on issues which raisi: questions of fact that cannot be elucidated without
hearing al1 parties to the conflict. According to Israel, if the Court
decided to give the requested opinion, it would be forced to speculate
about essential fact,s and make assumptions about arguments of law.
More specifically, lsrael has argued that the Court could not rule on the
legal consequences of the construction of the wall without enquiring,
first, into the nature and scope of the security threat to which the wall is
intended to respond and the effectiveness of that response, and, second,
into the impact of the construction for the Palestinians. This task, which
would already be difficult in a contentious case, would be further com-
plicated in an advisory proceeding, particularly since Israel alone pos-
sesses much of the riecessary information and has stated that it chooses
not to address the merits. Israel has concluded that the Court, confronted
with factual issuesinipossible to clarify in the present proceedings, should
use its discretionand decline to conlply with the request for an advisory
opinion.
56. The Court observes that the question whether the evidence avail-
able to it is sufficient to give an advisory opinion must be decided in each
particular instance. In its Opinion concerning theInterpretation of'Peace
Treaties with Bulg~iria, Hungary and Romania (IC.J. Reports 1950,
p. 72) and again in its Opinion on the We,sternSaharu, the Court made
it clear that whatis decisive in these circumstances is
"whether the Court has before it sufficient information and evidence
to enable it to arrive at a judicial conclusion upon any disputed
questions of fact the determination of which is necessary for it to
give an opinion in conditions compatible with itsjudicial character"
(Western Suhara, I.C. J. Reports 1975, pp. 28-29,para. 46).
Thus, for instance, in the proceedings concerning the Status of Eastern
Carelia, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided to decline
to give an Opinion i,izterulbecause the question put "raised a question
of fact which coulcl not be elucidated without hearing both parties"
(Interpretation of Prace Treaties witl~Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania,
I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 72; see Status oj Eastern Carelia, P.C.I. J.,
Series B, No. 5,p. 28). On the other hand, in theWestern Suhara Opinion,
the Court observed that it had been provided with very extensive docu-
mentary evidence of the relevant facts (I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 29,
para. 47).
57. In the present instance, the Court has at its disposal the report of
the Secretary-General, as well as a voluminous dossier submitted by him
to the Court, comprising not only detailed information on the route of162 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
mais aussi quant aux conséquences humanitaires et socio-économiques
de celui-ci sur la population palestinienne. Le dossier inclut de nombreux
rapports fondés sur des visites effectuéessur le terrain par des rappor-
teurs spéciaux et des organes compétents des Nations Unies. Le Secré-
taire général apar ailleurs soumis à la Cour un exposé écritcomplétant
les informations fournies dans son rapport, aux fins de mettre celui-ci à
jour. Nombre d'autres participants ont en outre présentéà la Cour des
exposés écritsqui renferment des informations pertinentes pour une
réponse à la question poséepar l'Assemblée généraleL .a Cour relèveen
particulier que l'exposé écritd'Israël, bien que se limitant aux questions
de compétence et d'opportunité judiciaire, comporte des observations
concernant d'autres sujets, y compris les préoccupations d'Israël en
matière de sécurité,et est accompagné d'annexes correspondantes; de
nombreux autres documents émanant du Gouvernement israélien et
concernant ces mêmes sujetssont dans le domaine public.
58. La Cour estime qu'elle dispose de renseignements et d'élémentsde
preuve suffisants pour lui permettre de donner l'avis consultatif demandé
par l'Assembléegénérale. La circonstance que d'autres pourraient éva-
luer et interpréter ces faits de manière subjective ou politique ne saurait
au demeurant constituer un motif pour qu'une courde justice s'abstienne
d'assumer sa tâche judiciaire. Iln'y a donc pas, en l'espèce, insuffisance
d'élémentsd'information qui constituerait une raison décisivepour la
Cour de refuser de donner I'avis sollicité.
59. Dans leursexposésécrits,certainsparticipants ont égalementavancé
l'argument selon lequel la Cour devrait refuser de donner I'avisconsultatif
demandé sur les conséquencesjuridiques de l'édificationdu mur, parce
que pareil avis consultatif ne serait d'aucune utilité. Ilsont soutenu que les
avis consultatifs de la Cour seraient à considérercomme un moyen devant
permettre à un organe ou à une institution, qui a besoin pour ses activités
futures qu'un point de droit soit élucidé,d'obtenir ladite élucidation.
Dans le cas d'espèce, est-ilencore soutenu, l'Assembléegénéralen'aurait
pas besoin d'un tel avis de la Cour, parce qu'elle a déjàdéclaréla cons-
truction du mur illégale, qu'ellea déjà déterminéles conséquences juri-
diques de cetteconstruction en exigeant qu'Israël l'arrêteet revienne sur le
projet, et parce que, en outre, l'Assembléegénéralen'a jamais fait claire-
ment connaître ce qu'elle entendait faire de I'avisdemandé.
60. Comme il ressort de lajurisprudence de la Cour, les avis consultatifs
servent à fournir aux organes qui les sollicitent les élémentsde caractère
juridique qui leur sont nécessairesdans le cadre de leurs activités.Dans son
avis sur les Résc~rilus lu convention pour lu préiletztionet lu rkprrssion du
cri~~e(1. génocide,la Cour a observé: ((L'objet de la présentedemande
d'avis est d'éclairerles Nations Unies dans leur action propre.)) (C.I.J.
Recueil 1951, p. 19.) De la mêmemanière, dans son avis sur les Consé-
c/uencrsjurirliqurspour les Etots de Irrprésencecontinue de I'Ajriquedu Sud the wall but also on its humanitarian and socio-economic impact on the
Palestinian population. The dossier includes several reports based on on-
site visits by speciall rapporteurs and competent organs of the United
Nations. The Secreiary-General has further submitted to the Court a
written statement updating his report, which supplemented the infor-
mation contained thierein. Moreover, numerous other participants have
submitted to the Court written statements which contain information
relevant to a response to the question put by the General Assembly. The
Court notes in particular that Israel's Written Statement, although
limited to issues of jurisdiction and judicial propriety, contained observa-
tions on other matters, including Israel's concerns in terms of security,
and was accompanied by corresponding annexes;many other documents
issued by the Israeli Government on those matters are in the public
domain.
58. The Court finds that it has before it sufficient information and evi-
dence to enable it to give the advisory opinion requested by the General
Assembly. Moreover, the circumstance that others may evaluate and
interpret these facts in a subjective or political manner can be no argu-
ment for a court of law to abdicate its judicial task. There is therefore in
the present case no lack of information such as to constitute a compelling
reason for the Couri to decline to give the requested opinion.
59. In their written statements, some participants have also put for-
ward the argument that the Court should decline to give the requested
opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the wall because
such opinion would lack any useful purpose. They have argued that the
advisory opinions ol'the Court are to be seen as a means to enable an
organ or agency in need of legal clarification for its future action to
obtain that clarification. In the present instance, the argument continues,
the General Assembly would not need an opinion of the Court because it
has already declarecl the construction of the wall to be illegal and has
already determined the legal consequences by demanding that Israel stop
and reverse its construction, and further, because the General Assembly
has never made it cli:ar how it intended to use the opinion.
60. 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 iri their action. In its Opinion concerning Reservutions
to the Convention on the Prevention und Punishment of the Crime of'
Genocide, the Court observed : "The object of this request for an Opinion
is to guide the United Nations in respect of its own action." (I.C.J.
Reports 1951, p. 19.) Likewise, in its Opinion on the Leg~ilConsequences
,fiw States ~f'tlzr Coiztinurr/Presence (~f'SoutA.fric(~UZNunzibia (Southen Namibie (Sud-Ouest africain) nonobstunt la résolution 276(1970) du
Conseil de sécurité,la Cour a rappeléqu'«[i]ls'agi[ssait]d'une requête pré-
sentéepar un organe des Nations Unies, à propos de sespropres décisions,
en vue d'obtenir de la Cour un avis juridique sur les conséquences etles
incidences de ces décisions))(C.I.J. Recueil 1971,p. 24, par. 32). En une
autre occasion, la Cour a déclarque l'avisconsultatif qui lui était demandé
« fournira[ità l'Assembléegénéraledes élémentsde caractèrejuridique qui
lui ser[aient]utiles quand elletraitera[anouveau de la décolonisation du
Sahara occidental)) (Sahara occidental, C.IJ.Recueil 1975, p. 37,par. 72).
61. Quant a l'argument selon lequel l'Assemblée générale n'paas fait
connaître clairement quel usage elle entendait faire d'un avis consultatif
sur le mur, la Cour rappellera ce qu'elle a déclarédans son avis consul-
tatif sur laLickité de la menace ou de l'emploi d'armes nuclkaires, une
déclaration qui est égalementpertinente en la présente espèce
((Certains Etats ont observé que l'Assemblée générale n'p aas
expliqué à la Cour à quelles fins préciseselle sollicitait l'avis consul-
tatif. Toutefois, il n'appartient pasla Cour de prétendredécidersi
l'Assembléea ou non besoin d'un avis consultatif pour s'acquitter de
ses fonctions. L'Assemblée "énérale est habilitée décider elle-même
de l'utilité d'un avis au regard de ses besoins propres.)) (C.I.J.
Recueil 1996 (I), p. 237, par. 16.)
62. Il s'ensuit que la Cour ne saurait refuser de répondrà la question
poséeau motif que son avis ne serait d'aucune utilité. LaCour ne peut
substituer sa propre appréciation de l'utilitéde l'avisdemandé A celle de
l'organe qui le sollicite, en l'occurrence l'Assemblée générae.n outre, et
en tout état de cause, la Cour estime que l'Assemblée généraln e'a pas
encore procédé a la détermination de toutes lesconséquences possiblesde
sa propre résolution. La tâche de la Cour consisterait à déterminer
l'ensemble des conséquencesjuridiques de l'édificationdu mur, alors que
l'Assemblée générale - et le Conseil de sécurit- pourrait ensuite tirer
des conclusions de ces déterminations de la Cour.
63. Enfin, la Cour examinera un autre argument avancé en ce qui
concerne l'opportunité de donner un avis consultatif en l'espèce.Israël a
soutenu que la Palestine, compte tenu de la responsabilité qui est la
sienne dans les actes de violence auxquels le mur vise à parer, commis
contre Israël et sa population, ne saurait demanderà la Cour de remédier
à une situation résultant de ses propres actes illicites.A ce propos, Israël
a invoquéla maxime nullus commodum capere potest de sua injuria pro-
pria, qu'il considère comme aussi pertinente dans une procédure consul-
tative que dans une affaire contentieuse. Dèslors, conclut Israël, la bonne
foi et le principe des(mains propres)) constituent une raison décisivequi
devrait conduire la Cour à refuser d'accéderà la demande de l'Assemblée
générale. CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 163
West AfLica) notwithstann'ing Security Council Resolution 276 (19701,
the Court noted: "The request is put forward by a United Nations organ
with reference to its own decisions and it seeks legal advice from the
Court on the consequences and implications of these decisions." (1. C.J.
Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 32.) TheCourt found on another occasion that
the advisory opinion it was to give would "furnish the General Assembly
with elements of a le,galcharacter relevant to its further treatment of the
decolonization of WJestern Sahara" (Western Sahara, I.C.J. Reports
1975, p. 37, para. 72).
61. With regard to the argument that the General Assembly has not
made it clear what use it would make of an advisory opinion on the wall,
the Court would recall, as equally relevant in the present proceedings,
what it stated in its Opinion on the Legality of tlzc~Tlzreat or Use of'
Nuclear Wc~upon s
"Certain States have observed that the General Assembly has not
explained to the Court for what precise purposes it seeks the advi-
sory opinion. Nevertheless, it is not for the Court itself to purport to
decide whether or not an advisory opinion is needed by the Assem-
bly for the performance of its functions. The General Assembly has
the right to decide for itself on the usefulness of an opinion in the
light of its own needs." (I.C.J. Rcjports 1996 (11, p. 237, para. 16.)
62. It follows that the Court cannot decline to answer the question
posed based on the ground that its opinion would lack any useful pur-
pose. The Court canriot substitute its assessment of the usefulness of the
opinion requested for that of the organ that seeks such opinion, namely
the General Assembly. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court con-
siders that the General Assembly has not yet determined al1the possible
consequences of its own resolution. The Court's task would be to deter-
mine in a comprehensive manner the legal consequences of the construc-
tion of the wall, while the General Assembly - and the Security Council
- may then draw conclusions from the Court's findings.
63. Lastly, the Court will turn to another argument advanced with
regard to the propriety of its giving an advisory opinion in the present
proceedings. Israel has contended that Palestine, given its responsibility
for acts of violence against Israel and its population which the wall is
aimed at addressing, cannot seek from the Court a remedy for a situation
resulting from its owniwrongdoing. In this context, Israel has invoked the
maxim n~tlluscotnmodum capere potest (le sua injuria propria, which it
considers to be as relevant in advisory proceedings as it is in contentious
cases. Therefore, Israel concludes, good faith and the principle of "clean
hands" provide a conipelling reason that should lead the Court to refuse
the General Assembl!~'~request.164 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
64. De l'avis de la Cour, cet argument est dénuéde pertinence. Comme
cela a déjà été souligné précédemment, c'est l'Assemblée généq ruliea
sollicité un avisconsultatif, et un tel avis serait donné'Assemblée géné-
rale et non un Etat ou une entité déterminés.
65. A la lumière de ce qui précède,la Cour conclut non seulement
qu'elle a compétence pour donner un avis sur la question qui lui a été
posée par l'Assemblée générale(voir paragraphe 42 ci-dessus), mais
encore qu'il n'existe aucune raison décisivepour qu'elle use de son pou-
voir discrétionnaire de ne pas donner cet avis.
66. La Cour abordera maintenant l'examen de la question qui lui a été
adresséepar l'Assemblée générale par résolution ES-10114.11est rappelé
que cette question est la suivante:
«Quelles sont en droit les consèquences de l'édification du mur
qu'Israël, puissance occupante, est en train de construire dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé,y compris à l'intérieuret sur le pourtour
de Jérusalem-Est, selon ce qui est exposédans le rapport du Secré-
taire général, compte tenu des règleset des principes du droit inter-
national, notamment la quatrième convention de Genève de 1949et
les résolutions consacrées à la question par le Conseil de sécuritéet
l'Assemblée générale? »
67. Comme la Cour l'expliquera au paragraphe 82 ci-après, le «mur»
en question est un ouvrage complexe, de sorte que ce terme ne peut être
entendu dans son sens physique strict. Toutefois, les autres termes utilisés
par Israël («clôture ») ou par le Secrétaire généra(l((barrière»), pris dans
leur acception physique, ne sont pas plus exacts. De ce fait, dans le pré-
sent avis, la Cour a choisi d'user de la terminologie employée par I'Assem-
bléegénérale.
La Cour relèvera par ailleurs que la requête de l'Assemblée généraa le
trait aux conséquencesjuridiques de l'édificationdu mur «dans le terri-
toire palestinien occupé,y compris à l'intérieur etsur le pourtour de Jéru-
salem-Est ». Comme la Cour l'expliquera également plus loin (voir para-
graphes 79 à 84 ci-après), certaines parties de l'ouvrage sont en cours de
construction, ou leur construction est prévue, sur le territoire même
d'Israël;la Cour ne considère pas qu'elle a à examiner les conséquences
juridiques de la construction de telles parties du mur.
68. La question posée par l'Assemblée générale porte sur les consé-
quences juridiques de l'édificationdu mur dans le territoire palestinien
occupé. Toutefois, en vue de préciserces conséquences à l'intention de
l'Assemblée générale, la Cour doit au préalable déterminer si l'édification
de ce mur est ou non contraire au droit international (voir paragraphe 39 64. The Court does not consider this argument to be pertinent. As
was emphasized earlier, it was the 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.
65. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes not only that
it has jurisdiction to give an opinion on the question put to it by the
General Assembly (see paragraph 42 above), but also that there is no
compelling reason lor it to use its discretionary power not to give
that opinion.
66. The Court will now address the question put to it by the General
Assembly in resolution ES-10114.TheCourt recalls that the question is as
follows :
"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, as
described in th12report of the Secretary-General, considering the
rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth
Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions?"
67. As explained in paragraph 82 below, the "wall" in question is
a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a
limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel
("fence") or by the Secretary-General ("barrier"), are no more accurate if
understood in the physical sense. In this Opinion, the Court has therefore
chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly.
The Court notes fiirthermore that the request of the General Assembly
concerns the legal consequences of the wall being built "in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem". As also
explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex
are being biiilt, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself;
the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal
consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall.
68. The question put by the General Assembly concerns the legal con-
sequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-
ritory. However, in order to indicate those consequences to the General
Assembly the Court must first determine whether or not the construction
of that wall breaches international law (see paragraph 39 above). It willci-dessus). Elle procédera donc iicette détermination avant de traiter des
conséquences de la construction.
69. Pour ce faire, la Cour effectuera tout d'abord une brève analyse du
statut du territoire en cause, puis décrira les ouvrages construits ou en
cours de construction sur ce territoire. Elle indiquera ensuite quel est le
droit applicable, avant de rechercher si celui-ci a étéméconnu.
70. La Palestine avait fait partie del'Empire ottoman. A l'issue de la
première guerre mondiale, un mandat «A» pour la Palestine fut confiéà
la Grande-Bretagne par la Société desNations en application du para-
graphe 4 de l'article 22 du Pacte, qui disposait que
(([clertaines communautés, qui appartenaient autrefois à l'Empire
ottoman, ont atteint un degré de développement tel que leur exis-
tence comme nations indépendantes peut être reconnue provisoire-
ment, a la condition que les conseils et l'aide d'un mandataire
guident leur administration jusqu'au moment où elles seront ca-
Pables de se conduire seules».
La Cour rappellera ce qu'elle avait relevédans son avis consultatif sur
le Stutut int~rnutionul du SuhOuest ufricuin, alors qu'elle s'exprimait de
maniére généralesur les mandats, à savoir que «[l]e Mandat a étécréé,
dans l'intérêt des habitants du Territoire et de l'humanité en général,
comme une institution internationale à laquelle étaitassignéun but inter-
national :une mission sacréede civilisation ))(C.I.J.Recueil 1950, p. 132).
Elle avait également constaté à cet égard que ((deux principes furent
considéréscomme étant d'importance primordiale: celui de la non-
annexion et celui qui proclamait que le bien-êtreet le développement de
ces peuples [qui n'étaient pas encore capables de se gouverner eux-
mêmes]formaient «une mission sacréede civilisation »» (ibid., p. 131).
Les limites territoriales du mandat pour la Palestine furent fixéespar
divers instruments, notamment, en ce qui concerne sa frontière orientale,
par un mémorandum britannique du 16 septembre 1922 et un traité
anglo-transjordanien du 20 février 1928.
71. En 1947,le Royaume-Uni fit connaître son intention de procéder a
l'évacuation complètedu territoire sous mandat pour le 1" août 1948,
date qui fut par la suite avancée au 15 mai 1948. Dans l'intervalle,
l'Assembléegénérale desNations Unies avait adopté le 29 novembre
1947 une résolution 181 (II) sur le gouvernement futur de la Palestine,
résolution qui «[r/ecomrnuncic au Royaume-Uni ...ainsi qu'à tous les
autres Membres de l'organisation des Nations Unies, l'adoption et la
mise à exécution ..du plan de partage)) du territoire, prévudans la réso-
lution, entre deux Etats indépendants, l'un arabe, l'autre juif, ainsi que la
mise sur pied d'un régimeinternational particulier pour la ville de Jéru-
salem. La population arabe de Palestine et les Etats arabes rejetèrent ce CONSTP.UCTI OFNA WALL (ADVISOR YPINION) 165
therefore make this determination before dealing with the consequences
of the construction.
69. To do so, the Court will first make a brief analysis of the status of
the territory concerried, and willthen describe the works already con-
structed or in course of construction in that territory. It will then indicate
the applicable law before seeking to establish whether that law has been
breached.
70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First
World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great
Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22
of the Covenant, which provided that:
"Certain comimunities,formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire
have reached a stage of development where their existence as inde-
pendent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the ren-
dering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until
such time as they are able to stand alone."
The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the Internationul
Status c?f'SouthWest Africa,speaking of mandates in general, it observed
that "The Mandate \vas created. in the interest of the inhabitants of the
territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with
an international object- a sacred trust of civilization.(1.CJ. Reports
1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles
were considered to t~eof paramount importance: the principle of non-
annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of. . .
peoples [not yet able: to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of
civilization' (ihid.p. 131).
The territorial bouindariesof the Mandate for Palestine werelaid down
by various instruments, in particular on the eastern border by a British
memorandum of 16 September 1922and an Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty
of 20 February 1928.
71. In 1947the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete
evacuation of the m,andated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently
advancing that date to 15 May 1948. In the meantime, the General
Assembly had on 29 November 1947adopted resolution 181 (II) on the
future government of Palestine, which "Recommends to the United
Kingdom . ..and to al1other Members of the United Nations the adop-
tion and implementation . . of the Plan of Partition" of the territory, as
setforth in the resoluition,between two independent States, one Arab, the
other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régimefor
the City of Jerusaleni. The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab
States rejected this plan, contending that it was unbalanced; on 14 Mayplan qu'ils estimaient déséquilibré;Israël proclama son indépendance le
14mai 1948en vertu de la résolution de l'Assembléegénérale;un conflit
armééclataalors entre Israël et plusieurs Etats arabes et le plan de par-
tage ne fut pas appliqué.
72. Par résolution62 (1948)du 16novembre 1948,le Conseil de sécurité
décidaqu'«il sera[it]conclu un armistice dans tous les secteurs de la Pales-
tine))et invita les parties directement impliquéesdans le conflBrechercher
un accord à cette fin. Conformémentàcette décision, desconventions géné-
rales d'armistice furent conclues en 1949 entre Israël et les Etats voisins
griiceB la médiationdes Nations Unies. Une telle convention fut en parti-
culier signéeà Rhodes le 3 avril 1949entre Israël et la Jordanie. Les ar-
ticlesV etVI de cette convention fixaient la lignede démarcationde l'armis-
tice entre les forces israéliennes etles forces arabes (ligne souvent appelée
par la suite ((Ligneverte» du fait de la couleur retenue pour la tracer sur les
cartes, et qui sera ainsi dénomméeci-après).11étaitprécisé au paragraphe 2
de l'article III qu'«[alucun élément des forces militaiou paramilitaires ...
de l'une ou l'autre partie ... ne francliira[it], pour quelque motif que ce soit,
la ligne de démarcation...)>Il étaitconvenu au paragraphe 8 de l'articlVI
que ces dispositions ne seraient pas ((interprétées comme préjugeanten
aucune façon un réglement... définitifentre les parties)). En outrilétait
préciséque <<[l]a ligne de démarcation de l'armistice définieaux articlesV
et VI de la ... convention [était] acceptéepar les parties sans préjudicede
règlementsterritoriaux ultérieurs,du tracé des frontières oudes revendica-
tions de chacune des parties à ce sujeo. La ligne de démarcationétaitsus-
ceptible de subir des ajustements par accord entre les parties.
73. Lors du conflit armé de 1967, les forces armées israéliennes occu-
pèrent l'ensemble des territoires qui avaient constitué la Palestine sous
mandat britannique (y compris les territoires désignéssous le nom de Cis-
jordanie situésà l'est de la Ligne verte).
74. Le 22 novembre 1967, le Conseil de sécuritéadopta iil'unanimité
la résolution 242 (1967) qui soulignait l'inadmissibilitéde l'acquisition de
territoire par la guerre et appelait au (([rletrait des forces armées israé-
liennes des territoires occupés lors du récentconflit)),ea la ((cessationde
toutes assertions de belligéranceou de tous états de belligérance)).
75. A partir de 1967, Israël a pris dans ces territoires diverses mesures
tendant a modifier le statut de la ville de Jérusalem. Le Conseil de sécu-
rité,après avoir rappeléà plusieurs reprises que «le principe que l'acqui-
sition d'un territoire par la conquête militaire est inadmissible)), a
condamné ces mesures et a confirmé,par résolution 298 du 25 septembre
1971 (1971). de la façon la plus explicite que :
((toutes lesdispositions législativeset administratives prises par Israël
en vue de modifier le statut de la ville de Jérusalem, y compris
l'expropriation de terres et de biens immeubles, le transfert de popu-
lations et la législation visant à incorporer la partie occupée, sont
totalement nulles et non avenues et ne peuvent modifier le statut de
la ville)).1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General
Assembly resolution; armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a
number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.
72. By resolution 62 (1948)of 16November 1948,the Security Council
decided that "an armistice shall be established in al1sectors of Palestine"
and called upon the parties directly involved in the conflict to seek agree-
ment to this end. Ir1 conformity with this decision, general armistice
agreements were concluded in 1949 between Israel and the neighbouring
States through mediation by the United Nations. In particular, one such
agreement was signeclin Rhodes on 3 April 1949between Israel and Jor-
dan. Articles V and VI of that Agreement fixed the armisticedemarcation
line between Israeli and Arab forces (often later called the "Green Line"
owing to the colour i~sedfor it on maps; hereinafter the "Green Line").
Article III,paragraph 2, provided that "No element of the . . military or
para-military forces of either Party ... shall advance beyond or pass over
for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . ."It was
agreed in Article VI, paragraph 8, that these provisions would not be
"interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement
between the Parties". It was also stated that "the Armistice Demarcation
Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were]agreed upon
by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or bound-
ary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto". The Demarcation
Line was subject to such rectification as might be agreed upon by the
parties.
73. In the 1967arrned conflict, Israeli forces occupied al1the territories
which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those
known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).
74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted
resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisi-
tion of territory by \var and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed
forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination
of al1claims or states of belligerency".
75. From 1967 oriwards, Israel took a number of measures in these
territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The
Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions "the principle
that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", con-
demned those measuires and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September
1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:
"al1 legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change
the status of the:City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land
and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the
incorporation oî the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot
change that status".167 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
Puis, à la suite de l'adoption par Israël le 30juillet 1980de la loi fon-
damentale faisant de Jérusalemla capitale «entière et réunifiée))'Israël,
le Conseil de sécurité,par résolution478 (1980) du 20 août 1980,a pré-
ciséque l'adoption de cette loi constituait une violation du droit interna-
tional et que «toutes les mesures et dispositions législatives et adminis-
tratives prises par Israël, lapuissance occupante, qui ont modifiéou
visentà modifier le caractèreet le statut de la Villesainte de Jérusale...
étaientnulles et non avenues)). Il a en outre déci«de ne pas reconnaître
la «loi fondamentale)) et les autres actions d'Israël qui, du fait de cette
loi, cherchentà modifier le caractère et le statut de Jérusalem)).
76. Par la suite, un traitéde paix est intervenu le 26 octobre 1994entre
Israël et la Jordanie. Ce traitéfixe la frontière entre les deux Etatsar
référence à la frontière sous le mandat ... telle qu'elle est décrite en
annexe 1a) ...sans préjudiceaucun au statut de tout territoire placésous
le contrôle du gouvernement militaire israélienen 1967))(article 3, para-
graphes 1et 2). Quant àl'annexe 1,ellefournit lescartes correspondantes
et ajoute que, en ce qui concerne «le territoire passésous le contrôle du
gouvernement militaire israélien en 1967», la ligne ainsi tracée«est la
frontière administrative)) avec la Jordanie.
77. Enfin, plusieurs accords sont intervenus depuis 1993entre Israël et
l'organisation de libération dela Palestine mettant diverses obligations
la charge de chacune des parties. En vertu de ces accords, Israël devait
notamment transférer a des autorités palestiniennes certains pouvoirs
et responsabilités exercésdans le territoire palestinien occupé par ses
autorités militaires et son administration civile. De tels transferts ont
eu lieu, mais, du fait d'événements ultérieursi,ls demeurent partiels et
limités.
78. La Cour observera que, selon le droit international coutumier tel
que reflété(voir paragraphe 89 ci-après) à l'article 42 du règlement
concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre annexé à la qua-
trièmeconvention de La Haye du 18octobre 1907(ci-aprèsdénomméle
((règlement de La Haye de 1907»), un territoire est considérécomme
occupé lorsqu'ilse trouve placéde fait sous l'autoritéde l'armée ennemie,
et l'occupation ne s'étendqu'aux territoires où cette autoritéest établieet
en mesure de s'exercer.
Les territoires situésentre la Ligne verte (voir paragraphe 72 ci-dessus)
et l'ancienne frontière orientale de la Palestine sous mandat ont été occu-
péspar Israël en 1967au cours du conflit arméayant opposéIsraël à la
Jordanie. Selon le droit international coutumier, il s'agissait donc de ter-
ritoires occupésdans lesquels Israël avait la qualitéde puissance occu-
pante. Les événementssurvenus depuis lors dans ces territoires tels que
rapportés aux paragraphes 75 à 77 ci-dessus n'ont rien changé à cette
situation. L'ensemble de ces territoires (y compris Jérusalem-Est) de-
meurent des territoires occupés et Israël y a conservé laqualité depuis-
sance occupante. Later, following the adoption by Israel on 30 July 1980 of the Basic
Law making Jerusakm the "complete and united" capital of Israel, the
Security Council, by resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, stated that
the enactment of that Law constituted a violation of international law
and that "al1legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by
Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the
character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem . . . are nuIl and void".
It fùrther decided "not to recognize the 'basic law' and such other actions
by Israel that, as a reisultof this law, seek to alter the character and status
of Jerusalem".
76. Subsequently, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994
between Israel and Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the
two States "with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate
as is shown in Annex 1 (a) . . . without prejudice to the status of any
territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967"
(Article 3, paragrapl~s 1 and 2). Annex 1 provided the corresponding
maps and added thiit, with regard to the "territory that came under
lsraeli military govei-nment control in 1967", the line indicated "is the
administrative bounclary" with Jordan.
77. Lastly, a nunlber of agreements have been signed since 1993
between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization imposing vari-
ous obligations on each Party. Those agreements intu uliu required Israel
to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities
exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by its military authoritjes
and civil administratiion. Such transfers have taken place, but, as a result
of subsequent events, they remained partial and limited.
78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law
as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the
Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague
Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually
placed under the airthority of the hostile army, and the occupation
extends only to the iterritory where such authority has been established
and can be exercised.
The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72
above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate
were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel
and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore
occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power.
Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77
above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories
(including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has con-
tinued to have the status of occupying Power.168 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
79. C'est pour l'essentiel dans ces territoires qu'Israël a construitou
projette de construire les ouvrages décrits dans le rapport du Secrétaire
général.La Cour décrira maintenant ces ouvrages en s'appuyant sur ce
rapport. Pour ce qui est des développements postérieurs à la diffusion
dudit rapport, la Cour se référeraaux informations complémentaires
contenues dans l'exposé écritde l'organisation des Nations Unies, par
lequel le Secrétaire généraa entendu mettre àjour son rapport (dénommé
ci-après l'ctexposé écritdu Secrétairegénéral))).
80. Aux termes du rapport du Secrétaire général,«[d]epuis 1996, le
Gouvernement israélien examine des plans qui visent enrayer les infil-
trations en Israël a partir du centre et du nord de la Cisjordanie))(para-
graphe 4). D'après le mêmerapport, un plan de ce type a étéapprouvé
pour la première fois par le conseil des ministres israélien en juillet 2001.
Puis le conseil a, le 14avril 2002, adopté une décisionprévoyant la cons-
truction d'ouvrages formant, selon Israël, une ((clôture de sécurité))sur
80 kilomètres dans trois secteurs de la Cisjordanie.
Allant au-delà, le conseil des ministres israélien a, le 23 juin 2002,
approuvé la première phase de construction d'une «clôture continue)) en
Cisjordanie (y compris Jérusalem-Est). Le 14 août 2002, il a adopté le
tracé de ladite «clôture» pour les travaux de la phase A, en vue de la
construction d'un ouvrage de 123 kilomètres de long dans le nord de la
Cisjordanie a partir du poste de contrôle de Salem (au nord de Djénine)
jusqu'à la colonie de peuplement d'Elkana. La phase B des travaux a été
approuvée en décembre 2002. Il s'agit d'un tronçon d'environ 40 kilo-
mètres à l'est du poste de contrôle de Salem, en direction de Beth Shean,
le long de la partie nord de la Ligne verte jusqu'à la valléedu Jourdain.
En outre, le 1" octobre 2003, le conseil des ministres israélien a adopté un
tracé complet qui, selon le rapport du Secrétaire général,((formera une
ligne continue qui s'étendra sur une distance de 720 kilomètres le long de
la Cisjordanie)). Une carte indiquant les tronçons achevés etles tronçons
planifiésa été affichéseur le site de la toile Internet du ministère israélien
de la défensele 23 octobre 2003. Selon les indications fournies sur cette
carte, un tronçon continu (phase C) et englobant plusieurs colonies
importantes reliera l'extrémiténord-ouest de la ((clôture de sécurité))édi-
fiéeautour de Jérusalem a la pointe sud des travaux de la phase A a El-
kana. Selon la mêmecarte, la ((clôture de sécurité))s'étendra sur115 kilo-
mètres de la colonie de Har Gilo près de Jérusalem à la colonie du
Carmel au sud-est d'Hébron (phase D). D'aprésles documents du minis-
tère de la défense,les travaux dans ce secteur doivent en principe s'ache-
ver en 2005. Il est enfin fait état au dossier de projets de construction par
Israël d'une «clôture de sécurité))qui longerait la valléedu Jourdain le
long de la chaîne montagneuse situéeà l'ouest de cette vallée.
81. Selon l'exposé écritdu Secrétaire général, la première partie de ces
travaux (phase A), qui s'étend finalementsur 150kilomètres, a été décla-
rée achevéele 31 juillet 2003. 56 000 Palestiniens environ auraient ainsi
été placéd sans des enclaves. Au cours de cette phase ont étéédifiés deux
tronçons d'un total de 19,s kilomètres sur le pourtour de Jérusalem. La 79. It is essentially in these territories that Israel has constructed or
plans to construct the works described in the report of the Secretary-
General. The Court will now describe those works, basing itself on that
report. For developrnents subsequent to the publication of that report,
the Court will refer to complementary information contained in the
Written Statement of the United Nations, which was intended by the
Secretary-General ta' supplement his report (hereinafter "Written State-
ment of the Secretary-General").
80. The report of the Secretary-General States that "The Government
of Israel has since 1996 considered plans to halt infiltration into Israel
from the central and northern West Bank .. ." (para.4).According to
that report, a plan of this type was approved for the first time by the
Israeli Cabinet in July 2001. Then, on 14April2002, the Cabinet adopted
a decision for the construction of works, forming what Israel describes as
a "security fence", 80 kilometres in length, in three areas of the West
Bank.
The project was i.aken a stage further when, on 23 June 2002, the
Israeli Cabinet approved the first phase of the construction of a "con-
tinuous fence" in the West Bank (including EastJerusalem). On 14August
2002, it adopted the line of that "fence" for the work in Phase A, with a
view to the construction of a complex 123kilometres long in the northern
West Bank, running from the Salem checkpoint (north of Jenin) to the
settlement at Elkana. Phase B of the work was approved in December
2002. It entailed a stretch of some 40 kilometres running east from the
Salem checkpoint towards Beth Shean along the northern part of the
Green Line as far as the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, on 1 October 2003,
the Israeli Cabinet approved a full route, which, according to the report
of the Secretary-General, "will form one continuous line stretching
720 kilometres along the West Bank". A map showing completed and
planned sections was posted on the Israeli Ministry of Defence website
on 23 October 2003. According to the particulars provided on that map,
a continuous section (Phase C) encompassing a number of large settle-
ments will link the north-western end of the "security fence" built around
Jerusalem with the ,southern point of Phase A construction at Elkana.
According to the same map, the "security fence" will run for 115 kilo-
metres from the Har Gilo settlement near Jerusalem to the Carmel
settlement south-east of Hebron (Phase D). According to Ministry of
Defence documents, work in this sector is due for completion in 2005.
Lastly, there are reharences in the case file to Israel's planned construc-
tion of a "security fence" following the Jordan Valley along the mountain
range to the west.
81. According to the Written Statement of the Secretary-General, the
first part of these works (Phase A), which ultimately extends for a dis-
tance of 150 kilometres, was declared completed on 31 July 2003. It is
reported that approximately 56,000 Palestinians would be encompassed
in enclaves. During this phase, two sections totalling 19.5 kilometres169 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
construction d'une nouvelle section a par ailleurs étéentamée en no-
vembre 2003 le long de la Ligne verte a l'ouest de l'enclave de Nazlat
Issa-Baqa al-Sharqiya, laquelle étaitpresque achevéeen janvier 2004 lors
du dépôt de l'exposé écritdu Secrétaire général.
Suivant l'exposé écritdu Secrétaire général,les travaux entrepris au
titre de la phase B étaient toujours en cours en janvier 2004. Une pre-
mière section de ce tronçon, qui suit de près la Ligne verte jusqu'au vil-
lage d'Al-Mutilla, était ainsi en voie d'achèvement en janvier 2004. A cet
endroit, deux sections partent dans des directions différentes.Les travaux
de construction de la première section, qui s'étend plein est jusqu'i la
frontière avec la Jordanie, ont débuté en janvier 2004. La construction de
la seconde section, qui devrait s'étendrede la Ligne verte au village de
Taysir, a étéa peine entamée. L'Organisation des Nations Unies a néan-
moins été informéeque cette seconde section pourrait ne pas être cons-
truite.
L'exposé écritdu Secrétaire général précise enutre que la phase C des
travaux, selon un tracé partant du point d'aboutissement de celui de la
phase A, près de la colonie d'Elkana, jusqu'au village de Nu'man, au
sud-est de Jérusalem, a débutéen décembre 2003. Ce tronçon est divisé
en trois parties et en autant de phases de travaux. Pour la phaseCl, les
travaux engagés, entre les villages de Rantis et de Budrus notamment,
ont abouti à l'édificationd'un tronçon de 4 kilomètres environ, sur un
total de 40 kilomètres prévus.Le tronçon de la phase C2 devrait entourer
«le saillant d7Ariel» en pénétrantde 22 kilomètres al'intérieurde la Cis-
jordanie et inclure ainsi 52000 colons israéliens. La phase C3 devrait
donner lieu i l'édificationde deux ((barrières avancée»:l'une d'elles suit
une direction nord-sud globalement parallèle au tronçon de la phase Cl
actuellement en cours de construction entre Rantis et Budrus; l'autre suit
une direction est-ouest le long d'une crêtequi ferait partie de l'itinéraire
de la Route 45, une autoroute en construction. Si la construction de ces
deux tronçons était achevée, elle entraînerait la formation de deux en-
claves peuplées de 72000 Palestiniens dans 24 localités.
De nouveaux travaux ont aussi débuté à la fin du mois de no-
vembre 2003 le long de la partie sud-est de la limite de la municipalité
de Jérusalem, selon un tracéqui, d'après l'exposé écrit u Secrétaire géné-
ral, coupe la localitésuburbaine d'El-Ezariya de Jérusalemet divise la loca-
lité voisined'Abou Dis en deux.
Au 25 janvier 2004, selon I'exposéécritdu Secrétaire général,les tra-
vaux avaient été achevés sur environ 190 kilomètres, couvrant la phase A
et la majeure partie de la phase B; de nouveaux travaux de construction
concernant la phase C avaient étéentrepris dans certaines parties du
centre de la Cisjordanie et à Jérusalem; et la phasD, prévuepour le sud
de la Cisjordanie, n'avait pas encore débuté.
Selon le Gouvernement israélien, les tracés et le calendrier susmen-
tionnés sont susceptibles de modifications. C'est ainsi qu'en février 2004
un tronçon de 8 kilomètres proche de la ville de Baqa al-Sharqiya a étéwere built around Jerusalem. In November 2003 construction of a new
section was begun along the Green Line to the Westof the Nazlat Issa-
Baqa al-Sharqiya enclave, which in January 2004 was close to comple-
tion at the time wheri the Secretary-General submitted his Written State-
ment.
According to the Written Statement of the Secretary-General, the
works carried out under Phase B were still in progress in January 2004.
Thus an initial section of this stretch, which runs near or on the Green
Line to the village of al-Mutilla, was almost complete in January 2004.
Two additional sections diverge at this point. Construction started in
early January 2004 cm one section that runs due east as far as the Jor-
danian border. Construction of the second section, which is planned to
run from the Green Line to the village of Taysir, has barely begun. The
United Nations has, however, been informed that this second section
might not be built.
The Written Statement of the Secretary-General further states that
Phase C of the work, which runs from the terminus of Phase A, near the
Elkana settlement, t~othe village of Nu'man, south-east of Jerusalem,
began in December 2003. This section is divided into three stages. In
Stage Cl, between inter uliuthe villages of Rantis and Budrus, approxi-
mately 4 kilometres out of a planned total of 40 kilometres have been
constructed. Stage C2, which will surround the so-called "Ariel Salient"
by cutting 22 kilom~rtresinto the West Bank, will incorporate 52,000
Israeli settlers. S"aee C3 is to involve the construction of two "de~th
barriers"; one of these is to run north-south, roughly parallel with the
section of Stage Cl currently under construction between Rantis and
Budrus, whilst the oither runs east-west along a ridge said to be part of
the route ofHighway 45, a motorway under construction. If construction
of the two barriers were completed, two enclaves would be formed,
encompassing 72,000 Palestinians in 24 communities.
Further construction also started in late November 2003 along the
south-eastern part of the municipal boundary of Jerusalem, following a
route that, according to the Written Statement of the Secretary-General,
cuts off the suburbari village of El-Ezariya from Jerusalem and splits the
neighbouring Abu Dis in two.
As at 25 January 2004, according to the Written Statement of the Sec-
retary-General, some 190kilometres of construction had been completed,
covering Phase A and the greater part of Phase B. Further construction
in Phase C had begumin certain areas of the central West Bank and in
Jerusalem. Phase D, lplannedfor the southern part of the West Bank, had
not yet begun.
The Israeli Government has explained that the routes and timetable
as described above are subject to modification. In February 2004, for
example, an 8-kilometre section near the town of Baqa al-Sharqiya was170 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
détruit, et que la longueur du mur semble avoir étéquelque peu
réduite.
82. Les travaux réalisésou décidés, telsque décritsdans le rapport et
l'exposé écridtu Secrétaire généralo,nt conduit ou conduiront àla cons-
truction d'un dispositif comprenant en sa majeure partie:
1) une clôture équipéede détecteurs électroniques;
2) un fossé(pouvant atteindre 4 mètres de profondeur);
3) une route de patrouille asphaltée à deux voies;
4) une route de dépistage(bande de sable lissepermettant de détecter des
empreintes de pieds) parallèleà la clôture;
5) six boudins de barbelés empilésqui marquent le périmètre desinstal-
lations.
L'ouvrage a une largeur de 50 à 70 mètres, mais peut atteindre
100 mètres à certains endroits. Des barrières dites «avancées» peuvent
s'ajouterà ce dispositif.
Par ailleurs, sur les quelque 180 kilomètres de l'ouvrage construits ou
en cours de construction au moment où le Secrétaire généraal déposéson
rapport, des murs en béton couvraient une distance de 8,5 kilomètres
environ. Ils sont généralement situés là où des agglomérations palesti-
niennes sont proches de ou contiguës à Israël (par exemple près de Qal-
qiliya et de Tulkarem ou dans certaines parties de Jérusalem).
83. Selon le rapport du Secrétairegénéral,lemur construit ou en cours
de construction ne s'éloigne guère, enson extrémiténord, de la Ligne
verte. II n'en est pas moins situé dans les territoires occupéssur la ma-
jeure partie de son parcours. A certains endroits, les ouvrages s'écartent
de la Ligne verte de plus de 7,5 kilomètres pour incorporer des colonies
de peuplement, en encerclant des agglomérationspalestiniennes. A l'ouest
de Tulkarem, ils semblent suivre un tracé situédu côtéisraélien de la
Ligne verte sur une distance de 1 ii2 kilomètres. En d'autres endroits, le
tracé projeté impliquerait en revanche un écart allant jusqu'à 22 kilo-
mètres vers l'est. Dans le cas de Jérusalem, les ouvrages existants et le
tracé prévu se trouvent très au-delà de la Ligne verte, et même,dans
certains cas, au-delà de la limite orientale de la municipalitéde Jérusalem
telle que fixéepar Israël.
84. D'après ce mêmetracé, approximativement 975 kilomètres carrés
(soit16,6'%d,e la superficie de la Cisjordanie)seraient, selon le rapport du
Secrétaire général, situés entre la Ligne verte et le mur. Environ
237 000 Palestiniens vivraient dans cette zone. Si le mur était intégrale-
ment construit comme prévu, 160 000 autres Palestiniens vivraient dans
des agglomérations presque totalement encerclées, qualifiées d'enclaves
dans le rapport. Selon le tracéprojeté, prèsde 320 000 colons israéliens
(dont 178 000 environ à Jérusalem-Est) vivraient dans la zone comprise
entre la Ligne verte et le mur.
85. Il convient enfin de relever que la construction du mur s'estaccom-
pagnéede la mise sur pied d'un régimeadministratif nouveau. Les forces
de défense israéliennesont en effet édictéen octobre 2003 des ordon- CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOK OPINION) 170
demolished, and the planned length of the wall appears to have been
slightly reduced.
82. According to l.hedescription in the report and the Written State-
ment of the Secretai-y-General, the works planned or completed have
resulted or will resuli:in a complex consisting essentially of:
(1) a fence with electronicsensors;
(2) a ditch (up to 4 :metresdeep);
(3) a two-lane asphalt patrol road;
(4) a trace road (a strip of sand smoothed to detect footprints) running
parallel to the fence;
(5) a stack of six coils of barbed wire marking the perimeter of the com-
plex.
The complex has a width of 50 to 70 metres, increasing to as much as
100 metres in some places. "Depth barriers" may be added to these
works.
The approximately 180kilometres of the complex completed or under
construction as of the time when the Secretary-General submitted his
report included some 8.5 kilometres of concrete wall. These are generally
found where Palestiriian population centres are close to or abut Israel
(such as near Qalqiliya and Tulkarm or in parts of Jerusalem).
83. According to the report of the Secretary-General, in its northern-
most part, the wall as completed or under construction barely deviates
from the Green Line. It nevertheless lies within occupied territories for
most of its course. Tlheworks deviate more than 7.5 kilometres from the
Green Line in certain places to encompass Settlements, while encircling
Palestinian population areas. A stretch of 1 to 2 kilometres West of
Tulkarm appears to run on the Israeli side of the Green Line. Elsewhere,
on the other hand, the planned route would deviate eastward by up
to 22 kilometres. In the case of Jerusalem, the existing works and the
planned route lie well beyond the Green Line and even in some cases
beyond the eastern n~unicipal boundary of Jerusalem as fixed by Israel.
84. On the basis of that route, approximately 975 square kilometres
(or 16.6per cent of the West Bank) would, according to the report of the
Secretary-General, lit:between the Green Line and the wall. This area is
stated to be home to 237,000 Palestinians. If the full wall were completed
as planned, another 110,000 Palestinians would live in almost completely
encircled communities, described as enclaves in the report. As a result of
the planned route, riearly 320,000 Israelisettlers (of whom 178,000 in
East Jerusalem) would be living in the area between the Green Line and
the wall.
85. Lastly, it should be noted that the construction of the wall has
been accompanied by the creation of a new administrative régime.Thus
in October 2003 the Israeli Defence Forces issued Orders establishing the171 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
nances établissant comme «zone fermée»la partie de la Cisjordanie qui
se trouve entre la Ligne verte et le mur. Les résidentsde cette zone ne
peuvent désormais y demeurer et les non-résidents, y accéder,que s'ils
sont porteurs d'un permis ou d'une carte d'identitédélivréspar les autori-
tés israéliennes. Selole rapport du Secrétaire générall,a plupart des ré-
sidents ont reçu des permis pour une duréelimitée.Lescitoyens israéliens,
les résidentspermanents en Israël et les personnes admises a immigrer en
Israël en vertu de la loi du retour peuvent demeurer dans la zone fermée,
s'ydéplacer librementet en sortir sansavoir besoin de permis. L'entrée et
la sortie de la zone fermée ne peuventêtreopéréesque par des portes
d'accèsqui sont ouvertes peu fréquemment etpour de courtes durées.
86. La Cour déterminera maintenant les règleset principes de droit
international qui sont pertinents pour l'appréciation de la licéité des
mesures prises par Israël. Ces règleset principes figurent dans la Charte
des Nations Unies et certains autres traités, dans le droit international
coutumier et dans les résolutions pertinentes adoptées en vertu de la
Charte par l'Assembléegénérale etle Conseil de sécurité. Desdoutes ont
toutefois été exprimép sarIsraël en ce qui concerne I'applicabilitédans le
territoire palestinien occupé de certaines règles de droit international
humanitaire et des conventions relatives aux droits de l'homme. La Cour
examinera maintenant ces diverses questions.
87. La Cour rappellera tout d'abord que, selon le paragraphe 4 de
l'article 2 de la Charte des Nations Unies:
((Les Membres de l'organisation s'abstiennent, dans leurs rela-
tions internationales, de recourirAla menace ou a l'emploi de la
force, soit contre l'intégrité territorialeou l'indépendance politique
de tout Etat, soit de toute autre manière incompatible avec les buts
des Nations Unies. »
L'Assemblée généralae, le 24 octobre 1970, adopté la résolution 2625
(XXV) intitulée((Déclaration relative aux principes du droit internatio-
nal touchant les relations amicales et la coopération entre Etatsn (ci-
après dénomméela «résolution 2625 (XXV)))), dans laquelle elle a sou-
ligné que «[n]ulle acquisition territoriale obtenue par la menace ou
l'emploi de la force ne sera reconnue comme légale)).Comme la Cour l'a
dit dans l'affaire desctivités militaires et varamilitaires au Nicaru~ua et
contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etuts- Unis d'Amérique),lesprincipes énon-
césdans la Charte au sujet de l'usage de la force reflètentle droit inter-
national coutumier (voir C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 98-101, par. 187-190);
cela vaut également pour ce qui en est le corollaire, l'illicéité dtoute
acquisition de territoire résultant de la menace ou de l'emploide la force.
88. La Cour relèveraégalementque le principe du droit des peuples a
disposer d'eux-mêmesa été consacré dans la Charte des Nations Unies et
réaffirmépar la résolution 2625 (XXV) de l'Assemblée générale déjapart of the West Bank lying between the Green Line and the wall as a
"Closed Area". Residents of this area may no longer remain in it, nor
may non-residents eriter it, unless holding a permit or identityard issued
by the Israeli authorities. According to the report of the Secretary-
General, most residents have received permits for a limited period. Israeli
citizens, Israelipermanent residents and those eligible to immigrate
to Israel in accordance with the Law of Return may remain in, or move
freely to, from and within the Closed Area without a permit. Access to
and exit from the Closed Area can only be made through access gates,
which are opened inifrequentlyand for short periods.
86. The Court will now determine the rules and principles of inter-
national law which are relevant in assessing the legality of the measures
taken by Israel. Such rules and principles can be found in the United
Nations Charter and certain other treaties, in customary international
law and in the relevant resolutions adopted pursuant to the Charter by
the General Assembly and the Security Council. However, doubts have
been expressed by Israel as to the applicability in the Occupied Palestin-
ian Territory of certain rules of international humanitarian law and
human rights instruiments. The Court will now consider these various
questions.
87. The Court first recalls that, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4, of
the United Nations Charter:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of'any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations."
On 24 October 19713,the General Assembly adopted resolution 2625
(XXV), entitled "Declaration on Principles of International Law con-
cerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" (hereinafter
"resolution 2625 (X:YV)"), in which it emphasized that "No territorial
acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as
legal." As the Court stated in its Judgment in the case concerning Mili-
tury und Pururnilitur,yActivities in und uguinst Nicuruguu (Nicuruguu v.
United Stutrs oJ Arnericu), the principles as to the use of force incorpo-
rated in theCharter reflectcustomary international law (see 1.C.J. Reports
1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187-190); the same is true of its corollary entail-
ing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use
of force.
88. The Court also notes that the principle of self-determination of
peoples has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed
by the General Assennblyin resolution 2625(XXV) cited above, pursuantmentionnée,selon laquelle «[t]out Etat a le devoir de s'abstenir de recou-
rir à toute mesure de coercition qui priverait de leur droit à
I'autodétermination ...les peuples mentionnés [dans ladite résolution]».
L'article 1"' commun au acte international relatif aux droits écono-
miques, sociaux et culturels et au pacte international relatif aux droits
civils et politiques réaffirmele droit de tous les peuplesdisposer d'eux-
mêmeset fait obligation aux Etats parties de faciliter la réalisation dece
droit et de le respecter, conformément aux dispositions de la Charte des
Nations Unies.
La Cour rappellera qu'en 1971elle a soulignéque l'évolution actuelle
du «droit international à l'égard desterritoires non autonomes, tel qu'il
est consacrépar la Charte des Nations Unies, a fait de I'autodétermina-
tion un principe applicable à tous ces territoires)). La Cour a ajoutéque
c<[d]ufait de cette évolution il n'y a[vait] guèrede doute que la ((mission
sacrée»»viséeau paragraphe 1 de l'article 22 du Pacte de la Société des
Nations «avait pour objectif ultime I'autodétermination ..des peuples en
cause » (Conséquencesjuridiques pour les Etats de laprésencecontinue de
l1A,friyuedu Sud en Namibie (Sud-Ouest ufricain) nonohstrrnt Iorésolzr-
tion 276 (1970) du Conseil de sécurité, aviscon.sultatif, C.I.J. Recueil
1971, p. 31, par. 52-53). La Cour s'est référé àece principe a plusieurs
reprises dans sa jurisprudence (ibid.;voir aussi Sahuru occidental, avis
consultutg C.I. J.Recueil 1975, p. 68, par. 162).La Cour a mêmeprécisé
qu'aujourd'hui le droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes est undroit
opposable erga omnes (voirTimor oriental (Portugal c. Austrulie), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1995, p. 102,par. 29).
89. Pour ce qui concerne le droit international humanitaire, la Cour
relèvera en premier lieu qu'Israël n'est paspartieà la quatrième conven-
tion de La Haye de 1907 à laquelle le règlement est annexé. La Cour
observera qu'aux termes de la convention ce règlementavait pour objet
de ((reviserles lois et coutumes généralede la guerre» telles qu'ellesexis-
taientà l'époque.Depuis lors cependant, le Tribunal militaire internatio-
nal de Nuremberg a jugé que les «règles définiesdans la convention
étaient reconnues par toutes les nations civiliséeset étaient considérées
comme une formulation des lois et coutumes de guerre)) (jugement du
Tribunal militaire international de Nuremberg du 30 septembre et
1"'octobre 1946,p. 65). La Cour elle-mêmea abouti à la même conclu-
sion en examinant les droits et devoirs des belligérantsdans la conduite
des opérations militaires (Licéitéde la menuce ou de l'emploi d'armes
nucléuires,uvis consultatif, C.IJ. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 256, par. 75). La
Cour estime que les dispositions du règlement de La Haye de 1907 ont
acauis un caractère coutumier. comme d'ailleurs tous les aartici~ants a la
pr&édure devant la Cour le réconnaissent.
La Cour observera en outre que, conformément à l'article 154 de la
quatrième convention de Genève,le règlement de La Haye a été complété
en ses sectionsII et III par les dispositions de ladite convention. La sec-
tion IIIdudit règlement,qui concerne ((l'autoritémilitaire sur le territoire
de 1'Etatennemi)), est particulièrement pertinente en l'espèce. CONSTR.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 172
to which "Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action
which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . .. of their right to
self-determination." Article 1common to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of al1peoples to self-deter-
mination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the
realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provi-
sions of the United Nations Charter.
The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current devel-
opments in "international law in regard to non-self-governing territories,
as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of
self-determination applicable to al1[such territories]". The Court went on
to state that "These: developments leave little doubt that the ultimate
objective of the sacred trust" referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1,of the
Covenant of the League of Nations "was the self-determination .. . of the
peoples concerned" (Lqul Consequences ,fi)r Stutes of the Continued
Presence ~f'South AdfLicain Numihiu (South West Ajrica) notwithstund-
ing Security Council Re.solution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1.C.J.
Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The Court has referred to this prin-
ciple on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ihid.; see also Western
Suharu, Advisory O,oinion, I.C.J. report.^ 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The
Court indeed made it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination
is today a right ergu omnes (see Eust Timor (Portugul v. Austrulia),
Jucigment, 1.C. J.Re,oorts 1995, p. 102, para. 29).
89. As regards international humanitarian law, the Court would first
note that Israel is not a party to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907,
to which the Hague liegulations are annexed. The Court observes that, in
the words of the Corivention, those Regulations were prepared "to revise
the general laws ancl customs of war" existing at that time. Since then,
however, the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg has found
that the "rules laid tiown in the Convention were recognised by al1civi-
lised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and cus-
toms of war" (Judg~ient of the International Military Tribunal of Nurem-
berg, 30 September and 1October 1946, p. 65). The Court itself reached
the same conclusion when examining the rights and duties of belligerents
in their conduct of rnilitary operations (Legulity of the Threut or Use of
Nucleur Weupons, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1996 (1), p. 256,
para. 75). The Couri. considers that the provisions of the Hague Regula-
tions have become part of customary law, as is in fact recognized by al1
the participants in the proceedings before the Court.
The Court also olbserves that, pursuant to Article 154 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, that Convention is supplementary to Sections II
and III of the Hague Regulations. Section III of those Regulations,
which concerns "Military authority over the territory of the hostile
State", is particularly pertinent in the present case. 90. S'agissant en second lieu de la quatrième convention de Genève,
des points de vue divergents ont été exprimés par les participants a la
procédure devant la Cour. Contrairement àla grande majorité des autres
participants, Israël conteste en effet l'applicabilitdejure de la conven-
tion au territoire palestinien occupé.Au paragraphe 3 de l'annexe 1au
rapport du Secrétaire général intitulée ((Résuméde la position juridique
du Gouvernement israélien)), il est en particulier préciséqu'Israël ne
considère pas que la quatrième convention de Genève«soit applicable au
territoire palestinien occupé)),dans la mesure où «le territoire n'était pas
reconnu comme souverain avant son annexion par la Jordanie et 1'Egypte
et où, en conséquence, il ne s'agit pas d'un territoire d'une Haute Partie
contractante au regard de la convention)).
91. La Cour rappellera que la quatrième convention de Genève a été
ratifiéepar Israël le 6juillet 1951et qu'Israël est partàecetteconvention.
La Jordanie y est aussi partie depuis le 29 mai 1951. Aucun des deux
Etats n'a formulé de réservepertinente au cas particulier.
La Palestine s'est par ailleurs engagéeunilatéralement, par déclaration
du 7 juin 1982, à appliquer la quatrième convention de Genève. La
Suisse, en qualitéd'Etat dépositaire, a estimé valable cet engagement uni-
latéral. En revanche, elle a conclu qu'elle «n'[était]pas - en tant que
dépositaire - en mesure de trancher le point de savoir si ))«la demande
[en date du 14juin 19891de l'organisation de libération de la Palestine,
au nom de l'«Etat de Palestine)), d'adhérer)) notamment a la quatrième
convention (([devait]être considérée commeun instrument d'adhésion)).
92. En outre, en vue de déterminer le champ d'application de la qua-
trièmeconvention de Genève, il convient de rappeler que selon l'article 2
commun aux quatre conventions du 12août 1949:
«En dehors des dispositions qui doivent entrer en vigueur dès le
temps de paix, la présenteconvention s'appliquera en cas de guerre
déclaréeou de tout autre conflit armésurgissant entre deux ou plu-
sieurs des Hautes Parties contractantes mêmesi l'étatde guerre n'est
pas reconnu par l'une d'elles.
La convention s'appliquera égalementdans tous les cas d'occupa-
tion de tout ou partie du territoire d'une Haute Partie contractante,
mêmesi cette occupation ne rencontre aucune résistance militaire.
Si l'une des puissances en conflit n'est pas partie à la présente
convention, les puissances parties àcelle-ci resteront néanmoins liées
par elle dans leurs rapports réciproques. Elles seront liéesen outre
par la convention envers ladite puissance, si celle-ci en accepte et en
applique les dispositions.»
93. Après l'occupation de la Cisjordanie en 1967, les autorités israé-
liennes ont promulgué l'ordonnance no3 qui stipule en son article 35 que
«Le tribunal militaire ...doit appliquer les dispositions de la
convention de Genève du 12 août 1949 relative à la protection des 90. Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing
views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings.
Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes
the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. In particuilar, in paragraph 3 of Annex 1 to the report of the
Secretary-General, entitled "Summary Legal Position of the Government
of Israel", it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva
Convention "is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory", citing
"the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexa-
tion by Jordan and Egypt" and inferring that it is "not a territory of a
High Contracting Party as required by the Convention".
91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was
ratified by Israel on6 July 1951and that Israel is a party to that Conven-
tion. Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951.Neither of
the two States has nnade any reservation that would be pertinent to the
present proceedings.
Furthermore, Pa1t:stinegave a unilateral undertaking, by declaration
of 7 June 1982,to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention. Switzerland, as
depositary State, considered that unilateral undertaking valid. Tt con-
cluded, however, thkitit "[was] not as a depositary - in a position to
decide whether" "the request [dated 14June 19891frorn the Palestine Lib-
eration Movement in the name of the 'State of Palestine' to accede" inter
uliu to the Fourth Cieneva Convention "can be considered as an instru-
ment of accession".
92. Moreover, for the purpose of determining the scope of application
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should be recalled that under com-
mon Article 2 of the four Conventions of 12August 1949:
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to al1cases of declared
war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or
more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to al1 cases of partial or total
occupation of tlheterritory of a High Contracting Party, even if the
said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be
bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter
accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
93. After the occuipationof the West Bank in 1967,the Israeli authori-
ties 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 of174 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
personnes civiles en temps de guerre en ce qui concerne les procé-
dures judiciaires. En cas d'incompatibilité entre la présenteordon-
nance et ladite convention, cette dernière prévaudra. » [Traduction
du Greffe.]
Par la suite, les autorités israéliennes ont déclaré a plusieurs reprises
qu'en fait elles appliquaient de manière généraleles dispositions humani-
taires de la quatrième convention de Genèvedans les territoires occupés.
Toutefois, selon la thèse israéliennetelle que rappelée brièvementau
paragraphe 90 ci-dessus, cette convention ne serait pas applicable dejure
dans ces territoires car, conformément au deuxième alinéade son ar-
ticle2, elle s'appliquerait seulementen cas d'occupation de territoires re-
levant de la souverainetéd'un Etat contractant partie a un conflit armé.
Israël expose que la Jordanie étaitcertes partiea la quatrième convention
de Genève en 1967et qu'un conflit armé a alorséclatéentre Israël et la
Jordanie, mais il ajoute que les territoires occupéspar Israëla la suite de
ce conflit ne relevaient pas auparavant de la souverainetéjordanienne. Il
en déduit que ladite convention n'est pas applicable dejure dans ces ter-
ritoires. En revanche, selon la grande majoritédes autres participantsà la
procédure, la quatrième convention de Genève y serait applicable, en
vertu du premier alinéa deI'article2, et ce quels qu'aient pu êtrelesdroits
de la Jordanie sur ces territoires avant 1967.
94. La Cour rappellera que, selon le droit international coutumier tel
qu'exprimé à I'articl3 1de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des trai-
tésdu 23 mai 1969,un traité doit être interprété de bonne foi suivant le
sens ordinaire à attribuer à ses termes dans leur contexte et à la lumière
de son objet et de son but. Selon I'article 32:
((11peut être fait appelà des moyens complémentairesd'interpré-
tation, et notamment aux travaux préparatoires et aux circonstances
dans lesquelles le traitéaétéconclu, en vue soit de confirmer le sens
résultant de l'application de l'article1, soit de déterminer le sens
lorsque l'interprétation donnéeconformément a l'article 3..[Ilaisse
le sens ambigu ou obscur; ou ...[clonduit a un résultat quiest mani-
festement absurde ou déraisonnable. » (Voir Plates-formes pétro-
lières (République islumique d'Iran c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique),
exception préliminuirr, arrêt, C.1.J. Recueil 1996 (II), p. 812,
par. 23; voir dans le même sens Ile de KusikililScdudu (Bots~vanul
Namibie), arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1999 (II), p. 1059,par. 18,et Souve-
raineté sur Pulau Ligitan et Puluu Sipadun (In~bné.sielMuluisie),
arrêt,C.1.J. Recueil 2002, p. 645, par. 37.)
95. La Cour relèvera que, selon le premier alinéade l'article 2 de la
quatrième convention de Genève,celle-ciest applicable dès lorsque deux
conditions sont remplies: existence d'un conflit armé(que l'état de guerre
ait ou non étéreconnu); survenance de ce conflit entre deux parties
contractantes. Si ces deux conditions sont réunies,la convention s'ap- CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OPINION) 174
Civilian Personisin Time of War with respect to judicial procedures.
In case of conflict between this Order and the said Convention,
the Convention shall prevail."
Subsequently, the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occa-
sions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the
Fourth Geneva Coinvention within the occupied territories. However,
according to Israel's position as briefly recalled in paragraph 90 above,
that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because,
under Article 2, pariigraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of
territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party
involved in an armetl conflict. Israel explains that Jordan was admittedly
a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1967, and that an armed
conflict broke out at that time between Israel and Jordan, but it goes on
to observe that the territories occupied by lsrael subsequent to that con-
flict had no1previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty. It infers from
this that that Convention is not applicable de jure in those territories.
According however 1.0the great majority of other participants in the pro-
ceedings, the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to those territories
pursuant to Article ;!,paragraph 1,whether or not Jordan had any rights
in respect thereof prior to 1967.
94. The Court would recall that, according to customary international
law as expressed in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties of 23 May 1969, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their
context and in the light of its object and purpose. Article 32 provides
that :
"Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation,
including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances
of its conclusiori, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the
interpretation acscordingto article 31. . leaves the meaning ambigu-
ous or obscure; or . . leads to a result which is manifestly obscure
or unreasonabli:." (See Oil PlutjOrms (Islumic Republic of Iran v.
United Stutes r4fAmericu), Preliminury Objection, Judgment, 1.C.J.
Reports 1996 (II), p. 812, para. 23; see, similarly,KusikililSedudu
Islund (Botsct.unulNumibia), Judgrnent, I. C.J. Reports 1999 (II),
p. 1059, para. 18, and Sovereignty over Puluu Ligitan und Puluu
Sipudun (Indo~ze.siulMuluy~sia),Judgment, 1.C. J. Reports 2002,
p. 645, para. 37.)
95. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when
two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether
or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has
arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satis-plique en particulier dans tout territoire occupéau cours d'un tel conflit
par l'une desparties contractantes.
Le deuxième alinéade l'article 2 n'a pas pour objet de restreindre le
champ d'application de la convention ainsi fixépar l'alinéa premier,en
excluant de ce champ d'application les territoires qui ne relèveraientpas
de la souveraineté de l'une desparties contractantes.Il tend seulement à
préciserque, mêmesi l'occupation opéréeau cours du conflit a eu lieu
sans rencontrer de résistance militaire, laconvention demeure applicable.
Cette interprétation reflète l'intention des auteurs de la quatrième
convention de Genèvede protégerles personnes civilesse trouvant d'une
manière ou d'une autre au pouvoir de la puissance occupante. Alors que
les rédacteursdu règlementde La Haye de 1907s'étaient préoccupéts out
autant de préserverles droits de1'Etatdont le territoire est occupéque de
protéger les populations vivant sur ce territoire, les auteurs de laua-
triémeconvention de Genèveont cherché aassurer la protection des per-
sonnes civiles en temps de guerre indépendamment du statut des terri-
toires occupés,comme en témoigne l'article47 de la convention.
Ladite interprétation est confirméepar les travaux préparatoires de la
convention. La conférence d'expertsgouvernementaux convoquée par le
Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (ci-aprèsdénomméle «CICR»)
au lendemain de la seconde guerre mondiale en vue de la préparation des
futures conventions de Genève recommanda que ces conventions soient
applicables dans tout conflit armé, «qu'il soit reconnu ou non comme
étatde guerre par les parties», etdans les cas d'occupation de territoire
auxquels il serait procédé sansqu'il existeun étatde guerre))Rapport sur
les travaux de la conférenced'experts gouvernementuux pour l'étudedes
conventions protégeunt les victimcs de lu guerre, Genève, 14-26 avril
1947,p. 8).Ainsi lesrédacteursdu deuxièmealinéadel'article2 n'avaient-
ils nullement l'intention, en insérantcet alinéadans la convention, d'en
restreindre le champ d'application. Ils entendaient seulement couvrir le
casd'occupation sans combats, comme par exemplecellede la Bohême et
de la Moravie par l'Allemagne en 1939.
96. La Cour relèverapar ailleurs que les Etats parties a la quatriéme
convention de Genève ont retenu cette interprétation lors de la confé-
rence qu'ils ont tenue le 15juillet 1999.En effet, ils ont alors adoptéune
déclaration aux termes de laquelle ils «ont réaffirméque la quatrième
convention de Genèveétait applicableau territoire palestinien occupé,y
compris Jérusalem-Est ». Puis, le 5 décembre 2001, les Hautes Parties
contractantes, eu égardnotamment a l'article 1" de la quatrième conven-
tion de Genèvede 1949,ont réaffirmé une nouvelle fois «l'applicabilitéde
la convention au territoire palestinien occupé, compris Jérusalem-Est».
Elles ont en outre rappelé à leurs obligations respectives les Parties
contractantes participantes àla conférence,les parties au conflit et 1'Etat
d'Israël en tait que Puissance occupante.
97. De plus, la Cour observera que le CICR, dont la situation parti-
culière en ce qui concerne l'exécutionde la quatrième convention de
Genève doit être «en tout temps reconnue et respectée))par les partiesfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in
the course of the co:nflictby one of the contracting parties.
The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the
scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph,
by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of
one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear
that, even if occupaition effecteduring the conflict met no armed resis-
tance, the Convention is still applicable.
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. Whilst the drafters of the
Hague Regulations of 1907were as much concerned with protecting the
rights of a State whose territory is occupied, as with protecting thebi-
tants of that territory, the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention
sought to guarantee the protection of civilians in time of war,egardless
of the status of the occupied territories, as is shown by Article 47 of the
Convention.
That interpretation is confirmed by the Convention's travaux pr6paru-
toires. The Conference of Government Experts convened by the Interna-
tional Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter, "ICRC") in the after-
math of the Second World War for the purpose of preparing the new
Geneva Convention:; recommended that these conventions be applicable
to anyarmed conflict "whether [it]is or is not recognized as a state of war
by the parties" and ".incases of occupation of territories in the absence of
any state of war" (Report on the Work of the Conference of Governrnent
Experts,for tlze Stuu?of t'e Conventionsfor tlzeProtection of War Vic-
tirîz.r,Cenevu, 14-26 April 1947, p. 8). The drafters of the second para-
graph of Article 2 thus had no intention, when they inserted that para-
graph into the Convention, of restricting the latter's scope of application.
They were merely seeking to provide for cases of occupation without
combat, such as the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia by Germany in
1939.
96. The Court w'ould moreover note that the States parties to the
Fourth Geneva Convention approved that interpretation at their Confer-
ence on 15July 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, tlhe High Contracting Parties, referring in particular
to Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, once again
reaffirmed the "applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the
Occupied Palestiniari Territory, including East Jerusalem". They further
reminded the Contracting Parties participating in the Conference, the
parties to the conflict, and the State of Israel as occupying Power, of
their respectiveobligations.
97. Moreover, the:Court would observe that the ICRC, whose special
position with respect to execution of the Fourth Geneva Convention
must be "recognized and respected at al1times" by the parties pursuant176 ÉDIFICATION D'IJN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
conformément a l'article 142de la convention, a, lui aussi, pris parti sur
l'interprétation à donner a la convention. Par déclarationdu 5 décembre
2001, il a en effet rappelé quele CICR a toujours affirmé l'applicabilité
de jure de la IV' convention de Genève aux territoires occupésdepuis
1967par 1'Etatd'Israël,y compris Jérusalem-Est)).
98. La Cour notera que l'Assemblée générala e pris position dans le
même sensdans de multiples résolutions.C'est ainsique, les 10décembre
2001 et 9 décembre2003, ellea, par résolutions56/60et 58/97, réaffirmé
«que la convention de Genèverelative a la protection des personnes
civiles en temps de guerre, du 12août 1949,est applicable au terri-
toire palestinien occupé,y compris Jérusalem-Est, et aux autres ter-
ritoires occupéspar Israël depuis 1967)).
99. Le Conseil de sécurité,quant a lui, avait dèsle 14juin 1967consi-
dérép , ar résolution237(1967),que «les parties impliquéesdans le conflit
doivent se conformer à toutes les obligations de la convention de Genève
relative au traitement des prisonniers de guerre)). Puis, le 15 septembre
1969, le Conseil avait, par résolution 271 (1969), demandé ((à Israël
d'observer scrupuleusement lesdispositions des conventions de Genève et
du droit international régissantl'occupation militaire)).
Dix ans plus tard, le Conseil de sécurité s'est penchésur ((la politique
et lespratiques israéliennesconsistantà établirdes colonies de peuplement
dans les territoires palestiniens et autres territoires arabes occupésdepuis
1967)).Par résolution446 (1979)du 22 mars 1979,il a estiméque celles-ci
n'ont «aucune validité en droit)) et affirmé «une .fois encore que la
convention de Genève relative à la protection des personnes civiles...du
12 août 1949, est applicable aux territoires arabes occupés par Israël
depuis 1967, y compris Jérusalem)). Il a demandé «une fois encore à
Israël, en tant que puissance occupante, de respecter scrupuleusement»
cette convention.
Le 20 décembre1990,le Conseil de sécuritép , ar résolution681 (1990),
a engagé«le Gouvernement israéliena reconnaître l'applicabilité de jure
de la convention ..a tous les territoires occupéspar Israël depuis 1967et
a se conformer scrupuleusement aux dispositions de la convention)). Il a
demandéen outre «aux Hautes Parties contractantes a ladite convention
de veillera ce qu'Israël, puissance occupante, s'acquitte des obligations
qu'il a contractées aux termes de l'article 1de la convention)).
Enfin, par résolutions799 (1992)du 18décembre1992et 904 (1994)du
18 mars 1994, le Conseil a réaffirmé sa positionen ce qui concerne
I'applicabilitéde la quatrième convention de Genèvedans les territoires
occupés.
100. La Cour relèvera enfin que la Cour suprême d'Israël, dans un
arrêtdu 30 mai 2004, a aussi jugéque
«les opérationsmilitaires des forces de défense israéliennesàRafah,to Article 142 of the Convention, has also expressed its opinion on the
interpretation to be given to the Convention. In a declaration of 5 Decem-
ber 2001, it recalled 1hat "the ICRC has always affirmed the dejure appli-
cability of the Foui-th Geneva Convention to the territories occupied
since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem".
98. The Court ncites that the General Assembly has, in many of its
resolutions, taken a position to the same effect. Thus on 10 December
2001 and 9 December 2003, in resolutions 56/60 and 58/97, it reaffirmed
"that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other
Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967".
99. The Security Council, for its part, had already on 14 June 1967
taken the view in resolution 237 (1967) that "al1 the obligations of the
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War . . .
should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict". Subse-
quently, on 15 Septizmber 1969, the Security Council, in resolution 271
(1969), called upon "Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the
Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupa-
tion".
Ten years later, the Security Council examined "the policy and prac-
tices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other
Arab territories occupied since 1967". 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 Con-
vention 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". It called "once nzore upon Israel, as the
occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by that Convention.
On 20 December 1990, the Security Council, in resolution 681 (1990),
urged "the Governrrient of Israel to accept the dejure applicability of the
Fourth Geneva Corivention . . . to al1 the territories occupied by Israel
since 1967 and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Conven-
tion". It further called upon "the high contracting parties to the said
Fourth Geneva Corivention to ensure respect by Israel, the occupying
Power, for its obligations under the Convention in accordance with
article 1 thereof '.
Lastly, in resolutions 799 (1992) of 18 December 1992 and 904 (1994)
of 18March 1994,the Security Council reaffirmed its position concerning
the applicability of theFourth Geneva Convention in the occupied terri-
tories.
100. The Court would note finally that the Supreme Court of Israel, in
a judgment dated 30 May 2004, also found that:
"The military operations of the [Israeli Defence Forces] in Rafah,177 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
dans la mesure où elles affectent des civils, sont régiespar la qua-
trième convention de La Haye concernant les lois et coutumes de la
guerre sur terre de 1907 ..et par la convention de Genève relative à
la protection des personnes civiles en temps de guerre de 1949)).
101. Au vu de ce qui précède, laCour estime que la quatrième conven-
tion de Genève estapplicable dans tout territoire occupéen cas de conflit
armésurgissant entre deux ou plusieurs parties contractantes. Israël et la
Jordanie étaient parties à cette convention lorsque éclatale conflit armé
de 1967. Des lors ladite convention est applicable dans les territoires
palestiniens qui étaientavant le conflit l'estde la Ligne verte, et qui ont
à l'occasion de ce conflit été occupép sar Israël, sans qu'il y ait lieu de
rechercher quel étaitauparavant le statut exact de ces territoires.
102. Les participants à la procédure devant la Cour sont également
divisés en ce qui concerne l'applicabilité dans le territoire palestinien
occupé desconventions internationales concernant les droits de l'homme
auxquelles Israël est partie. l'annexe 1 au rapport du Secrétaire général,
il est précis:
((4. Israël conteste que le pacte international relatif aux droits
civils et politiques et le pacte international relatif aux droits écono-
miques, sociaux et culturels, qu'il a signésl'un et l'autre, soient
applicables au territoire palestinien occupé. II affirme que le droit
humanitaire est le type de protection qui convient dans un conflit tel
que celui qui existe en Cisjordanie et dans la bande de Gaza, tandis
que les instruments relatifs aux droits de l'homme ont pour objet
d'assurer la protection des citoyens vis-à-vis de leur propre gouver-
nement en temps de paix. ))
Ceux des autres participants àla procédure devant la Cour qui traitent
de cette question soutiennent en revanche que les deux pactes sont appli-
cables dans le territoire palestinien occupé.
103. Israël a ratifiéle 3 octobre 1991 lepacte international relatif aux
droits économiques, sociaux et culturels du 19 décembre 1966, le pacte
international relatif aux droits civilset politiques du mêmjour, ainsi que
la convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits de l'enfant du
20 novembre 1989. Il est partieà ces trois instruments.
104. En vue de déterminer si ces derniers sont applicables dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé, laCour s'interrogera d'une part sur les rap-
ports entre droit international humanitaire et droits de l'homme et d'autre
part sur l'applicabilité desinstruments relatifs aux droits de l'homme
hors des territoires nationaux.
105. La Cour, dans son avis consultatif du 8juillet 1996sur la Licéitk
de la menace ou d~ l'emploi d'armes nuclkuircs,a étéamenée à aborder la
première question en ce qui concerne le pacte international relatif aux CONSTI~UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 177
to the extent ti-ieyaffect civilians, are governed by Hague Conven-
tion IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 ...
and the Genev,a Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War 1949."
101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth
Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of
an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties.
Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967armed
conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is
applicable in the Pa.lestinian territories which before the conflict lay to
the east of theGreen Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied
by Israel, thereeing no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status
of those territories.
102. The participants in the proceedings before the Court also disagree
whether the international human rights conventions to which Israel is
party apply within the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Annex 1 to the
report of the Secretary-General States:
"4. Israel denies that the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, both of which it has signed, are applicable to
the occupied Palestinian territory. It asserts that humanitarianw is
the protection granted in a conflict situationuch as the one in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, whereas human rights treaties were
intended for the protection of citizens from their own Government
in times of peace."
Of the other participants in the proceedings,those who addressed this
issuecontend that, on the contrary, both Covenants are applicable within
the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
103. On 3 October 1991 Israel ratified both the International Cov-
enant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 19December 1966and
the International C'avenant on Civil and Political Rights of the same
date, as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child of 20 November 1989.It is a party to these three instruments.
104. In order to determine whether these texts are applicable in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court will first address the issue of
the relationship bei:ween international humanitarian law and human
rights law and then that of the applicability of human rights instruments
outside national territory.
105. In its Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 on the Legality of' the
Threut or Use of'Nivcleur Weupons, the Court had occasion to address
the first ofhese issues in relation to the International Covenant on Civil ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
178
droits civils et politiques. Certains Etats avaient, à l'occasion de cette
demande d'avis, soutenu que «le pacte vise la protection des droits de
l'homme en temps de paix, alors que les questions relativesa la privation
illicite de la vie au cours d'hostilitéssont régiespar le droit international
applicable dans les conflits armés» (C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (1), p. 239,
par. 24).
La Cour a écarté cettethèse en observant que
«la protection offerte par le pacte international relatif aux droits
civils et politiques ne cesse pas en temps de guerre, si ce n'est par
l'effet de I'arti4ldu pacte, qui prévoit qu'ilpeut êtredérogé,en cas
de danger public, a certaines des obligations qu'impose cet instru-
ment. Le respect du droit a la vie ne constitue cependant pas une
prescriptiona laquelle il peut êtredérogé.En principe, le droit de ne
pas êtrearbitrairement privéde la vie vaut aussi pendant des hosti-
lités. C'est toutefois, en pareil cas, à Iex specialis applicable,a
savoir le droit applicable dans les conflits armés,conçu pour régir la
conduite des hostilités, qu'il appartient de déterminer ce qui consti-
tue une privation arbitraire de la vie.(Ibid, p. 240, par. 25.)
106. De maniére plus générale, laCour estime que la protection offerte
par les conventions régissantles droits de l'homme ne cesse pas en cas de
conflit armé,si ce n'est par l'effet de clauses dérogatoires du type de celle
figurant al'articl4 du pacte international relatif aux droits civils et poli-
tiques. Dans les rapports entre droit international humanitaire et droits
de l'homme, trois situations peuvent dès lors se présenter: certains droits
peuvent relever exclusivement du droit international humanitaire;
d'autres peuvent relever exclusivement des droits de l'homme; d'autres
enfin peuvent relever à la fois de ces deux branches du droit international.
Pour répondre a la question qui lui est posée,la Cour aura en l'espécea
prendre en considération les deux branches du droit international préci-
tées,à savoir les droits de l'homme et, en tant que 1e.xspeciulis, le droit
international humanitaire.
107. Reste a déterminer si les deux pactes internationaux et la conven-
tion relative aux droits de l'enfant sont applicables sur le seul territoire
des Etats parties, ou s'ils sont également applicables hors de ce territoire
et, si oui, dans quelles circonstances.
108. Le champ d'application du pacte international relatif aux droits
civils et politiques est fixépar le paragraph1 de I'article 2 de cet instru-
ment selon lequel :
«Les Etats parties au présent pacte s'engagent a respecter eta
garantira tous les individus se trouvant sur leur territoire et relevant
de leur compétence les droits reconnus dans le présent pacte, sans
distinction aucune, notamment de race, de couleur, de sexe, de
lanue, de religion, d'opinion politique ou de toute autre opinion,
d'origine nationale ou sociale, de fortune, de naissance ou de toute
autre situation. » CONSTlZUCTlON OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 178
and Political Rights. In those proceedings certain States had argued that
"the Covenant was directed to the protection of human rights in peace-
time, but that questions relating to unlawful loss of life in hostilities
were governed by the law applicable in armed conflict" (1.C.J. Reports
1996 (I), p. 239, para. 24).
The Court rejected this argument, stating that
"the protection of the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights does not cease in times of war, except by operation of
Article 4 of the Covenant whereby certain provisions may be
derogated fromi in a time of national emergency. Respect for the
right to life is not, however, such a provision. In principle, the right
not arbitrarilyio be deprived of one's life applies also in hostilities.
The test of what is an arbitrary deprivation of life, however, then
falls to be determined by the applicable lex .speciuli.s,namely, the
law applicable in armed conflict which is designed to regulate the
conduct of hostilities." (Ibid, p. 240, para. 25.)
106. More generailly,the Court considers that the protection offered
by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict,
Save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be
found in Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. As regards i:he relationship between international humanitarian
law and human rights law, there are thus three possible situations: some
rights may be excli~sivelymatters of international humanitarian law;
others may be exclusively matters of human rights law; yet others may
be matters of both these branches of international law. In order to answer
the question put to it, the Courtwill have to take into consideration both
these branches of inlernational law, namely human rights law and, as lex
speciuli.~,international humanitarian law.
107. It remains to be determined whether the two international Cov-
enants and the Conbention on the Rights of the Child are applicable only
on the territories of the States parties thereto or whether they are also
applicable outside those territories and, if so, in what circumstances.
108. The scope of application of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights is defined by Article 2, paragraph 1, thereof, which
provides :
"Each State ]Partyto the present Covenant undertakes to respect
and to ensure to al1individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without
distinction ofaiiy kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
or other status." Cette disposition peut être interprétée commecouvrant seulement les
individus se trouvant sur le territoire d'un Etat dans la mesure ou ils re-
lèventen outre de la compétencedecet Etat. Elle peut aussi êtrecomprise
comme couvrant àla fois les individus se trouvant sur le territoire d'un
Etat et ceux se trouvant hors de ce territoire, mais relevant de la compé-
tence de cet Etat. La Cour recherchera donc quel sens il convient de don-
ner à ce texte.
109. La Cour observera que, si la compétencedes Etats est avant tout
territoriale, ellepeut parfois s'exercerhors du territoire national. Compte
tenu de l'objet et du but du pacte international relatif aux droits civils et
politiques, il apparaîtrait naturel que, mêmedans cette dernière hypo-
thèse, les Etats parties au pacte soient tenus d'en respecter les disposi-
tions.
La pratique constante du Comitédes droits de l'homme est ence sens.
Il a estimé en effetque le pacte est applicable dans le cas où un Etat
exerce sa compétenceen territoire étranger. 11s'estprononcé surla licéité
de l'action de l'Uruguay dans le cas d'arrestation opéréepar des agents
uruguayens au Brésilou en Argentine (affaire 52/79, Lbpez Burgos c.
Uruguay; affaire 56/79, Lilian Celiherti de Cusariego c. Uruguay). Le
Comité a procédé de mêmedans le cas de la confiscation d'un passeport
par un consulat de l'Uruguay en Allemagne (affaire 106181, Montero c.
Uruguuy).
Les travaux préparatoires du pacte confirment l'interprétation donnée
par le Comité del'article 2 de cet instrument.len résulte en effetque, en
adoptant la rédaction qu'ils ont retenue, les auteurs du pacte n'ont pas
entendu faire échapperlesEtatsaux obligationsqui sont lesleurs lorsqu'ils
exercent leur compétencehors du territoire national. Ils ont seulement
voulu éviterque des personnes résidant A l'étrangerpuissent se prévaloir
envers leur Etat d'origine de droits ne relevant pas de la compétence dece
dernier, mais de celle de'Etatde résidence(voir la discussion de l'avant-
projet à la Commission des droits de l'homme, E/CN.4/SR.194, par. 46;
et Nations Unies, Docurnrnts officielsde I'AsLsemhlkg ekizérale,dlxièrrzr
sc.ssi«n,annexes, Al2929, part. 2, chap. V, par. 4 (1955)).
110. La Cour note à cet égardla position adoptéepar Israël, en ce qui
concerne l'applicabilitédu pacte, dans ses communications au Comité
des droits de l'homme, ainsique les vues du Comité.
En 1998, Israël déclarait avoir eu, au moment de la rédaction de son
rapport au Comité, à examiner la question de savoir «si les personnes
résidantdans les territoires occupés relevaient effectivementde la com-
pétence d'Israël» aux fins de l'application du pacte (CCPRlC/SR. 1675,
par. 21 [traduction du Grqfe]). Cet Etat estima que «le pacte et les ins-
truments de mêmenature ne s'appliqu[aient] pas directement à la situa-
tion [qui prévalaitalors] dans les territoires occupés))(ibid, par. 27).
Dans les observations finales qu'il formula après avoir examinéle rap-
port, le Comitése déclarapréoccupépar l'attitude d'Israël, relevant «la
duréede la présence [decelui-ci]dans [les]territoires [occupés],[son]atti- This provision cari be interpreted as covering only individuals who are
both present within ilState's territory and subject to that State's jurisdic-
tion. Itcan also be construed as covering both individuals present within
a State's territory and those outside that territory but subject to that
State's jurisdiction. The Court will thus seek to determine the meaning to
be given to this text.
109. The Court would observe that, while the jurisdiction of States is
primarily territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national
territory. Considering the object and purpose of the International Cov-
enant on Civil and Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even
when such is the case, States parties to the Covenant should be bound to
comply with its provisions.
The constant practice of the Human Rights Committee is consistent
with this.Thus, the Committee has Soundthe Covenant applicable where
the State exercises itsjurisdiction on foreign territory. It has ruled on the
legality of acts by UI-uguayin cases of arrests carried out by Uruguayan
agents in Brazil or Argentina (case No. 52/79, Lhpez Burgos v. Uruguuj:;
case No. 56/79, Lilian Celiherti de Cusariego v. Uruguay). It decided to
the same effect in the case of the confiscation of a passport by a Uru-
guayan consulate in Germany (case No. 106181, Montero v. Uruguay).
The ~r~uwu'p crkparutoires of the Covenant confirm the Committee's
interpretation of Article 2 of that instrument.These show that, in adopt-
ing the wording choisen,the drafters of the Covenant did not intend to
allow States to escape from their obligations when they exercisejurisdic-
tion outside their national territory. They only intended to prevent per-
sons residing abroad from asserting, vis-à-vis their State of origin, rights
that do not fa11within the competence of that State, but of that of the
State of residence (seethe discussion of the preliminary draft in the Com-
mission on Human Rights, ElCN.4lSR.194, para.46;and United Nations,
Officia1 record,^ of the Generul Assernhly, Tenth Session, Annexes,
Al2929, Part II, Chap. V, para. 4 (1955)).
110. The Court takes note in this connection of the position taken by
Israel, in relation to the applicability of the Covenant, in its communi-
cations to the Human Rights Committee, and of the view of the Com-
mittee.
In 1998,Israel stated that, when preparing its report to the Committee,
it had had to face the question "whether individuals resident in the occu-
pied territories were indeed subject to Israel's jurisdiction" for purposes
of the application of the Covenant (CCPR/C/SR.1675, para. 21). Israel
took the position that "the Covenant and similar instruments did not
apply directly to the current situation in the occupied territories" (ibid.,
para. 27).
The Committee, in its concluding observations after examination of
the report, expressecl concern at Israel's attitude and pointed "to the
long-standing presence of Israel in [the occupied] territories, Israel'stude ambiguë ... quant à leur statut futur, ainsi que la juridiction de fait
qu'y exer[çaien]t les forces de sécurité israéliennes)()CCPRICl79lAdd.93,
par. 10). En 2003, face a la position inchangée d'Israël, qui considérait
que «le pacte ne s'appliqu[ait] pas au-delà de son propre territoire,
notamment en Cisjordanie et à Gaza ... », le Comité arriva à la conclu-
sion suivante :
«dans les circonstances actuelles, les dispositions du pacte s'ap-
pliquent au profit de la population des territoires occupés, en ce
qui concerne tous les actes accomplis par les autorités ou les agents
de 1'Etat partie dans ces territoires, qui compromettent la jouissance
des droits consacrés dans le pacte et relèvent de la responsabilité de
1'Etat d'Israël conformément aux principes du droit international
public)) (CCPR/C0/78/1SR, par. 11).
111. En définitive. la Cour estime aue le Dacte international relatif aux
droits civils et politiques est applicable aux actes d'un Etat agissant dans
l'exercice de sa compétence en dehors de son propre territoire.
112. Le pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et
culturels ne comporte aucune disposition quant a son champ d'applica-
tion. Cette situation peut trouver son explication dans le fait que les
droits garantis par ce pacte ont pour l'essentiel une portée territoriale.
Mais on ne saurait exclure qu'il s'applique à la fois aux territoires placés
sous la souveraineté d'un Etat partie et à ceux sur lesquels un tel Etat
exerce une juridiction territoriale. Ainsi l'article 14du pacte prévoit-il des
mesures transitoires pour tout Etat qui, «au moment où il devient partie,
n'a pas encore pu assurer dans sa métropole ou dans les territoires placés
sous sa juridiction le caractère obligatoire et la gratuité de l'enseignement
primaire P.
Il n'est pas inutile de rappeler sur ce point la position prise par Israël
dans ses rapports au Comitédes droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.
Dans son rapport initial au Comitéen date du 4 décembre 1998, Israël a
fourni «des statistiques d'où il ressort que les colons israéliens établis
dans les territoires occupés jouissent des droits inscrits dans le pacte)). Le
Comité a constaté que, selon Israël, «la population palestinienne des
mêmes zonesde juridiction se trouve exclue aussi bien du rapport que de
la protection du pacte)) (ElC.1211lAdd.27, par. 8). Le Comité s'en est
ému et Israël a fait valoir dans un nouveau rapport en date du 19octobre
2001 qu'il «a toujours soutenu que le pacte ne s'appliquait pas aux zones
qui ne sont pas soumises a sa souveraineté territoriale et à sa juridiction))
(formule inspiréede celle employéepar le pacte international relatif aux
droits civils et politiques). Cette position, poursuivi Israël, est «fondée
sur la distinction nette qu'établit le droit international entre le droit rela-
tif aux droits de l'homme et le droit humanitaire)). Il ajoutait: «le man-
dat du Comité ne peut pas porter sur ce qui se passe en Cisjordanie et
dans la bande de Gaza, car les événements s'inscriventdans le cadre d'un
conflit armé et ne relèvent pas du domaine des droits de l'homme))
(El199016lAdd.32, par. 5).Au vu de ces observations, le Comité a réaf- CONSTRUCTION OF .4WALL (ADVISOKY OPINION) 180
ambiguous attitude towards their future status, as well as the exercise of
effective jurisdictioriby Israeli security forces therein" (CCPR/C/79/
Add.93, para. 10). In 2003 in face of Israel's consistent position, to
the effect that "the Covenant does not apply beyond its own territory,
notably in the West Bank and Gaza . . .", the Committee reached the
following conclusiori :
"in the current circumstances, the provisions of the Covenant apply
to the benefit of the population of the Occupied Territories, for al1
conduct by the lStateparty's authorities or agents in those territories
that affect the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the Covenant and
fa11within the ambit of State responsibility of Israel under the prin-
ciples of public international law" (CCPR/C0/78/1SR, para. 11).
111. In conclusioin, the Court considers that the International Cov-
enant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts done by
a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory.
112. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights contains no provision on its scope of application. This may be
explicable by the fact that this Covenant guarantees rights which are
essentially territorial. However, it is not to be excluded that it applies
both to territories over which a State party has sovereignty and to those
over which that State exercises territorial jurisdiction. Thus Article 14
makes provision for transitional measures in the case of any State which
"at the time of becoining a Party, has not been able to secure in its met-
ropolitan territory or other territories under its jurisdiction compulsory
primary education, free of charge".
lt is not without relevance to recall in this regard the position taken by
Israel in its reports to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. In its initial report to the Committee of 4 December 1998, Israel
provided "statistics indicating the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in
the Covenant by Israeli settlers in the occupied Territories". The Com-
mittee noted that, according to Israel, "the Palestinian population within
the same jurisdictional areas were excluded from both the report and the
protection of the Covenant" (E/C.12/1/Add.27, para. 8). The Committee
expressed its concerri in this regard. to which Israel replied in a further
report of 19 October 2001 that it has "consistently maintained that the
Covenant does not ;ipply to areas that are not subject to its sovereign
territory and jurisdiction" (a formula inspired by the language of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). This position,con-
tinued Israel, is "based on the well-established distinction between human
rights and humanitarian law under international law". It added: "the
Committee's mandate cannot relate to events in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, inasmucli as they are part and parcel of the context of armed
conflict as distinct from a relationship of human rights" (E/1990/6/
Add.32, para. 5).In ,viewof these observations, the Committee reiterated181 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
firmésa préoccupation au sujet de la position d'Israël et s'est à nouveau
déclaré«d'avis que les obligations de 1'Etat partie en vertu du pacte
s'appliquent à l'ensemble desterritoires et des populations qui sont effec-
tivement sous son contrôle » (EIC.1211lAdd.90,par. 15et 31).
Pour les motifs développésau paragraphe 106 ci-dessus, la Cour ne
saurait souscrire a la thèsed'lsraël. Elle observe aussi que les territoires
occupéspar Israël sont soumis depuis plus de trente-sept ans à la juridic-
tion territoriale d'lsraël en tant que puissance occupante. Dans l'exercice
des compétencesdont il dispose à ce titre, Israël est tenu par les disposi-
tions du pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et
culturels. En outre, il est tenu de ne pas faire obstacle à l'exercicede tels
droits dans les domaines où compétencea été transférée à des autorités
palestiniennes.
113. Quant à la convention relative aux droits de l'enfant du 20 no-
vembre 1989,elle comporte un article 2 en vertu duquel «[Iles Etats par-
ties s'engagentà respecter lesdroits qui sont énoncédans la...convention
età les garantir a tout enfant relevant de leur juridiction...)). Elleest donc
applicable dans le territoire palestinien occupé.
114. Ayant déterminéles règleset les principes de droit international
qui sont applicables pour répondre à la question poséepar l'Assemblée
générale, ets'étant prononcéeen particulier sur I'applicabilitédans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupédu droit international humanitaire et des droits
de l'homme, la Cour recherchera maintenant si la construction du mur a
portéatteinte a ces règleset principes.
115. A cet égard,il est exposé à l'annexe II au rapport du Secrétaire
général intitulée((Résuméde la position juridique de l'organisation de
libérationde la Palestine))que «[l]a construction du mur est une tentative
d'annexion du territoire qui constitue une transgression du droit interna-
tional)) et que(([ll'annexion&,facto de terres constitue une atteinteà la
souveraineté territoriale et en conséquence au droit des Palestiniens à
l'autodétermination». Ce point de vue a été reprisdans certains des expo-
sésécrits présentés à la Cour ainsi qu'a l'audience. 11a notamment été
prétendu que :
«[l]emur ampute l'assiseterritoriale sur laquelle le peuple palestinien
est fondéà exercer son droit a l'autodétermination et contrevient au
principe interdisant l'acquisition de territoire par le recoursà la
forceD.
A ce propos, il a en particulier été souligné que «le tracédu mur est
conçu pour modifier la composition démographique du territoire palesti-
nien occupé, y compris Jérusalem-Est, par le renforcement des coloniesits concern about Israel's position and reaffirmed "its view that the State
party's obligations under the Covenant apply to al1territories and popu-
lations under its effective control" (EIC.12IlIAdd.90, paras. 15 and 31).
For the reasons e:uplainedin paragraph 106 above, the Court cannot
accept Israel's view. [t would also observe that the territories occupied by
Israel have for over 37 years been subject to its territorial jurisdiction as
the occupying Power. In the exercise of the powers available to it on this
basis, Israelis bouncl by the provisions of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, it is under an obli-
gation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those
fields where competr:nce has been transferred to Palestinian authorities.
113. As regards the Convention on the Rights of the Child of
20 November 1989, that instrument contains an Article 2 according to
which "States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in
the .. .Convention to each child within their jurisdiction . ..". That Con-
vention is therefore a.pplicablewithin the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
114. Having determined the rules and principles of international law
relevant to reply to the question posed by the General Assembly, and
having ruled in particular on the applicability within the Occupied
Palestinian Territory of international humanitarian law and human
rights law, the Court will now seek to ascertain whether the construction
of the wall has vio1ai:edthose rules and principles.
115. In this regard, Annex II to the report of the Secretary-General,
entitled "Summary Cegal Position of the Palestine Liberation Organiza-
tien", Statesthat "Thieconstruction of the Barrier is an attempt to annex
the territory contrary to international law" and that "The de facto
annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and conse-
quently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination." This
view was echoed in certain of the written statements submitted to the
Court and in the views expressed at the hearings. Inter alia, it was con-
tended that :
"The wall severs the territorial sphere over which the Palestinian
people are entitled to exercise their right of self-determination and
constitutes a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisi-
tion of territory by the use of force."
In this connection, it was in particular emphasized that "[tlhe route of the
wall is designed to change the demographic composition of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, by reinforcing the Israeli182 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
de peuplement israéliennes)) installées illégalemenetn territoire palesti-
nien occupé. Lemur viserait en outre a «réduire et morceler le territoire
sur lequel le peuple palestinien est fondé exercer son droit a I'autodé-
termination P.
116. Israël expose pour sa part que le mur a pour seul objet de per-
mettre de lutter efficacement contre le terrorisme en provenance de Cis-
jordanie. En outre, Israël a déclaréà plusieurs reprises que l'édification
de la barrière a un caractère temporaire (voir rapport du Secrétaire géné-
ral, par. 29).l l'a fait notamment par la bouche de son représentant per-
manent auprès des Nations Unies lors de la réuniondu Conseil de sécu-
ritédu 14 octobre 2003, en soulignant que «[la clôture] n'annexe aucun
territoirea 1'Etat d'Israël» et qu'Israël est «disposé en encourant des
dépensesconsidérables à réaménagerou à démantelerla clôture, si cela
est exigédans le cadre d'un règlementpolitique)) (SlPV.4841, p. 10). Le
représentant permanent d'Israël a réitérécette position devant1'Assem-
bléegénéraleles 20 octobre et 8 décembre 2003.A cette dernière occa-
sion, il a ajouté:
«La clôture [de sécuriténe sera plus nécessaire dès qu'ilsera mis
un terme à la terreur. Cette clôture ne constitue pas une frontière et
n'a aucune portée politique. Elle ne modifie en rien le statut juri-
dique du territoire.))AIES-10lPV.23, p. 7.)
117. La Cour rappellera que tant l'Assembléegénéraleque le Conseil
de sécuritése sont référés,ipropos de la Palestine,ala règlecoutumière
de c(l'inadmissibi1itéde l'acquisition de territoire par la guerre)) (voir
paragraphes 74 et 87ci-dessus). C'est ainsique, par résolution242 (1967)
du 22 novembre 1967,leConseil a affirmé,après avoir rappelé cetterègle,
que
«l'accomplissement des principes de la Charte exige l'instauration
d'une paixjuste et durable au Moyen-Orient qui devrait comprendre
l'application des deux principes suivants:
i) Retrait des forces armées israéliennes desterritoires occupéslors
du récentconflit;
ii) Cessation de toutes assertions de belligéranceou de tous états
de belligérance et respectet reconnaissance de la souveraineté,de
l'intégrité territorialteedindépendancepolitique de chaque Etat
de la région etde leur droit de vivre en paixl'intérieur de fron-
tièressûres et reconnuesà l'abri de menaces ou d'acte de force)).
C'est sur la même baseque le Conseil a condamné à plusieurs reprises
les mesures prises par Israël en vue de modifier le statut de Jérusalem
(voir paragraphe 75 ci-dessus).
118. S'agissant du principe du droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-
mêmes, laCour observera que l'existence d'un «peuple palestinien)) ne183 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVICSONSULTATIF)
saurait plus faire débat. En outre, cette existence a été reconnuepar Israël
dans l'échange de lettres intervenu le 9 septembre 1993 entre M. Yas-
ser Arafat, présidentde l'organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP),
et M. Yitzhak Rabin, premier ministre d'Israël. Dans cette correspon-
dance, le président de I'OLP reconnaissait ((le droit d'Israël a vivre en
paix et dans la sécurité))et prenait divers autres engagements. En réponse,
le premier ministre israélien lui faisait connaître que, à la lumière des
engagements ainsi pris, «le Gouvernement d'Israël a décidéde recon-
naître I'OLP comme le représentant du peuple palestinien)). L'accord inté-
rimaire israélo-palestinien sur la Cisjordanie et la bande de Gaza du
28 septembre 1995 mentionne à son tour a plusieurs reprises le peuple
palestinien et ses «droits légitimes))(Préambule, par. 4, 7, 8; art. II,
par. 2; art.III,par. 1et 3; art. XXII, par.2).De l'avis de la Cour, parmi
ces droits figure le droia l'autodétermination, comme l'Assemblée géné-
rale l'a d'ailleurs reconnu à plusieurs occasions (voir par exemple la réso-
lution 581163du 22 décembre 2003).
119. La Cour relèvera que le tracé du mur tel qu'il a étéfixépar le
Gouvernement israélien incorpore dans la «zone fermée» (voir para-
graphe 85 ci-dessus) environ 80% des colons installés dans le territoire
palestinien occupé. Par ailleurs, l'examen de la carte mentionnée au
paragraphe 80 ci-dessus montre que ce tracésinueux a étéfixéde manière
à inclure dans la zone la plus grande partie des colonies de peu-
plement installées par Israël dans le territoire palestinien occupé (y
compris Jérusalem-Est).
120. En ce qui concerne ces colonies, la Cour notera que, selon le
sixième alinéade l'article 49 de la quatrième convention de Genève: «La
puissance occupante ne pourra procéder à la déportation ou au transfert
d'une partie de sa propre population civile dans le territoire occupépar
elle.» Cette disposition prohibe non seulement les déportations ou trans-
ferts forcésde population tels qu'intervenus au cours de la seconde guerre
mondiale, mais encore toutes les mesures que peut prendre une puissance
occupante en vue d'organiser et de favoriser des transferts d'une partie de
sa propre population dans le territoire occupé.
A cet égard, les informations fournies à la Cour montrent qu'a partir
de 1977 Israël a mené unepolitique et développé despratiques consistant
à établirdes colonies de peuplement dans le territoire palestinien occupé,
contrairement aux prescriptions ainsi rappelées du sixième alinéa de
l'article 49.
Aussi bien le Conseil de sécurité a-t-il considérque cette politique et
ces pratiques «n'ont aucune validité endroit». Il a en outre demandé «à
Israël en tant que puissance occupante de respecter scrupuleusement)) la
quatrième convention de Genève, et
«de rapporter les mesures qui ont déjàété priseset de s'abstenir de
toute mesure qui modifierait le statut juridique et le caractère géo-
graphique des territoires arabes occupés depuis 1967, y compris
Jérusalem, et influerait sensiblement sur leur composition démogra-longer in issue. Such existence has moreover been recognized by Israel in
the exchange of letteirsof 9 September 1993 between Mr. Yasser Arafat,
President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Mr.
Yitzhak Rabin, lsraeli Prime Minister. In that correspondence, the Presi-
dent of the PL0 recognized "the right of the State of Israel to exist in
peace and security" and made various other commitments. In reply, the
Israeli Prime Minister informed him that, in the light of those commit-
ments, "the Governnlent of Israel has decided to recognize the PL0 as
the representative of the Palestinian people". The Israeli-Palestinian
Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 Septem-
ber 1995 also refers a number of times to the Palestinian people and
its "legitimate rights" (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2;
Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2).The Court considers
that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General
Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions (see, for
example, resolution 9;8/163of 22 December 2003).
119. The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli
Government includes within the "Closed Area" (see paragraph 85 above)
some 80 per cent of lhe settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Terri-
tory. Moreover, it is apparent from an examination of the map men-
tioned in paragraph 80 above that the wall's sinuous route has been
traced in such a way as to include within that area the great majority of
the Israeli sett1emeni.sin the occupied Palestinian Territory (including
East Jerusalem).
120. As regards these settlemeilts, the Court notes that Article 49,
paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupy-
ing Power shall not dlrport or transfer parts of its ow11civilian population
into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only depor-
tations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during
the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying
Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own
population into the ciccupied territory.
In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since
1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the
establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, con-
trary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.
The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and
practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the
occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Conven-
tion and:
"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any
action which would result in changing the legal status and geo-
graphical nature and materially affecting the demographic composi-
tion of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem phique, et en particulier de ne pas transférer des élémentsde sa
propre population civile dans les territoires arabes occupés))(résolu-
tion 446 (1979) du 22 mars 1979).
Le Conseil a réaffirmécette position par résolutions 452 (1979) du
20 juillet 1979et 465 (1980) du 1" mars 1980. 11a mêmedans ce dernier
cas qualifié<<lapolitique et les pratiques d'Israël consistant à installer des
élémentsde sa population et de nouveaux immigrants dans [Iles terri-
toires [occupés]» de ((violation flagrante)) de la quatrième convention
de Genève.
La Cour conclut que les colonies de peuplement installées par Israël
dans le territoire palestinien occup(y compris Jérusalem-Est) l'ont étéen
méconnaissance du droit international.
121. Tout en notant l'assurance donnée par Israël que la construction
du mur n'équivaut pasà une annexion et que le mur est de nature tem-
poraire (voir paragraphe 116 ci-dessus), la Cour ne saurait pour autant
rester indifférente à certaines craintes expriméesdevant elle d'après les-
quelles le tracé du mur préjugerait la frontière future entre Israël et la
Palestine, et à la crainte qu'Israël pourrait intégrer les colonies de peu-
plement et les voies de circulation les desservant. La Cour estime que la
construction du mur et le régimequi lui est associé créentsur le terrain un
«fait accompli)) qui pourrait fort bien devenir permanent, auquel cas, et
nonobstant la description officielle qu'Israël donne du mur, la construc-
tion de celui-ci équivaudrait à une annexion (1. jucto.
122. La Cour rappelle par ailleurs que, d'après le rapport du Secrétaire
général,le tracé projeté incorporerait dans la zone comprise entre la
Ligne verte et le mur plus de 16'M)du territoire de la Cisjordanie. En-
viron 80'%des colons installésdans le territoire palestinien occupé, soit
320000 personnes, vivraient dans cette zone. Y vivraient également
237000 Palestiniens. En outre, du fait de la construction du mur,
160000 autres Palestiniens environ résideraient dans des agglomérations
presque totalement encerclées(voir paragraphes 84, 85 et 119 ci-dessus).
En d'autres termes, le tracéchoisi pour le mur consacre sur le terrain
les mesures illégalesprises par Israël et déploréespar le Conseil de sécu-
rité (voirparagraphes 75 et 120ci-dessus) en ce qui concerne Jérusalemet
les colonies de peuplement. La construction du mur risque également de
conduire à de nouvelles modifications dans la composition démogra-
phique du territoire palestinien occupé,dans la mesure ou elle occasionne
le départ de populations palestiniennes de certaines zones, comme ilsera
expliqué au paragraphe 133 ci-après. Cette construction, s'ajoutant aux
mesures prises antérieurement, dresse ainsi un obstacle grave à l'exercice
par le peuple palestinien de son droit a l'autodétermination et viole de ce
fait l'obligation incombant à Israël de respecter ce droit.
123. La construction du mur pose en outre plusieurs problèmes au and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population
into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of
22 March 1979)i.
The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July
1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it
described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population
and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant viola-
tion" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territor;! (including East Jerusalem) have been established
in breach of international law.
121. Whilst the C~ourtnotes the assurance given by Israel that the con-
struction of the wall does not amount to annexation and that the wall is
of a temporary nature (see paragraph 116 above), it nevertheless cannot
remain indifferent tc, certain fears expressed to it that the route of the
wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, and
the fear that Israel may integrate the settlements and their means of
access. The Court considers that the construction of the wall and its asso-
ciated régime creale a "fait accompli" on the ground that could
well become permarient, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal
characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to &,facto
annexatioi-i.
122. The Court recalls moreover that, according to the report of the
Secretary-General, the planned route would incorporate in the area
between the Green 1,ine and the wall more than 16 per cent of the terri-
tory of the West Bank. Around 80 per cent of the settlers living in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, that is 320,000 individuals, would reside
in that area, as well as 237,000 Palestinians. Moreover, as a result of the
construction of the wall, around 160,000 other Palestinians would reside
in almost complete1:yencircled communities (see paragraphs 84, 85 and
1 19 above).
In other terms, the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to
the illegal measures taken by lsrael with regard to Jerusalem and the
settlements, as deplored by the Security Council (see paragraphs 75 and
120above). There is also a risk of further alterations to the demographic
composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory resulting from the
construction of the wall inasmuch as it is contributing, as will be further
explained in paragraph 133below, to the departure of Palestinian popu-
lations from certain areas. That construction, along with measures taken
previously, thus severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of
its right to self-determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel's obli-
gation to respect that right.
123. The construc:tion of the wall also raises a number of issues in rela-regard des dispositions pertinentes du droit international humanitaire et
des conventions relatives aux droits de l'homme.
124. S'agissant du règlementde La Haye de 1907,la Cour rappellera
que ce dernier traite dans sa section II des hostilités etnotamment des
((moyens de nuire a l'ennemi, dessièges et desbombardements)). Il traite
dans sa section III de l'autorité militaire dans les territoires occupés.
Seule la section III està l'heure actuelle applicable en Cisjordanie et
l'article 23g) du règlement qui figuredans la section IIn'est donc pas
pertinent.
La section III du règlement de La Haye inclut notamment les ar-
ticles 43, 46et 52, applicables dans le territoire palestinien occupé. L'ar-
ticle 43 donne à l'occupant le devoir de prendre «toutes les mesures qui
dépendent delui en vue de rétabliret d'assurer, autant qu'il est possible,
l'ordre et la vie publics en respectant, sauf empêchementabsolu, les lois
en vigueur dans le pays)). L'article 46 ajoute que la propriétéprivéedoit
être «respecté[e]»et «ne peut pas être confisquée))E . nfin, l'article 52
autorise dans certaines limites les réquisitions en nature et des services
pour les besoins de l'arméed'occupation.
125. La quatrième convention de Genèvedistingue, elleaussi, entre les
dispositions applicables lors des opérations militaires ayant conduit à
l'occupation et cellesqui demeurent applicables pendant toute la durée de
l'occupation. Elle dispose en effet dans son article 6:
«La présenteconvention s'appliquera dèsle débutde tout conflit
ou occupation mentionnés à l'article 2.
Sur le territoire des parties au conflit, l'application de la conven-
tion cessera a la fin générale desopérations militaires.
En territoire occupé, l'applicationde la présenteconvention ces-
sera un an après la fin générale desopérationsmilitaires; néanmoins,
la puissance occupante sera liéepour la durée del'occupation - pour
autant que cette puissance exerce les fonctions de gouvernement
dans le territoire en question- par les dispositions des articles sui-
vants de la présenteconvention: 1 a 12, 27, 29 à 34, 47, 49, 51, 52,
53, 59, 61 à 77 et 143.
Les personnes protégées,dont la libération, le rapatriement ou
l'établissementauront lieu aprèsces délaisresteront dans l'intervalle
au bénéfice de la présenteconvention. »
Les opérationsmilitaires qui conduisirent en 1967 à l'occupation de la
Cisjordanie ayant pris fin depuis longtemps, seuls les articles de la qua-
trième convention de Genève visésau troisième alinéa de l'article6
demeurent applicables dans ce territoire occupé.
126. Figurent parmi ces dispositions les articles 47, 49, 52, 53 et 59 de
la quatrième convention de ~enève.
D'après l'article 4:
«Les personnes protégéesqui setrouvent dans un territoire occupé CONSTF.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OPINION) 185
tion to the relevant ]provisionsof international humanitarian law and of
human rights instruments.
124. With regard to the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Court would
recall thatthese deal, in Section II, with hostilities and in particular with
"means of injuring the enemy, sieges, and bombardments". Section III
deals with military authority in occupied territories. Only Section III is
currently applicable in the West Bank and Article 23 (g) of the Regula-
tions, in Section II, is thus not pertinent.
Section III of the Hague Regulations includes Articles 43, 46 and 52,
which are applicabl~: in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Article 43
imposes a duty on the occupant to "take al1measures within his power
to restore, and, as far as possible, tosure public order and life, respect-
ing the laws in force in the country". Article 46 adds that private prop-
erty must be "respected" and that it cannot "be confiscated". Lastly,
Article 52 authorizi:~, within certain limits, requisitions in kind and
services for the needs of the army of occupation.
125. A distinction is also made in the Fourth Geneva Convention
between provisions applying during military operations leading to occu-
pation and those thsit remain applicable throughout the entire period of
occupation. It thus states in Article 6:
"The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any con-
flict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the
present Conven.tion shall cease on the general close of military
o~erations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present
Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military
operations; hoaiever, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the
duration of the occu~ation. to the extent that such Power exercises
the functions of govérnment in such territory, by the provisions of
the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to
34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment
may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit
by the present Convention."
Since the military operations leading to the occupation of the West
Bank in 1967ended a long time ago, only those Articles of the Fourth
Geneva Convention referred to in Article 6, paragraph 3, remain appli-
cable in that occupied territory.
126. These provisions include Articles 47, 49, 52, 53 and 59 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention.
According to Artilcle47:
"Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be ne seront privées,en aucun cas ni d'aucune manière, du bénéficede
la présente convention, soit en vertu d'un changement quelconque
intervenu du fait de l'occupation dans les institutions ou le gouver-
nement du territoire en question, soit par un accord passéentre les
autorités du territoire occupé et la puissance occupante, soit encore
en raison de l'annexion par cette dernière de tout ou partie du terri-
toire occupé.»
L'article 49 se lit comme suit:
«Les transferts forcés, en masse ou individuels, ainsi que les
déportations de personnes protégéeshors du territoire occupé dans
le territoire de la puissance occupante ou dans celui de tout autre
Etat, occupéou non, sont interdits, quel qu'en soit le motif.
Toutefois, la puissance occupante pourra procéder à l'évacuation
totale ou partielle d'une régionoccupée déterminée,si la sécuritéde
la population ou d'impérieuses raisons militaires l'exigent. Les éva-
cuations ne pourront entraîner le déplacement de personnes proté-
géesqu'à l'intérieurdu territoire occupé, sauf en cas d'impossibilité
matérielle.La population ainsi évacuéesera ramenée dans ses foyers
aussitôt que les hostilités dans ce secteur auront pris fin.
La puissance occupante, en procédant a ces transferts ou A ces
évacuations, devra faire en sorte. dans toute la mesure du possible,
que les personnes protégées soient accueillies dans des installations
convenables, que les déplacements soient effectuésdans des condi-
tions satisfaisantes de salubrité, d'hygiène,de sécuritéet d'alimenta-
tion et que les membres d'une mêmefamille ne soient pas séparésles
uns des autres.
La puissance protectrice sera informée des transferts et évacua-
tions dès qu'ils auront eu lieu.
La puissance occupante ne pourra retenir les personnes protégées
dans une régionparticulièrement exposéeaux dangers de la guerre,
sauf si la sécuritéde la population ou d'impérieusesraisons militaires
l'exigent.
La puissance occupante ne pourra procéderà la déportation ou au
transfert d'une partie de sa propre population civile dans le territoire
occupépar elle. »
D'après l'article52 :
((Aucun contrat, accord ou règlement ne pourra porter atteinte au
droit de chaque travailleur, volontaire ou non, où qu'il se trouve, de
s'adresser aux représentants de la puissance protectrice pour deman-
der l'intervention de celle-ci.
Toute mesure tendant à provoquer le chômage ou à restreindre les
possibilitésde travail des travailleurs d'un pays occupé,en vue de les
amener à travailler pour la puissance occupante, est interdite.)) deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of
the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of
the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government
of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the
authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor
by any annexatilon by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied
territory."
Article 49 reads as follows
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the
Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not,
are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial
evacuation of al given area if the security of the population or
imperative milit,~ryreasons so demand. Such evacuations may not
involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of
the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impos-
sible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be
transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in
question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations
shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accom-
modation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the
removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health,
safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not
separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and
evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupyirig Power shall not detain protected persons in an
area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of
the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies."
According to Article 52:
"No contract, agreement or regulation shall impair the right of
any worker, whether voluntary or not and wherever he may be, to
apply to the relnresentatives of the Protecting Power in order to
request the said Power's intervention.
All nieasures aiming at creating unemployment or at restricting
the opportunities offered to workers in an occupied territory, in
order to induce them to work for the Occupying Power, are pro-
hibited."187 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
L'article 53 prévoitce qui suit:
«Il est interdità la puissance occupante de détruire des biens
mobiliers ou immobiliers, appartenant individuellement ou collecti-
vement à des personnes privées, à 1'Etat ouà des collectivités pu-
bliques, à des organisations sociales et coopératives, sauf dans les
cas où ces destructions seraient rendues absolument nécessairespar
les opérations militaires.
Aux termes enfin de l'article 59:
«Lorsque la population d'un territoire occupéou une partie de
celle-ci est insuffisamment approvisionnée, la puissance occupante
acceptera les actions de secours faites en faveur de cette population
et les facilitera dans toute la mesure de ses moyens.
Ces actions, qui pourront êtreentreprises soit par des Etats, soit
par un organisme humanitaire impartial, tel que le Comité interna-
tional de la Croix-Rouge, consisteront notamment en des envois de
vivres, produits médicaux et vêtements.
Tous les Etats contractants devront autoriser le libre passage de
ces envois et en assurer la protection.
Une puissance accordant le libre passage d'envois destinés à un
territoire occupé par une partie adverse au conflit aura toutefois le
droit de vérifierles envois, de réglementer leur passage selon des
horaires et itinéraires prescrits, etd'obtenir de la puissance protec-
trice une assurance suffisante que ces envois sont destinésecourir
la population dans le besoin, et ne sont pas utilisésau profit de la
puissance occupante.»
127. Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques com-
porte, lui aussi, plusieurs dispositions pertinentes. Avant d'examiner ces
dispositions, la Cour observera que l'article 4 du pacte permet sous di-
verses conditions de déroger a certaines dispositions de cet instrument.
Israël a usédu droit de dérogation qu'il tient de cet article en adressant
le3 octobre 1991au Secrétaire général deN sations Unies la communica-
tion suivante:
«Depuis sa création, 1'Etat d'Israël a été victime de menaceset
d'attaques qui n'ont cesséd'être portéecsontre son existence même
ainsi que contre la vie et les biens de ses citoyens.
Ces actes ont pris la forme de menaces de guerre, d'attaques
arméesréelleset de campagnes de terrorisme àla suite desquelles des
êtres humainsont été tués ebtlessés.
Etant donné ce qui précède, l'état d'urgence qu ai été proclamé
en mai 1948est resté en vigueurdepuis lors. Cette situation constitue
un danger public exceptionnel au sens du paragraphe 1de l'article4
du pacte.
Le Gouvernement israéliena donc jugé nécessairec ,onformément
àce mêmearticle 4, de prendre, dans la stricte mesure où la situation
l'exige,des mesures visantà assurer la défense de1'Etatet la protec- CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 187
Article 53 provides that:
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or persona1
property belonging individually or collectively to private persons,
or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or
CO-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruc-
tion is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
Lastly, according to Article 59
"If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is
inadequütely siipplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief
schemes on behialfof the said population, and shall facilitate them
by al1the means at its disposal.
Such schemei;, which may be undertaken either by States or by
impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Com-
mittee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision
of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these con-
signments and shall guarantee their protection.
A Power grainting free passage to consignments on their way to
territoryoccupi1:dby an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however,
have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage
according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably
satisfied througlh the Protecting Power that these consignments are
to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be
used for the beriefit of the Occupying Power."
127. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also
contains several relevant provisions. Before further examining these, the
Court will observe tlhat Article4 of the Covenant allows for derogation
to be made, under various conditions, to certain provisions of that instru-
ment. Israel made uiseof its right of derogation under this Article by
addressing the follovvingcommunication to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations on 71October 1991 :
"Since its estaiblishment, the State of Israel has been the victim of
continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the
life and property of its citizens.
These have t,lken the form of threats of war, of actual armed
attacks, and carnpaigns of terrorism resulting in the murder of and
injury to humari beings.
In view of the above, the State of Emergency which was pro-
claimed in May 1948has remained in force ever since.This situation
constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 (1) of
the Covenant.
The Government of Israel has therefore found it necessary, in
accordance with the said article 4, to take measures to the extent
strictly required by the exigenciesof the situation, for the defence of EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
tion de la vie et des biens de ses citoyens, y compris l'exercicede pou-
voirs d'arrestation et de détention.
Pour autant que l'une quelconque de ces mesures soit incompa-
tible avec I'articl9 du pacte, Israël déroge ainsi a ses obligations au
titre de cette disposition.))
La Cour constate que la dérogation ainsi notifiéene vise que I'article 9
du pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques proclamant le
droit iila libertéet 2 la sécuritéde la personne et fixant les règlesappli-
cables en cas d'arrestation et de détention. Les autres articles du pacte
demeurent donc applicables non seulement sur le territoire d'Israël, mais
encore dans le territoire palestinien occupé.
128. Parmi ceux-ci doit êtrecité l'article17, dont le paragraphe Ise lit
comme suit: «Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires ou illégales
dans sa vie privée, sa famille, son domicile ou sa correspondance, ni
d'atteintes illégalesa son honneur et à sa réputation.))
Doit également être mentionnéle paragraphe 1 de I'article 12 selon
lequel «[q]uiconque se trouve légalement sur le territoire d'un Etat a le
droit d'y circuler librement et d'y choisir librement sa résidence)).
129. Aux garanties généralesfournies par I'article 12du pacte interna-
tional relatif aux droits civils et politiques en ce qui concerne la libertéde
circulation s'ajoutent des garanties particulières d'accès dans le cas des
Lieux saints chrétiens, juifs et musulmans. Le statut des Lieux saints
chrétiens au sein de l'Empire ottoman est extrêmement ancien. Les der-
nièresdispositions les concernant avaient étéincorporées a I'article 62 du
traitéde Berlin du 13juillet 1878. Le mandat pour la Palestine donné au
Gouvernement britannique le 24 juillet 1922 comportait un article 13
selon lequel :
«Tout en maintenant l'ordre et la bienséance publics, le manda-
taire assume toute responsabilité au sujet des Lieux saints, des édi-
ficeset des sites religieux en Palestiny,compris celle de préserverles
droits existants, d'assurer le libreccèsdes Lieux saints, des édifices
et des sites religieux, et le libre exercidu culte.»
L'article 13ajoutait ce qui suit: ((Rien dans le présentmandat ne pourra
être interprété comme... autorisant à toucher aux immeubles ou à inter-
venir dans l'administration des sanctuaires purement musulmans, dont
les privilèges sont garantis. »
Au lendemain de la seconde guerre mondiale, l'Assemblée générale,
lorsqu'elle adopta la résolution 181 (II) sur le gouvernement futur de la
Palestine, consacra un chapitre entier du plan de partage aux Lieux saints,
édificeset sites religieux. L'articl2 de ce chapitre disposait qu'en ce qui
concerne les Lieux saints
«la liberté d'accès,de visite et de transit sera[it] garantie, conformé-
ment aux droits existants, à tous les résidentsou citoyens [de 1'Etat CONSTR.UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 188
the State and for the protection of life and property, including the
exercise of powers of arrest and detention.
In so far as ariy of these measures are inconsistent with articl9of
the Covenant, lsrael thereby derogates from its obligations under
that provision."
TheCourt notes that the derogation so notified concerns only Article 9
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which deals
with the right to liberty and security of person and lays down the rules
applicable in cases of arrest or detention. The other Articles of the
Covenant therefore remain applicable not only on Israeli territory, but
also on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
128. Among these mention must be made of Article 17, paragraph 1of
which reads as follows: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or un-
lawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor
to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation."
Mention must also be made of Article 12, paragraph 1, which pro-
vides: "Everyone lavifully within the territory of a state shall, within that
territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose
his residence."
129. In addition ito the general guarantees of freedom of movement
under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, account must also be taken of specific guarantees of access to the
Christian, Jewish arid Islamic Holy Places. The status of the Christian
Holy Places in the Ottoman Empire dates far back in time, the latest pro-
visions relating thereto having been incorporated into Article 62 of the
Treaty of Berlin of 13July 1878.The Mandate for Palestine given to the
British Government on 24 July 1922included an Article 13,under which:
"Al1 responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and reli-
gious buildings or sites in Palestine. including that of preserving
existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, reli-
gious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while
ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed
by the Mandatory . . ."
Article 13 further stated: "nothing in this mandate shall be construed as
conferring .. . authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of
purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed".
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the General Assembly, in
adopting resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine,
devoted a11entire chapter of the Plan of Partition to the Holy Places, reli-
gious buildings and sites. Article 2 of this Chapter provided, in so far as
the Holy Places were concerned :
"the liberty of access, visit and transit shall be guaranteed, in con-
formity with existing rights, to al1residents and citizens [of the Arab189 EDIFI~ATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
arabe, de 1'Etatjuif] et de la ville de Jérusalem, ainsi qu'aux étran-
gers, sans distinction de nationalité, sous réservede considérations
de sécuriténationale et de maintien de l'ordre public et de la bien-
séance».
Puis, au lendemain du conflit armé de 1948, la convention générale
d'armistice de 1949 entre la Jordanie et Israël prévit, en son article VIII,
la constitution d'un comité spécial((chargéd'établir des plans et arran-
gements concernant les questions que l'une ou l'autre partie pourra[it] lui
soumettre)) en vue d'étendrela portée de la convention et d'en améliorer
la mise en Œuvre. Parmi ces questions, sur lesquelles un accord de prin-
cipe avait déjà été réalisé, figurai«la liberté d'accèsaux Lieux saints)).
L'engagement ainsi pris concernait pour l'essentiel les Lieux saints
situésà l'est de la Ligne verte. Toutefois, certains Lieux saints se trou-
vaient iil'ouest de la même ligne. IIen était ainsi, sur le mont Sion, du
Cénacle etdu tombeau de David. Israël comme la Jordanie s'étaientdonc
engagés, en concluant la convention générale d'armistice, à assurer la
liberté d'accèsaux Lieux saints. La Cour considère que cet engagement
d'Israël est demeurévalable pour les Lieux saints passés sousson contrôle
en 1967. Ledit engagement a en outre été confirmé par le paragraphe 1
de l'article 9 du traité de paix de 1994 entre Israël et la Jordanie, selon
lequel, de manière plus générale,cc[c]hacune des deux parties contrac-
tantes donnera la liberté d'accès aux sitesayant une signification religieuse
et historique)).
130. Quant au pacte international relatif aux droits économiques,
sociaux et culturels, il comporte plusieurs dispositions pertinentes concer-
nant le droit au travail (art6 et 7); la protection et l'assistance accordées
à la famille et aux enfants et adolescents (art. 10); le droit à un niveau de
vie suffisant, y compris la nourriture, le vêtement etle logement, et le
droit ((d'êtreà l'abri de la faim)) (art. 11); le droit à la santé(art. 12)et le
droit à l'éducation (art. 13 et 14).
131. Enfin, la convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits de
l'enfant du 20 novembre 1989comporte des dispositions analogues en ses
articles 16, 24, 27 et 28.
132. Il ressort des informations fournies à la Cour et notamment du
rapport du Secrétaire généralque la construction du mur a entraîné la
destruction ou la réquisition de propriétésdans des conditions contraires
aux prescriptions des articles 46 et 52 du règlement de La Haye de 1907
et de l'article 53 de la quatrième convention de Genève.
133. Cette construction, la création d'une zone ferméeentre la Ligne
verte et le mur, et la constitution d'enclaves ont par ailleurs apporté des
restrictions importantes à la liberté de circulation des habitants du terri-
toire palestinien occupé (à l'exception des ressortissants israéliens etassi- CONSTR.UCT1ON OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 189
State, of theJevlish State] and of the City of Jerusalem, as well as to
aliens, without distinction as to nationality, subject to requirements
of national security, public order and decorum".
Subsequently, in the aftermath of the armed conflict of 1948, the 1949
General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel provided in
Article VI11for the establishment of a special committee for "the formu-
lation of agreed planisand arrangements for such matters as either Party
may submit to it" for the purpose of enlarging the scope of the Agree-
ment and of effecting improvement in its application. Such matters, on
which an agreement of principle had already been concluded, included
"free access to theHioly Places".
This commitment concerned mainly the Holy Places located to the east
of the Green Line. Fiowever, some Holy Places were located Westof that
Line. This was the case of the Room of the Last Supper and the Tomb of
David, on Mount 2:ion. In signing the General Armistice Agreement,
Israelthus undertook, as did Jordan, to guarantee freedom of access to
the Holy Places. The Court considers that this undertaking by Israel has
remained valid for the Holy Places which came under its control in 1967.
This undertaking has further been confirmed by Article 9,paragraph 1,
of the 1994 Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, by virtue of which,
in more general terms, "Each party will provide freedom of access to
places of religious and historical significance."
130. As regards the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, that instrument includes a number of relevant provi-
sions, namely: the right to work (Arts. 6 and 7); protection and assist-
ance accorded to the family and to children and young persons (Art. 10);
the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food,
clothing and housini;, and the right "to be free from hunger" (Art. 11);
the right to health(Art. 12); the right to education (Arts. 13 and 14).
131. Lastly, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child of 20 November 1989includes similar provisions in Articles 16, 24,
27 and 28.
132. From the information submitted to the Court, particularly the
report of the Secretary-General, it appears that the construction of the
wall has led to the destruction or requisition of properties under condi-
tions which contravene the requirements of Articles 46 and 52 of the
Hague Regulations of 1907and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Con-
vention.
133. That construction, the establishment of a closed area between the
Green Line and the wall itself and the creation of enclaves have moreover
imposed substantial restrictions on the freedom of movement of the
inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception ofmilés). Ces restrictions sont particulièrement sensibles dans des zones
urbaines, telles que l'enclave de Qalqiliya ou la ville de Jérusalem et ses
banlieues. Elles sont aggravées du fait que les portes d'accès sont dans
certains secteurs en nombre réduit et que leurs horaires d'ouverture
paraissent limitéset appliqués de manière irrégulière.Par exemple, selon
le rapporteur spécial de la Commission des droits de l'homme sur la
situation des droits de I'homme dans les territoires palestiniens occupés
par Israël depuis 1967, «[l]a ville de [Qalqiliya], qui compte 40000 habi-
tants, est complètement entourée par le mur, et ses habitants ne peuvent
y entrer ou en sortir que par un poste de contrôle militaire ouvert de
7 heures du matin à 7 heures du soir)) (rapport du rapporteur spécialde
la Commission des droits de I'homme, M. John Dugard, sur la situation
des droits de l'homme dans les territoires palestiniens occupéspar Israël
depuis 1967, soumis conformément à la résolution 199312A de la Com-
mission intitulée((Question de la violation des droits de I'homme dans les
territoires arabes occupés, y compris la Palestine)), ElCN.41200416,8 sep-
tembre 2003, par. 9).
IIen est aussi résultéde sérieuses répercussions pour la production
agricole, comme cela est attesté par plusieurs sources. Selon le Comité
spécialchargéd'enquêtersur les pratiques israéliennesaffectant les droits
de l'homme du peuple palestinien et des autres Arabes des territoires
occupés,il est
«estim[é]que 100000 dounams [environ 10000 hectares] des terres
agricoles les plus fertiles de la Cisjordanie, confisquéespar les forces
d'occupation israéliennes,ont été détruitespendant la première phase
de construction du mur, entraînant la disparition de très nombreux
biens, notamment de terres agricoles, d'oliviers, de puits, d'agrume-
raies et de serres, dont des dizaines de milliers de Palestiniens étaient
tributaires pour leur survie)) (rapport du Comité spécial chargé
d'enquêter sur les pratiques israéliennes affectant les droits de
l'homme du peuple palestinien et des autres Arabes des territoires
occupés,Al58131 1, 22 août 2003, par. 26).
Le rapporteur spécialsur la situation des droits de I'homme dans les ter-
ritoires palestiniens occupés par Israël depuis 1967 indique pour sa part
que «[l]a plupart des terres palestiniennes se trouvant du côtéisraéliendu
mur sont des terres agricoles fertiles et [que l']on y trouve certains des
puits les plus importants de la région)); ilajoute que «[d]e nombreux
arbres fruitiers et oliviers ont étéarrachés lors de sa construction»
(ElCN.41200416,8 septembre 2003, par. 9). Quant au rapporteur spécial
sur le droit à l'alimentation de la Commission des droits de I'homme des
Nations Unies, il constate que la construction du mur «coupe les Pales-
tiniens de leurs terres agricoles, de leurs puits et de leurs moyens de sub-
sistance)) (rapport du rapporteur spécialde la Commission des droits de
I'homme, M. Jean Ziegler, «Le droit A l'alimentation)), additif, mission
dans les territoires palestiniens occupés, E1CN.4120041101Add.2,31 oc-
tobre 2003, par. 49). Dans une enquêterécentedu Programme alimentaire CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR YPINION) 190
Israeli citizens and those assimilated thereto). Such restrictions are most
marked in urban areas, such as the Qalqiliya enclave or the City of Jeru-
salem and its suburbs. They are aggravated by the fact that the access
gates are few in nunnber in certainsectors and opening hours appear to
be restricted and unpredictably applied. For example, according to the
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situa-
tion of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by lsrael since
1967, "Qalqiliya, a irity with a population of 40,000, is completely sur-
rounded by the Wall and residents can only enter and leave through a
single military checkpoint open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m." (Report of the
Special Rapporteur infthe Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard,
on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by
Israel since 1967, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution
199312A and entitletl "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the
Occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine", ElCN.41200416, 8 Sep-
tember 2003, para. 9.)
There have also been serious repercussions for agricultural production,
as is attested by a number of sources. According to the Special Com-
mittee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the
Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories
"an estimated 100,000 dunums [approximately 10,000 hectares] of
the West Bank's most fertile agricultural land, confiscated by the
Israeli Occupation Forces, have been destroyed during the first
phase of the wall construction, which involves the disappearance of
vast amounts of property, notably private agricultural land and olive
trees, wells, citrus grows and hothouses upon which tens of thou-
sands of Palestinians rely for their survival" (Report of the Special
Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human
Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied
Territories, Al51313, 22 August 2003, para. 26).
Further, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 states that "Much of
the Palestinian land 'onthe Israeli side of the Wall consists of fertile agri-
cultural land and soine of the most important water wells in the region"
and adds that "Maily fruit and olive trees had been destroyed in the
course of building the barrier" (ElCN.41200416, 8 September 2003,
para. 9). The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food of the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights states that construction of the
wall "cuts off Palestinians from their agricultural lands, wells and means
of subsistence" (Repcortby the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, Jean Ziegler, "The Right to Food",
Addendum, Mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ElCN.41
2004110lAdd.2, 31 October 2003, para. 49). In a recent survey conducted
by the World Food Programme, it is stated that the situation has aggra-191 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
mondial, il est préciséque cette situation a aggravé l'insécurité alimen-
taire dans la région,qui compterait 25 000 nouveaux bénéficiairesd'aide
alimentaire (rapport du Secrétaire généralp ,ar. 25).
Il en résulte enoutre, pour les populations concernées, des difficultés
croissantes d'accèsaux services de santé,ainsi qu'aux établissements sco-
laires eà l'approvisionnement primaire en eau, constat égalementcorro-
borépar diverses sources d'information. Le rapport du Secrétaire général
mentionne ainsi de manière généraleque, «[s]elon le Bureau central de
statistique palestinien, la barrière a,cejour, coupé30 localités des ser-
vices de santé, 22 des établissements scolaires, 8 des sources primaires
d'eau et 3 du réseau électrique))(rapport du Secrétairegénéral,par. 23).
Le rapporteur spécialde la Commission des droits de I'homme sur la
situation des droits de I'homme dans les territoires palestiniens occupés
par Israël depuis 1967indique quant à lui que «[Iles Palestiniens qui ha-
bitent entre le mur et la Ligne verte ne pourront plus accéderleurs terres
ni à leur lieu de travail, aux écoles, aux hôpitaux et autres services
sociaux)) (E/CN.4/2004/6, 8 septembre 2003, par. 9). Concernant plus
particulièrement l'accèsaux ressources en eau, le rapporteur spécialsur le
droit àl'alimentation de la Commission des droits de I'homme relèveque,
«[e]n construisant la clôture, Israël annexera aussi de fait la plus grande
partie de la nappe phréatique occidentale (qui fournitSI'% ,es ressources
en eau de la Cisjordanie))) (E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2, 31 octobre 2003,
par. 51). De même,en ce qui concerne l'accèsaux services de santé,il a
été indiqué que,du fait de la constitution de l'enclave de Qalqiliya, un
hôpital des Nations Unies situédans cette ville a connu une baisse de fré-
quentation de 40% (rapport du Secrétaire généralp ,ar. 24).
A Qalqiliya, selon des rapports fournis aux Nations Unies, environ
600 négoces ouentreprises ont dû fermer leurs portes et 6000 à 8000 per-
sonnes ont déjà quitté la région (E/CN.4/2004/6, 8 septembre 2003,
par. 10; E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2, 31 octobre 2003, par. 51). Le rapporteur
spécial sur le droit à l'alimentation de la Commission des droits de
I'homme a relevéen outre que, «[l]a clôture/le mur coupant les commu-
nautés deleurs terres et de leur eau sans leur donner d'autres moyens de
subsistance, nombreux sont les Palestiniens habitant dans ces régionsqui
seront obligés de partir)) (E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2, 31 octobre 2003,
par. 51). A cet égardégalement, laconstruction du mur priverait en fait
un nombre significatif de Palestiniens de leur droit de «choisir librement
[leur] résidence)).Par ailleurs, de l'avis de la Cour, puisque la construc-
tion du mur et le régimequi lui est associéont déjà obligé unnombre
significatif de Palestinienà quitter certaines zones - processus qui se
poursuivra avec l'édification de nouveaux tronçons du mur , cette
construction, combinée a l'établissement des colonies de peuplement
mentionné au paragraphe 120 ci-dessus, tend à modifier la composition
démographique du territoire palestinien occupé.
134. Au total, de l'avisde la Cour, la construction du mur et le régime
qui lui est associéentravent la libertéde circulation des habitants du ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé (à l'exception des ressortissants israéliens et CONSTI<UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOKO YPINION) 191
vated food insecurity in the region, which reportedly numbers 25,000 new
beneficiaries of food aid (report of the Secretary-General, para. 25).
It has further le10 increasing difficulties for the population concerned
regarding access to health services, educational establishments and pri-
mary sources of Walter.This is also attested by a number of different
information sources Thus the report of the Secretary-General states gen-
erally that "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, so
far the Barrier has separated 30 localities from health services, 22 from
schools, 8 from primary water sources and 3 from electricity networks."
(Report of the Secretary-General, para. 23.) The Special Rapporteur of
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the situation of
human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967
states that "Palestinians between the Wall and Green Line will effectively
be cut off from their land and workplaces, schools, health clinics and
other social services." (ElCN.41200416, 8 September 2003, para. 9.) In
relation specifically to water resources, the Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
observes that "By constructing the fence Israel will also effectively annex
most of the western aquifer system (which provides 51 per cent of the
West Bank's water resources)." (E1CN.4120041101Add.2,31 October 2003,
para. 51.) Similarly. in regard to access to health services, it has been
stated that, as a result of the enclosure of Qalqiliya, a United Nations
hospital in that towi~has recorded a 40 per cent decrease in its caseload
(report of the Secretary-General, para. 24).
At Qalqiliya, according to reports furnished to the United Nations,
soine 600 shops or businesses have shut down, and 6,000 to 8,000 people
have already left the region (ElCN.41200416,8 September 2003, para. 10;
E/CN.4/2004/1O/Add.2, 31 October 2003, para. 51). The Special Rappor-
teur on the Right to Food of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights has also observed that "With the fencelwall cutting communities
off from their land and water without other means of subsistence, many
of the Palestinians living in these areas will be forced to leave." (ElCN.41
2004/10/Add.2, 31 October 2003, para. 51.) In this respect also the con-
struction of the wall would effectively deprive a significant number of
Palestinians of the "freedom to choose [their] residence". In addition,
however, in the view of the Court, since a significant number of Palestin-
ians have already been compelled by the construction of the wall and its
associated régime tol depart from certain areas, a process that will con-
tinue as more of the wall is built, that construction, coupled with the
establishment of the Israeli settlements mentioned in paragraph 120
above, is tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.
134. To sum up, the Court is of the opinion that the construction of
the wall and its associated régimeimpede the liberty of movement of the
inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception192 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
assimilés) telleque garantie par le paragraphe 1de l'article 12 du pacte
international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. Ils entravent également
l'exercice par les intéressés desdroits au travail, la santé, à l'éducation
et à un niveau de vie suffisant tels que proclamés par le pacte internatio-
nal relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels et la convention
des Nations Unies relative aux droits de l'enfant. Enfin, la construction
du mur et le régimequi lui est associé, en contribuant aux changements
démographiques auxquels il est fait référenceaux paragraphes 122et 133
ci-dessus, sont contraires au sixièmealinéade l'article49 de la quatrième
convention de Genève et aux résolutions du Conseil de sécuritérappor-
téesau paragraphe 120 ci-dessus.
135. La Cour observera cependant que le droit international humani-
taire applicable comporte des dispositions permettant de tenir compte
dans certains cas des impératifs militaires.
L'article 46 du règlement de La Haye de 1907et l'article 47 de la qua-
trième convention de Genève ne contiennent pour leur part aucune clause
de limitation de ce type. En ce qui concerne les transferts forcésde popu-
lation ou les déportations prohibées par le premier alinéa de l'article 49
de la convention, le deuxième alinéadu mêmearticle réservele cas ou «la
sécuritéde la population ou d'impérieusesnécessitésmilitaires l'exigent)).
Cette réservene couvre cependant pas le sixièmealinéadu mêmearticle,
qui interdit à la puissance occupante de ((procéder a la déportation ou au
transfert d'une partie de sa propre population civile dans le territoire
occupépar elle)). Quant à l'article 53 relatif à la destruction des biens, il
prévoit une exception «dans les cas où ces destructions seraient rendues
absolument nécessairespar les opérations militaires)).
La Cour estime que les impératifs militaires prévus par ces textes
peuvent être invoquésdans des territoires occupés mêmeaprès la fin
généraledes opérations militaires ayant conduit à l'occupation de ces
territoires. Toutefois, au vu du dossier, la Cour n'est pas convaincue que
les destructions opérées contrairement à l'interdiction édictée à
l'article 53 de la quatrième convention de Genève aient étérendues
absolument nécessairespar des opérations militaires.
136. La Cour observera égalementque certaines des conventions rela-
tives aux droits de l'homme, et en particulier le pacte international relatif
aux droits civils et politiques, contiennent des clauses qui peuvent être
invoquées par les Etats parties en vue de déroger, sous diverses condi-
tions, à certaines de leurs obligations conventionnelles. A cet égard, la
Cour rappellera cependant que la communication d'Israël, notifiée au
Secrétaire général desNations Unies conformément à l'article 4 du pacte
international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, ne porte que sur I'ar-
ticle 9 du pacte concernant la liberté et la sécuritéde la personne (voir
paragraphe 127 ci-dessus); Israël est donc tenu au respect de toutes les
autres dispositions de cet instrument.
La Cour relèvera en outre que certaines dispositions des conventions
relatives aux droits de l'homme sont assorties de clauses de limitation des
droits couverts par ces dispositions. Aucune clause de ce type ne figure a C0NSTF:UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORY OPINION) 192
of lsraeli citizens and those assimilated thereto) as guaranteed under
Article 12,paragrapl? 1,of the International Covenant on Civil and Poli-
tical Rights. They alko impede the exercise by the persons concerned of
the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of
living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child. Lastby. the construction of the wall and its associated
régime,by contributing to the demographic changes referred to in para-
graphs 122 and 133 above, contravene Article 49, paragraph 6, of the
Fourth Geneva Convention and the Security Council resolutions cited in
paragraph 120 above.
135. The Court would observe, however, that the applicable interna-
tional humanitarian law contains provisions enabling account to be
taken of military exigencies in certain circumstances.
Neither Article 46 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 nor Article 47 of
the Fourth Geneva (Convention contain any qualifying provision of this
type. With regard to forcible transfers of population and deportations,
which are prohibited under Article 49, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
paragraph 2 of that Article provides for an exception in those cases in
which "the security of the population or imperative military reasons so
demand". This exception however does not apply to paragraph 6 of that
Article. which prohibits the occupying Power from deporting or transfer-
ring parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies. As
to Article 53 concerriing the destruction of personal property, it provides
for an exception "where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary
by military operations".
The Court considers that the military exigencies contemplated by these
texts may be invoked in occupied territories even after the general close
of the military operations that led to their occupation. However, on the
material before it, the Court is not convinced that the destructions car-
ried out contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
136. The Court viould further observe that some human rights con-
ventions, and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, coritain provisions which States parties may invoke in
order to derogate, under various conditions, from certain of their con-
ventional obligations. In this respect, the Court would however recall
that the communicaiion notified by Israel to the Secretary-Generalof the
United Nations under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights concerns only Article 9 of the Covenant, relating to
the right to freedomi and security of person (see paragraph 127 above);
Israel is accordingly bound to respect al1 the other provisions of that
instrument.
The Court would note, moreover, that certain provisions of human
rights conventions ctontain clauses qualifying the rights covered by those
provisions. There is no clause of this kind in Article 17 of the Interna-193 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
l'article 17du pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. En
revanche, le paragraphe 3 de l'article 12de cet instrument dispose que la
libertéde circulation telle que garantie par ledit article
«ne [peut]êtrel'objet de restrictions que si celles-ci sont prévuespar
la loi, nécessairespour protéger la sécuriténationale, l'ordre public,
la santé ou la moralité publiques ou les droits et libertésd'autrui et
compatibles avec les autres droits reconnus par le présent pacte)).
Pour sa part, le pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux
et culturels contient en son article 4 une disposition générale ainsi
libellée:
«Les Etats parties au présent pacte reconnaissent que, dans la
jouissance des droits assurés par 1'Etat conformément au présent
pacte, 1'Etat ne peut soumettre ces droits qu'aux limitations établies
par la loi, dans la seule mesure compatible avec la nature de ces
droits et exclusivement en vue de favoriser le bien-être généradlans
une sociétédémocratique. »
La Cour observera que, aux termes mêmesdu paragraphe 3 de I'ar-
ticle 12du pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, les res-
trictions envisagéespar ce paragraphe constituent des exceptions au droit
à la liberté de circulation garanti auparagraphe 1. En outre, ces restric-
tions doivent non seulement servir les buts autorisés, mais encore être
nécessairespour atteindre ces buts. Pour reprendre la formulation rete-
nue par le Comité des droits de l'homme, elles «doivent être conformes
au principe de la proportionnalité)) et ((doivent constituer le moyen le
moins perturbateur parmi ceux qui pourraient permettre d'obtenir le
résultat recherché)) (CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.9, observation générale
no 27, par. 14).Au vu des informations dont elle dispose, la Cour estime
que ces conditions ne sont pas remplies en l'espèce.
La Cour fera également observer que les restrictions à lajouissance par
les Palestiniens habitant dans le territoire occupépar Israël de leurs droits
économiques, sociaux et culturels, telles qu'elles résultentde la construc-
tion du mur par cet Etat, ne répondent pas à une condition poséepar
l'articl4 du pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux
et culturels, à savoir qu'elles doivent êtreétablies <<exclusivemenetn vue
de favoriser le bien-être générad lans une sociétédémocratique)).
137. Au total, la Cour, au vu du dossier, n'est pas convaincue que la
poursuite des objectifs de sécurité avancéspar Israël nécessitait I'adop-
tion du tracéchoisi pour le mur. Le mur tel que tracé et le régimequi lui
est associé portent atteinte de manière grave à de nombreux droits des
Palestiniens habitant dans le territoire occupé par Israël sans que les
atteintes résultant de ce tracé puissent êtrejustifiées par des impératifs
militaires ou des nécessitésde sécuriténationale ou d'ordre public. La
construction d'un tel mur constitue dès lors une violation par Israël detional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On the other hand,
Article 12, paragraph 3, of that instrument provides that restrictions
on liberty of movement as guaranteed under that Article
"shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are pro-
vided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order
(ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of
others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the
present Covenailt".
As for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, Article 4 thereof contains a general provision as follows:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the
enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with
the present Covirnant, the State may subject such rights only to such
limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be
compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose
of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society."
The Court would observe that the restrictions provided for under
Article 12, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights are, by the very terms of that provision, exceptions to
the right of freedom of movement contained in paragraph 1. In addition, it
is not sufficient that such restrictions be directed to the ends authorized;
they must also be riecessary for the attainment of those ends. As the
Human Rights Corrimittee put it, they "must conform to the principle
of proportionality" and "must be the least intrusive instrument amongst
those which might airhieve the desired result" (CCPR/C/21/Rev.I/Add.9,
General Comment No. 27, para. 14). On the basis of the information
available to it, the Court finds that these conditions are not met in
the present instance.
The Court would fùrther observe that the restrictions on the enjoyment
by the Palestinians living in the territory occupied by Israel of theireco-
nomic, social and cultural rights, resulting from Israel's construction of
the wall, fail to meet a condition laid down by Article 4 of the Interna-
tional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that is to say
that their implementation must be "solely for the purpose of promoting
the general welfare in a democratic society".
137. To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not
convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was
necessary to attain its security objectives. The wall, along the route
chosen, and its assooiated régime gravely infringe a number of rights of
Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringe-
ments resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies
or by the requirements of national security or public order. The construc-
tion of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various194 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
diverses obligations qui lui incombent en vertu des instruments appli-
cables de droit international humanitaire et des droits de l'homme.
138. Ainsi, la Cour a conclu que la construction du mur est un acte
non conforme à diverses obligationsjuridiques internationales incombant
à Israël.A l'annexe 1 du rapport du Secrétaire général,il est cependant
préciséque, selon Israël, ((la construction du mur est conforme à I'ar-
ticle 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies, ainsi qu'à son droit inhérent de
légitime défenseet aux résolutions 1368 (2001) et 1373 (2001) du Conseil
de sécurité)).Plus précisément,le représentant permanent d'Israël auprès
des Nations Unies a fait valoir devant l'Assemblée généralele , 20 octobre
2003, que «la barrière est une mesure tout à fait conforme au droit [de
légitimedéfense]des Etats ... consacré par l'article 51 de la Charte»; il a
ajouté que ces résolutions «ont reconnu clairement le droit des Etats au
recours à la force en cas de légitimedéfense contre les attentats terro-
ristes)) et qu'elles reconnaissent par conséquent le droit de recourir à
cette fin à des mesures n'impliquant pas l'emploi de la force (AIES-IO/
PV.21, p. 6).
139. Selon l'article 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies:
((Aucune disposition de la présente Charte ne porte atteinte au
droit naturel de légitime défense, individuelleou collective, dans le
cas où un Membre des Nations Unies est l'objet d'une agression
armée, jusqu'à ce que le Conseil de sécuritéait pris les mesures
nécessairespour maintenir la paix et la sécuritéinternationales. )>
L'article 51 de la Charte reconnaît ainsi l'existence d'un droit naturel
de légitime défenseen cas d'agression armée par un Etat contre un autre
Etat. Toutefois, Israël ne prétend pas que les violences dont il est victime
soient imputables à un Etat étranger.
La Cour note par ailleurs qu'Israël exerce son contrôle sur le territoire
palestinien occupé et que, comme Israël l'indique lui-même,la menace
qu'il invoque pour justifier la construction du mur trouve son origine à
l'intérieurde ce territoire, et non en dehors de celui-ci. Cette situation est
donc différente de celle envisagéepar les résolutions 1368 (2001) et 1373
(2001) du Conseil de sécurité,et de ce fait Israël ne saurait en tout état de
cause invoquer ces résolutions au soutien de sa prétention à exercer un
droit de léuitimedéfense.
En conséquence, la Cour conclut que l'article 51 de la Charte est sans
pertinence au cas particulier.
140. La Cour s'est cependant demandé si Israël pourrait se prévaloir
d'un état de nécessitépermettant d'exclure I'illicéide la construction du
mur. A cet égard,la Cour se doit de noter que certaines des conventions
en cause incluent des clauses de limitation des droits garantis ou des
clauses dc dérogation (voir paragraphes 135 et 136 ci-dessus). Dès lorsof its obligations urider the applicable international humanitarian law
and human rights instruments.
138. The Court has thus concluded that the construction of the wall
constitutes action not in conformity with various international legal obli-
gations incumbent upon Israel. However, Annex 1 to the report of the
Secretary-General states that, according to Israel: "the construction of
the Barrier is consistent with Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations, its inherenit right to self-defence and Security Council resolu-
tions 1368(2001) and 1373(2001)". More specifically, Israel's Permanent
Representative to the United Nations asserted in the General Assembly
on 20 October 2003 that "the fence is a measure wholly consistent with
the right of States to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter";
the Security Council resolutions referred to, he continued, "have clearly
recognized the right of States to use force in self-defence against terrorist
attacks", and therefore surely recognize the right to use non-forcible
measures to that encl (AIES-10lPV.21, p. 6).
139. Under the t'crms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council
has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security."
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent
right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against
another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it
are imputable to a foreign State.
The Court also riotes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it
regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and
not outside, that teriritory. The situation is thus different from that con-
templated by Securi1.yCouncil resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (200l),
and therefore lsrael could not in any event invoke those resolutions in
support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence.
Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has
no relevance in this case.
140. The Court hiis, however. considered whether Israel could rely on
a state of necessity ,which would preclude the wrongfulness of the con-
struction of the wall. In this regard the Court is bound to note that some
of the conventions at issue in the present instance include qualifying
clauses of the rights guaranteed or provisions for derogation (see para-195 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVICSONSULTATIF)
que ces traités fontdéjaplace ade telles considérations dans leurs dispo-
sitions mêmes,on pourrait se demander si I'état de nécessité telque
reconnu par le droit international coutumier pourrait être invoquéen ce
qui concerne ces traités comme cause excluant I'illicéité des mesures ou
décisions incriminées.Mais la Cour n'aura pas à examiner cette question.
Ainsi qu'elle l'a observé en l'affaire relative au Projet GubCikovo-
Nugyrnaros (HongrielSlovuquie) , «l'étatde nécessitéconstitue une cause,
reconnue par le droit international coutumier)), qui <<nesaurait être
admise qu'à titre exceptionnel)); il«ne peut être invoquéqu'a certaines
conditions. strictement définies.aui doivent être cumulativement réunies:
et 1'Etat concerné n'est pas seul juge de la réunion de ces conditions))
(C.I.J.Recueil 1997, p. 40, par. 51). La Cour a précisé l'une deces condi-
tions en reprenant les termes employés par la Commission du droit inter-
national dans un texte qui, en sa forme actuelle, prévoit que le fait incri-
miné doit constituer «pour 1'Etat le seul moyen de protéger un intérêt
essentiel contre un périlgrave et imminent» (article 25 des articles de la
Commission du droit international sur la responsabilité internationale de
1'Etat; voir aussi l'ancien article 33 du projet d'articles sur la responsabi-
litéinternationale des Etats, dont le libelléétait identique dans la version
française). Au vu du dossier, la Cour n'est pas convaincue que la cons-
truction du mur selon le tracé retenu était le seul moyen de protéger les
intérêts d'Israëlcontre le péril dont il s'est prévalu pour justifier cette
construction.
141. Reste qu'Israël doit faire facea des actes de violence indiscrimi-
nés,nombreux et meurtriers, visant sa population civile. Il a le droit, et
mêmele devoir, d'y répondre en vue de protéger la vie de ses citoyens.
Les mesures prises n'en doivent pas moins demeurer conformes au droit
international applicable.
142. Au total, la Cour estime qu'Israël ne saurait se prévaloirdu droit
de légitime défenseou de l'étatde nécessité,comme excluant I'illicéité de
la construction du mur qui résulte des considérations mentionnées aux
paragraphes 122 et 137 ci-dessus. En conséquence, la Cour juge que la
construction du mur et le régimequi lui est associé sont contraires au
droit international.
143. Etant parvenue a la conclusion que, par l'édificationdu mur dans
le territoire palestinien occupé, y compris a l'intérieur etsur le pourtour
de Jérusalem-Est, et par l'adoption du régimequi lui est associé, Israël
a violé diverses obligations internationales lui incombant (voir para-
graphes 114 ii137 ci-dessus), la Cour doit a présent, pour répondre a la
question poséepar l'Assemblée généralep ,rocéder iil'examen des consé-
quences de ces violations.graphs 135 and 136 above). Since those treaties already address con-
siderations of this kind within their own provisions, it might be asked
whether a state of necessity as recognized in customary international law
could be invoked witli regard to those treaties as a ground for precluding
the wrongfulness of the measures or decisions being challenged. How-
ever, the Court will not need to consider that question. As the Court
observed iri the case concerning the GubFikovo-Nug~~rnrtrosProject
(HungarylSlovakiu), "the state of necessity is a ground recognized
by customary international law" that "can only be accepted on an
exceptional basis"; il "can only be invoked under certain strictly defined
conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied; and the State concerned
is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met" (1. C.J.
Reports IY97, p. 40, para. 51). One of those conditions was stated by the
Court in terms used by the International Law Commission, in a text
which in its present form requires that the act being challenged be "the
only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave
and imminent peril" (Article 25 of the international Law Commission's
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts;
see also former Article 33 of the Draft Articles on the International
Responsibility of States, with slightly different wording in the English
text). In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that
the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to
safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as
justification for that construction.
141. The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate
and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the
right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its
citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in con-
formity with applicable international law.
142. In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a
right of self-defence (sr on a state of necessity in order to preclude the
wrongfulness of the construction of the wall resulting from the con-
siderations mentionetri in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court
accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated
régime,are contrary to international law.
143. The Court having concluded that, by the construction of the wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jeru-
salein, and by adoptirig its associated régime, Israel has violated various
international obligations incumbent upon it (see paragraphs 114-137
above), it must now, in order to reply to the question posed by the
General Assembly, examine the consequences of those violations. 144. Dans leurs exposés écrits etoraux, de nombreux participants à la
procédure devant la Cour ont soutenu que I'édificationillicite par Israël
de ce mur entraînait des conséquencesjuridiques tant pour cet Etat que
pour les autres Etats et l'Organisation des Nations Unies; dans son
exposéécrit,Israël, pour sa part, n'a pas présentéd'arguments en ce qui
concerne les conséquences juridiques qui pourraient résulter de la cons-
truction du mur.
145. En ce qui concerne les conséquencesjuridiques pour Israël, il a
été alléguéqu'Israël avait en premier lieu l'obligation juridique de mettre
fin à la situation illiciteen cessant immédiatement la construction du mur
dans le territoire palestinien occupé et de donner des assurances et des
garanties de non-répétition appropriées.
Israël aurait en deuxième lieu l'obligation juridique de réparer les dom-
mages occasionnés par son comportement illicite. Cette réparation devrait
tout d'abord prendre la forme d'une restitution, à savoir la démolition
des portions du mur construites dans le territoire palestinien occupé et
l'annulation des actes juridiques liésà l'édificationdu mur, ainsi que la
restitution des biens réquisitionnés ouexpropriés aux fins de celle-ci; la
réparation devrait également consister en une indemnisation appropriée
des personnes dont les habitations ou exploitations agricoles ont été
détruites.
Il a encore été affirmé qu'Israël avait le devoir permanent d'exécuter
toutes les obligations internationales auxquellesila contrevenu du fait de
la construction du mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé et du régime
qui lui est associé; et il a par ailleurs étésoutenu que, aux termes de la
quatrième convention de Genève, Israël avait I'obligation de rechercher
et de traduire devant ses tribunaux les personnes dont il est allégué
qu'elles ont commis, ou qu'elles ont ordonné que soient commis, de
graves manquements au droit international humanitaire découlant de la
planification, de I'édification et de l'utilisation du mur.
146. En ce qui concerne les conséquences juridiques pour les Etats
autres qu'Israël, il a été exposdevant la Cour que tous les Etats avaient
I'obl-rration de ne Dasreconnaître la situation illicite résultant de la cons-
truction du mur, de ne pas prêteraide ou assistance au maintien de cette
situation et de coopérer en vue de mettre un terme aux violations allé-
guées et de s'assurer qu'elles donneront lieu à réparation.
Certains participants à la procédure devant la Cour ont également
relevéque les Etats parties à la quatrième convention de Genève avaient
I'obligation de prendre des mesures visant à assurer le respect de la
convention et que, dans la mesure où la construction et le maintien du
mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé seraient constitutifs d'infractions
graves a cette convention, les Etats parties à celle-ci avaient l'obligation
d'en poursuivre les auteurs ou de les extrader. 11a par ailleurs étérelevé
que
«le Conseil de sécurité desNations Unies devrait examiner les vio-
lations flagrantes et systématiques des règles et principes de droit CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 196
144. In their written and oral observations, many participants in the
proceedings before ithe Court contended that Israel's action in illegally
constructing this wall has legal consequences not only for Israel itself, but
also for other States and for the United Nations; in its Written State-
ment, Israel, for its part, presented no arguments regarding the possible
legal consequences of the construction of the wall.
145. As regards the legal consequences for Israel, it was contended
that Israel has, first, a legal obligation to bring the illegal situation to an
end by ceasing forthwith the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, and to give appropriate assurances and guarantees
of non-repetition.
It was argued that, secondly, Israelis under a legal obligation to make
reparation for the damage arising from its unlawful conduct. It was sub-
mitted that such reparation should first of al1take the form of restitution,
namely demolition of those portions of the wall constructed in the Occu-
pied Palestinian Territory and annulment of the legal acts associated with
its construction and the restoration of property requisitioned or expro-
priated for that purpose; reparation should also include appropriate
compensation for intlividuals whose homes or agricultural holdings have
been destroyed.
It was further coniended that Israel is under a continuing duty to com-
ply with al1of the international obligations violated by it as a result of the
construction of the via11in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and of the
associated régime. It was also argued that, under the terms of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring
before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered
to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law flow-
ing from the planning, construction and use of the wall.
146. As regards the legal consequences for States other than Israel, it
was contended before the Court that al1 States are under an obligation
not to recognize the illegal situation arising from the construction of the
wall, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation and to
CO-operatewith a view to putting an end to the alleged violations and to
ensuring that reparaiion will be made therefor.
Certain participants in the proceedings further contended that the
States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are obliged to take
measures to ensure compliance with the Convention and that, inasmuch
as the construction and maintenance of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory constitutes grave breaches of that Convention, the
States parties to that Convention are under an obligation to prosecute or
extradite the authors of such breaches. It was further observed that
"the United Nations Security Council should consider flagrant and
systematic violaition of international law norm[s] and principles by197 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSUL.~ATIF)
international, en particulier de droit international humanitaire, com-
mises par Israël, et prendre toutes les mesures nécessairespour y
mettre fin»,
et que le Conseil de sécurité et l'Assemblée généra aleaient l'obligation
de tenir dûment compte de l'avisconsultatif que la Cour rendrait.
147. La Cour ayant constaté que l'édificationdu mur dans le territoire
palestinien occupé,y compris à l'intérieur etsur le pourtour de Jérusa-
lem-Est, et lerégimequi lui est associéétaient contraires diverses obli-
gations internationales d'Israël, il s'ensuit que la responsabilité de cet
Etat est engagée selonle droit international.
148. La Cour examinera maintenant les conséquencesjuridiques qui
résultentdes violations du droit international par Israël en opérant une
distinction entre, d'une part, celles qui en découlent pour cet Etat et,
d'autre part, celles qui en découlent pour les autres Etats et, le cas
échéant,pour l'organisation des Nations Unies. La Cour se penchera en
premier lieu sur les conséquences juridiques de ces violations en ce qui
concerne Israël.
149. Lü Cour notc qu'Israël est tout d'abord tenu de respecter les obli-
gations internationales auxquelles il a contrevenu par la construction du
mur en territoire palestinien occupé (voir paragraphes 114 à 137 ci-
dessus). En conséquence, Israëldoit observer l'obligation qui lui incombe
de respecter le droià l'autodéterminationdu peuple palestinien et les obli-
gations auxquelles il est tenu en vertu du droit international humanitaire
et du droit international relatif aux droits de l'homme. Par ailleurs, ildoit
assurer la liberté d'accèsaux Lieux saints passéssous son contrôle L1 la
suite du conflit de 1967(voir paragraphe 129ci-dessus).
150. La Cour observe qu'Israël a également l'obligation demettre un
terme à la violation de ses obligations internationales, telle qu'elle résulte
de la construction du mur en territoire palestinien occupé.L'obligation
d'un Etat responsable d'un fait internationalement illicite de mettre fin
celui-ci est bien fondée en droit international général et laCour a, à
diverses reprises, confirmé l'existencede cette obligation(Activités mili-
tuires et paratnilituires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c.
Etats-Unis d'Atnirique), jOnd arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 149; Person-
nel diplomatique et consulaire des Etats-Unis 2 TihBran, arrêt,C.I.J.
Recueil 1980, p. 44, par. 95Huya de la Torre, arrêt,C.I. J.Recueil 1951,
p. 82).
151. Israël a en conséquencel'obligation de cesser immédiatementles
travaux d'édificationdu mur qu'il est en train de construire dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé,y compris a l'intérieuret sur le pourtour de
Jérusalem-Est. Par ailleurs, la Cour ayant indiquéplus haut (voir para- C0NSTF:UCTION OF A WALL (ADVISOR OYPINION) 197
Israel, particularly ..international humanitarian law, and take al1
necessary measiires to put an end [to] these violations",
and that the Securit:~Council and the General Assembly must take due
account of the advisory opinion to be given by the Court.
147. Since the Court has concluded that the construction of the wall in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusa-
lem, and its associated régime,are contrary to various of Israel's inter-
national obligations, it follows that the responsibility of that State is
engaged under international law.
148. The Court cvill now examine the legal consequences resulting
from the violations of international law by Israel by distinguishing
between, on the one hand, those arising for Israel and, on the other,
those arising for other States and, where appropriate, for the United
Nations. The Court will begin by examining the legal consequences of
those violations for Iisrael.
149. The Court notes that Israel is first obliged to comply with the
international obligations it has breached by the construction of the wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see paragraphs 114-137 above).
Consequently, Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations
under international humanitarian law and international human rights
law. Furthermore, it must ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places
that came under its icontrol following the 1967War (see paragraph 129
above).
150. The Court observes that Israel also has an obligation to put an
end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the con-
struction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The obliga-
tion of a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act to put an
end to that act is well established in general international law, and the
Court has on a number of occasions confirmed the existence of that obli-
gation (Military anof Purumilitary Acti~~itiesirz und ugainst Nicarugilu
(Nicaruguu v. Unitcd States oJ 'mericu), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1986, p. 145); United States Diplomatic und Consulur Staff in
Tehran, Judgment, 1'C.J. ReportSv 1980, p. 44, para. 95; HUJ~U de la
Torre. Judgment, 1.C'J.. Reports 1951, p. 82).
151. Israel accordingly has the obligation to cease forthwith the works
of construction of the wall being built by it in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. Moreover, in viewof
the Court's finding (see paragraph 143above) that Israel's violations of198 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
graphe 143ci-dessus) que les violations par Israël de ses obligations inter-
nationales résultaient de l'édificationdu mur et du régimejuridique qui
lui est associé,la cessation de ces violations implique le démantèlement
immédiat des portions de cet ouvrage situéesdans le territoire palestinien
occupé, y compris a l'intérieur et sur le pourtour de Jérusalem-Est.
L'ensemble des actes législatifs et réglementairesadoptés en vue de son
édification et de la mise en place du régime qui lui est associé doivent
immédiatement être abrogésou privés d'effet, saufdans la mesure ou de
tels actes, en ayant ouvert droit à indemnisation ou à d'autres formes de
réparation au profit de la population palestinienne, demeurent pertinents
dans le contexte du respect, par Israël, des obligations viséesau para-
graphe 153 ci-dessous.
152. Au demeurant, la construction du mur dans le territoire palesti-
nien occupé ayant notamment nécessitéla réquisition et la destruction
d'habitations, de commerces ainsi que d'exploitations agricoles, la Cour
constate aussi qu'Israël a l'obligation de réparer tous les dommages cau-
sésà toutes les personnes physiques ou morales concernées. LaCour rap-
pellera que les modalités essentielles de la réparation en droit coutumier
ont été formulées comme suit par la Cour permanente de Justice interna-
tionale :
«Le principe essentiel, qui découle de la notion mêmed'acte illi-
cite et qui semble se dégager de la pratique internationale, notam-
ment de la jurisprudence des tribunaux arbitraux, est que la répara-
tion doit, autant que possible, effacer toutes les conséquences de
l'acte illicite et rétablir l'étatqui aurait vraisemblablement existé si
ledit acte n'avait pas été commis. Restitution en nature, ou, si elle
n'est pas possible, paiement d'une somme correspondant à la valeur
qu'aurait la restitution en nature; allocation, s'il y a lieu, de dom-
mages-intérêtspour les pertes subies et qui ne seraient pas couvertes
par la restitution en nature ou le paiement qui en prend la place; tels
sont les principes desquels doit s'inspirer la détermination du mon-
tant de l'indemnité due à cause d'un fait contraire au droit interna-
tional. » (Usine dc~Cl~orzci~.,nd, arr?t no 13, 1928, C. P.J.I. .s~;ricA
no 17, p.47.)
153. Israël est en conséquence tenu de restituer les terres, les vergers,
les oliveraies et les autres biens immobiliers saisii toute personne phy-
sique ou morale en vue de l'édificationdu mur dans le territoire palesti-
nien occupé. Au cas ou une telle restitution s'avérerait matériellement
impossible, Israël serait tenu de procéder à l'indemnisation des personnes
en question pour le préjudice subi par elles. De l'avis de la Cour, Israël
est également tenu d'indemniser, conformément aux règlesdu droit inter-
national applicables en la matière, toutes les personnes physiques ou
morales qui auraient subi un préjudice matérielquelconque du fait de la
construction de ce mur.its international obligations stem from the construction of the wall and
from its associated régime, cessation of those violations entails the dis-
mantling forthwith of those parts of that structure situated within the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.
All legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to its construction,
and to the establishment of its associated régime, must forthwith be
repealed or rendered ineffective, except in so far as such acts, by provid-
ing for compensation or other forms of reparation for the Palestinian
population, may continue to be relevant for compliance by lsrael with the
obligations referred to in paragraph 153 below.
152. Moreover, given that the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory has, irzteraliu,entailed the requisition and destruc-
tion of homes, businesses and agricultural holdings, the Court finds
further that Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage
caused to al1 the natural or legal persons concerned. The Court would
recall that the essential forms of reparation in customary law were laid
down by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the following
terms :
"The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal
act - a principle which seems to be established by international
practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals - is
that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out al1 the conse-
quences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would,
in al1 probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.
Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum cor-
responding to thievalue which a restitution in kind would bear; the
award, if need bir, of damages for loss sustained which would not be
covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it - such are
the principles which should serve to determine the amount of com-
pensation due for an act contrary to international law." (Fuctory
ut Clzorzci,z',M,~rits, Jucigmcnt No 13, 1928, P.C.1.J., Serirs A,
No. 17, p. 47.)
153. Israel is accordingly under an obligation to return the land,
orchards, olive grov~:sand other immovable property seized from any
natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the event that such restitution should
prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate
the persons in question for the damage suffered. The Court considers
that Israel also has an obligation to compensate, in accordance with the
applicable rules of international law, al1natural or legal persons having
suffered any form of material damage as a result of the wall's construc-
tion.199 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVIS CONSULTATIF)
154. La Cour en arrive maintenant a l'examen des conséquencesjuri-
diques des faits internationalement illicitesrésultant dela construction du
mur par Israël en ce qui concerne les Etats autres que ce dernier.
155. La Cour observera à cet égardqu'au rang des obligations inter-
nationales violéespar Israël figurent des obligations erga omnes. Comme
la Cour l'a précisédans I'affaire de la Barcelona Traction, de telles obli-
gations, par leur nature même,((concernent tous les Etats» et, «[v]u
l'importance des droits en cause, tous les Etats peuvent êtreconsidérés
comme ayant un intérêt juridique à ce que ces droits soient protégés))
(Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, deuxième
phase, arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1970, p. 32, par. 33). Les obligations erga
omnes violéespar Israël sont l'obligation de respecter le droit du peuple
palestinien àl'autodétermination ainsi que certaines des obligations qui
sont les siennes en vertu du droit international humanitaire.
156. S'agissant de la première de ces obligations, la Cour a déjàrap-
pelé(voir paragraphe 88 ci-dessus) que, dans l'affaire du Timor oriental,
elle avait estimé qu'il n'y avait crien à redire))à l'affirmation selon
laquelle«le droit des peuplesà disposer d'eux-mêmes,tel qu'il s'estdéve-
loppé à partir de la Charte et de la pratique de l'organisation des
Nations Unies, est un droit opposable ergu omnes» (C.I.J. Recueil 1995,
p. 102, par. 29). La Cour relèvera égalementqu'aux termes de la résolu-
tion 2625 (XXV) de l'Assemblée générale, a laquelle il a déjà éfait réfé-
rence (voir paragraphe 88 ci-dessus),
«[t]out Etat a le devoir de favoriser, conjointement avec d'autres
Etats ou séparément,la réalisationdu principe de l'égalité dedroits
des peuples et de leur droità disposer d'eux-mêmes,conformément
aux dispositions de la Charte, et d'aider l'Organisation des Nations
Unies à s'acquitter des responsabilitésque lui a conférées laCharte
en ce qui concerne l'application de ce principe...)).
157. En ce qui concerne le droit international humanitaire, la Cour
rappellera que, dans son avis consultatif sur la Licéitéde la menace ou de
l'emploi d'armes nucléairese,llea indiquéqu'aun grand nombre de règles
du droit humanitaire applicable dans lesconflits arméssont si fondamen-
tales pour le respect de la personne humaine et pour des ((considéra-
tions élémentairesd'humanité»...», qu'elles ((s'imposent ... àtous les
Etats, qu'ils aient ou non ratifiéles instruments conventionnels qui les
expriment, parce qu'elles constituent des principes intransgressibles
du droit international coutumier)) (C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 257,
par. 79). De l'avisde la Cour, les règles enquestion incorporent des obli-
gations revêtantpar essence un caractère erga omnes.
158. La Cour soulignera par ailleurs qu'aux termes de l'article le'de la
quatrième convention de Genève, disposition commune aux quatre
conventions de Genève, «[l]es Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent à
respecter et à faire respecter la présente convention en toutes circons-
tances)).Il résulte decette disposition l'obligation de chaque Etat partie 154. The Court will now consider the legal consequences of the inter-
nationally wrongful acts flowing from Israel's construction of the wall as
regards other States.
155. The Court w~ouldobserve that the obligations violated by Israel
include certain obligations erga omnes. As the Court indicated in the
Barcelona Traction case, such obligations are by their very nature "the
concern of al1 States" and, "In view of the importance of the rights
involved, al1States Cainbe held to have a legal interest in their protection"
(Barcelonu Truction, Light and Power Company, Lirnited, Second Phase,
Judgment, I.C.J. Re,uorts 1970, p. 32, para. 33). The obligations erga
omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, and certain of its obligations
under international humanitarian law.
156. As regards the first of these, the Court has already observed
(paragraph 88 above) that in the East Timor case, it described as
"irreproachable" the assertion that "the right of peoples to self-determi-
nation, as it evolved 1Tomthe Charter and from United Nations practice,
has an erga omnes character" (I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).
The Court would also recall that under the terms of General Assembly
resolution 2625 (XX'V),already mentioned above (see paragraph 88),
"Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate
action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determi-
nation of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter,
and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the
responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the imple-
mentation of the principle . . ."
157. With regard to international humanitarian law, the Court recalls
that in its Advisory Opinion on the LegaIity of the Threat or Use of
Nucleur Weupons it stated that "a great many rules of humanitarian law
applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the
human person and 'i:lementary considerations of humanity' . . .",that
they are "to be observed by al1States whether or not they have ratified
the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgress-
ible principles of international customary law" (I. C.J. Reports 1996 (I),
p. 257, para. 79). In the Court's view, these rules incorporate obligations
which are essentially of an erga omnes character.
158. The Court would also emphasize that Article 1 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, a provision common to the four Geneva Conventions,
provides that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to
ensure respect for the present Convention in al1circumstances." It follows
from that provision tllat every State party to that Convention, whether orà cette convention, qu'il soit partie ou non à un conflit déterminé,de faire
respecter les prescriptions des instruments concernés.
159. Vu la nature et l'importance des droits et obligations en cause, la
Cour est d'avis que tous les Etats sont dans l'obligation de ne pas recon-
naître la situation illicite découlant de la construction du mur dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé, y compris à l'intérieur et sur le pourtour de
Jérusalem-Est. Ils sont égalementdans l'obligation de ne pas prêter aide
ou assistance au maintien de la situation crééepar cette construction. II
appartient par ailleurs à tous les Etats de veiller, dans le respect de la
Charte des Nations Unies et du droit international, à ce qu'il soit mis fin
aux entraves, résultant de la construction du mur, à l'exercice par le
peuple palestinien de son droit à l'autodétermination. En outre, tous les
Etats parties à la convention de Genève relative a la protection des per-
sonnes civiles en temps de guerre, du 12août 1949,ont l'obligation, dans
le respect de la Charte des Nations Unies et du droit international, de
faire respecter par Israël le droit international humanitaire incorporé
dans cette convention.
160. La Cour est enfin d'avis que l'organisation des Nations Unies, et
spécialement l'Assemblée généraleet le Conseil de sécurité,doivent, en
tenant dûment compte du présent avis consultatif, examiner quelles
nouvelles mesures doivent êtreprises afin de mettre un terme à la situa-
tion illicite découlant de la construction du mur et du régimequi lui est
associé.
161. La Cour, soucieuse d'apporter son soutien aux buts et principes
inscrits dans la Charte des Nations Unies, en particulier le maintien de la
paix et de la sécuritéinternationales et le règlement pacifique des diffé-
rends, tienta souligner la nécessitéurgente que l'organisation des Nations
Unies dans son ensemble redouble ses efforts en vue de mettre rapide-
ment un terme au conflit israélo-palestinen, qui continue de poser une
menace à la paix et à la sécuritéinternationales, et d'établir ainsi une paix
juste et durable dans la région.
162. La Cour a abouti à la conclusion que la construction du mur par
Israël dans le territoire palestinien occupéest contraire au droit interna-
tional et a précisé lesconséquences juridiques qu'il convient de tirer de
cette illicéité. Ellecroit devoir ajouter que cette construction doit être
replacéedans un contexte plus général. Depuis1947,annéede l'adoption
de la résolution 181 (II) de l'Assembléegénéraleet de la fin du mandat
pour la Palestine, se sont multipliéssur le territoire de l'ancien mandat les
conflits armés,les actes de violence indiscriminéset les mesures de répres-
sion. La Cour relèvera qu'aussi bien Israël que la Palestine ont I'obliga-
tion de respecter de manière scrupuleuse le droit international humani-
taire, dont l'un des buts principaux est de protéger la vie des personnes
civiles. Des actions illicites ont étémenéeset des décisions unilatérales
ont étéprises par les uns et par les autres alors que, de l'avis de la Cour, CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL (ADVISORO YPINION) 200
not it is a party to a specificconflict, is under an obligation to ensure that
the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with.
159. Given the character and the importance of the rights and obliga-
tions involved, the Court is of the view that al1States are under an obli-
gation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construc-
tion of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and
around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render
aid or assistance in imaintaining the situation created by such construc-
tion. It is also forl1States, while respecting the United Nations Charter
and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the
construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its
right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, al1the States
parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of PJar of 12August 1949are under an obligation, while
respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure
compliance by lsrael with international humanitarian law as embodied in
that Convention.
160. Finally, the (Court is of the view that the United Nations, and
especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should con-
sider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situa-
tion resulting fromthe construction of the wall and the associated régime,
taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
161. The Court, being concerned to lend its support to the purposes
and principles laid down in the United Nations Charter, in particular the
maintenance of international peace and security and the peaceful settle-
ment of disputes, would emphasize the urgent necessity for the United
Nations as a whole to redouble its efforts to bring the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, which continues to pose a threat to international peace and secu-
rity, to a speedy conclusion, thereby establishing a justand lasting peace
in the region.
162. TheCourt has reached the conclusion that the construction of the
wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to inter-
national law and ha:; stated the legal consequences that are to be drawn
from that illegality. The Court considers itself bound to add that this
construction must be placed in a more general context. Since 1947, the
year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the
Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of
armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures
on the former mandated territory. The Court would emphasize that both
Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the
rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes
of which is to protect civilian life. Illegal actions and unilateral decisions
have been taken on al1 sides, whereas, in the Court's view, this tragic201 EDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVICSONSULTATIF)
seule la mise en Œuvrede bonne foi de toutes les résolutions pertinentes
du Conseil de sécurité, en particulierles résolutions242 (1967) et 338
(1973), est susceptible de mettre un termeà cette situation tragique. La
((feuillede route approuvéepar la résolution 1515(2003)du Conseil de
sécuritéconstitue l'effort le plus récent en vuede provoquer des négocia-
tions à cette fin. La Cour croit de son devoir d'appeler l'attention de
l'Assemblée générale, à laquelle cet avis est destiné, sur la nécessité
d'encourager ces efforts en vue d'aboutir le plus tôt possible, sur la base
du droit international, une solution négociée des problèmespendants et
à la constitution d'un Etat palestinien vivant càtcôte avec Israël et ses
autres voisins, et d'assurerchacun dans la région paix et sécurité.
163. Par ces motifs,
1) A l'unanimité,
Dit qu'elle estcompétentepour répondrea la demande d'avis consul-
tatif;
2) Par quatorze voix contre une,
Décidd ee donner suite àla demande d'avis consultatif;
POUR: M. Shi,président; M. Ranjeva, vice-président, MM. Guillaume,
Koroma,Vereshchetin, Mn" Higgins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek,Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada,Simma,Tomka, juges;
CONTR E:.Buergenthal,juge;
3) Rkpond de la manière suivante a la question poséepar l'Assemblée
générale :
A. Par quatorze voix contre une,
L'édificationdu mur qu'Israël, puissance occupante, est en train de
construire dans le territoire palestinien occupé,ompris à l'intérieuret
sur le pourtour de Jérusalem-Est, et le régimequi lui est associésont
contraires au droit international;
POUR: M. Shi,président; M. Ranjeva, vice-prbsident; MM. Guillaume,
Koroma,Vereshchetin, Mm" Higgins, MM. Parra-Aranguren,Kooijmans,
Rezek,Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada,Simma,Tomka, juges;
CONTKL :M. Buergenthaljuge;
B. Par quatorze voix contre une,
Israël est dans l'obligation de mettre un terme aux violations du droit
international dont il est l'auteur; il est tenu de cesser immédiatementles
travaux d'édificationdu mur qu'il est en train de construire dans le ter-
ritoire palestinien occupé,y compris à l'intérieur etsur le pourtour de
Jérusalem-Est, de démanteler immédiatement l'ouvrage situé dans ce ter-situation can be brought to an end only through implementation in
good faith of al1relevant SecurityCouncil resolutions, in particular resolu-
tions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The "Roadmap" approved by Security
Council resolution 1515 (2003) represents the most recent of efforts to
initiate negotiations to this end. The Court considers that it has a duty
to draw the attention of the General Assembly, to which the present
Opinion is addresseti, to the need for these efforts to be encouraged
with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international
law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establish-
ment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other
neighbours, with peace and security for al1in the region.
163. For these reasons,
(1) Unanimously,
Finds that it has j~irisdictionto give the advisory opinion requested;
(2) By fourteen votes to one,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
IN FAVOUR P:resident Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judge~ Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh,Elaraby, Owada,Simma,Tomka;
AGAINST :Jurlge Buergenthal ;
(3) Replies in the following manner to the question put by the General
Assembly :
A. By fourteen votes to one,
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying
Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around
East Jerusalem, and its associated régime,are contrary to international
law ;
IN PAVOUR: President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh,Elaraby, Owada,Simma,Tomka;
AGAINST: Judge Buergenthal ;
B. By fourteen voles to one,
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international
law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of con-
struction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the
structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith202 ÉDIFICATION D'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
ritoire et d'abroger immédiatement ou de priver immédiatement d'effet
l'ensemble desactes législatifset réglementaires qui s'yrapportent, confor-
mément au paragraphe 151 du présent avis;
I'OUR: M. Shi, président; M. Ranjeva, vice-président; MM. Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Mln"Higgins, MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka, juges;
CONTRE :M. Buergenthal,juge ;
C. Par quatorze voix contre une,
Israël est dans I'obligation de réparer tous les dommages causéspar la
construction du mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé, y compris à
l'intérieur et sur le pourtour de Jérusalem-Est ;
POUR : M. Shi, président ; M. Ranjeva, vice-prc;sic/en ;t MM. Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Mn" Higgins, MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh. Elaraby. Owada, Simma, Tomka, juges;
CONTRE :M. Buergenthal,juge;
D. Par treize voix contre deux,
Tous les Etats sont dans I'obligation de ne pas reconnaître la situation
illicite découlant de la construction du mur et de ne pas prêter aide ou
assistance au maintien de la situation crééepar cette construction; tous
les Etats parties à la quatrième convention de Genève relative à la protec-
tion des personnes civiles en temps de guerre, du 12 août 1949, ont en
outre I'obligation, dans le respect de la Charte des Nations Unies et du
droit international, de faire respecter par Israël le droit international
humanitaire incorporé dans cette convention;
POUR: M. Shi, président; M. Ranjeva, vice-présidc~nt;MM. Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, M'"' Higgins, MM. Parra-Aranguren, Rezek, Al-
Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka, jzcges;
CONTRE: MM. Kooijmans, Buergenthal,juges;
E. Par quatorze voix contre une,
L'Organisation des Nations Unies, et spécialement l'Assembléegéné-
rale et le Conseil de sécurité,doit, en tenant dûment compte du présent
avis consultatif, examiner quelles nouvelles mesures doivent être
prises afin de mettre un terme à la situation illicite découlant de la
construction du mur et du régimequi lui est associé.
POUR: M. Shi, présic/ent; M. Ranjeva, vice-président; MM. Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Mm"Higgins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby,Owada, Simma, Tomka, juges;
CO~TRE: M. Buergenthal,juge.
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au Palais de
la Paix, à La Haye, le neuf juillet deux mille quatre, en deux exemplaires,al1 legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with
paragraph 15 1 of this Opinion;
IN FAVOUR : PresiAnt Shi; Vice-Puesident Ranjeva: Judge.r Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada. Simma, Tomka;
AGAINSJ Tu:dge Buergenthal;
C. By fourteen votes to one,
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for al1damage caused
by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem;
IN FAVOURP :resident Shi; Vice-Prcj.sident Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Ellaraby,Owada, Simma, Tomka;
AGAINSI-: Judge Buergenthal ;
D. By thirteen votes to two,
Al1States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation
resulting from the coinstruction of the wall and not to render aid or assis-
tance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; al1States
parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Tiine of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the
obligation. while reijpecting the United Nations Charter and inter-
national law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humani-
tarian law as embodied in that Convention;
IN IAVOUR:Pr~sident Shi; Vice-Puesident Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh,
Elaraby, Owada, !jimma, Tomka;
AGAII\~S J.I(.i:ges Kooijmans, Buergenthal;
E. By fourteen votes to one,
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the
SecurityCouncil, should consider what further action is required to bring
to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall
and the associated rkgime, taking due account of the present Advisory
Opinion.
IN I AVOCJ: President Shi ; Vice-President Ranjeva ; Judges Guillaume,
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;
AGAINSJ Tl:l~lBuergenthal.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, Thi: Hague, this ninth day of July, two thousand and203 ÉDIFICATIOND'UN MUR (AVISCONSULTATIF)
dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et l'autre sera transmis
au Secrétairegénéralde l'organisation des Nations Unies.
Le président,
(Signé) SHIJiuyong.
Le greffier,
(Signé) Philippe COUVREUR.
M. lejuge KOROMA, Mmelejuge HIGGINS et MM. lesjuges KOOIJMANS
et AL-KHASAWNjE oignent àl'avisconsultatif lesexposésde leur opinion
individuelle; M. le juge BUERGENTHA joint une déclarationà l'avis
consultatif; MM. lesjuges ELARABeYt OWADA joignentà l'avisconsulta-
tif les exposésde leur opinion individuelle.
(Paraphé)J.Y.S.
(Paraphé) Ph.C.four, in two copies,one of whichwillbe placedin the archivesof the Court
and the other transmitted to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations.
(Signed) SHIJiuyong,
President.
(Signed) Philippe COUVREUR,
Registrar.
Judges KOROMA, HIGGINSK , OOIJMANaS nd AL-KHASAWNEaH ppend
separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judge BUER-
GENTHAL appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;
Judges ELARABa Ynd OWADA append separate opinions to the Advisory
Opinion of the Court.
(Initialled) J.Y.S.
(Initialled) Ph.C.
Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004