Israel, illegally occupying Palestinian territories, is to leave the West Bank immediately, halt building fresh settlements and reverse all measures to change the demographic situation in the occupied areas, as well as pay compensation to those who have been harmed by its discriminatory policy. A policy that violates, among another things, Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a provision that clearly marks segregation and apartheid.
This is not a speech by activists waving kefijas at an anti-Zionist demonstration, but Opinion 1 of the most crucial judicial bodies on the planet – the global Court of Justice – of 19 July 2024. MTS was asked by the UN General Assembly about the legality of Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. The investigation is not related to the ongoing massacre in the Gaza Strip – the legal question has been raised by the Court even before the start of military action that is revenge and the collective work of Palestinians for the criminal attack Hamas.
The Court, which began operating in 1946, has 2 functions: to justice and to issue advisory opinions at the request of UN bodies. The others. released only 28 so far. On the business of Palestinian territories, the MTS first spoke in an advisory opinion in 2004. It afraid the construction of a wall in the West Bank, which the UN court declared illegal. Opinions are not binding, and against them is not treated as a violation of the law, but this does not mean that they are legally useless due to the fact that they affect how the rules will be interpreted. They can besides service as a tool in diplomacy or importantly influence average global law.
Sovereignty and the right to self-determination
The legal conflict on the position of Palestinian territories occupied as a consequence of the Six-Day War has continued continuously since 1967. From the beginning, Israel’s lawyers made efforts not to respect the land as occupied. These actions were taken to avoid having to respect the business law, which consists, inter alia, of provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, in Article 49. forbidding the occupier from resettling his own civilian population into occupied areas, and not to face the fact that the business is simply a transitory state.
Among the legal acrobatics is the explanation of the deficiency of a sovereign – according to its soundness against the failure to recognise the sovereignty of both Palestinians and Jordan, whose acquisition of the West Bank in 1950 was not widely recognised, these areas were "no man's land", which means that no another state can now show a better legal title to them than Israel. Thus, there are no business laws that order the preservation of territorial, legal and demographic position quo – so Israel can boldly send its settlers to the Palestinian territories without breaking the law.
The explanation of the missing sovereignty assumes that with the rejection of the 1947 division of Palestine by Palestinians for any reason they besides disposed of the right to self-determination, so that they cannot be considered a sovereign in these areas. It is worth recalling the argument cited by lawyer Noura Erakat, which is the erstwhile existence, contrary to Europeans' ideas, in Palestinian areas of effective administration, political parties, justice system, hospitals or railways. This state of affairs, in her opinion, supports the view that there was a group in this area that effectively managed their affairs – these were the arguments that decided to establish on the lands of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire the most developed according to the League of Nations kind A mandates, whose way to independency and self-determination was to be the shortest. Erakat concludes that, with the expiry of the Palestine Mandate in 1948, sovereignty passed into the hands of the Palestinians – another proposal would undermine the full sense of the mandate strategy and make the territory a prey for anyone who first invaded it.
At the same time, the lawyer points out that, even in the absence of designation of Palestinian sovereignty, the legislators behind the Geneva Convention provided for attempts to circumvent the business law by declaring the deficiency of a sovereign – hence the view that it applies in all circumstances, regardless of the position of the occupied areas. In 1977, during a proceeding in the U.S. legislature on settlements in the West Bank, prof. of Law T. Mallison said that the explanation of the deficiency of a sovereign does not deserve to be taken seriously from a substantive point of view, but is taken seriously due to the fact that it provides the basis for action for the Israeli government – and only because.
Another step towards an global consensus
A creative explanation of the provisions of global law, intended to cover the forbidden force annexation, was rejected by both UN bodies (including the 2334 safety Council Resolution, condemning Israel's settlement policy), the global Red Cross and a number of another humanitarian organizations. It has already been rejected by the global Court of Justice. In fact, even earlier Israeli papers contradict it – Military Proclamation No. 3, issued in June 1967, ordered military courts in the West Bank to apply the Geneva Convention.
The Advisory Opinion of the global Court of Justice of 19 July 2024 is another sign of an global consensus on the position of occupied Palestinian territories. Not only the West Bank but besides the Gaza Strip have been recognised as an area to which the business law applies, imposing circumstantial obligations on Israel towards the people inhabiting it. Despite the physical withdrawal of Israelis in 2005, it remains de facto under their authority – they control the registry of civilian status, the air and sea zones and border crossings.
In its introduction, the Court referred to a number of allegations which called into question the appropriateness of giving an advisory opinion. Among them was the fear that the opinion would interfere with the peace process launched in Oslo in the 1990s. However, in view of the stagnation in the negotiations, the Court found that its consequence was all the more desirable.
In fact, the advisory opinion confirmed all the allegations that his critics have made to Israel for years and that the Palestinians have raised for 57 years. The annexation of parts of the West Bank, forced displacement of Palestinians, as well as land confiscation and demolition of Palestinian homes were considered illegal. global law is besides violated by utilizing natural resources of occupied areas and favouring illegal settlers in accessing them.
The Court besides raised the question of extending Israeli law to occupied areas, which constitute a separate legal order for Palestinians and settlers. It was considered that the business law did not justify specified interference in the legislative order of the occupied territories, and a discriminatory policy resulting from specified action was condemned.
The Court stated explicitly that this policy violates the rules prohibiting segregation and apartheid – an allegation which has long been raising a number of humanitarian organisations and which by Israeli defenders is mostly disposed of as absurd (mainly by the popular belief that apartheid ended with the abolition of it in South Africa). The force suffered by the Palestinians from settlers, whose Israeli army cannot or does not want to stop, was besides bowed down.
As expected, the Prime Minister of Israel rejected the MTS requests, stating that Israel is not an occupier on Your own land and no “false decision” from the Hague undermines the legality of Israeli settlements.
