$'suri~*atemalron piYblstl@g
E,::aaeg~sareGreffele .
---*---..-.. / 3
B"
--temaarnwa ClourtofJustice
FzlieZnthe Wegislrg0x1:
That etrderauthoP-rzethe fillngofwntten statementsto fuis11 informafianon the
question snbmigedta the Cr%W bytheUnitedMationsGeneral Assemblyan
8 Deceniber"03 form Advisay 0~1~lion.' questlsn BSas follows:
"What are the legal cansequences &skg frurn the
canstrr~ctianof the wall beénbtsilby Xsrae'l&, e accuplqng
Powe~,in the Oeçupied PafestlniaraTerritos., iscluding ira
and araand East Semalena, as descnbed in the report of the
Secrek*-i-y-leneral,onsidenng &e niles and pRnciples of
internationaltaw, iilcludingthe F+atu%Gkrncvx Canventian
of 1949, and rettevmt Secusity Coruncil and General
Assembdyressluiions?'$
2. Xt%sthe subffsl;;ssif the Zngdam of Saadikabia that the occupation by Israel
of the (XdccupicfaalestinianTerritong;i,neltzdingin aamwd Jemsalem, is
illega8,that theIsraelisettlemenb is Palestinlm tegsitoire IITcgad,ixtthe
SeparaiionWahl,whkh is intendedto createa defacd0 telntarsal amexatio~of
hose settlementsand theeontiguo~sBandberneen &ase settIcmen8.a sndterritos
of Isracliailtegal,and thatlieactiunsofthe occuppng P~p;çetra api:conx$11 kh;is
U.N.GeneralA~j~jtarnlyesslk~txn-1OIlB(2B)C83), illegalannexation arehaving serioushumanitarianconsequencesand arethus
illegal and constitute grave breaches ofhumanitarianlaw underthe Fourth
Geneva Conventionof 1949.~
3. Furthemore, it is alsothe submissionof theKingdom of SaudiArabia thatthe
SeparationWall is not anecessaryand proportionalresponseto terrorism,that it
manifestly is arejectionofthe RoadMapandother effortsto findapeaceful
solutionwith two Stateslivingin harmony,andthus is a violation ofUnited
Nations SecurityCouncilResolutions 1515(2003), 1397(2002),338(1973),and
242 (1 967), and that it engagesthe internationalresponsibilityofthe occupying
Power.
4. On this basis, the Kingdomof SaudiArabiabelieves that in answer tothe
questionofthe GeneralAssembly,the Courtshould declarethat theSeparation
Wall is illegaland, accordingly,thatthelegal consequencesof saidSeparation
Wall include the following:
that the SeparationWallbeingillegal,its constructionmustceaseandwhat
(i)
existsmust be removed;
2 GenevaConvention(IV R)elativeto theProtectionof CivilianPersonsin War,75U.N.T.S. 287,
enteredinto force21Oct. 1950(hereafter"FourthGeneva Conventionof 1949").(ii) that the Separation Wallbeing illegal,the Palestinianpeople who have had
property confiscatedor suffered other economichm are entitled to the
retum of their property and consequentialdamages for injuries suffered;
(iii) that the SeparationWall and the associated actions ofthe occupying Power
infiinging upon the rights of the protectedcivilianpopulation of Palestine
are grave breaches of humanitarian law;
(iv) that the Separation Wall is an act of bad faithby a party to a negotiation
mandated by UnitedNations SecurityCouncilresolutions which frustrates
the objectives of those resolutions andthus is entitledto no weight in the
negotiations nor in the legal relationship betweenthose parties;
(v) that the Separation Wall does not absolve the occupyingPower of its duties
under the Fourth Geneva Conventionof 1949to the protected civilian
population of Palestinethroughoutthe OccupiedPalestinian Territory,
including in and aroundJenisalem; and
(vi) that the Separation Wall attempts to defeat theright of self-determinationof
the Palestinianpeople and thus is a seriousbreach by the occupying Power
of an obligation under a preemptorynom of general international law,
requiring al1Statesto cooperate to bring the breach to an end, not to
recognize as lawfùlthe situation created,and notto render any assistance to
the occupying Power in this regard.II. THE COURTIS COMPETENTTORENDERAN ADVISORYOPINIONAS
REQUESTEDBY THE GENERALASSEMBLYANDTHEREIS NO
COMPELLING REASON FORIT NOTTODO SO
5. In thNuclear Weaponscase3 anumberof argumentswereputfonvard asto why
the Court shouldnotrenderanAdvisoryOpinionin that circumstance. The Court
assessedthose argumentsinparagraphs10-19of its AdvisoryOpinionand
deterrninedthat it had thecompetencetodeliverthe opiniononthe question
thereinposed by the GeneralAssembly, andthat there wereno compelling
reasons for it not to do so. Thesameis truehere.
6. In this situation, theCourt hasthecompetencetodeliver theopinion. The body
requestingthe opinionis theGeneralAssembly,which is authorizedby
Article 96, paragrap1,ofthe UnitedNations Charterto request"anadvisory
opinionon any legal question." Thequestionsetforthis clearly alegal question
as it requests theCourt's opinion of thelegalequencesofactionstakenby an
occupying Powerhavingreferenceto theprinciplesanddes ofinternationallaw,
includingthe FourthGeneva Conventionof 1949and relevantresolutionsof the
GeneralAssemblyand SecurityCouncil.
7. Furthermore, there areno compellingreasons for the Courtnot todo soThe
questionis clear,the sourcesoflawareclear, andthe factsareclear asthey are
3 TheLegali~ ofthe Threator UseofNuclearWeapons,Advisory Opinion,I.C.J.Reports 1996(July 8)
(hereafter"NuclearWeaponsCase"). set forthin the Secretary-Generai'sReportof 24 November2003.~ Thus,the
I
I mandateis neither vague norabstract. Moreover,while somemay arguethatan
I opinion inthis mattermight adverselyaffectnegotiations, theview ofthe
I majorityof States that passed theresolutionis to the contrary. The Courtwas
facedwith a similarargumentiNuclear WeaponsCasandwas not
persuadedthat such an argumentwas acompellingreason notto renderits
opinion. Theameis true here.
8. As the Courtnotedin Nuclear WeaponsCas"Therehasbeen no refusal,
based on the discretionarypower of the Court, toact upon arequestfor an
advisoryopinionin the history ofthepre...."'TheStatusofEastern
CarelicaseYwhichrepresentstheoneinstancewhere thePermanent Court of
I
InternationalJustice declined toactuponarequest foran advisoryopinion,is not
I relevantherInthat case, thePermanentCourtdeclinedto give an advisory
I
opinionwherethe request calledforthedeterminationof a questionof fact,which
I constitutedthemainpoint in a dispute actuallypending between two States,one
I
1 of which was nota Memberofthe Leagueof Nations and refusedto participatein
the Court'sproceedings.7 This situationis quitedifferent. The facts areclearand
I
the purposeof the requestis not to decidea factualdisputependingbetween two
Report of theUnitedNations Secretary-GeneralPreparedPursuantto General Assembly ResolutionES-10113,
5.Nuclear WeaponsCI.C.J.Reports 1996,p. 235,para. 14.4 November 2003").
PCIJ, Senes B,No. 5 (1923).
Ibidpp. 27-29. States,but to receive alegalopinionto guide theUnitedNations. Membersofthe
United Nations are boundby Article 96 ofthe Charter,which empowersthe
General Assemblytorequest advisoryopinionson anylegal question.
III. THE SEPARATIONWALLIS ILLEGAL
A. The Occupationof theOccupiedPalestinianTerritory,Includingin and around
Jerusalem,is the Result of theIllenalUse of Force andthus is Illeval
9. In 1947the United NationsproposedtopartitionmandatedPalestine into two
States,one Arab andoneJewish,with Jerusalembeinginternationali~ed.~Before
the plan could be actedupon, Israeldeclared itselfa Stateand expandedto occupy
much of the temtory proposedto formthe Arab PalestinianStateandmuch of
Jerusalem. War resulted. In 1949an armisticewas declared,and aline formed,
called the GreenLine,separatingIsraelfiom Palestinianland. The GreenLine
was much less favorableto Palestinethanwhat had been envisionedby theUnited
Nations in 1947.
10. In 1967Israelinitiated awar andbecamethe occupyingPowerin what is now
called the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory,includingin and aroundJerusalem.
11. The initiationofhostilitiesin 1967byIsrael waswithoutlegaljustification andin
violation of Article2,paragraph4, of the UnitedNationsCharter. Its occupation
of Palestinianterritorywas accomplishedin connection withthis illegal use of
8 U.N.GeneralAssemblyResolution181(II(1947). force. Further,the occupyingPowerhas sincefailedto exercise its
responsibilitiesin the aftermathof victoryincludingMfillment of obligations
imposedby international humanitarianlawwith respect to the protectedcivilian
Palestinianpopulation in the temtory it occupies. For 37 years ithas occupied
Palestinianterritoryduringwhich ithascontinuouslyconfiscatedprivateproperty
and imposedpolicies creating economicand socialhardships for theprotected
civilian Palestinianpopulationin clearviolationof internationallaw.
B. Israeli Settlementsin theOccupiedPalestinianTemtory,
Includin~in and aroundJerusalem,are Illegal
Once Israelhad successfullyoccupiedPalestinianlandsrnilitarilyin 1967,it
began a programof encouragingandsupportingandprotecting Israelisettlements
in the OccupiedPalestinianTemtory, includingin and around~erusalem.~Each
step ofthisprocess has involved theconfiscation anddestructionof Palestinian
land andresources. Each step hasbeen abreachof the responsibilities ofthe
occupyingPowerunderthe FourthGenevaConventionof 1949,as eachstephas
violated the rightsof the protectedcivilianpopulationof Palestineandresultedin
the defacto annexationof large areasofterritory.1°
9
SeeReport of the Security Council Commission EstablishedUnderResolution446 (1979), U.N.Doc Sl13679,
paras. 45-51,4 Dec. 1979;Reportofthe Security CouncilCommissionEstablishedUnder Resolution 446(1979),
U.N.Doc Sl13450,paras. 220-228, 12Jul. 1979.
1O SeeU.N. Security Council Resolution465 (1980);U.N. SecurityCouncilResolution476 (1980);U.N. General
AssemblyResolution 56/61 (2001); Reportof the Special Rapporteurof the Commission onghts,John
Dugard,on the situation ofhuman rightsin the Palestinian temtories occupiedby Israel since 1967,submittedin 13. Whilethe Palestinianpopulationhavemany grievancesagainstthe occupying
Power, no one shoulddoubtthat its deliberate programto encourage,supportand
protect Israeli settlements in the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory,includingin and
aroundJerusalem, is paramountof thosegrievances.
14. This has been recognizedbythe international cornrnunityrepeatedly. The
Security Council hasdeterminedIsraelisettlementsto be illegal anda flagrant
violation ofthe FourthGeneva Conventionof 1949,andthat actionstakenby the
occupying Power tochangethe physicalcharacter,demographiccomposition,
institutional structure orstatusof the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory,includingin
and aroundJemalem, to bewithoutlegalvalidity." For morethan 30 years the
GeneralAssembly has regularlypassedresolutionsrecordingthe fact thatthese
settlementsare illegal andan obstacletopeaceand to economicandsocial
development12and has specificallycondernnedsettlementactivitiesin
Jemalem. '
accordancewithCommission resolution 199312A, U.N. Doc ElCN.41200416p,ara.41,8 Sept. 2003(hereafter
"SpecialRapporteur'sReport of 8 September 2003").
II
U.N. Security Council Resolution446 (1979);U.N. SecurityCouncil Resolution 452 (1979);U.N.Secunty
Council Resolution465 (1980); U.N. SecurityCouncilResolution471 (1980);U.N. SecurityCouncil Resolution
476 (1980);U.N. SecurityCouncil Resolution 478 (1980).
12 Suchresolutions include: U.N. General AssemblyResolution2851(1971); U.N. General Assembly Resolution
311106(A,C) (1976); U.N. General Assembly Resolution35112(B, C) (1980); U.N. GeneralAssembly Resolution
371222(1982);U.N. General Assembly Resolution44148(A$) (1989);U.N. General Assembly Resolution461162
(1991); U.N.GeneralAssembly Resolution 511133(1996);U.N.GeneralAssembly Resolution 52/66(1998);U.N.
General Assembly Resolution551132(2001).
13 U.N.GeneralAssembly Resolution ES-1012(1997);U.N.GeneralAssembly ResolutionES-1013(1997);U.N.
General Assembly ResolutionES-1014(1997). C. The SeparationWall is a de factoAnnexationof Territory
by the OccupyinnPower andIt is Illegal
15. The Secretary-General'sReport of24 November2003 sets forth relevant facts
sufficientfor thepurposes ofthis WrittenStatement. Paragraph 8 states:
"Based on the route on the official map, including depth
barriers and East Jerusalem, approximately 975 square
kilometers,or 16.6percent ofthe entireWestBank,will lie
between the Barrier and the GreenLine. This area is home
to approximately17,000Palestiniansin the West Bank and
220,000inEast Jerusalem."
In addition,the Report continues:
"Ifthe full routeis completed, another160,000Palestinians
will live in enclaves, areas where the Barrier almost
completelyencirclescomrnunitiesandtractsof land."
This is the situationfor the Palestinianpeople. As forthe Israeli
settlements,the Report states:
"The planned route incorporates nearly 320,000 settlers,
including approximately 178,000 in occupied East
Jerusalem."
The facts arethus clear. Nearly 17percent ofthe landof the West Bankis
lost to Palestinians,the propertyof 237,000Palestiniansis affected,and
another 160,000mustlivein enclaves,while320,000 Israelisettlersin
illegalsettlementsin theOccupied PalestinianTemtory, includingin and
aroundJerusalem,arephysicallyencompassedwithinthe territoryof Israel. 16. The Separation Wall ispart of a pattern of wholesale violations of UnitedNations
Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967)and 338 (1973) which cal1for the
withdrawal of the occupying Power. Nonetlleless, in spite of the censures and the
objection of the international community,the occupying Power proceeds to
expand into additional temtory and hold it by force notwithstandingArticle 2,
paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter. The same pattern followed in East
~enisalem'~and in the Golan~ei~hts" simply continues with full disregardof
international law by the occupyingPower.
17. The Separation Wall has been widelycondemned within the international
community. Even those Statesthat abstainedin the vote on GeneralAssembly
Resolution ES-1011 4 requesting thisAdvisoryOpinion almost universally
condemned the SeparationWall. Furthermore,even the President of the United
States has stated publicly concernsand opposition:
"You asked about the fence. 1 have said the fence is a
problem to the extent that the fence is a opportunity to
make it difficult for a Palestinianstate to emerge. There is a
difference between security and land acquisition. And we
have made our viewsclear on that is~ue."'~
In spite of this ovenvhelmingcondemnation,the occupying Powerproceeds in the
construction of the SeparationWall,andrationalizes its conduct asa response to
14 U.N.Secunty Council Resolution 478 (1980).
IS U.N.SecurityCouncil Resolution 497 (1981).
16
PresidentGeorge W. Bush, Remarks at WhiteHousePressConference(28 Oct. 2003),availableat
http:/lwww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003110/3028-2.html. terrorism anddeniestheapplicationofinternationalhumanitarianlawto its
occupation of the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory,includingin and around
Jerusalem. Giventhe scaleofthe project,andthe history of the actionsof the
occupying Power, its claimthat the SeparationWallis onlya temporarymeasure
is hardly credible.
18. Both the 1907Hague~e~ulations'~andthe FourthGeneva Conventionof 1949
make clear that theoccupyingPowerhas ageneraldutyto respectandprotect
private property. Article46 of the 1907HagweRegulationsstates the simple
proposition:
"Privatepropertycannotbe confiscated."
Article 53 of the FourthGenevaConventionof 1949likewise
states:
"Any destruction by the occupying Power of real or
persona1property belonging individually or collectivelyto
pnvate persons . . . is prohibited, except where such
destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by rnilitary
operations."
As discussedbelow,the SeparationWallcaimotbe excusedas an absolute
necessity. Further,in al1eventsit is not amilitaryoperationwithin the meaning
of the FourthGenevaConventionof 1949,buta disproportionatesecurity
17 Hague Convention(IV) Respecting theLawsand CustomsofWaron Land anditsAnnex: Regulations
Concerning theLaws and Customs ofWaron Land,3 Martens Nouveau Recueil (s3) 461,enteredinto force
26 Jan. 1910(hereaft"1907HagueRegulations"). measure. Thus, this occupyingPoweracts repeatedly in breachofthese basic
duties anddeniesthey are applicableto its conduct. This denialstandsagainst
the Declarationof High ContractingPartiesto the Fourth GenevaConventionof
1949,5 December 2001 ,18which statesinpart:
"[Tlhe participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the
applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the
Occupied PalestinianTemtory, including East Jerusalem."
D. The SeparationWallImposes Undue Sufferingon the Protected
Civilian Populationof PalestineandThereforeis Illegal
19. The Report of the SpecialRapporteur ofthe Commissionon HurnanRights of
8 September2003 setsoutthe factsaboutthe profound effect the SeparationWall
is having upon the civilianpopulationof Palestine.19The situationis direandit
gets worse every day. TheWorldBankconcluded in 2002that interna1and
external closureof the OccupiedPalestinianTemtory, includinginandaround
Jerusalem,constitutestheproxirnatecauseof the Palestinianeconomic cri si^.^'
The SeparationWall exacerbatestheproblein. Palestiniansbetween the
SeparationWall and theGreen Line arecut offfiom their land and workplaces.
The SeparationWall alsoenclavesPalestiniantowns andvillagesmakingthe
movement necessary forpeople to carryon normallives impossible:
18 Declarationof Conferenceof High Contracting PartiestotheFourthGenevaConvention (Geneva,5Dec.
2001),availableuthttp://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/ehomdforeiupoV4gc/docum2.Par.0006.UpFile.pdf.
19
20 Special Rapporteur'sReportof 8 September2003, para.17.
SeeFifteenMonths-Intifada, Closuresand PalestinianEconomicCrisisAnAssessment,World Bank,18Mar.
2002,availableut,http:/Anweb18.worldbank.org/mna~mena.ns£~Attachments/comp1etd$File/complete.pdf. "Every day thousands of Palestinians must pass through
these checkpoints in order to travel fiom home to work, to
reach schools and hospitals and to visit fiiends and farnily.
Every day Palestinians are compelled to waste hours
passing throughthesecheckpoints.
Accounts of rudeness, humiliation and brutality at the
checkpoints arelegion. Ambulances are often delayed and
women give birth to childrenat checkpoints.
Unable to go to work, tobuy food,to go to school,to visit
hospitals orbury theirdead, [thePalestinians] areconfined
within the walls oftheirownhomes ... ."21
The occupying Power's checkpoints,in the words of theSpecial Rapporteur,
constitute "theinstitutionalizationof the humiliation of thePalestinianpeople."22
20. The SpecialRapporteur'sdescriptionofthe humanitarianeffectsof the Separation
Wall makes clear that theWallis an obviousviolation oftheFourthGeneva
Convention of 1949, Article27 of whichstates:
"Protected persons are entitled, in al1 circumstances, to
respect for their persons, their honour, their farnilyights,
their religious convictionsand practices, and their manners
and custorns. They shall at al1tirnes be humanely treated,
and shallbe protectedespeciallyagainst al1acts of violence
or threatsthereofandagainstinsultsandpubliccuriosity."
Furthemore Article 32 states:
21 SpecialRapporteur'Reportof8 September2003,para.17.
22 Ibid. "The High Contracting parties specifically agree that each
of them is prohibited fiom taking any measure of such a
character as to cause the physical suffering or
extermination of protected persons in their hands. This
prohibition applies . .. to any . .. measures of brutality
whether appliedby civilian ormilitary agents."
2 1. The Separation Wall imposes sufferingand hardship,which does not distinguish
between the civilianpopulation and combatants. The Declaration of High
Contracting Parties to the Fourth GenevaConventionof 1949, 5 December 2001,
makes clear the obligation of the occupyingPower to make such distinctions:
"The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the
parties to theconflict to ensurerespect for and protection of
the civilian population and civilian objects and to
distinguish at al1times between the civilian population and
combatants and between civilian objects and military
objectives. They also call upon the parties to abstain from
any measures of brutality and violence against the civilian
population whether applied by civilian or military agents
and to abstain fiom exposing the civilian population to
rnilitary~~erations."~~
22. Further, the SeparationWall constitutes acollectivepunishment that affects al1
Palestinians and makes no distinctionbetween the civilian population at large and
those that commithostile acts, and thus clearly violates both the 1907Hague
Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Conventionof 1949.
