Note: This translation has been prepared by the Registry for internal purposes and has no official
character
19005
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES
AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY,
INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM
(REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION)
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF THE
ORGANISATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION
October 2023
[Translation by the Registry]
INTRODUCTION
1. In accordance with the possibilities open to it under the proceedings initiated before the
International Court of Justice, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has the honour to present here
further comments relating to the request for an advisory opinion submitted to the International Court
of Justice by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 December 2022 concerning the
consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem.
2. The General Assembly seeks the opinion of the Court on the following two-fold question:
“(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 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 referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above
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?”1
3. Some of the 57 States and intergovernmental organizations that have submitted written
statements on these questions have requested the Court to decline its jurisdiction. Moreover, while
none of the participants in these proceedings has disputed that there have been serious violations of
international law by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1972, two consider the
prolonged military occupation to be justified. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation will briefly
address those matters here.
I. THE OPINION SOUGHT IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE AND IT IS IMPERATIVE
FOR THE COURT TO FIND THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION
4. It is of paramount importance that the Court enlightens the General Assembly by responding
to the questions submitted to it by the latter and, in so doing, fulfils the advisory function provided
for in Article 65, paragraph 1, of its Statute, which stipulates that “[t]he Court may give an advisory
opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request”. In these proceedings, it is the General
Assembly of the United Nations that has seised the International Court of Justice by the
above-mentioned resolution. The General Assembly has thus used the possibility open to it under
Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter to request an advisory opinion: “The General Assembly or the
Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any
legal question.”
5. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation wishes to emphasize that none of the arguments
put forward in these proceedings to convince the Court to decline its jurisdiction in this case is of
any relevance, and that it would be disastrous if, by refusing to exercise its advisory function in this
instance, the Court were to leave unanswered the important questions put to it.
1 United Nations General Assembly resolution 77/247, 30 Dec. 2022.
- 2 -
1. The General Assembly is perfectly justified in requesting an advisory opinion on the
questions posed, for which it has a responsibility under the Charter
6. The General Assembly is in fact vested with the powers and responsibilities of the
United Nations in matters relating to international peace and security. And the United Nations “has
a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its
aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy”2. It is on these grounds
that the Court, when previously seised of a request for an advisory opinion on the question of the
wall built by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, determined that the object of the request
before it was to obtain an opinion which the General Assembly deems of assistance to it for the
proper exercise of its functions3.
7. In this regard, the Court considers that it is not for it to determine the usefulness of its
response to the requesting organ. It is for the requesting organ, in this case the General Assembly, to
determine “whether it needs the opinion for the proper performance of its functions”4, since “[t]he
Court has consistently made clear that it is for the organ which requests the opinion, and not for the
Court, to determine whether it needs the opinion for the proper performance of its functions”5.
8. In adopting resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022, by which the Court was seised of the
present request for an advisory opinion, the General Assembly was therefore acting within the scope
of its responsibilities and there is nothing in that request that might lead the Court to decline its
jurisdiction.
2. The questions submitted to the Court by the General Assembly are legal questions
9. The participants in these proceedings who are opposed to the Court’s jurisdiction ask the
Court to decline its jurisdiction on the ground that the questions raised by the request for an advisory
opinion are of a political character. The Court must indeed make sure that any request for an advisory
opinion seeking the examination of a situation under international law does in fact concern a legal
question.
10. There is no doubt here that the questions submitted to the Court are of a primarily legal
nature. They concern the legal consequences of well-established violations of international law —
which have been recognized as such by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human
Rights Council, the overwhelming majority of States and the Court itself — as well as the legal status
of the occupation in view of these violations and the legal consequences of its unlawfulness. They
are thus clearly points of law on which the Court must enlighten the General Assembly. And as the
Court has previously stated, “questions . . . framed in terms of law and rais[ing] problems of
2 United Nations General Assembly resolution 75/23, 2 Dec. 2020.
3 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 2004 (I), p. 159, para. 50.
4 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (II), p. 417, para. 34; Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from
Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019 (I), p. 115, para. 76.
5 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 2004 (I), p. 417, para. 34.
- 3 -
international law . . . are by their very nature susceptible of reply based on law”6. Therefore, “[a]
question which expressly asks the Court whether or not a particular action is compatible with
international law certainly appears to be a legal question”7.
