Cour internationalede Justice
Enregistréau Greffe le
----------
International Courtof Justice
Filedinthe Registryon :
Embassy ofSweden
The Hague
The Embassy of Sweden presents its compliments to the International Court
ofJustice and, with reference to theletter of 19 December 2003 from the
Court's Registrar to the Ambassador of Sweden to the Netherlands
concerning the request for anadvisory opinion by the United Nations and its
Member States, has the honour to submit the enclosed reply.
Due to time constraints the statement is submittedinEnglish only. The
Embassy regrets that itis not possible to furnish an additional French version
of the statement, asould have been appreciated by the Court.
The Embassy of Sweden availsitself of this opportunity to renew to the
International Court ofJustice the assurances of itshest consideration.
The Hague 30January 2004
The International Court of Justice
THE HAGUE Israel hasrequisitioned anddestroyed property,including houses, for the purpose
of the construction of the barrier.Some of this property has been public, some
private. An occupying forcernaynot "destroy or seize the enemy's property,
unless such destruction or seizurebe imperativelydemanded by the necessities of
war" (Article 23 (g), HR).Further, private propertyrnaybe requisitioned only "for
the needs of the army of occupation" (Article 52, HR).If the route of the barrier
beyond the Green Line has beendeterminedby needs other than those of the army,
then there seems to be no validjustification for requisitions of land.Lastly, Article
53 of GCIV provides that destructionof property isjustified only where it is
rendered "absolutely necessaryby military operations".
The barrier also severely hampersthe accessof civiliansto their farmland and
health care. Thisraises concern regarding thecompliance with theobligations laid
down in Articles 55 and 56of the Fourth GenevaConvention and with the
provision on child care in Article 50.
8. In addition,the construction and consequencesof the barrier rnayviolate human
rights law. International humanrights law is fullyapplicable to the occupied
territories and binding on Israelinthose territories.The application of human
rights law in armed conflict hasbeen confirmedbythe International Court of
Justice in its Advisory Opinionon the Legalityof the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons (ICJ Reports, 1996,p 240).The application in theoccupied territories of
the two International Covenantson Human Rights of 1966and of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC),to which Israelis a party, has been confirmed
by, respectively,the HumanRights Committee (CCPRIC0178lISRof 21 August
2003), the Cornmittee onEconomic,Social and CulturalRights (EIC.12/l/Add.90
of 23 May 2003), and the Committeeon the Rights of the Child
(CRCICI151Add.195of 9 October2002).
The restrictions on accessbyPalestiniansto the closed area between the bamer
and the Green Line and the limited passagethrough thebarrier rnayviolate the
right to liberty of movement in accordancewith Article 12.1of the International
Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights (ICCPR).The resulting obstacles to access
to workplaces,farmland, health services and schools raise questions of possible
violations of several provisionsof the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):the rightto work (Article6), the right to adequate
standard of living (Article 1l), the right to healthcare (Article 12)and the right to
education (Article 13). In addition,the following rights under the CRC rnaybe
affected by thesame restrictions:the right to healthcare (Article 24), the right to
an adequate standard of living (Article 27)and the right to education (Article28).
The demolition of housesfor the purposes of constructing thebarrier rnayamount
to unlawful interference with home in violationof Article 17of the ICCPR as well
as Article 16of the CRC, and a violation of theright to adequate standard of
living including housing underArticle 11.1of the ICESCR.
The differentrequirements for PalestiniansandIsraeliswhen it comes to obtaining
permits in order to be grantedaccessto and remainin the closed area raise concernsabout violationsof the right toequalitybefore the law asprovidedin
Article26 of the ICCPR.
9. Violationsof internationallawresultingfromthe construction of thebamer entai1
legalconsequences.Israelmuststop and reverse theconstruction of the bamer, as
demandedbyResolution ES-10113.This followsfrom general principlesof
internationallaw, as codifiedby the International LawCommissionin Articles 30
and 31 of its Articles on Responsibilityof Statesfor InternationallyWrongful
Acts, annexedto UN General Assembly Resolution56/83 (2001).
Further, compensationmustbe awardedforharmalready suffered,as providedin
Article3 of the Fourth HagueConventionof 1907,which expresses international
customarylaw, andArticle 2(3)of ICCPR.
10.Another consequenceof theillegalityof theconstructionof the barrier is that,
underinternationalcustomarylaw ascodifiedin Article 16of the Articleson
Responsibilityof Statesfor Internationally WrongfulActs, third statesmust not
aid and assistIsrael in its measures.Further,riousbreaches of obligationsunder
peremptorynoms entai1additionallegalconsequencesfor third states,as setout
in Article41 of thesaidArticles.
11.Lastly,the legalsituationwithregardto thebarrieris the same forEast Jerusalem
as for the rest of the territoriesoccupiedin 1967(cf.,a., UN SecurityCouncil
Resolution478 (1980)).Inthis regard itis suggestedthat the Courtrnight consider
whetherthe enjoymentof theregime pertainingto the Holy Places,the so-called
status quo,has been affectedbythe constructionof the bamer.
Note Verbale dated 30 January 2004 from the Embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden to the Netherlands, together with the Statement of the Kingdom of Sweden