How The Wall In Palestine Violates International Law | ICJ Case Explained | Lawishhh

[0:00]Welcome to Lawish, your thoughts for all things law and politics. So today's going to be an interesting one. We're diving back into a case 2004, which was similar to what's happening now with the proceedings in the ICJ, which was titled legal consequences of the construction of the war in the occupied Palestine territory. Before we dive into this sort of case, let's begin with a brief history into the ICJ. So, the International Court of Justice, which is commonly known as the ICJ, is the principal judicial organ of the UN. Established in 1945, its primary mission was to settle legal disputes between states, providing advisory opinions on legal questions referred to by the UN General, assumably special counsel, or other specialized organizations. Now let's move on to the heart of discussion. The case brought by South Africa to the ICJ. In this case, requested as an advisory opinion from the ICJ through resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003. It was during the 10th emergency special session of the UN assembly. This case revolved around the construction of the war by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. South Africa asked the ICJ to consider the legal consequences of this war, taking into account international law, including the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, as well as the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. So the question is jurisdiction. So, before diving into the details of the case, the ICJ has to establish its jurisdiction just like any other court in Australia or in the world. It's determined that the General Assembly had the authority to request an advisory opinion under Article 96, Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, which is this massive charter, and that's the main principle they use. So the question posed by the General Assembly fell within the competence of the General Assembly. So the court concluded that the request for the opinion was legitimate. That's the first thing they must do again at Kansho said enough. Importantly, the court highlighted the advisory opinion scope extended beyond a bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine. He held that the subject matter of the request concerned broader international concerns and also the United Nations itself. So to address his case, it was one of the first ones brought for the Palestinian people, was the ICJ had to consider relevant principles of international law. It referenced several legal foundations. The first one, as previously mentioned, was the UN Charter. The court noted that the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force and emphasizes the illegality of any territorial acquisition achieved by such means. And this goes into the second point, which is the principle of self-determination. The principle of self-determination enshrined in the charter was reaffirmed. It is a fundamental concept in international law, emphasizing the rights of people to determine their own political statuses pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Now this was a big issue and this has been a big issue since 1948. So, in the international humanitarian law, the ICJ cited the Hague regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, emphasizing by Israel during the 1967 conflict, which this was one of the first Arab-Israel War. These legal frameworks protect citizens and civilians in armed conflicts and prohibit the establishment of settlements. The international human rights law. So the court recognized that certain human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights applied in the occupied Palestinian territory. So with the legal framework in mind, the ICJ proceeded to assert that the construction of the war concluded that the construction violated numerous international laws, including the same principle, the right to self-determination. The construction of the war severely impeded the Palestinian people's exercise of their right to self-determination, violating Israel's obligation to respect that right. Human rights violation the war and its associated regime conveyed in the Hague regulation and fourth Geneva conventions impacting the daily lives of the Palestinian inhabitants, including their freedom to movement, access to basic necessities like work, health, education and adequate standard of living. So goes down through the more important part, which was the demographic changes. The ICJ noted that the war, coupled with established of settlements, was altering the democratic composition of the occupied Palestinian territory, which further violated international law. So there's obviously this consequences and international obligations that the ICJ concluded by outlining several legal consequences, immediate actions by Israel. Israel was obliged to cease the construction of the wall, dismantle parts of it within the occupied Palestinian territory, and repel or render ineffective or legislative and regulatory acts related to this construction. Reparations. Israel was required to make reparations for all damages suffered by individuals occupied and affected by the war's construction. The recognition by other states, all states were obliged not to recognize an illegal situation resulting from the war's construction and not to aid or assist in maintaining the situation. The protection of the humanitarian law state parties by the Fourth Geneva Convention were called upon to ensure the compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law. So, in closing the ICJ's advisory opinion, again, it was all advisory in the case was of the legal consequence of the construction of a war in the occupied Palestinian territory, underscore the importance of international law in resolving complex international disputes. This also highlights the ICJ's role in interpreting and applying these laws to promote peace, justice and the rule of law in the international community. Thank you for joining us through this journey through this significant ICJ case. For more legal insights, don't forget to subscribe to Lawish. And if there's any other cases you want me to summarize or any current issues, please drop a comment.