11. Although these questions are strictly questions of law, they clearly have political
implications; nonetheless, the consistent jurisprudence of the Court is clear in this regard. The Court
considers that the political aspects a legal question might have must not lead it to decline its
jurisdiction. It has stated on this subject:
“The fact that this question also has political aspects, as, in the nature of things,
is the case with so many questions which arise in international life, does not suffice to
deprive it of its character as a ‘legal question’ and to ‘deprive the Court of a competence
expressly conferred on it by its Statute’ (Application for Review of Judgement No. 158
of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1973,
p. 172, para. 14).”8
12. The Court has further observed that:
“Indeed, in situations in which political considerations are prominent it may be
particularly necessary for an international organization to obtain an advisory opinion
from the Court as to the legal principles applicable with respect to the matter under
debate”9.
And that:
“the political nature of the motives which may be said to have inspired the request and
the political implications that the opinion given might have are of no relevance in the
establishment of its jurisdiction to give such an opinion”10.
The indisputable political dimension of the questions submitted to the Court does not therefore
deprive them of their legal character and it is on the law that the Court will have to decide.
3. The questions raised do not pertain to a bilateral dispute on which
the Court cannot rule in the absence of the parties’ consent
13. As for the argument that the Court must decline to give an opinion because it would have
the effect of circumventing the principle of consent to a judicial settlement, this would only be
relevant if the questions put to the Court pertained solely to a bilateral relationship without any wider
implications. However, while on first examination the questions put to the Court concern the
relationship between Israel and Palestine, what is actually at issue is the way in which the
decolonization process of Palestine, hampered since the end of the British Mandate, has been called
into question and seriously undermined by Israel’s occupation since 1967. Falling as they do under
6 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 18, para. 15, and Accordance with International Law
of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (II),
pp. 414-415, para. 25.
7 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (II), pp. 414-415, para. 25.
8 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 234, para. 13.
9 Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1980, p. 87, para. 33.
10 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 234, para. 13.
- 4 -
the law of decolonization, these matters have always been regarded as of general interest to the
international community and as incapable of falling within a State’s domestic purview.
14. A conflict between a colonizer and a colonized people exceeds the bounds of their
relationship, which is by its very nature unequal, and resolving that conflict is the responsibility of
international institutions. The General Assembly of the United Nations fixed its policy in this area in
the 1960s, in particular during the decolonization of Algeria. In its resolution 1573 of 19 December
1960, the Assembly rejected France’s claim that this was a matter of domestic jurisdiction and that,
pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, the Assembly should not therefore be involved11.
The United Nations has never deviated from this policy and is directly concerned by the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
15. In its 2004 Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court determined that the subject-matter of the General
Assembly’s request could not be regarded as only a bilateral matter between Israel and Palestine.
Consequently, it decided to exercise its jurisdiction12. The same is true here. Although the matter at
issue is broader than the one submitted to the Court in 2004, it is of even greater general interest to
the community of States, and the Court cannot forgo its advisory function on the ground that Israel
has not consented to its jurisdiction.
4. The Court has no reason to decline to give an advisory opinion on the pretext that the
opinion would upset negotiations that have been inactive for many years
16. The Court has consistently stated that while it has a discretionary power to decline to give
an advisory opinion, its answer to a request for an advisory opinion
“‘represents its participation in the activities of the Organization, and, in principle,
should not be refused’ (Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 71; Difference
Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission
on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), pp. 78-79, para. 29; Legal
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 156, para. 44).”13
Hence only “compelling reasons” can lead the Court to refuse to give an advisory opinion in response
to a request falling within its jurisdiction. In applying this criterion, the Court has never declined to
render an advisory opinion. And there is no compelling reason in this case to refuse to issue the
opinion requested.
17. Particular attention should be drawn here to the inconsistency of the argument put forward
by some of the States participating in these proceedings that, since negotiations are ongoing between
11 In that resolution, the General Assembly: “Recognizes the right of the Algerian people to self-determination and
independence; . . . Recognizes . . . that the United Nations has a responsibility to contribute towards the successful and just
implementation of this right.”
12 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 158-159, paras. 49-50.
13 Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 2019 (I), p. 113, para. 65.
- 5 -
Israel and Palestine, the proceedings initiated by the request for an opinion would upset those
negotiations.
18. It is true that when this conflict first emerged, a negotiating framework was established
under the auspices of the United Nations and, on occasion, certain States engaged in diplomatic
efforts to resolve the conflict, with terms of reference aimed at ensuring respect for international law
and for the United Nations resolutions underpinning the peace process. Those terms of reference
include the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, the Madrid terms of reference, including the
principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap. The right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, the right of return of Palestinian refugees when the Israeli
occupation comes to an end and the implementation of a two-State solution based on the pre-1967
borders, with an independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, living side by side with
Israel in peace and security, form the basis of those terms of reference. The latter also recall the
inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force, including the unlawfulness of settlement activities
and of any measures of de jure or de facto annexation of the Palestinian territory.
19. The aim of the negotiations is therefore to reach a peaceful settlement in accordance with
the international law thus identified and with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council. Palestine, for its part, has consistently reaffirmed its wish to negotiate peace in accordance
with international law and, on the basis of this mandate, to ensure the realization of the inalienable
rights of the Palestinian people under international law, in particular the right to self-determination
and the right of return, and to establish an independent and sovereign State based on the 1967 borders,
with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and security, in keeping
with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. This is the spirit in which it entered into the
negotiations that opened in Madrid in the 1990s, which resulted in the Oslo Accords of 1993 and
1995.
20. There is, however, something risible about claiming today that there is an active
negotiation process under way, which might be upset by the Court’s opinion, when that process has
been at a standstill for many years. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation recalled in its written
statement (paras. 154 et seq.) how, after Israel’s occupation in 1967, no negotiations aimed at finding
a just settlement of the question were held until the first Intifada in 1987. And while a certain
momentum emerged at that time, paving the way for the Oslo Accords in 1993 and for a further
Interim Agreement in 1995, the process has since collapsed in phases. Its final item, tabled for 1999,
has still to be achieved in 2023. How can one speak of negotiations that must not be disrupted when
the last positive developments to take place occurred almost 30 years ago?
21. The autonomy granted to the Palestinian Authority, a step on the road to self-determination,
has stalled and is deteriorating, with no opportunity for any form of progress. A few meetings have
admittedly been held since the start of the 2000s, but all have failed to make any headway towards
the stated goal, the creation of a State of Palestine. On these occasions, the two parties no doubt
reaffirmed their wish to negotiate on the tirelessly reiterated terms of reference. But these meetings
were nothing more than ritualistic, meaningless encounters.
22. Although the Palestinians have on various occasions persistently reaffirmed their
commitment to achieving a political solution based on the resolutions of the United Nations and on
the principle of two States living side by side in peace, the same cannot be said of Israel. That State,
which has come empty-handed to every meeting, has pursued and even expedited a policy of
destroying opportunities for the creation of a Palestinian State. Hence the decades of fruitless
meetings, a ruse to mislead the international community, were not years of a frozen situation. They
- 6 -
were years of one party erecting as many obstacles as possible to the resumption of good faith
negotiations. They allowed drastic progress to be made towards annihilating the bases of what should
be a State of Palestine.
23. Thus there are no “ongoing negotiations” that ought to be protected from any third-party
intervention. There is a situation of persistent violations of the most fundamental rules of
international law on which the Court is requested to give an advisory opinion. It is its role, as the
United Nations’ judicial organ, to state the law when the General Assembly or other competent
organs of the United Nations request it to do so. In clarifying the legal rights and obligations of the
parties, as well as the obligations that arise for all States and for the United Nations, the Court will
provide much-needed information on the legal questions raised by the de facto situation and, in so
doing, will contribute to the peaceful settlement of the conflict on the basis of international law.
5. The Court is fully able to deal with the factual aspects of the case
24. Some of the written statements submitted to the Court argue that the latter should decline
its jurisdiction on the ground that it is unable to gather solid evidence on the disputed facts at the
centre of the request for an opinion. An advisory opinion rendered by the Permanent Court of
International Justice in 1923 is cited in support. However, the complete citation reads as follows:
“The Court does not say that there is an absolute rule that the request for an
advisory opinion may not involve some enquiry as to facts, but, under ordinary
circumstances, it is certainly expedient that the facts upon which the opinion of the
Court is desired should not be in controversy, and it should not be left to the Court itself
to ascertain what they are.”14
25. The facts at issue in this case should of course be verified. But they are not “in controversy”
and are fully documented by organs of the United Nations and respected non-governmental
organizations. These enquiries and investigations are long-standing, comprehensive and up to date,
and they provide the Court with a solid factual base on which to render the legal opinion requested
of it. The essential facts are not in dispute, including as regards the violations of peremptory norms
of international law. They are the subject of official statements by Israeli politicians and official
administrative decisions of Israel.
26. The desire to annex Palestinian territory arises, as far as Jerusalem is concerned, from laws
publicly enacted by Israel (the law of 23 January 1950 for East Jerusalem and the law of 30 July
1980 for the complete and united city) and from Israel’s policies and practices, as well as from
statements made by Israel’s most senior officials, as regards the de facto annexation of the West
Bank or large parts thereof.
27. The practices of racial discrimination and apartheid are attested to by the laws, policies
and practices of Israel, in particular the existence of separate courts for Palestinians and Jewish
Israelis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The institutional and structural discrimination against
the Palestinian people as a whole, akin to apartheid, is confirmed by the Absentee Property Law
14 Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 5, p. 28.
- 7 -
(1950)15, the Law of Return (1950) and the Basic-Law: Israel — the Nation-State of the Jewish
People (2018)16.
28. Denying the Palestinian people self-determination has been part of Israel’s policy since its
inception, as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation demonstrated in its written statement. This
long-standing denial is indisputable and attested to by the settler occupation of Palestinian land and
by the racial discrimination akin to apartheid that is practised against the Palestinian people.
29. Thus, in so far as the facts before the Court are in the public domain, they do not require it
to conduct specific investigations. Nor are they disputed by any of the States that have submitted
written statements to the Court.
II. ISRAEL’S MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY CANNOT
BE JUSTIFIED IN LAW BECAUSE IT IS A PRETEXT FOR MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BECAUSE ITS DURATION LAYS BARE
THE PLANNED ANNEXATION CARRIED OUT BY ISRAEL
30. Some of the participants in these proceedings consider that Israel’s occupation of the
Palestinian territory arises from a right recognized under the agreements reached between the parties
pending the conclusion of the negotiations, and that Israel was justified in the interim in maintaining
a military and civilian administration in the Palestinian territory.
31. This argument cannot be accepted, since the occupation proved to be a pretext for a policy
of racial discrimination akin to apartheid and for the de facto annexation of the West Bank and the
de jure annexation of Jerusalem, the instruments by which the Palestinian people are denied their
right to self-determination.
1. A policy of racial discrimination akin to apartheid
32. Contrary to what two of the participants in these proceedings have claimed, Israel’s
occupation of the Palestinian territory is not the good faith implementation of agreements pending a
negotiated solution. As stated above, the negotiations have been frozen for many years. The
occupation serves as a cover for a specific plan that is being executed through massive violations of
international law. These include violations of the humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict and
human rights violations. The vast majority of the participants in these proceedings recall in their
written statements that these two branches of international law are simultaneously applicable to the
situation in Palestine, as the Court stated in its 2004 Advisory Opinion17. And they draw attention to
the fact that Israel has systematically violated norms of these branches of international law, in
particular by persecuting and discriminating against the Palestinian people and by establishing
settlements on Palestinian lands.
15 United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, A/77/328, 14 Sept. 2022, para. 33 (Ann. 40).
16 Basic-Law: “Israel — the Nation-State of the Jewish People”, 19 July 2018; English translation by the Knesset
(Ann. 4).
17 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 172-181, paras. 89-113.
- 8 -
33. It has been recognized that Palestinians are subjected to this racial discrimination on both
sides of the Green Line, as are both Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, many of whom are
refugees in their own country, and Israeli Arabs. This discrimination in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory is governed by the same logic as that behind the promulgation of the “Jewish Nation-State”
law. It has also been observed that a two-tier system has been put in place by Israel in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory to ensure the supremacy of Israeli settlements to the detriment of the
fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people in that territory.
34. The Court will have to acknowledge, following the example of several participants, that
such racial discrimination constitutes a régime of apartheid. The written statements of States with
first-hand knowledge of such policies are authoritative assessments of the apartheid practised by
Israel against the Palestinian people.
35. The prohibition of racial discrimination and apartheid has the status of a peremptory norm
in international law. Israel’s violations of this prohibition are therefore internationally unlawful acts
engaging its responsibility. That State is obliged to cease those acts immediately, in particular by
revoking all laws, policies and practices related to them, to offer assurances of non-repetition and to
make full reparation to the victims of those policies.
36. States, international organizations and the United Nations have an obligation to ensure
respect for the prohibition of racial discrimination and apartheid, notably by holding perpetrators to
account. They must make sure that they do not recognize these unlawful acts, or aid or assist in their
perpetuation. The obligations incumbent on them include contributing to the cessation of those acts.
This obligation is borne by State actors and by all actors falling under the jurisdiction of the State,
including businesses, enterprises, entities and individuals.
2) An official or widespread policy of annexation aimed at appropriating
Palestinian territory, which must be strongly condemned
37. The prohibition of the threat or use of force under Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of
the United Nations and its corollary, the unlawfulness of territorial acquisition by force, are the most
fundamental rules of the legal régime governing international relations of the post-World War II
period.
38. The vast majority of the participants in these proceedings consider that Israel is seeking to
unlawfully annex Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, or large parts thereof.
Israel is achieving this objective through its prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territory, through
the intense settlement activity taking place in that territory and its associated régime, including the
wall, and through Israeli laws, acts, policies and practices. Given the duration of the occupation (over
56 years) and the unlawful use of force deployed during it, it no longer corresponds to the temporary
military régime that was formalized in agreements dating back more than 30 years. It has thus been
made unlawful by this excessive duration, the inertia of the negotiations and the means used during
the occupation, which constitute massive violations of peremptory norms of international law, which
are among the most important norms enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations: the unlawfulness
of annexation, the right to self-determination and the prohibition of racial discrimination and
apartheid.
39. Recording this unlawfulness does not in any case deprive civilians of the protection to
which they are entitled under international humanitarian law, and in particular Article 47 of the
- 9 -
Fourth Geneva Convention. By failing to take account of any of the norms of this humanitarian law,
Israel is adding to the above-mentioned violations, war crimes of a very serious nature.
40. Israel is obliged to put an immediate, unconditional and complete end to its planned
annexation of Palestine and to the instruments of that plan, namely the occupation of and the
establishment of settlements in the Palestinian territory. That State is obliged to revoke all relevant
laws, policies and practices, to dismantle settler infrastructure, to withdraw its occupying forces and
to evacuate its territorial settlements. It is also obliged to offer guarantees and assurances of
non-repetition and to make full reparation for any harm caused by its illegal occupation of the
territory and use of that territory’s natural resources.
41. All States have an obligation to help put an end to these internationally wrongful acts, not
to aid or assist (through their governments or other State actors, or actors under their jurisdiction,
including businesses, enterprises, entities and individuals) in that settlement — a means of
annexation — including, with regard to Jerusalem, not to recognize that annexation, including by not
transferring their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem or by reversing such a move if it has already taken
place, and to hold accountable those responsible for these violations of international law, including
in their role as High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United Nations, and
the Security Council in particular, is also responsible for adopting measures within its jurisdiction to
ensure the full implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions and of international
obligations, and to ensure respect for the Charter of the United Nations.
3. A systematic constraint on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
in violation of peremptory norms of international law
42. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, resolutions of the United Nations
and the Court’s 2004 Advisory Opinion, the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination,
and none of the participants in these proceedings denies it that right. The latter is exercised through
the independence and sovereignty of the State of Palestine. It derives from a jus cogens norm and, as
the Court confirmed in its 2004 Wall Advisory Opinion, it has an erga omnes character18.
43. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation draws the Court’s attention to the action that
must be taken as regards Israel’s extensive violation of the right of Palestinians to self-determination.
Israel must put an end to the occupation by withdrawing its military contingents and civil services
from the Palestinian territory, and the Israeli settlements present on the territory must be fully
dismantled. Israel must immediately comply with the need to respect the territorial unity, contiguity
and integrity of the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the right of
the Palestinian people to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources.
44. Israel must immediately cease all measures aimed at modifying the demographic
composition of Palestine, the character or status of the territory, and all measures of racial
discrimination akin to apartheid against the Palestinian people.
18 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 199, para. 155.
- 10 -
45. All States have an obligation under the Charter of the United Nations and international law
to ensure the removal of any obstacle to the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to
self-determination and to help the Palestinian people to realize this right promptly.
46. The United Nations, its specialized agencies and the organizations of the United Nations
system must continue to support and help the Palestinian people to realize their right to
self-determination promptly, in particular through the adoption by the Security Council and General
Assembly of the measures needed to ensure that this right is respected by Israel.
47. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation respectfully requests the Court to declare that it
has jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion sought and urges it to reach a finding on the merits in
keeping with these comments.
20 October 2023
on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
(Signed) Hissein Brahim TAHA,
Secretary-General.
___________
Written comments of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation