29.A200416:4 LEGALRANDFAtT
, Cour internationalede Justice
Enr----------Greffele
InternationalCourt ofJustice
Filed inthe R:gistryon
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OFTHECONSTRUCTION OFA WALL
INTHEOCCUPXED PALESTINUN TERRITORY
(REQUESTFOR ADVISORY OPINION)
ORDER OFTHE INTERNATIONA COURT OF JUSTICE
' OF
19DECEMBER 2003
WRITTENSTATEMENT
OFTHE GOVERNMENT OFAUSTRALIA29.JAN2.004 16 :4 LEGA BLRANC DHFAT62612144
LEGAL CONSEQUENCE SFTRE CONSTRUCTIO NF AWALL
IlTSIE OCCUPIED PALEST~NLA TERRITORY
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
ORDEROFTHE IN'TERNATIONA LOURT OF JUSTICE OP
19 DECEMBER 2003
WRITTENSTATEMEN T FTHE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA
1. IResolutiES-10/1adopradn8Decder 2003t,heGd ~ssemblyotheUnited
NationsrequestheInsemationlouroJmtiçtogiw anztdY;sypidiononthefollowing
question:
'Whaarethelegalconsequesrisihm thcon~ûuttiofthçwalbeinbuilby
Isra ehe,tcupyipow, intheOccupiPalestinTerritory,inclinand
aroundht Jmsalem, asdesdbed inthereoftheSecretary-Geci, ssidtting
theNZBsandprhciplesofinternationallaw,includinGenevaConventiof
1949andrebmt SaciItCouncilandGenerAssernbyesolutiom?'(A/Res/ES-
10114,D~ssiar2')
ThefoiiowingobservasresubmittbytheGoverunenofAustrainrtspomctthe
OderofdmCourtof19Decembe2003nxingthetime-lit itb whietta sfatbmentts
relaîingtothequemaybesubmittetthaCourbytheUnircdationanditi Member
States.
2. TheR-t foanAdvisorOpiniocanesbaforetCour ttûme of incressed
intKnatid conswuonthestepmces~ formalishacornphe~lsiue,and188-
settlcmanthfasraeli-Phs cdacu The~ustraiianGovernsaonglsupporttshe
'P@omce-Based RoaMap toaPermanenltïvo-StateSolutioIsraeli-PaZastiniafi
Conflc(RoadMap SI2003152of7May2003 ,osaino.70),prepabytheinternational
'Quarkt'-consisofrepmentativoftheUnitedStaofAmwic&theEuropenanion,
theRussiFederationathUniteNatiod unrviimoiiyndorsby thSecurity
CouneiinResolution1hpted on19November2003(S/Res/1515(20D,ossiern36).
TheAUSU Governmenitconcsmed ~mlzrthatnoamionitakemwhichmightMer
TheDossinrumbercitedkoughourhistatemecorrespowittheDossiernumbncontained
itheDossierofMaterialsCompbytheSacmtartftheUniteNationspwuant toArticle65,
paragrahofTheSuhitofthIntmnationCourofJustice.29 ,AN 2.004 16:25 LEGA BLRANC DFAT 62612144 NOk .01 Pt 4
complicatstheworkoftheinternatiQuarteorjeopardisthimplemenbtionofrhe
badMap. Inthisconne~titheAdian Governmentwiii alwaramainhrndarnentaly
committedto thterritmintee ofIsraeand,itsrigtolivinpeacebehindsecurand
dekd boundariea At dm sametime,thAustraliGovemnent alsoneognîsesthe1egitimat.e
rî&t andaspirationthePtiltstineopletothestablishmenta viableaddemocratic
hibstinian SWe.
3. TheAustcdianGovernmentis ofthe~ewththegivinofanadvisaryopiniobytheCourtin
thpmm casecadd haveanadversratherhanapositiveffeontheimplamentaüonofthe
RoadMapand theongoingeffortsthrrimmational'Quart, dçulatlinlightofthe
dedive andone-$idanatureofthequestioawhich&e opinionof theCOWis sought.
Moreover, ustmh submitsfortherecasetoutbelowtbtanumberofconsiderat leodns
inevitabtotbeconclusithatthCoursthdddi,ntheexerciseofitsdidon,151dthatis
inappropritbgive anopiniononthequestiontoit.
4. Tb Austmhn Governmentmalrasnosubmissioinrelatitothesubstanceofthequestion.
C)thisaspect,AilsnaliaresemesitsposifiOn
TKE COURT'SDISCREmON iNREQUESTS FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION
5. IiswellestablishthatArticle65theStatutoftheCourtconfersontCoW a discretion
EStowhdheritshoulgiveauadvisoryopinion,evwhtreithasurisdicuotaentd the
requat AstheCourtsaiinthInterpretatioPeam ZFeatiesase:
'&le 65 ofthcStatuispermissive.ItgivesCourithepowertoeJIami wnbcrher
thecirnimstaacsftheeasearofsucha cbractoas shouldleadtodedineto
answertheRequest..TheCouripossesseslargae ountofdis~reîinthematter.'
drnteqwetatioiPeacefialiewithBvlgariaHmgary andRomaniu(FïrstPhme),
Advisog~OpinioTCJ Reports1950,p.65ap72)
SimilarlintbnWestm SuharucasetheCourtsaid:
'InsxexcisithidsiscrettheIntematio CnalrofJusticlekeîhePemianciCam
ofWmmtiMal Justicbasalwaysbcm guidedbytheprinciphf asa judicilody,
it isboundtremaifàithftodm requiremenosfijudiciachancîmcveningiving
advisoryopinionIfthequestiisalagalonewhichthe Courtisundoubtcdly
~ompettntoansweri,tmaynmethelesdcclimtadosa. AsthiCaourthasaidin
previousOpinions,thepermissivechamcterofArticle65,pa1,givesit thepower
toexami nhethethecktumstanceosfthecaseareosuchacbaractas&ouid lendit29 J.AN 2.004 162:5 LEGAB LRANC DHFA 6T2612144
todeclidto mwer therequest.'(W(sstsSahara,AàvLroryOpinion,ICJRupofi 1975,
6. Iti&O undisputetbattheexmise oftheadvisorjurïsdictioftheCourtshouldbe
accompaniedbyaitlheneccssa rdyicialsafegiarIpdccdth Courthasrepeatedly
mphasiscdht. thetarelimitationsthatapptatheexerciseofitsadvisjurîsdictianand
thattheslimitatiospplyparticuiayoissu esisewiththeCourtwhichjeopardïsits
judid proprie9(htezpretatioofPwe !hafieswithBulga?=ia,ulrgatyandRomanzapirst
Phare),AdvisoryOpinioICJ Reports1950,p65 atp.72;CaseConcming theNorthem
Cmeroons (Cwneroon v.UnitedKingdom),PreIhinay, Objections,Judgmento2Decmber
1963,ICJReports1963 ,-15etp.30;WesternSahara ,dvisoeOpinion,ICJReports1975,p.
12atp.20;AppltkabilityofArticleSection22,oftheConventionotlrPrivi1egesntzd
ImmunitieoftheUnitedNaions,AdvisoqyOpinion,ICJReport1989,p,177 atp.191;
Drrerelrc, elutiagtoImmuniiom LegalProcessofa SpeeiaRcrpporbeirfthe Commission
onHwnanRights,AdYisoryOpinion,ICJRepd 1999,p.62 atp.78).
7. ThUCourthasdemonstrate hatitwilconsiderwhtthmcodrpellingeasonsexisttoàeclito
exercisjurisdicttogiveau advisoryopinioh thi sespectheCourthasbeencarefulta
relatitobeervationoloseltothecircumstancesfeaohcaseincludinthepurposesfor
whichtherequeswas made (seeIntevretation ofPeacei'kwtwithBulgaria,Hungaryand
RomaniaA, dviso7yOpinion,IRepoh 3950,p.65 ap. 71;Reseniatiorothe Conveniion
bnthePlmention andPunidment oftheCrimeofGelrocide,dviroryOpinionICJReports
1951,p.15atp. 19;LegalConsequemesforStatesotheGntinuedhaence ofSouthA@a
inNamibia(SouthWesAtfi-CUnotwithstandinSecuriiyCouncilResolution276 (1970))
Advisy Opinion,ICJReporb 1971,p, 16app.24-27;LeguIi~oftheTltreatoUsa of
NuclecyWeapons,ddvisoy OpinionICIReports1996,p,226atp.235).The requesforan
advisoryopiniointhepstseat caraisatheissueofpropieîyinanamtefom.
8. Austr&a m~sider hatcosnpellinreasonexistfotheCourtin theexercisofifdhratioq
todeclinto@vetheopinionrequçstzd. ht,thelackofconsenbyIsraelrendersthegivingof
anadvisaryopinioincompatiblwiththeCsurt'judiciacharactcrartidarlyinlightofthe
facthattherequesisundoubtedldirectedatthenghtandrospansîbiXtiosfhl. Secondly,
therequestshouldbedeclinas anyopiniorendhed bytheCourtwould bedevoidofobject
orpwposa,particuiarlnlightof& actionand decisionoftheGeneral sscmblyand
Sdty Council. hirdiyt,hegivingof anadvisopini oouidhaveahamfd &t upon
ment initiativesaimedatacbi- asdüe~~~n tftheIm&-PalestinianconflicEachof
&e considerationswillexaminc intuni.29 . AN2.00 46:25 1EGA BLRANC DFA T 2612144
- -,.
Thelackof conscbvIsraer&em theeivjnufanadvimrv o~inioincorn~atibleith
(a)
Court'iudicialch4imcta
TheCourthasconsistentlya£€uthatitmusa~tasaguatdianofijuditd #*grity.
9.
MorebverasajudicialbodtheCourthassûessethatimut remainfiithftothe
roq-ts ofitsjudi~dcbaractingivinsdvisoqvinions(seeConstitutiofrhe
MaritimeSaf@tCornmittoftheInter-Gournenial MaritimeComltaiive Organisation.
AdvisoryOpinioICJReports1960,p150atp.153;LegalConsequencesfoStateofthe
ContinueRmence ofSouthAfncinNiibrb (SouihWestAfnca)nofwcfwcthstadcgn'ty
CounczlResoluti276 (1970)AaisovOpinion,ICReports1971,p. 1atp.27;Wmtem
SaharaAdvisop Ophion.ICIRepons1975,p. 1utp-25ApplicationforRaviewof
JudgeynmtNo.273 oftheUtiitedNatiomAdwinirirTribunul,duaoryOpinion,ICJ
Repom 1982,p. 32atp. 334).thisconnectiothCourthasa&med that tabsenceof
cansenof anin-ted StattoBdviso proceedingisrelevanttatheappmciatofthe
proprieofgïvingm opinion(IntepretationofPePeufiewithBulgaria,Hungavand
Romfiia, AdvisoOpinio ICJReport1951,p.65atp.72;WesterSahara,Advi,sov
OpinioInU,Reports1975,p. 12;seealsoReqt oAdviroryOpiniononcerningtheStatus
ofEasternCareli19,3PCU, $aiesB,No.5,p.6arp.29)
10.
IntheWesterSaharacasethaCoud ~~pres a&lhed rhetypeofsituationwbichalackof
consenthoddobligetheCourttr&e givinganopinionrequestbytheGewd Assembly.
m com said.
'Incd circumstancest,hereforela&of conseofaninteres tatemayrdu
thegivingoanadvisoropinionincompatibwithth eourtjudicialcharact.n
insîanceothiwuld btwhenthecircumsiancesisclosethtogiva replwould
havethee&t ofeircumventithepWp1e tbata Statismt:obligedrodloits
disputetobesubmittetojudicialsetti~n~mtMbut itscons(I' Report$1975,p.
12atp. 25)
11. Anexaminatioofthejurisprudenef theCoutxmfïnm thatthequestionofwhetthe
giMngofanadvisoryopidiowouldbeincompab3lurl thejiidiciaicharwr oftheCaurtis
tobedeterrninhavingregartothecucumstanceineac oncretcase.Thecase-laofthe
Courtestablishe$alsokt theCowiipronomceon thri&& andobligationsStateinthe
execisofbsadvisoryjurisdictonlwhoro iticleaht suchpronounr;emen&rouiassist
thwrk oftheUniteNationsandwouldnothaw thedfht ofcompromisinthelegal
positionof aninbstStatothahasexpressditsopposittotheproceedings.29.JAN 2.00416:26 lEGAL BRANC DHFAT 62612144 NO,601 P. 7
.
12. Foreùcamplei,ntheInterpretatofPeaceneatiercase,theCourconsideredbjectionsmade
by BulgarïaHwgq andRomania, whichhadargua tdaa replby th^Courttotherequcst
foranadviso rpinionwouldoff& theprinciplethatnjudic praceedhgsreiaiingto a
legal questionpeddingb-em StatesGanràkplacewithouthekWDS~~Z.Indecidiqgüigiw
therqudted opinion.theCourstatsd
'Ashasbet~ obser~edt,hepresent~equforanOpinion,is solalyconcerMththe
applicabilitocerîaaisputcoftheprocedurefortudameutinstitutbythe Pcace
Treaîies,anit justinabltoconcludthatit innowaytoucheonth maerifsofthose
dispute-.-ItfoKlothatthelegalpositionof thepatoithesdisputescmm be in
anywaycomptomisedbythe answerstbatteCourtmay givetotheQuestionputtoit'
(ICJRGports1950,p.65atp 71)
13. Similady,inthe WesternSahacasetheCourthad beforeiarequesby theGeneral
Assmbly &g îhatîtCour tenderanadviso opiniononquestio ensbodyingsuch
conceptastmcz tiullil dlegaltiesth contmx tfthcdccolonisationof WestSahara.n
conside& auobje~ti0nbySpainaght theproprietofthe cx~eiseotheadvisoryfunction
of theCou&theCourtconcludedthat itwasappropriotrwdatht rtqutstedopinionforthe
f~U0ftnIgaSaDS:
'b isinthicasea legaicontroverbutOM which mse duringtheprocedngs of
theGed Assmbly and inrelatitomatterswithwbichitwasde&. Xdidnot
arisemdependentlin'bilatalelafi~...Theserclcm~ntfthiisuewiiinotaffectthe
rightsofSpaitadayastheadministeringowa, butdl assistheG~daraAl ssemblyin
decidisgonthmpolicyta be followeordertoacceleraîhedecoloni~tionprocesin
the&tory. ItfoiiowthathelegapositiooftheStatewhichbas~cniseitsconsento
thepresentproceedinisn6tiaaoy waymmpromised by theanswersthatthCourt
maygive torhequestionputtoit.(IC Jeports1975,p12atpp.25 and27)
14. TheCourthasadoptedthesameappmachinconsi&Iing thepmprietyofrqlyingin requests
foranadvisoryopinioincasesinvoIvinglegaqwstionpcndingbelmeenthe UnitedNations
and amemberSkie.(saeLegulConsequericfsorStatesotheContinueResence ofSouth
AfricinNamibia@outhWestAfn'u) NotwithstandingecurityCouncilReroluti276(1970),
AdirisoOpinio n, Reports1971,p.16;ApplicabiIi&ofAltil,Section22,ofthe
Conventioonthe Privilegand ImmwzitimoftheUnitedNi'onr,Aduiso Opinion ,CJ
Repoa 1989,p. 177)Forexample,inthePrivilegmandImmwitiar case,tCo& WIS aSktd
to givean advisoryopiniothequestionofthe appli~abilivofthe Conventionofthe
PrivilegesanImmunitieoftheUnitcdNationstothethenSpecialRapporteurofthe Sub-
CammLssiononPreventionofDis-rion andProtectionoMinonties(aRomanian29.JAN .004
LEGAB LRANC D FAT 62612144
nationalIndealingwiththeargumantsubmittedbyRomania ast6whythe Cour thould
declinetd r therequesteopinion,heCourtsrated:
'theCourtmust~omidnwhether int2icase"t oiw atcplywouldhaveîhe ef£~of
circumventintheprintiplethaStateinotobligedtoaüowit4disputestbe
submitt tedudicialtttlernentwithitsconsentTbe Courtconsidersthinthe
pnscrntcasetogiveareplywodd bavenosucheffect.Certait hCouacil,initr;
resohti~mquc9t;a gbeopiniondidconçludadiaadifferenclzaadrisen~een the
UnitedNationsandthe GovernmentoRbmania asb theapplicabiliiyîhConvuntion
toMr.Dumitru MIL Butthi sf%rence,andthequestipountotheCourtinthelight
ofif arnottabecwftsedwiththe disputbatweentheUnitedNationsandRom&
withrespectotheupplicato ifheGeneralConventi o tb taseofMr.Mazilu.'(ICJ
Reports1989,p. 17ap. 191)
15. U&e thocascsconsideredabove,intpresentGW th6Courtisnotbeingasketoclai& the
applic~biliyfc& conventionsandotherquestioofaprdïmhy nahue.Rather ,h
Caurtisbeingaslcetopronounceat laron the'logalconscqwmes' othe canductand
wtivitiesohl judgedbyrd- tothe'ruleadd, rinciplesofinternatlaw',
includiptheFourthGenevaConventionof 1949-Thequestionbefonth Courthasbeen
formulateda0astorelatedirectiyto theri@& respoosibiliofonepar@ toth confiict
wherethatpw basqressed itsstrmgoppositiotothe preaentpceedings. Theeffectho
requestim bringkeyelemenhoftheIstaeli-Palestinnoaflibtfo nh Courtfor
de-&on withouttheconsentof IsrUn&. thePn'vilegmandImmunitiwcase,the
Courtinthepresentcaseisnotsimplyb&gas1r;whetharrclwmt conventionuppZy.he
wordingof the currentrequest,ifa~ttogo= much fmk andse& the opinio ofthe
CotrrtonIsraelcosnpliancewith'thedes anpM&plas ofktmtional law,includhg the
FourthGenevaConvention of1949'inorherwnrds,tbrequestreq- thecourtopronaUnce
on wh& pattintlbreachesofparti& treatiesareoccarrasa sesuit parridu
conductofone State,wherethosmûes containbeiown disputesettlemeatprovisinsif
ther ae nosuchpro~~ioa~wauldbesubjecttothefundamentalintemationalïde thaa
St. c-ot busubjectathejurisdictionthhernatibnalCornwithou tscommit. To
aiiowtheadvisoryopinionprocedutabe wd inthiway toovercomedis nilhaspmfound
i.plicationsforSrat'articipatioireatieandis clcarlyeontmtojudiciproprie.It
wodd notbe appropriaer thCourttnaccedetothatreqaesintheabsenceofconsenof
Israel.
16. Itis noanswertothesecoaçsqnsthasuchjudiciaipmnouncementarenotper sepossessedof
bhdingforce.Inthirsspect,iiwodhrecallingtheobsaxvatiommadebyJdge Crosinhis
DeclarationappendedtotheCourt'sAdvigoOpinio intheWesternSdaw case:29.JAN .00416:26 LEGA L RANC DHFAT62612144
-
',,whmtbe Court&es anadvisoryopinioon aquestion Lw itstarthelaw.
The absemaof bindingforcedoesnntrausforthejuàicialoperatiint alegal
consdiatio~whichmaybemadeuseof ornotwcordingtacimice.Theadvisoryogïaion
deteirmineab lawapplicabltotb euesuonputitispossiblforthebodywhich sougM
theopiniopxmttofoUowitin itactionbuttbatbodyiaware thatnopositioadogted
contrarytotheCourt'pronouncemen tiihave anyeffectivanawhatsoeverinthe
legalsphere,(Watdm Sahara,A&ov Opinion,ICJReports 1975,.69ap. 73 (decl.
Jdgc Gros))
Thisc- thattherenderionfanadvisoryopiaZobytha Courtwiiihavea redand&ect
effectoa par@totheconnictConsequcntl yhereisareaand apprehenderdistbath8legal
positionoIsratlmy bccompmmisedby anyanswersthatthe Courmaygiweto thquestion
puttoit.
. .
(b) A-0 nthisauesticmald be 'dc~id ofobiectop~x',
17. Itiw& astablishethat tCorn &es not giveadvisoropinionsas end intbamselves. he
Coua hasrepeaîediyredkmedthatitwili~cerciseitsjiirisdictiontngiveenadvisoryopinion
ody 'onceithascornetothconclusionthat thequestionstoitsirdmt and,havea
pra&al andconbmp~rary &kt and,consequenrlya,renotdevoidofobjed or
~upose.'(VesternSahara,Advko~Opkiot IC,Reports1975 ,. 1atpp.20and37)
18. Inmost casewherethiisssuehasarisen,tCoW basamphasisadtha thprîmatymotivation
forrmdacïngan opinionhabeentoprovideguidanctotherequesw organ forthe~i~cise of
itscanstitutionalfund~Indce deCourtinthepastbasdramattentionto expresstennsof
therelevantrequesüngresoluttbatmadeclearthatthpurposeofthemqusstwas to ss&t
themlcuao tnîtcdNationsorgantacarryoutitsfunctions.Forexampinthe Western
Sahara case,the Courtrecathd thtGcdcralAssemblyhadrefd WIitsintenîito
mntirruediscussionoftqwtia ofthtdecolonisationofWesreSaharain theüghtotbe
Court'sadvisoropinion.Havinbke~~mk of thisetatementheCour toncludedthathe
opinionsoughtby thGeneralAssembl wyoddplacetheAssambly'inabetterpositionto
decide.. .înepolicytobefoiiowedfothedecolonisationofWestemSahara(IC J eports
1915,p.12 ap. 20) andwould'fumi theChmral Assemblywithelementsofalegal
characterelevantoitsfurthkatment....ofthematter(ICJReports1975p,-12atp.37),
Similacons ide ra toïn^theapproa chtheCourtinbothth eeservariamrothe
Cotzveli onG rnocidcase,wher eleCour tecaiiedthattheobjectoftrequestin thatcase
was to'gui&thaUnitedNationsinmspcct oitsownaction'OC3Reporta 1951p.15 atp. 19)
andale0intheNamibia(SouthWes At,a) case, whetheCaurtindicai&thatit waprepared
torenderanadvisory pini inresponsto arequesbythe SecuriîCou.mil,ecaus tedosa29 , AN2 004 162:7 LEGA BRANC DHFA 6T2612144
'woddbc uaeN fortheSacutiCouncilinitCurthcronsideratofthquestionofNamibia
andïo-ce of theobje6vetheCouncilissbeking'OC3Repors971p.16atp.24).
19. By contrasGeneral sscmblyResolutiES-1011c4nhhng the for anadvisozy
opinionithepresentcaseconiaMnsmch statémentntheobjectivthenequesafsther1s
noEkeiihoodthatthe opinionsowillas& theUniteNdationsGeneraiAssembcarrying
outitsfuncimorelatitonheISRI&-PdestinicodictMorcover,therequestcaih forfhe
Courtto maktpronouncementsonsubstantiveisswhi~hîhGcneral~ssemblyhas
alreareachedch conclusionsandexprosjudgenien. heseconciusio~sarerecined
GopnralAssemblyResolutiES-10/1 a3optedon21Octbber2003 and inprwmble tthe
veryresolutiiPwhichtherequestotheCoiuismade.Inthiespectoperatiearagraph1
of ResolutionES-10113providesasfoilows:
'DemtandthatIsrastoad rewe theconstructionoftwaiiinrheOccupied
PdastiniaTemtmy,hcluürpgiand amund EasJcnisalern,whicindeparZrof
ha Armisticeliae of andisinc~~ction m relevaprovisionsofintemationai
Iaw.'(A/R&S-10113, Dossierno. 14)
Similarlytpreambl oRcsolutionES-10114states;
'Reafimlng rheapp1icaboftheFouah GenevaCanventionasweilasAdditional
Protoc011ttheGenevaCoewntianstathe OccupiedPalestTedry, incl*
EastJerusale...
BearinginlindthatthepassageofhMer compound he diilïcuitietha
pur4 8sId, the occupyiPower ,ontinutessa tocoqlywith international
lawvis-B-vitsconstrucotfhenabove-mentionwall,wiîalitsdetimn~l
implicationsandcomequewe..(AIRGfiS-10D 1o14,ier.2)
20. Conseqmtly, an advisoryopibythe Courtnthequestionsubmittait wouldnohavo
anypracticapplicationtheGeneraA~sernb inyiewofthedenniUvveewsthatthe
Assemblyhasexpresse.he~olution iseekinsimpleendorsemenorapprovalfthelegal
conclusionsairereachebytheGenemlAssembly .hatinotanappropriaeormof
questioNoris it consiwitnhhejudicialpmprietyofthe Courtto toarepuestZhatit
andorseegal onc cl hasdy reachedbytheGam1 Assmbly (see:LegaIioftheThreat
or UseoNuckar WkaponsAdvisorOpinionICJReports1996p.330atpp.333 and367
diso..~izdg0d4)
21. Inadditi onpoliti caianoftheUnitedNationaminIUInecdofguidanceoapolicyto
befoiloweindeaimgwithissuarïsÏnBornthequestionuponwhictheopiniofthe29.JAN2 .00416: 27
LEGAB LRANC DHFAT62612144
Courtbasbem soughtinthicase. heris agramnt withintheUdedNationsonacIearand
comprehensiveolicyfordeaib4th theIsraeli-Palesbnonflicineludingquestionsof
sdty, theprotectionof seîüemaandthemovamm tfpersonand goods. hetenusof
theRoadhiapgiveexpmim tothatdcd policy.TheRoadMap remahsthecornexatonef
intemafiopiffortstoaddreissueîhatrefatothesetdementoftheconfliThe Australian
Govanmentthmeforesubini$tbatanadvisoryopiniononthisquestionwodd baveno
'practicir~onttmparareffed'ad wouldbe 'devoidofabjectorpurpose'.
(c) uvisorv o~inioori auestiow~ddliu bavea d ~ c n ~ t on
&ions andonthew& oftheUniN Nationsasawhole
Itiswelestablishinth e~pdence ofth a ourt h&threplyofth eourttoarequesfor
sradoisoryopinionrepresetheparticipationoftheCourtbUmtivitieoftbeUNted
Nations(See:Reseniatioto~heConventiononGernci.d, dvisoryOpiniICJ Reports
1951,p.15atp.19;Applicnt ionReviewofJudgmént No.333 ofthe UnitedNatibns
Adminirtrativilziibunal,Adviso'yOpiTCJReports1987,p. atp. 31;Lsgaliofthe
Threator UseoNueJeu?WeaponsA, dviEorOpinio ICJReports1996,p226 atpp.234-235).
Inrhi sonteatheCourtbasobsd bt itis 'constamtiydfulfitresponsibilitsst.
priucipaljudicialorganofUniteNdations'(LegaltryoftheT!htrUseofNzlear
WenponsA, dvisoryOpinioq ICJReports1996,p.226pp.235Chart oftheUnitedNations,
Article92).
23. Iniew of îhml6 andttsponsibilitiesofCaurttheemphasiSaouidbeonwhether the
Courteauplayaconstructirolei assishg theothargan sftheUnitedNationsI.rhis
connecüoqifa rssponsetoarequeforanadvisbryopiniowuid beunlikelytopro* any
constructaissstancb theohm organoftheUnitedNahm, ormuid iikelyhavea
d d &ct ontheactivitiesoftheUnitNation baththedu@ ofthecourtoprotectits
ownjudiciacharacteaodtacneedforittaplayaconstnittpartasanorgauoftheUnited
Nationacd fortheCourtomerciseitsdiscretitodeciintorespontotbercqmst.
24. Thepresentcaseiiiatcptional. lt cornestheCourtaa time#hm thepartietothe
Id-Palcstinian confiicthaageed toimplemenft:heRoadMapTheRoadMap isa
perfo-e-based andgoal-kvenplanforalinaandcomprchausiv tcttlammoftheIsraeli-
PakstiniaconfiîcItsetautth ebligationsbotdhdeswithregar dosaasitipofitical,
secuïtyecono~~, humani* andstrate@aspectofthedispu(tsee:SI2003152of May
2003,Dossieno.70) .hc temaoftheRoadh!iahavebm~Gndarsea dadreafnrniedbthe
partietotheconfiid,theSecretary-GcraltheUnitedNations,heGan~ral ssemblyand
by tbsSecurïCouncil,whichhasindicatthatiromains'seizedof thematt($me:
SIRES115 (2503)of 19Novembcr2003,Dosderno.36).29.JAN 2.00416: 27 LEGA BLRANC DHFA6 T2612144
25. TheacfitrioftheSecuritCo\inciaddsanexlradimRnnibnothepresentcaseTb6 Courthas
demonstratcdthatWU'takemgniZance'oftheht kt amatterbeforeit isalsobtfonthe
SecUntyCouncilintheexeNse ofpowe~~inwhichtheCourtpassessesa discret(Aegean
SeaContinmtalSheIIIntd ProtectionOrderof 11Sqtmber 1976,ICJ report^1976,.2
atp.12;UnitedStateDZplomatiacndConsuIaSrtafinTehranJ,udgmml, ICJReporis1980,
p.3atpp.21-2;MilïiaandParamil[tarAyctivitiesandagahstN~aragu Nicaraguav.
Unite Sûzteof&nericu),JurisdictandAdmissibiliiJudgementI,CJReports1984 ,.
392)ln thoscaseswheretheCourtks decidedonhearingamafiaIithas emphasisethattbo
simultaneouswncise ofthefunctionsoffbbCourtatheSecuntyCmil wouldmakea
positivconh-butiotathepeacefuiscttlmeaoa disputeortotheresolutionof a situation
baiagcodsideredby theSec* Couil (see :niteStateDiplornaticnd ConsulaStaffin
Tehrm, JudgementICJRepm 1980,p-3 atpp.21-2;MIlr?tand ParamilitwActivitieIn
andagaïnslNjcaragzl@ic@agm v. UniteStaleofAmenca) ,/urisdtcfnndAdmissibility,
Judgamenb ,CJReporîa1984,p.392atpp.434-5).Accordinglw,hereitire8sopableto
appmhd thatheinvolvernentofthCourtmuid nothavesuchpositiveeffed,theComt
shouldpropmlydeclineta pronounceonthematter.
26. Momver,it wouldbe inapprOpnafor th^Courtamdet anopinionon a questionthast
hmed insuchan openmariner(i.e.,'whatarelagd comaqucnces...'andyetwhichis also
so selectiiniîs abjectmattwhcnviewedin thecontaitofthewholeconflicTheCorn
wouldnot assitheresolutionoth conflictthroughimplanentatoftheRoadMap by
providinan advisoropiniononthesemritybk. OtherIegalaspectsofa cturnature,
suchasthe legalityof,andintanationarlesponsibilityfor, suicidwithinIaraelre
mt cowed by rheQuestionTherenderingofgn opinionbytheCm onlyonthelegalityof
thesecuxitbarxiewouldbe, ofnecassi, hgmentar andofno assistaninresolvinthe
odct
27. The Au6îraiiGovemmentconsiderstbatif thCa& weretogiveanopinionintheprtsaat
case,itcouldnotbaveapositiveegecf eikonthework ofrheSecurityCouncilointhe
contaxtof rhactivitoftheUniteN dahm asawholein wotkingtowds asdement of the
Imeli-Palestinicodict. Therendaiqgofamadoisoryopiniocnuldpotentiaimake a
Iasti segement oftheconflid mordïflicuCOaccamplish.sindicatedabove,thereisa
subsfantiairiskthatprovisianlegaopini bynthtCourtonrheselectivepoints oflaw
raisebytherequestcouldwellobsûucîfuthurpmgess onth e oadMap andcompelthe
partietotheconflibt engageinfmitlesdebaton theimplicatiooftheCourt'sopinion
ratlmthanîmplementationoftheobIigationswdm tRoadMapT . herisal80a realriskthat
anopinio fomthe Courtcouldcastdoubtonpastac-ts and commiûnentsIn sho*
whatevertheviewtheCourtvrert~rea& onthedts ofh questionpurto i$iisuniikelto
assisinthe peacerstîîhmtdtofthecdct, 29 .AN2 ,004 16 2: LEGA BLRANC DFAT 62612144 NO.601 P. 13
-
28. h viawoftheseconsideraùonst,AuSwan Gove~~meritabmitthartheCourmay
appropriateyetexdm that tirr1:aetstheUdd Nationsandtheinkmitioaacommunity
asawhole arebeswed bytheCourtdeclinhgthorequest.rwdar aadvisorqinion
Morwvec, asindicatedabove,anadvisorycrpwuiontheCouitmightgivconthequestion
puttoitwoUldnotbelikelto cmaibutepositiveltheimplementatiofthe RoadMap.
ndeed,thereiard riathatitwodd haveharmniilmplicatisairhpeacepmwsn.In view
oftheconsideratiosetforinthisStatetemnt,AushaliaGovenunanstubmit hatthere
arecompcllingreasowhy theCourtahouimerciseitsdiscrettadeclkitopvide the
requestedopinion
ChrisMoraitis
SenioLregalAdviser
DepartmentfForeignAfFaïra
andTrade
Written Statement of the Government of Australia