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Conventionof 1949states:
23
Declaration of Conference of High Contracting Partiestothe Fourth Geneva Convention 5GDec.a,
2001),availableathttp://www.eda.admin.ch/eda~e/home/foreign/hupoV4gc/docum2.Par.0006.UpF…
e.pdf. "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or
she has not personally cornmitted. Collectivepenalties and
likewise al1 measures of intimidation or of terrorism are
prohibited."
Article50 of the1907 Hague Regulations likewise states:
"No general penalty, pecuniary or othenvise, shall be
inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of
individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly
and severally responsible."
E. The Separation Wall Frustratesthe NegotiationsMandatedby Relevant
United Nations SecurityCouncil Resolutionsand Will Deny the Palestinian
Peoplethe Ri&t of Self-Determination
23. The Separation Wall is more than the illegal annexationof territory by the
occupying Powerwhich imposesundue hardships onprotectedpeople. It is a
deliberate effort to fiutrate the express will of the internationalcommunity of
two States living side-by-sidein harmony. The Separation Wallif it standswill
further exacerbate the differences betweenthe parties, increasethe flow of
refugees, and make most unlikelythe emergence of aviablePalestinian State.
24. Furthermore, the sovereignty,territorial integrity andpolitical independence of
every State in theregion as well as the right of its people to live within secure and
recognized boundaries has beena long-standingobjective of the United ~ations.~~
This includes the right of thePalestinianpeopleto exercise their right of self
determination on their ownterritory. TheSeparationWall if it stands,will make a
24 SeeU.N.SecurityCouncil Resolutio2n42(1967). mockeryof the effortsof theinternationalcommunityto fulfillthisobjective.The
SeparationWall of the occupyingPowerwill reducethe OccupiedPalestinian
Territory,including inand aroundJerusalem,toa few enclaves completely
encircledand cut-offfrom eachothermakingit impossibleto constitutea viable
State.
25. The SeparationWallis an act ofbad faithby apartyto a negotiationintendedto
enhanceits position andto make a negotiatedsolutionless likely. The Separation
Wall will substantiallymodi@the characteristicsofthe OccupiedPalestinian
Territory, includininand aroundJemalem, to conformto thepoint ofviewof
only oneparty to the negotiations,makingamutuallyacceptableresultimpossible
to achieve.
IV. THE DEFENSE OF THEOCCUPYINGPOWERTHATTHE SEPARATION
WALL IS REQUIRED TOPROTECTITSELFAGAINST TERRORISMIS NOT
ADEQUATEIN LAWTO EXCUSEITS UNLAWFULACTS
A. GeneralObservations
26. Terrorismis a scourgeof international lifewhichcreateslegitimatesecurity
concerns. However,lirnitsexistonwhatmaybe done in the nameofsecurityat
the expenseof hurnanrightsandother internationalobligations. B. TheObligationsofthe OccupvinnPower
27. The rights and dutiesof occupyingPowersareregulatedby international law. As
the governing authority,the occupyingPowermust take al1measuresnecessaryto
ensurepublic orderand~afet~.*~ Sinceits authorityis only transitionalinnature,
however, the aforementionedmustbe acconiplished whilerespectingthe existing
administration,economy, legalsystem,and generallifeof the occupied
~ornrnunit~.~~Thus, anoccupying Powerowesmoral andlegal dutiesto the
protected people inthetemtory that it occupies. TheoccupyingPower inthe
Occupied PalestinianTenitory, includingin and aroundJerusalem,utterlyfailsin
meetingthese responsibilities.
C. The Separation WallisNot a MilitaryNecessity
28. The SeparationWallisnot amilitarynecessitythat absolvesthe occupyingPower
of its duties to theprotectedcivilianpopulationof theOccupiedPalestinian
Temtory, includinginand aroundJerusalem,underinternationalhumanitarian
law. The SeparationWalldoesnot meetthe test ofnecessityin internationallaw,
whether it isviewed generallyor in termsof'military requirements.
1
25
1 26 1907Hague RegulationArt43.
LordMcNair, TheLegalEfects ofWarp.370(1966). 29. The InternationalLawCommission'sDraftArticles on StateResponsibilityset
forththe applicabletests forjudgingwhetheran argumentof necessity may
excusean illegal~t.~~Article25 provides:
"1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a
conformity with an international obligation of that State
unlessthe act:
a. 1sthe only way forthe Stateto safeguardan
essentialinterest against a grave and imminent
peril; and
b. Does not seriously impair an essential
interest of the State or States towards which the
obligationexists....
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a
Stateas a ground for precludingwrongfulnessif
b. The State has contributed to the situation of
necessity."
30. This understandingofthemeaningof "necessity"in internationallawclearly
rebuts any and al1argumentsof theoccupyi~Powerthat the SeparationWall is
I
necessary andthus excusesits illegal acts. The SeparationWallclearlyimpairs
I
the rightsof the Palestinianpeopleandfurtherinhibits the roadtopeace and to
self-determination. Furthermore,in al1events, theoccupyingPower may not
I evokenecessityasits occupationoftheOccupied ~alestinik Territory,including
27 DraftArticlesonResponsibilityofStatesforInteWrongfulActsinReportoftheIntematiol aw
(2001)(hereafier"DraftArticlesonStateResponsibility").s.Supp.No. 10,at4U.NDoc.A/56/10 in and around Jerusalem,andits illegalsettlementstherein,have manifestly
"contributedto the situationofmecessiîy." This generalunderstandingofthe
legal meaning of "necessity"in internationallaw isfully applicablein
humanitarian law where"militarynecessity"is provided for.
D. The SeparationWall is Disproportionalasa SecurityMeasure and
Article 51 of the CharterisNot Applicable
31. The occupyingPowerhas indicatedin speeches in the GeneralAssembly that its
actions arejustifiedunderArticle 51 ofthe UnitedNations Charter. However,
Article 51is not applicable. Individualactsofterrorismcannotbe equatedto an
arrnedattackthatjustifies measures ofself-clefensebeyond nationalborders.
Furthennore, internationallawis clear that evenwhere self-defensemaybe
justified, obligationsunderinternationalhumanitarianlawremain. As the Court
said of the rulesof internationalhumanitarianlaw in its Advisory Opinion inthe
Nuclear Weapons Case,they constitute"inû-ansgressibleprinciplesof
international customarylaw. "**
32. Moreover, the SeparationWall asa securitymeasureis far fkoma necessary and
proportional response. The SeparationWall is wellwithinPalestiniantemtory. It
is not built alongthe GreenLine. It is built insuchawayto place a substantial
and expandingpercentageofthe WestBank and East Jerusalemon the Israeliside
of the Wall. Further,it is built in suchaway to ensuregeographiccontiguity
28 Nuclear Weapons Case,I.C.J.Repor1996,p.257,para.79.
19 betweenthe temtory of Israel anditsillegal settlementsin the Occupied
PalestinianTemtory, including inandaroundJerusalem, andto furtherfacilitate
the expansion ofthose illegal settlementsin continuingand acceleratingviolation
of the duty foundin Article 49 of theFourthGeneva Conventionof 1949 not to
"transferparts of itsown civilianpopulationinto territoryit occupies".
33. While thereis no armed attackwithin the meaningof the UnitedNations Charter
justifying the invocationofself-defense underArticle 51 by the occupying Power,
it is instructiveto assessthe conditionsof anecessary andproportionateresponse
as the Courthas donein recent caseswhere self-defensehasbeen invoked. Asthe
Court saidin the Case Concerning OilPlatforms repeating fromitsAdvisory
Opinion in the Nuclear WeaponsCase, "The submissionof the exercise ofthe
right of self-defenseto the conditionsofnecessityandproportionalityis arule of
customary international la^."^ ^n theNicaragua case, the Courtsaidthat "self-
defense wouldwarrantonlymeasureswhichareproportionalto the armedattack
and necessaryto respondto it ... ."30The SeparationWalldoesnotmeetthese
tests.
34. The SeparationWallmakesno distinctionsbetween terroristsand the civilian
population of Palestine. It is a grosslydisproportionateresponseto terrorism. In
29
Case ConcemingOilPlatfom, (IslamicRepubliof IranvUnitedStatesofAmerica),Judgment,2003 I.C.J.,
30ra.76(Nov. 6) (hereaft"CaseConcerningOilPlatfom").
CaseConcerningMilitaryandParamilitaryActivitiesInandAgainstNicaragua(Nicaraguav. United Statesof
America),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports1996,p.94,para.176(June27). the Case ConcerningOilPlatforms,the Court saidin thisregard: "[theCourt]
cannot close its eyestothe scale ofthewhole~~eration."~'As for"necessary,"
the SeparationWall is far fiom the onlymeasure thatrnightdirninishthe risk of
terrorism;one obviousmeasure wouldbe forthe occupyingPowerto complywith
relevant United Nations resolutions,thdrawits settlementsfromthe Occupied
Palestinian Territory, includingin andaroundJerusalem,andengagein goodfaith
negotiation.
E. The SeparationWallis a GraveBreach of HumanitarianLaw
35. As shownabove, the confiscationofprivatepropertyby theoccupying Poweris
illegalunder humanitarianlaw, and asdiscussedabovecannotbejustified bythe
argumentof necessity. Moreover,theconfiscationofprivatepropertyis carried
out withoutmeaningfullegalrecourse andwantonly. Suchactionsby an
occupying Power constitutea "gravebreach"of the FourthGeneva Conventionof
1949. Article 147 states:
"Grave breaches . .. shall be those involving any of the
following acts: ...extensivedestructionand appropriation
of property, not justified byilitary necessity and carried
out unlawfullyand wantonly."
36. The confiscations arewithout meaningfidlegalrecoursebecause,asnoted in the
Secretary-General'sReportof 24 November2003, suchconfiscations"become
effectiveon the date that they aresignedanciarevalid evenif theyare not
31 CaseConcerninOgilPlaforms, 200I.C. Jara77. personally served ontheproperty~wners."~'Theconfiscationsarewanton
because the occupying Powercarriesoutthese confiscationswith no regard to
their humanitarianimpact.
37. The duties of the HighContractingParties to theFourthGenevaConventionof
1949 in the circumstanceof a "gravebreach"is setforthin Article 146. It
provides for the dutyto enactlegislationto providepenal sanctionsforpersons
that commit,or that orderothers to commit, a "gravebreach,"and to prosecute
suchpersons in its owncourtsor inthe courtsofother States. The foregoing
duties applyto the 191Statesthat are partyto theFourthGeneva Conventionof
1949,includingIsrael.
V. CONCLUSION: THE SEPARATIONWALLHAS THEFOLLOWING LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES
38. The SeparationWall is aninternationalwrongfùlactby the occupyingPowerand
thus entails its internationalre~~onsibilit~.~T ~herearethus legal~onse~uences.~~
The first obligationisto ceaseperformanceof the intemationallywrongfula~t,~~
not to repeat it:6 andto rnakefullreparation.37Reparationincludesrestit~tion,~~
32 secretary-~eneral's Report of 24 Novernber2003,para. 17.
33
DraftArticles on State Responsibility,Art. 1.
34 Ibid., Art. 28.
35 Ibid.Arts.29, 30.
Ibid., Art.(b).
" Ibid.,Art.31.
Ibid., Art.35. which in this caserequires destruction of the SeparationWall, compensation39and
sati~faction.~~
39. Accordingly:
The SeparationWall being illegal, its construction must cease;
The SeparationWall being illegal, it must be removed;
The SeparationWall being illegal,psopertyconfiscated must be retumed;
The SeparationWall being illegal, econornicharm suffered because of its
construction to date must be compensated;
Being a "gravebreach" of humanitarian lawStates Parties to the Fourth
Geneva Conventionof 1949are obligedto take action under Article 146;
The SeparationWall is an actof bad faithby a party to a negotiation that
is mandatedby United Nations resolutionswhich frustratesthe objectives
of those resolutions. It is entitled to noweight innegotiations or in the
legal relationshipbetween the parties;
The Separation Walldoes not absolvethe occupyingPower of its duties
under the Fourth Geneva Conventioriof 1949;and
39 Ibid., Art. 36.
40 Ibid.,Art.37. The SeparationWallattemptsto defeatthe right of self-detemination of
the Palestinianpeople andthusis a seriousbreach by the occupyingPower
of an obligation undera preemptorynormof general internationallaw,
requiring al1Statesto cooperatetobiing the breach to an end,not to
recognize as lawfulthe situationcreated,and not to render anyassistance
to the occupyingPower in thisregard.
40. TheKingdom of SaudiArabia respectfullysubmitsthe foregoingto the
InternationalCourt of Justice asinformationto assistthe Court to renderan
Advisory Opinionon the questionposedby the GeneralAssembly.
Written Statement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia