INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
_____________________________________________
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES AND
PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN
TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM
(REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION)
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
24 July 2023
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction………………………………….………1
2. Jurisdiction of the Court …………………….………2
3. The Question of Propriety….………………….…….4
4. The position of Colombia on the situation between the
State of Palestine and the State of Israel….…………9
5. Conclusions…………………………..………….…12
1
1. Introduction
1.1. The present Written Statement is filed pursuant to the
Court’s Order dated 3 February 2023, concerning the request for
an advisory opinion made by the General Assembly of the
United Nations in its Resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022.
1.2. The questions on which the Court was requested by the
General Assembly to render an advisory opinion are as follows:
(a) “What are the legal consequences
arising from the ongoing violation by Israel
of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination,
from its prolonged
occupation, settlement and annexation of
the Palestinian territory occupied since
1967, including measures aimed at altering
the demographic composition, character
and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,
and from its adoption of related
discriminatory legislation and measures?”;
(b) “How do the policies and practices of
Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above
affect the legal status of the occupation, and
what are the legal consequences that arise
for all States and the United Nations from
this status?”.
1.3. Colombia considers that advisory proceedings should not
be used as a means to submit to the Court bilateral affairs.
However, the questions put before the Court in the present
proceedings refer to a wide range of issues which are of general
concern.
2
1.4. In this vein, it is worth recalling that General Assembly
Resolution 71/292 was adopted by a recorded vote of 98 in
favour to 17 against, with 52 abstentions. As can be seen, an
important number of Member States decided it was important for
the General Assembly to receive guidance on the questions put
to the Court – including Colombia.
1.5. Henceforth, Colombia believes that submitting these
questions to the Court via the advisory procedure will contribute
to understanding the law concerning the matter presented to the
Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court
2.1. By virtue of Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court,
“The Court may give an advisory opinion
on any legal question at the request of
whatever body may be authorized by or in
accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations to make such a request.”
2.2. Under this provision, two requirements must be met for
the Court to have jurisdiction to give the requested opinion: (i)
there must be a formal request from a body duly authorised by
the UN Charter, or in accordance to it, to make such a request,
and (ii) the question put before the Court must be a legal
question.
2.3. With regard to the first requirement, it is undisputed that
the General Assembly of the United Nations is one of the
“bod[ies] (…) authorized (…) to make such a request”, in
3
application of Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which
reads as follows:
“The General Assembly or the Security
Council may request the International
Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion
on any legal question.”
2.4. Additionally, it is also clear that the decision of the
General Assembly to submit the questions contained in
Resolution 77/247 was taken in accordance with its rules of
procedure and by the required majority.
2.5. Therefore, the request of the General Assembly
contained in Resolution 77/247 observes the first requirement of
Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court.
2.6. The second requirement, i.e., that the question put before
the Court be a legal one, is also complied with in the present
case. In the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
advisory opinion, the Court clarified that a question is a legal one
when “the Court is asked to rule on the compatibility of the
[request] with the relevant principles and rules of international
law”1. In other words, questions “framed in terms of law and
raising problems of international law”2, whereby the Court is
asked to identify and apply principles and rules of international
law, are “by their very nature susceptible of a reply based on
law”3 and therefore qualify as questions of legal character.
1 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 234, para. 13.
2 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 18, para 15
3 Ibid.
4
2.7. Colombia considers that the questions raised in
Resolution 77/247 were put in legal terms, since they request the
Court to decide what are the legal consequences arising from the
actions carried out by the State of Israel, a Member State of the
United Nations, and to confirm how the policies and practices of
Israel affect the legal status of the occupation. Those questions
are legal questions which could form the basis of a request for
an advisory opinion.
2.8. Therefore, in the opinion of Colombia, the Court has
jurisdiction to respond to the questions contained in Resolution
77/247.
3. The Question of Propriety
3.1. The finding that the Court has jurisdiction to respond to
the questions contained in Resolution 77/247 is the first step in
the Court’s analysis in order to render the requested advisory
opinion. After ascertaining that it can answer the questions
submitted by the General Assembly, the second step is whether
or not it should.
3.2. In advisory proceedings, Article 65, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the Court, cited above, states that “(t)he Court may
give an advisory opinion” 4 . This provision gives the Court
discretionary power to give or not an advisory opinion that has
been requested from it.
3.3. In the advisory opinion regarding the Legal
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, the Court asserted that,
4 Emphasis added.
5
“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”5.
3.4. In the advisory opinion regarding the Legality of the
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons the Court added the
following:
“As the Court has repeatedly emphasized,
the Statute leaves a discretion as to whether
or not it will give an advisory opinion that
has been requested of it, once it has
established its competence to do so.”6
3.5. But the Court further added:
“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 (Legality of the Threat
or Use of' Nuclear Weapons, Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), pp. 234-
2115, para. 14). The Court however is
mindful of the fact that its answer <<to a
request for an advisory opinion>>
represents its participation in the activities
of the Organization, and, in principle,
should not be refused” (Interpretation of'
Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.
C. J. Reports 1950, p. 71 : see also.. for
5 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 144.
6 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, pp. 234-235, para. 14.
6
example, Difference Relating to Immunity
from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur
of the Commission on Human Rights,
Advisory, Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I),
pp. 78-79, para. 29.) Given its
responsibilities 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 Expenses of the United Nations
(Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter),
Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p.
155; see also, for example:, Difference
Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of
a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on
Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 1999 (I), pp. 78-79, para. 29.)
3.6. In this regard, in Colombia’s view the issue of judicial
propriety in the present proceedings requires that the Court
analyses the following:
(i) Whether the Court has to take into account the
opposition of certain interested States to the
request by the General Assembly, and,
(ii) Whether, if rendered, the advisory opinion will be
of assistance to the General Assembly for the
proper exercise of its functions.
3.7. In relation to the first point, in the Legal Consequences
of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory7, the Court had to face a similar situation. There, the
7 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 9.
7
Court was asked to render its opinion on what were the legal
consequences arising from the construction of the wall being
built by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in
and around East Jerusalem, considering the rules and principles
of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of
1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly
resolutions.
3.8. The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004.
In such Opinion, the Court stated that,
“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’ (Legal
Consequences for States of the Continued
Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) notwithstanding Security
Council Resolution 276 (1 970), Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 24, para.
34).
3.9. Consequently, Colombia considers that the Court can do
the same exercise in the present proceedings, and thereafter
reach the same conclusion, i.e., that it can exercise jurisdiction.
3.10. Furthermore, the Court should bear in mind that advisory
proceedings have been defined as an “opinion issued by an
international court or tribunal at the request of a body authorized
8
to request it, with a view to clarifying a legal question for that
body’s benefit”8.
3.11. The Court itself noted that the object of a request to
render an advisory opinion is normally,
“to obtain from the Court an opinion which
the requesting organ [the General Assembly
in the present case] 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 located in
a much broader frame of reference than a
bilateral dispute.”9
3.12. The present request has been made in circumstances
where the General Assembly has been actively considering the
situation between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel in,
among others, the context of decolonization.
3.13. Hence, the purpose of issuing an advisory opinion which
would be “of assistance to [the General Assembly] for the proper
exercise of its functions” will evidently be served in the instant
case.
3.14. Colombia is, therefore, of the opinion that a
pronouncement on the matters put in the request would be of
assistance to the General Assembly “for the proper exercise of
its functions” particularly in line with the situation faced in the
Construction of a Wall opinion.
8 J Salmo (ed), Dictionaire the Droit International public, Brussels, 2001, p.
116. (Unofficial translation). Emphasis added.
9 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 158, para.
50
9
3.15. In addition to the foregoing, Colombia considers that an
opinion rendered in this case will not interfere with ongoing
efforts between the two countries to overcome through direct
negotiations all the issues included in their bilateral agenda. On
the contrary, a pronouncement of the Court on the legal
consequences arising from the violation of the right of selfdetermination,
from prolonged occupation, settlement, and
annexation and on the legal status of an occupation in view of
the policies and practices of the occupying State is of the utmost
relevance to the General Assembly.
3.16. The Court’s ultimate role, that is, to contribute to the
settlement of legal disputes, would be delivered in the instant
case and an answer from the Court on the merits to the questions
submitted by the General Assembly could indeed contribute to
the efforts of the international community in helping to improve
the relations between two States of the United Nations.
3.17. Colombia, in line with its internal policy of Total Peace,
calls upon the Court to avail itself of the opportunity to clarify
aspects that have prevented the parties from entering and
reaching a fruitful discussion. It is worth noting that Colombia
has always maintained that a solution to the situation between
both States can only be reached by a common understanding
born out of peaceful and meaningful negotiations.
4. The position of Colombia on the situation between the
State of Palestine and the State of Israel
4.1. The Government of the Republic of Colombia is deeply
concerned about the events that regularly take place between the
10
State of Palestine and the State of Israel, which have unleashed
a cycle of violence causing the death of civilians and dozens of
wounded. In the same vein, it rejects any recourse to violence or
unilateral acts that lead to a higher level of confrontation and
tension, thus aggravating the humanitarian situation in the
densely populated area and constituting obstacles to achieving
peace and the viability of the two-State solution.
4.2. The Government of Colombia also notes with deep
concern the de facto actions of Israeli settlers and the
announcement by the Government of Israel to expand
settlements in the West Bank. In addition, Colombia considers
regrettable events such as attacks on Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv.
4.3. Colombia is a firm believer in and advocate for
international law. As the Court itself stated in the Construction
of a Wall opinion, Colombia notes that both Israel and Palestine
have the obligation to comply with international law, and with
international humanitarian law and human rights law, in
particular, and both States need to implement in good faith all
relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
4.4. Furthermore, Colombia has actively advocated for and
contributed to efforts to achieve a long-lasting peace between the
State of Palestine and the State of Israel, including those made
by the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2010 when the
Flotilla Incident occurred, whereby the Secretary General
established a Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010.
4.5. In this same vein, Colombia considers that the United
Nations, and the General Assembly in particular, needs to
duplicate efforts to encourage a negotiated solution to the
11
outstanding problems on the basis of international law and with
the purpose of the establishment of a Palestinian State.
4.6. Indeed, Colombia reiterates the urgency of the cessation
of acts of violence and hopes that Israel and Palestine will
resume the dialogue that will lead to a definitive solution to their
conflict, in accordance with international law and the resolutions
issued by the United Nations, as well as on the basis of any
advisory opinion rendered by the Court in the instant
proceedings.
4.7. Colombia has expressed before and reiterates hereby that
the occupation of the Palestinian territory is a violation of
international law. Colombia also believes that the State of Israel
must comply with the resolutions of the General Assembly and
the Security Council and that the prolonged occupation of the
territory of Palestine is contrary to the Principles enshrined in the
Charter of the United Nations.
4.8. Certainly, the restrictions on movement of people and
goods continue to collectively punish the civilian population,
affecting every aspect of life in Gaza, undermining the local
economy, and threatening the enjoyment of most human rights,
in clear violation of Israel’s legal obligations under international
law. The blockade is increasing violence and conflict,
worsening the socio-economic and psychosocial crisis in Gaza,
a war-ravaged, poverty-stricken area, living under a tight illegal
blockade on land, air, and sea.
4.9. For its part, Colombia considers that the Court has the
opportunity, in these proceedings, to recommend specific actions
to the General Assembly to ensure that all duty bearers respect
12
and protect the rights and freedoms of association, expression
and opinion and peaceful assembly, and economic, social and
cultural rights including health, housing and education, are
respected and protected and that civil society actors, including
human rights defenders, journalists and women human rights
defenders, are able to conduct their activities safely, freely and
without harassment or retribution in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory.
4.10. In sum, our country believes that the Court can contribute
to clarifying the law in this regard in the instant proceedings. The
international community would further benefit from clarification
on the consequences of violations to legal regimes under human
rights and international humanitarian law as a consequence of
the occupation.
4.11. Respect for international law and the ways of dialogue
are the only possible route that would allow a peaceful solution
to the conflict. The General Assembly needs to support and drive
these efforts, and the guidance of the Court in response to the
questions posed to it in the present request, regarding the legal
consequences arising from violations to the principle of selfdetermination,
from prolonged occupation, settlement and
annexation of the Palestinian territory, and from adoption of
discriminatory legislation and measures, will certainly shed light
on all States and the United Nations, in particular, to support any
and all negotiating efforts.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Colombia is of the view that, in the present case, the
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present request for an
advisory opinion.
13
5.2. Colombia also considers that the Court should give such
advisory opinion, an in reaching such conclusion Colombia
invites the Court to take into account its own previous
pronouncements, in particular the one expressed in the
Construction of a Wall Case.
5.3. Furthermore, Colombia believes that the rendering of an
advisory opinion by the Court would be of assistance to the
General Assembly for the proper exercise of its functions, and
thus the opinion from the Court can significantly contribute to
preventing and solving disputes, which is, in the end, the main
function of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations.
5.4. In rendering an advisory opinion in the present case, the
Court has an opportunity to help advance a stable, just and
mutually accepted settlement of the situation between the State
of Israel and the State of Palestine. The Court also has the
opportunity to clarify the law regarding occupation, by referring
to the legal consequences of such occupation, and to shed light
on the law regarding self-determination.
5.5. The Court could also be of invaluable guidance to the
international community, and to the General Assembly of the
United Nations, in particular, on how to support the two States
reaching a mutually agreed settlement that will lead to a
definitive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in
accordance with international law, in particular human rights law
and international humanitarian law, and the resolutions issued by
the United Nations’ organs.
5.6. Henceforth, Colombia believes that an advisory opinion
of the Court in the present case will contribute to understanding
the law concerning the matters submitted to it.
FRANCISCO J. COY GRANADOS
Viceminister of Foreign Affairs
Representative of the Republic of Colombia
24 July 2023
Written statement of Colombia