INTRODUCTION
WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF
THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN
25 July 2023
1. The Republic of Yemen has the honour to submit this Written Statement in accordance with
the Order of the International Comi of Justice of3 February 2023 in the matter concerning
Legal Consequences arising fiwn the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied
Palestinian Territo,y, including East Jerusalem. This Written Statement briefly addresses
the issues referred to the Court by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution
77 /24 7 of 30 December 2022.
2. To that end, following this introduction this Written Statement is divided into six patis, as
follows: (A) Terms of the request; (B) Jurisdiction and admissibility; (C) Applicable Law;
(D) Policies and practices of Israel against the Palestinian people; (E) The legal status of
the Israeli occupation's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory in light of
its policies and practices therein; and (F) The legal consequences arising for all States, and
the United Nations, from this status.
A. TERMS OF THE REQUEST
3. The General Assembly has requested the Comi via its resolution 77 /246 to furnish an
advisory opinion on the following questions:
(a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of
the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged
1
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 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?
4. The terms of these questions clearly go beyond the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem (OPT). As such, although this Written Statement will focus itself
on the relevant legal issues in respect of the OPT, it will also touch on those that go beyond
that territory.
B. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY
5. Article 96, paragraph I, of the United Nations Charter provides that "[t]he General
Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an
advisory opinion on any legal question."1
6. A1ticle 65, paragraph I, of the Comi's Statute further provides that "[t]he Comi may give
an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be
authorized by or in accordance with the Chatter of the United Nations to make such a
request. "2
7. General Assembly resolution 77/247, which provided for the present request, was adopted
by a large majority of the members of the United Nations present and voting. As such, the
request was made by a duly authorized organ of the United Nations, validly adopted from
the procedural point of view.
1 UN Charter, art. 96(1).
2 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 65( I).
2
8. Notwithstanding the ability of the Court to decline to give an advisory opinion under atiicle
65, paragraph I, of its Statute, it has never done so. The Comi's jurisprudence has affirmed
that for any such refusal to be justified, there must exist "compelling reasons" to do so.3 In
this case, no such reasons exist. On the contrary, the inordinately prolonged nature of the
legal matters at issue in this case render it vitally impotiant for the Court to provide the
General Assembly with legal guidance on the questions posed, all of which continue to
impact the Palestinian people, whose dire condition is increasingly worsening by the day.
9. In addition, no compelling reasons exist for the Court to refuse to give its opinion in this
matter because of its impotiance for the role of the United Nations, given that the question
of Palestine has remained on the agenda of the Organization since its establishment without
resolution. The United Nations has a permanent responsibility for the question of Palestine
until it is resolved in all of its aspects in accordance with international law.4 This permanent
responsibility was confirmed by this Comi in its 2004 Advisory Opinion concerning Legal
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territ01y [' Wall
Opinion']. 5
I 0. For the reasons above, it is clear that the Comi has jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion
in this case on the basis that the General Assembly is competent to request an advisory
opinion from this Comi on the subject-matter of the request, and that there are no
compelling reasons preventing the Court from giving its opinion on the questions submitted
to it.
3 See e.g. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo,
Advisory Opinion, I.CJ. Reports 20 I 0, p. 416, para. 30; Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos
Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.CJ. Reports 2019, p. 113, para. 65.
4 ES- I 0/18, "General Assembly resolution supporting the immediate ceasefire according to Security Council
resolution 1860 (2009)", 16 January 2009, preamble "Stressing the permanent responsibility of the United Nations
with regard to the question of Palestine until it is solved in all its aspects, in accordance with international law";
5 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territo,y, Advisory Opinion, I.CJ.
Repo1is 2004, p. 165, para. 49 ['Wall Opinion'].
3
C. APPLICABLE LAW
11. Israel's prolonged occupation, settlement, and annexation of the OPT, including measures
aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of
Jerusalem are governed by general international law, international humanitarian law and
international human rights law.
12. With regard to general international law, most important is the general prohibition on the
threat or use of force in international relations. Article 2(4) of the UN Chatier provides
that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in
any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."6
13. In Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v.
Uganda), the Comi held that "the prohibition against the use of force is a cornerstone of
the United Nations Chatier."7 The International Law Commission has affirmed the
prohibition on the use of force (i.e. aggression) as a peremptory norm of general
international law, derogation from which is not permitted.8 This prohibition has been
affirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, entitled
"Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation
among States".9 Accordingly, the Friendly Relations Declaration affirms the following
principles, namely that: ( 1) "[t]he territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition
by another State resulting from the threat or use of force;" and (2) "[n]o territorial
acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" .10
6 UN Charter, art. 2( 4 ).
7 Armed Activities on the Territ01y of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ
Reports 2005, p. 168, para. 148 [hereinafter 'Armed Activities']. '
8 Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of PeremptOIJ' Norms of General International Law
(Jus Cogens), Report of the International Law Commission, 73 rd Sess., 18 April-3 June & 4 July-5 August 2022,
A/77/10 ['ILC Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms'], para. 44, Annex.
9 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
A/RES/2625, 24 October I 970, Annex, para. I [hereinafter 'Friendly Relations Declaration'].
io Id.
4
14. With regard to international humanitarian law, the situation in the OPT is governed by
conventional and customary international humanitarian law, the "basic rules" of which
amount to peremptory norms of international law according to the International Law
Commission.11 This includes the 1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and
Customs of War on Land, with its annexed Regulations, 12 and the 1949 Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,13 which, as affirmed by this
Couti, both apply to the OPT.14 In addition, the Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Civilian Victims of
International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 also applies to the extent that is provisions
amount to custom.15 Both before and after the Wall Opinion, numerous resolutions of the
Security Council, General Assembly, and Human Rights Council have affirmed the
continued applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT. 16 Likewise, in
several Declarations, the Conference of High Contracting Patiies reaffirmed the
applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT17.
15. With regard to international human rights law, core international human rights treaties
apply to these proceedings. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR),18 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR),19 and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD).20 In the Wall Opinion, this Couti found that international human
11 ILC Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms, para. 44, Annex.
12 Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, I Bevans 631
( entered into force 26 January 1910), annex.
13 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287
(entered into force 21 October 1950) [hereinafter 'Fourth Geneva Convention '].
14 Wall Opinion, paras. 89 & IOI.
15 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Civilian Victims
of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 ['Additional Protoco/ 1'].
16 For some of the most recent of these, see e.g. S/RES/2334 (2016), 23 December 2016, preamble; A/RES/77/247,
30 December 2022, preamble; and NHRC/RES/49/4, 31 March 2022, preamble.
17 Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Declaration, 5 December 200 I and
Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Declaration, 17 December 2014.
18 international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966 (entry into force 23 March 1976) 999
UNTS 171.
19 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966 (entry into force 3 January
1976) 993 UNTS 3.
20 International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, 7 March 1966 ( entry into force
4 January 1969), 660 UNTS 195.
5
rights law applies to the Israeli occupation's administration of the OPT, including the
ICCPR and the ICESCR.21 In addition, the customary international law of human rights
applies, including as codified in the International Convention on the Suppression and
Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.22 The prohibition of racial discrimination has been
affirmed by this Court as a norm of erga omnes character.23 In addition, racial
discrimination and apmtheid have also been confirmed by the ILC as peremptory norms of
general international law, derogation from which is not permitted.24
D. POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF ISRAELAGAINST THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
16. The relevant policies and practices referred to by the General Assembly in part (a) of its
questions are "the 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 its "adoption of
related discriminatory legislation and measures." Each of these is briefly addressed below.
Israel's Prolonged Occupation, Settlement and Annexation of the OPT, including measures
aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holv Citv of
Jerusalem
17. In 1948, Israeli forces seized militarily the Western pati of the Holy City of Jerusalem and
proceeded to alter the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City, in
breach of international law and UN resolutions.
21 Wal/Opinion,paras. III, 112& 113.
22 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apaiiheid, 30 November I 973 (entty
into force I 8 July I 976), IOI 5 UNTS 243 [hereinafter 'Apartheid Convention'].
23 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v. Spain), Second
phase, Judgment, I.CJ. Repmis 1970, p. 32, para. 34.
24 ILC Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms, para. 44, Annex.
6
18. In 1967, Israeli forces proceeded to unlawfully acquire more territory, occupying the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Israeli authorities unlawfully annexed
the Holy City of Jerusalem and its environs.25
19. Israeli violations of the UN Charter, namely the acquisition of territory by force, prompted
the General Assembly to adopt resolutions declaring Israeli annexation and measures
"invalid" and calling on it "to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith
from taking action which could alter the status of Jerusalem." Similarly, the Security
Council also condemned Israeli annexation of Jerusalem. In its resolution 252 (1968), it
"[r]eaffirm[ed] that acquisition of territory by military conquest its inadmissible" and that
"all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including
expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of
Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change the status."
20. During the years that followed, and faced with Israeli violations of UN resolutions, both
the General Assembly and the Security Council adopted resolutions declaring that "policies
of Israel constitute not only a direct contravention to, and violation of, the purposes and
principles of the Chmier of the United Nations, in paiiicular the principles of sovereignty
and territorial integrity, the principles and provisions of the applicable international law
concerning occupation and the basic human rights of the people." 26
21. Israeli violations of UN resolutions continued and in 1980, it enacted legislation formally
declaring Jerusalem as the "capital oflsrael". 27 In response, the Security Council adopted
resolution 476, "[ d]eplor[ing] the persistence of Israel in changing the ... institutional
structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem ... with the aim of changing the
character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem." 28 Israeli enactment of the Basic Law
triggered international condemnations which led to the adoption of several UN resolutions.
25 See e.g. Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11) Law, 5727-1967, Atiicle I; Municipalities
Ordinance (Amendment No. 6) Law, 5727-1967; Government and Law Procedures Ordinance No. I of 5727-1967,
Israeli Collection of Regulations, No. 2064, 28 June 1967, p. 2690
26 General Assembly, Resolution 3240 A (XXIX), 29 November 1974; see also: General Assembly, Resolution 3414
(XXX), 5 December 1975, para. 2; General Assembly, Resolution 3525 A (XXX), 15 December 1975, paras. 5 and
9; Security Council, Resolution 298 (1971), 25 September 1971, para. 4.
27 Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital oflsrael, Israeli Collection of Regulations, 5740-1980
28 Security Council, Resolution 476 (1980), 30 June 1980.
7
22. The Security Council, in resolution 478 of20 August 1980, determined that "all legislative
and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have
altered or purpo1i to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in
paiiicular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded
forthwith."29 The General Assembly also determined that "Israel's decision to annex
Jerusalem and to annex it as its 'capital' as well as the measures to alter its physical
character, demographic composition, institutional structure and status are null and void"
and must "be rescinded immediately." 30
23. The Israeli occupation unlawfully colonized and attempted to annex as much territory for
the exclusive benefit of its Jewish Israeli settlers. The prime vehicle through which this
goal has been pursued has been the illegal transfer of over 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers
into the OPT, including East Jerusalem. Thus, according to a 1980 plan prepared by
Matityahu Drobles of the Settlement Depaiiment of the World Zionist Organization (the
so-called "Drobles Plan"):
"The best and most effective way of removing every shadow of doubt about our
intention to hold on to Judea and Samaria [i.e., the West Bank] forever is by
speeding up the [Jewish colonial] settlement momentum in these territories. The
purpose of settling the areas between and around the centers occupied by the
minorities [that is, the Palestinian majority in the West Bank] is to reduce to the
minimum the danger of an additional Arab state being established in these
territories. Being cut off by Jewish settlements, the minority population will find it
difficult to form a territorial and political continuity."31
24. A1iicle 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention affirms that an "Occupying
Power shall not. .. transfer paiis of its own civilian population into the territory it
29 Security Council, Resolution 478 (1980), 20 August 1980, paras. 2-3.
30 General Assembly, Resolution 36/120 D, I O December 1981, para. 6.
31 Matityahu Drobles, Master Plan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria (1980), as quoted in
Playfair, E. (ed.) International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories (Oxford, 1992), at 446.
8
occupies."32 This prohibition has been affirmed in both the Additional Protocol J,33 as well
as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Comi.34 The ICRC commentary on article
49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it abundantly clear that it:
"is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain
Powers, which transferred po1iions of their own population to occupied territory for
political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those
territories."35
Despite this clear law, and the fact that all relevant United Nations organs- including this
Court36 - have denounced Israeli settlement of the OPT it continued to flagrantly and
publicly breach its obligations and persisted in colonizing the OPT.
25. As pmi of this process, the Israeli occupation has unde1iaken a series of legislative and
administrative measures to annex, both de Jure and de facto, the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem.
26. Since 1967, the Israel occupation has extended and applied its domestic law and
jurisdiction to the West Bank through over 1800 military orders, 37 legislations, and judicial
decisions, pertaining to all aspects of life. 38 This includes the extension oflsraeli domestic
law to Israeli settlers illegally colonizing the territory, the continued construction,
maintenance and extension of the annexation Wall and its associated regime, the
establishment and maintenance of Israeli only zones (i.e. settlement regional areas; nature
reserves, closed military areas, etc.), and the corralling of the Palestinian population into
32 Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 49.
33 Additional Protocol I, art. 85(4)(a).
34 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 37 ILM 999, mi. 8(2)(b)(viii).
35 Pictet, supra note 41, at 283.
36 Wall Opinion, para. 120.
37 Rep01i of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "Israeli settlements
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan",
30 Janumy 2019, NHRC/40/42, para. 12
38 Report of the Independent International Commission oflnquiry on the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, 14 September 2022, A/77/328, para. 46.
9
isolated, besieged and disconnected Bantustans, leaving the only territorially contiguous
portion of the territory under the exclusive control of the occupying Power. To this has
been added repeated affirmations of the political leadership of the occupying Power that it
will never leave the OPT.
27. Throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel has implanted over 700,000
settlers in 287 settlements, in an attempt to establish and entrench its permanent authority
over the territory. 39
28. Despite numerous UN resolutions calling on the Israeli occupation to cease its settlement
activates, it continued and in fact accelerated its colonization of the Palestinian territory,
which led the Security Council to adopt resolution 465 in 1980:
" Strongly deplor[ing] the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those
policies and practices and call[ing] upon the Government and people of Israel to
rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to
cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of
settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem."40
29. The Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council condemned
settlement activities over decades.
30. The Cou1t addressed the illegality oflsraeli settlements in its Wall Opinion. After recalling
A1ticle 49, paragraph 6 of the Fomth Geneva Convention, the Comt observed that, "the
information provided to the Court shows that ... Israel has conducted a policy and
developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6". The Cou1t concluded that" the
Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have
been established in breach of international law."41
39 Peace Now, Settlements Map 2023, 5 January 2023, p. 2 (http://peacenow.org.il/wpcontent/
uploads/2023/0 I /settlements map En 2023 .pdf ).
40 Security Council, Resolution 465 (1980), I March 1980, para. 5.
41 Wall Opinion, p. 184, para. 120.
10
31. Yet, Israeli settlement building and expansion continued, leading the Security Council in
2016 to adopt resolution 2334, recalling the advisory opinion on the Wall and:
"Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition,
character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East
Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements,
transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and
displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law
and relevant resolutions,"
"Reaffirm[ing] that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory
occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a
flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the
two- State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; [and]
"Reiterate[ d] its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement
activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully
respect all of its legal obligations in this regard. "42
32. In the Wall Opinion, this Court expressed its concern lest "the construction of the wall and
its associated regime create a 'fait accompli' on the ground that could well become
permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by
Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation."43 Events on the ground have not
only vindicated this view, but they have demonstrated that the occupying Power's
purportedly temporary presence in the whole of the West Bank amounts to de facto
annexation, in addition to its continuing de Jure annexation of Jerusalem. As found in
September 2022 by the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel:
"Israel treats the occupation as permanent and has - for all intents and purposes -
annexed pmis of the West Bank, while seeking to hide behind a fiction of
temporariness. Actions by Israel constituting de facto annexation include
expropriating land and natural resources, establishing settlements and outposts,
maintaining a restrictive and discriminatory planning and building regime for
Palestinians and extending Israeli law extraterritorially to Israeli settlers in the West
42 Security Council, Resolution 2334(2016), 23 December 2016, paras. I and 2.
43 Wall Opinion, para. 121.
11
Bank. The International Court of Justice anticipated such a scenario in its 2004
advisory opinion, in which it stated that the wall was creating a fait accompli on the
ground that could well become permanent and tantamount to de facto annexation.
This has now become the reality."44
33. The General Assembly also stressed that "the occupation of a territory is to be a temporary,
de facto situation, whereby the Occupying Power can neither claim possession nor exe1t
its sovereignty over the territory it occupies, recall[ing] in this regard the principle of the
inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and therefore the illegality of the
annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
which constitutes a breach of international law, undermines the viability of the two-State
solution and challenges the prospects for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace
settlement."
Adoption of Related discriminatorv legislation and measures
The General Assembly's reference to the occupying Power's "adoption of related
discriminatory legislation and measures" requires the examination of relevant provisions of
CERD and the Apartheid Convention. As noted, the prohibition of racial discrimination and
Apartheid qualify as peremptory norms of general international law, derogation from which is
not permitted.
34. Based on CERD and the Apartheid Convention, the presence of apaitheid is established if
the conditions of a paiticular situation of racial discrimination satisfy three elements:
i. There exists an institutionalized regime of systematic racial oppression
and discrimination;
11. The regime was established with the intent to maintain the domination of
one racial group over another; and
111. The regime features inhuman(e) acts committed as an integral part of the
regime.
44 Report of the Independent lntemational Commission of Jnquil)' on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem, and Israel, 14 September 2022, A/77/328, para. 76.
12
35. All three of these elements of the governing test for the presence of apartheid are found in
the occupying Power's rule over the Palestinian people in the OPT. In this regard it is useful
to quote the United Nations Special Rapp011eur for the situation of human rights in the
territories occupied by Israel since 1967, who in 2022 examined this issue at length:
"[T]he political system of entrenched rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that
endows one racial-national-ethnic group with substantial rights, benefits and
privileges while intentionally subjecting another group to live behind walls and
checkpoints and under a permanent military rule sans droits, sans egalite, sans
<lignite et sans libe11e (without rights, without equality, without dignity and without
freedom) satisfies the prevailing evidentiary standard for the existence of apartheid
First, an institutionalized regime of systematic racial oppression and discrimination
has been established. Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs in East Jerusalem and the
West Bank live their lives under a single regime that differentiates its distribution
of rights and benefits on the basis of national and ethnic identity, and that ensures
the supremacy of one group over, and to the detriment of, the other. (The Palestinian
Authority exercises restricted jurisdiction and provides services in limited paits of
the West Bank that Israel has no interest in delivering.) The differences in living
conditions and citizenship rights and benefits are stark, deeply discriminatory and
maintained through systematic and institutionalized oppression.
Second, this system of alien rule has been established with the intent to maintain
the domination of one racial-national-ethnic group over another. Israeli political
leaders, past and present, have repeatedly stated that they intend to retain control
over all of the occupied territory in order to enlarge the blocs of land for present
and future Jewish settlement while confining the Palestinians to barricaded
population reserves. This is a two-sided coin: the plans for more Jewish settlers and
larger Jewish settlements on greater tracts of occupied land cannot be accomplished
without the expropriation of more Palestinian property together with harsher and
more sophisticated methods of population control to manage the inevitable
13
resistance. Under this system, the freedoms of one group are inextricably bound up
in the subjugation of the other.
Third, the imposition of this system of institutionalized discrimination with the
intent of permanent domination has been built upon the regular practice of
inhumane and inhuman acts. Arbitrary and extrajudicial killings. To1iure. The
violent deaths of children. The denial of fundamental human rights. A
fundamentally flawed military comi system and the lack of criminal due process.
Arbitrary detention. Collective punishment. The repetition of these acts over long
periods of time, and their endorsement by the Knesset and the Israeli judicial
system, indicate that they are not the result of random and isolated acts but integral
to the system of rule by Israel."45
The UN Special Rapporteur concluded in his August 2022 report that: "With the eyes of
the international community wide open, Israel has imposed upon Palestine an apaiiheid
reality in a post-apaiiheid world."46
36. Policies pursued by successive Israeli governments over the course of the occupation have
divided the OPT into a series of non-contiguous enclaves into which Palestinians are
effectively confined and isolated.
37. The Gaza Strip is the ultimate expression of this policy. The Israeli occupying Power has
brought about "[t]he transformation of the Gaza Strip into a heavily populated,
impoverished enclave controlled by Israel thought suffocating sea, land and air
blockade."47 The Israeli occupation has thus "barricaded the 2 million Palestinians into
... 'an open-are prison', a method of population control unique in the modern world"
leading to "the indefinite warehousing of an unwanted population of 2 million Palestinians,
45 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967, 12 August 2022, A/HRC/49/87, paras. 53-55
(https:/ /undocs.org/ A/HRC/49/8 7).
46 UNHCR, 'Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory
occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk' (12 August 2022) A/HRC/49/87, at para. 56.
47 Repo1i of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967, 21 September 2022, A/77 /356, para. 46
14
whom it has confined to a narrow strip of land through its comprehensive 15-year old air,
land and sea blockade." 48
38. The existence of a systematic regime of racial discrimination amounting to apartheid is
clear on both sides of the Green Line. Widespread and systematic discrimination against
Palestinian Arabs is institutionalized and systematic, established with the intent to maintain
the domination of one racial group (Israeli Jews) over another (Palestinian Arabs), and
includes features of inhumane acts as an integral patt of the regime. This includes the
deprivation of the most basic rights for Palestinians, including to return to their homes and
property. As noted, the apartheid reality faced by Palestinian refugees was long ago
consolidated by Israel through the passage of legislation that purp01ted to denationalize
them en masse, forbid their return, and usurp their propeity.49
E. THE LEGAL STATUS OF ISRAELI CONTINUED PRESENCE IN THE OCCUPIED
PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
39. In part (b) of the question submitted to the Comt in resolution 77/246, the General
Assembly has asked for an opinion on how "the policies and practices of Israel affect the
legal status of the occupation?"
40. It is clear from the foregoing that the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying power,
in the OPT, that when examined as a whole, involve the gross and systematic violation of
at least these peremptory norms of general international law:
(1) the prohibition of aggression, which its corollary prohibiting the acquisition of territory
through the use of force; and
(2) the imposition of a regime of widespread and systematic racial discrimination
amounting to Apartheid.
48 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967, 12 August 2022, A/HRC/49/87, para. 45
49 See, e.g. Law of Return (1950), Absentee Property Law ( 1950), and Nationality Law (1952).
15
41. The evidence demonstrates that the occupying Power does not itself regard its presence in
the OPT as anything but permanent. This permanence has been reified through the
multiplicity of violations of the above noted peremptory norms by the occupying Power.
F. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
42. As a consequence of its serious breaches, the Israeli occupying Power is bound:
a. To withdraw immediately and unconditionally from all the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. This means, inter alia, that Israel is obligated to reverse its policy of
annexation of Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, remove its illegal
settlements and related infrastructure from OPT, end its blockade of the Gaza Strip,
repeal and render ineffective all legislative and administrative acts that underpin its
internationally wrongful acts, including discriminatory legislation, measures and
actions against the Palestinian people, and cease any further violations of the
fundamental rights of the Palestinian people under international law;
b. To provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of the above-mentioned
violations;
c. To make full reparation of the injury caused by its internationally wrongful acts,
and to wipe out all the consequences of its policies and practices to the State of
Palestine and the Palestinian people.
43. All States and the United Nations, are bound:
a. Not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from Israels serious breaches of
obligations arising under peremptory norms of general international law;
16
b. Not to render aid or assistance to violations of the rights of the Palestinian people;
and
c. To cooperate to effectively ensure and protect the rights of the Palestinian people
and to end Israeli violations of those rights,
*****
44. The Republic of Yemen submits the foregoing Written Statement to the International Comi
of Justice as information to assist the Cou1t to render an Advisory Opinion on the question
posed by the General Assembly.
Signed and submitted on behalf of the Government of the Republic ofYe~m_e._ "'
The Hague: 25 July 2023
(Sahar Mohammed Ghanem)
Ambassador of the Republic of Yemen to
The Kingdom of the Netherlands
17
Written statement of Yemen