LAST UPDATE | 22 Feb

IRELAND’S ATTORNEY GENERAL will address the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today as part of oral hearings in the case on the legal status of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. 

The UN General Assembly made a request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 30 December 2022 for an advisory opinion on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.

The case is separate to the one brought to the ICJ by South Africa accusing Israel of committing “genocidal” acts in Gaza.

Following the request for an advisory opinion, the ICJ is currently holding six days of hearings.

The Court will hear from over 50 countries over the course of the hearings. It will hear from Ireland’s Attorney General Rossa Fanning SC this morning. 

Ireland was one of the relatively few member states to put in a written submission to the ICJ on foot of the UN’s request. It did so in July 2023.

Today’s hearing will orally present Ireland’s written statement – which hasn’t yet been made public – to the court.

Once the court has heard the oral proceedings, it will decide whether the statements that have been provided to it (including Ireland’s) can be published.

It’s understood that Ireland’s written statement largely focuses on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and concludes that settlement activity constitutes both a process of annexation of the West Bank and also a denial of the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, contrary to international law.

‘Occupation must end’

Yesterday, the ICJ heard from the United States, which said Israel should not be legally forced to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory without security guarantees.

While most speakers have demanded that Israel end its occupation, the US yesterday came to its ally’s defence at the court.

“The court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory,” said Richard Visek, legal advisor at the US State Department.

“Any movement towards Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs,” he argued.

Israel is not taking part in the oral hearings, but submitted a written contribution in which it described the questions the court had been asked as “prejudicial” and “tendentious”.

Also speaking yesterday, the representative from Egypt, which has played a key role in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, said the occupation was “a continued violation of international law”.

Meanwhile, South Africa’s ambassador told the court that Israel’s policies were “more extreme” than the apartheid black South Africans suffered before 1994.

On Monday, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki urged the Court to deem Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land illegal, saying “it must end immediately and unconditionally”.

Malaki also made reference to the second-class status of Palestinians living in Israel, which he described as a system of apartheid. 

Contrary to judgements made by the ICJ, the Court’s advisory opinions are generally not binding.

According to the ICJ, advisory opinions “carry great legal weight and moral authority”.

The Court says: “They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and help to keep the peace. In their own way, advisory opinions also contribute to the clarification and development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations between States.”

-With additional reporting from - © AFP 2024