The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion: a lost opportunity

On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice gave its Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem.

I would like to underline some important arguments elaborated by the Vicepresident of the ICJ Sebutinde in his dissenting opinion:

1. The Advisory Opinion clearly circumvents and is likely to jeopardize the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding negotiation framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The Court by adressing in the Advisory Opinion the legal obligations of only one party to the dispute and ignoring the rights and obligations of both parties as envisaged in the Oslo Accords and Road Map, both of which exclude recourse to the Court, clearly circumvents the existing negotiation framework.

2. The Security Council understands that the complex issues encompassed are best resolved through the existing negotiation framework rather than through the imposition of a solution outside that framework.

3. The Court in rendering its Advisory Opinion has chosen to overlook and has underestimated the legitimacy of Israel’s security concerns. The Security Council has taken cognizance of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and called for a withdrawal that ocurrs concurrently with security guarantees, as reflected in its resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

Conclusions:

1. The Court should have encouraged to the two parties to return to the negotiating table and to find a lasting solution jointly and consensually. By not doing it, the Court has regrettably downplayed the importance of the negotiation framework and security concerns.

2. On 19 March 2023, both Israel and Palestine met with other interested parties in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, and reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment to all previous agreements between them and to address all outstanding issues through direct dialogue”.