DECLARATION OF JUDGE TLADI
The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is not a bilateral dispute  The policies and practices of Israel are in breach of peremptory norms of international law  The security concerns of Israel cannot override its international legal obligations  The policies and practices can be characterized as apartheid  The United Nations is under an obligation to consider further measures and modalities in the event of non-compliance.
I. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CLEVELAND
People of Palestine and Israel have right to self-determination — Israel’s lack of participation in proceedings — General Assembly request addresses only one party.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GÓMEZ ROBLEDO
[Translation]
Effectiveness of the Advisory Opinion for the United Nations  Statehood of Palestine: conditions required under international law  Recognition of right to self-determination as a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens): from unlawful occupation to foreign domination in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV).

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BRANT
[Translation]
Agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the Court  Violation by Israel of Article 3 of CERD  Racial segregation and apartheid — Evolutive interpretation — Constituent elements of apartheid — Fulfilment of the right of a people to self-determination impossible under racial segregation or apartheid — Cessation of international law violations needed to ensure peace and security of Israel and Palestine.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Multiple and intersectional discrimination  Discriminatory effect of Israel’s measures on women and on children.
Legality of Israel’s effective control of the Occupied Palestinian Territory  Legal bases for the use of force  Relationship between security threats and armed attack  Right to self-defence  Necessity and proportionality.
1. I agree with the Court’s replies to the questions posed by the General Assembly. In this declaration, I address two issues in the Advisory Opinion where I think that more detailed reasoning is desirable.

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES NOLTE AND CLEVELAND

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NOLTE
Factual and legal scope of the Court’s analysis  Differences between advisory proceedings and contentious proceedings  Definition of apartheid  Racial segregation and apartheid  Qualified subjective element as part of the prohibitions of apartheid and racial segregation  Insufficient information before the Court to observe that Article 3 of CERD has been breached.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA
The Advisory Opinion does not address conduct by Israel in the Gaza Strip in response to the attack carried out against it by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October 2023  The Court adopts the “functional approach” regarding the application of the law of occupation to Gaza after 2005.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE
1. I voted in favour of all paragraphs in the operative part of the Opinion. I generally agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Court. In this declaration, I wish to clarify a few points with regard to the application of the principle of self-determination in the present case.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF