Cour internationalede Justic-
Enregistréau G:effele
International Court30f14Y,iau$/&
Filedinthe Reg:stryonLLb
INTERNATI0NAL;COURT OFJUSTICE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THECONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THEOCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
MEMORIAL OF THE
FEDEUTED STATESOFMICRONESIA
29 January2004 PERMANENT MISSION OF THE FEDERATED STATES OFMICRONESIA
TOTHEUMTEDNATIONS
8202ND AVE.,UIT17ANEW YORK,N.Y0017
TEL(212)97-8370
January29,2004
Mr. Philippe Couvreur
Registrar ofthe Court
International Court of Justice
2517KJ The Hague
TheNetherlands
Re: Legal Consequences ofthe Constructionof a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory
Sir:
To His Excellency, the President, to the Judges of the International Court of
Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the Federated States of Micronesia,1
have the honour of transmitting to you this Memorial in accordance with Article 66,
paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court, Article 105 of the Rules of the Court, and the
Court's Order, dated 19December 2003.
For the Court's convenience,1have enclosed with this package30 English and 30
French copies. The Court should consider the English version to be my Governrnent's
official submission. 1have also enclosed with this package a CD-Rom which contains
electroniccopies of both versions.
As the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands,and the
Republic of Palau share similar concerns with respect to the advisory opinion request, we
have decided to submit separate but substantially identical written submission to the
Court
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerelfours,
Plenipotentiary
PermanentRepresentativeofthe Federated
Statesof Micronesia to theUnitedNations The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia presentsits compliments to
the Registrar of the International Court of Justice and, with referenceto theletter of 19
December 2003 by which member States of the United Nations were invited to present
their views regarding the question referred to the Court in General Assembly resolution
AIRESIES-10114of 8 December 2003, has the honour to present the following written
submission.
The Federated States of Micronesia is not in a position to make submissions with
respect to the merits of the substantive issues raised by the said request. The present
submission is made without prejudice to its views on the specific substantive question
that has been put beforethe Court.
The Federated States of Micronesia isa small pacific island state and a member of
the United Nations that is committed to the principles and protection afforded by
international law, the International Court of Justice and the United Nations. It is
concerned by several aspects of the advisory opinion request submitted in the
aforementioned General Assembly resolution. The Federated States of Micronesia's
decision not to vote in favor of this resolution reflectsits view that the request for an
advisory opinionis inappropriate in this case and that there are compelling reasons for the
Court to exercise its discretion to decline to respond to this request, even if the Court
finds that itdoes in fact havejurisdiction todo so.
The request contained in resolutionES-10114,asks the Courtto address an issue that
is fundamentally in dispute. The Federated States of Micronesia is concerned that
reliance on the advisory opinion procedure in such a case risks circumventing and
eroding the principle, enshrined in Article 36 of the Court's statute, that contentious
issues can only be brought before the Court with the consent of the parties concernedand
thus threatens to undermine the stature andjudicial integrity of the Court and establisha
dangerousprecedent.
The request seeks to embroilthe Court in a charged and inflammatory political issue
by way of the advisory opinion request. The political and contentious nature of this
subject is arnply borne out not only by its divisive effect on the political organs of the
United Nations, but by the use of terminology and of legal assertions and assumptions
throughoutthe text of resolution ES-10114that are themselvesthe subject of considerable
dispute, and for which the Court's imprimaturis indirectly sought. The adoption of
General Assembly resolution A/RES/ES-1011 3 of 21 October 2003, which determined
issues strikingly similarto those put beforethe Court also raises doubts asto the extentto
which this request for an advisory opinion can be considered a genuine request for legal
guidancein accordance with Article 96 of theUN Charter.Cont .../p. 2
Given the formulation of the question and the context in which it is adopted, the
Federated Statesof Micronesiais concerned that any non-binding advisory opinionon the
substantive issue may have significant detrimental effects. It wouldrisk introducing
further acrimony between the parties, undermine the prospects for a peaceful and
negotiated settlement,and, in the process, possibly taintthe reputation ofthe Court to the
detriment of those States, especially small States, that look to the International Court of
Justice forthe authoritative resolution of disputesin accordance with international law.
In this regard, the Federated States of Micronesia notes thatthe parties concerned
have committed themselves to comprehensively resolvingal1outstanding issues between
them by a process of negotiation, in accordance with relevant Security Council
Resolutions and in the framework of the "Performance-Based RoadMap", sponsored by
the Quartet, where the UN plays a central role, and endorsedby the Security Council in
resolution 15 15 of 19November 2003. This resolution was adopted lessthan three weeks
before the General Assembly passed the resolutionat issue in the present proceedings.
The involvement of the Court in one isolated aspect of this dispute, withoutthe consent
of both parties, seems to run counterto the dispute settlement mechanism agreed between
the parties. It also undercutsthe endorsement of this mechanismby the Security Council-
the organ charged with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace
and securityunder the United Nations Charter, and whichis still seized of and engaged in
the matter.
It is also noteworthy in this context that the request for an advisory opinion was
never presented to the Security Council for its consideration before its submission tothe
General Assembly in emergency special sessionunder the Uniting for Peace procedure,
and that the Assembly was in regular session at the time. The Federated States of
Micronesia is committed to adherence to the General AssemblyRules of Procedure and
the requirements laid down in the Charter and other relevant UN documents as the basis
for predictable and orderly proceedings applicable toal1States and providing al1States,
particularly small States and those who might find themselves in the minority, with a
sense of security and fair play. Without addressing this issue in detail, the Federated
States of Micronesia is concerned about the apparent violations of procedural and
substantive conditions in the present case. As a member of the United Nations, that shares the hopes of the international
community forthe peaceîul resolution ofthe Israeli-Palestinian conflictin al1its aspects,
the Federated States of Micronesia supportsthe view expressed by several delegations in
the debate on resolution ES-10114that the efforts of the international community should
be directed towards steps which are conducive to dialogue and negotiations. The
international community has recognized that the resolution of this conflict, in al1 its
aspects, must be through negotiated settlement, as called for in Security Council
resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). This principle was restated by the Secretary-
General in concluding his report pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10113.
Afier analyzingal1aspects ofthe barrier, he concluded:
". .After so many years of bloodshed, dislocation and
suffering, it should be clear toal1of us, as well as to the
parties, that only through a just, comprehensive and
lasting peace settlement based on Security Council
resolutions 242(1968) and 338(1973) can the security
of both Palestinians and Israelisbe assured."
Without prejudice to its concerns about the route of the security barrier, and about
the terrorism and violence in the region, the Governmentof the Federated States of
Micronesia does not believe that referral of isolated issues to the Court, without the
consent of the parties, can advance the peaceful resolution of the conflict, and is
concerned at the detrimental impact such a move may have on the Court's ability to
exercise itsjudicial function.
Accordingly, the Court is respectfully requested to exercise its discretion, on
groundsof propriety, to decline to hear this case.
New York,29January 2004
H.E~M~.Masao&ayama
Ambassador~xtfaordinar~and Plenipotentiary
Permanent Representativeofthe
Federated Statesof Micronesia
Tothe United Nations j>
TRIBUNALMTERNATIONA 1, JUSTICE
CONSÉQ~NCESJUXUDIQUE SELACONSTRUCTIOND'UNMUR
DANSLETERRlTODR EALESTNIENOCCUPÉ
ODEMANDDE'OPINIOCONSULTATIVE)
MJ?MoIRE DES
ETATS FÉDÉR~S DE MICRONÉSIE
2janv2004 *. ..
Le Gouvernementdes EtatsF6d6résde Micron6sieprbsenteses complimentsau
Greffier du Tribunal Internationalde Justiceen rapport avecla lettre du 19
dbcembre2003 invitantleÉtatsmembres desNations UniesBprésenterleurpointde
vue sur la questiontransmiseau Tribunalpar la résoldeil'Assemblée G6nhle
A/RES/ES-10114 du 8 dbcembre 2003,a l'honncude présenterlasoumission&rite
suivante.
LesEtatsFédtrh deMimnksie nesontpas dansuneposition leurpermettantdefaire
dcssoumissionsen cequiconcernelebien-fond6desproblémes defond soulevespar
la demandesusmentionnée.Laprdsentesoumissionest faite sanstenircomptdeson
point deue surla questionspécifiqdefondquia6téprésentee auTribunal.
Les EtatsF6dértSdse Micronésiesont un petit pays insulairedu Pacifique et un
membredes NationsUniesquirespecteles principeset exercela protectiondsultant
du droit international,du TribunalInternationalde Justiceet des Nations Ilses.
sontpréoccupéspap rlusieuraspts delademanded'opinionconsultative quia 6té
soumisedanslarésolutionsusmentionnédeel'AssembléG e 6nhle. La decisionprise
par lesEtats P&dk&sde Micronesiede ne pas voter en faveurde cette r6solution
reflbteleur pointde vueselonlequella demanded'uneopinionconsultativen'estpas
appropriée dansce cas et qu'ilexiste des raisons convaincasour lesquellesle
Tribunal devrait exercersespouvoirsdiscrétionnaisfin de refuserde répondreà
une telledemande, mêmesi le Tribunal conclutqu'enfait ila cornpetence cn la
matihreet peutyrépondre.
La d emandecontenuedans1a dsolutionES-10114invite leTnbunal B d ornerson
opinionsurune questionquiestfondamentalemenc tontroversb. esEtatsP6dén5dse
Micronesiecraignentquele recoursilaproceduredesopinionsconsultativesdansun
tel casrisqud'affaibliretde«tourne» leprincipgarantiparl'Article3des statuts
du Tribunal, savoirque les questionscontentieusesne peuventgtre soumiseau
Tnbunal qu'avec le oonsentementdes partiesconcern&e et,qu'une telle action
menacedonc deminerla statureet l'intbgrjudiciaireduTribunal,ainsique decréer
unpréc6dent dangereux.
La demande cherche A impliquer leTribunal dans unc affairepolitique pleine
d'emotionset incendiaipar lebiais d'udemanded'opinionconsultative.La nature
politiquet contentieusede cesujetestrendueevidentenonseulementpar la discorde
qu'ellecauserait dansles organespolitisesNationsUnies,maisaussi par l'emploi
d'unteerminologieet d'hypothkseet d'afXrmationjsuridiques danstoutes les parties
du texte de la dsolution ES-10114qui font en elles-mêmes l'objete desaccords
consid&abIes, et pour lesquelles Sappmbation du Tribunal est recherchée
indirectement L'adoptiondelarésolutioA/RES/ES-1 d0e1'A3ssembléGe éndfale
le21 octobre2003, quiadétermin desquestionsbtonnammentsimilairesàcellesqui
sont soumisesau Tnbunal,fait égalemen taîtrdes doutes quantà la mesuredans
laquelle cette demande d'opinionconsultative peut êtreconsidéke comme une
demandel6gitimed'opinionjuridiqueconform6mentBl'Article96 de la Charte des
NationsUnies.
Enraison de la formulationde laquestionet du contextedans lequelelle est adoptee,
les Etats F6dérhsde Micronésie craignenq tue toute opinion consultativenon
obligatoiresur le fond du problbmeait des effets prkjudioielsimportants. Ceci risqueradi'augmentem rcorcdavantagel'acrimonieentre lespartide,rbduireles
possibilitésd'unglement pacifiqueet nbgocié,et, ce faisant,une telle décision
risquerait ternirla réputatduTribunalau dttrtmentdes Étatset en particulier
despetitGtats,qui s'adressent au TribInternationalde Justicepour obtenirune
rdsolutionfinaledelitigesconformCmenatudroitinternational.
A cetégard,lesEtatsFédérkdseMicronbit notent quelespartiesconcernése sont
engagéesBrbsoudrede façoncomplètetouslesprobl&mes en suspensentre ellespar
un processusdenégociation,onformémena tuxRésolutionspertinentesdu Conseil
deS6curitéet dans1eo adrede la Feuillederoute axeesurdes rbsultats sous
l'égidu Quatuor, selonlaquellesNationsUniesjouentun rôlecentral,et qaété
sanctiom6eparle Conseide SCcuritdans sat.6solution1515du 19novembre2003.
Cette résolutioa étCadoptéemoins de trois semaines avant que l'Assmbl6e
Générale n'aiatdopté ladsolution en question dans la proc6dure en cours. La
participationdu Tribunàlunaspectisoledece litige, en l'abseu consentement
des deux parties, semble aller B l'encontredu mbcanismede dglement du litige
convenupar les parties. Elle affadgalementla sanctiondecemécanismepar le
Conseilde Sécurit- l'organeayantlaresponsabilprincipalepourle maintiendela
paix et de la stcuritciinternationalesen dcrla Charte desNations Unies,un
organequiparticipetoujours activemet l'applicatdecemécanisme.
II convientegalernentde noter dansce contexte quela demande d'uneopinion
consultativen'avaitjamaisétesoumiseau Conseil de Sécurité pour obtenirson
opinionavant qu'ellene l'Ct6 1'Assemblé Gténeraldansle cadred'un réunion
specialed'urgenceenvertude la procédurd'unionpourla paix,et que1'~ssemblte
OtnkraleétaitensessionordinaireBl'époquL.esEtatsPkdérédseMicronesiesesont
engagés & respecter les Regles de procédurede l'AssembléeGknbrale et les
stipulationsfigurant dla Charteet dans d'autres documetsertinentsdes Nations
Uniescommebase pour desactionsprevisibleset disciplinbesapplicaàtous les
ÉtatsetdonnantBtouslesEtats,enparticuliaux petitsÉtats àceux quipour-ient
sc trouvereux-mêmed sanslaminoritb,unsensde s6curitct dejusticSans vouloir
adressercettequestionenbtail,lesEtatsFddérése Micronésie soitquietsàl'idte
des violations apparentesdes conditionsde forme et de fonds dans l'affaireen
question.
En tant que membre des NationsUniesqui partageles espoirsde la communauté
internationale pourla rksolutionpacifiqueduconflitisraélo-paldansntousses
aspects, les Etats FMér6se Micronésiesoutiennentle point dvue exprime par
plusieursdblbgationslodu dbbatsur la résolutES-1011 à4avoirque les efforts
dc lacornmunaut4internationale devraientviser B rendre possibldes actions
capablesd'entraîner un dialoet desnégociationLacommunauté internationalea
reconnuquela résolutiode ceconflitdnnstous ses aspectsdoitfairepar le biais
d'unrèglementnégocie, comme celeast stipulCdanslesr6solutions242(1967)338
(1973)duConseilde Sécwite.Ceprincipeaét6r6itéTpéarle SecrbtaireGénéradlans
la conclusionde son rapport suilarbsolutionES-1011 de I'Assembl4eGéntrale.
Apresavoiranalys6tous lesaspectsdelabarrièrilaconcluque:
Après tant d'annéesd'effusion de sang, de
dislocationetdesoufince, ildevraietrclair pour
nous tous,ainsiqueourlespartiesconcernées,que la sécuritées Palestiniensedes Israeliens ne
pourraêtregarantiequparle biaisd'unrèdement
exhaustifconduisagiunepaixdurable surlabase
desrésolutions42(1968)et338(197 duConseil
de Securitc.
Sousrbservede ses p~60~cupationonccmantl'itinérade la barrikre de secunté,
ainsique le terrorisme etla violencedvissant dans la région,le Goudesnement
EtntsFédéré dseMicronésinepensepasquelatransmissiondequestionsisolésu
Tribunalsansla consentementdepartiepourrafaciliter larCsolutionpacifiquedu
conflit,et il estinquietBdei'impactpréjudiciaqu'unetelledécisionpourrait
avoirsurlafacultéd'exercear lTribunade safonctionjudiciaire.
Paroonskquent,il est demanrespectueusemenatu Tribunald'exercerses pouvoirs
discr6tionnahs, slabasedubien-fonde,etdrefusedesesaisirdcetteaffaire.
NewYory 29janvier2004
Son$xcellenoe, MO # saoNakayama
Ambassadeurextraordinaireetplénipotentiaire
Repr6sentantpennanantdes
EtatPed6rdd seMicrondsieauprèsdesNatioUnies
Memorial of the Federated States of Micronesia