International Court of Justice

...

In the case of Palestine Wall, Israel began to build a wall in Israel-occupied Palestinian territory. The wall departed from the Armistice Line of 1949. The finished wall would almost completely encircle communities, push residents out of their homes and limit the occupied persons' access to lands, wells and means of subsistence. The construction of the wall violates international law. Israel’s Wall and settlement project: composite violations of peremptory norms of international law. The ICJ has established a legal foundation for Israel’s and other States’ obligations, based on human rights treaties, international humanitarian law and customary international law. The Court found that Israel is in breach of: the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, which are peremptory norms of customary international law, i.e., norms which are recognised to be binding on all States and from which no derogation is permitted. In addition, a number of obligations under humanitarian and human rights law, including the prohibition on forced population transfer; the obligation to respect Palestinian private and public property; the obligation to refrain from introducing changes in government or institutions of the OPT that deprive the Palestinian population of the status and rights enshrined in the Fourth Geneva Convention; and the obligation to protect the rights enshrined in the ICESCR and CRC, in particular the rights of Palestinians to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living. The ICJ’s analysis as applied to the entire settlement enterprise reveals additional Israeli breaches of peremptory norms of customary international law, in particular the prohibitions on colonialism, racial discrimination and apartheid, and it exposes the gross and systematic manner in which Israel has violated these norms in order to affect the dramatic long term changes of the status and demographic composition of the OPT. This argument is supported by the findings of consecutive UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the OPT who have characterised Israel’s regime of occupation, including the settlements, as “a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid.”

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons opined that "there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such." It is also noted that the ICJ stated unanimously that the international legal system contains no "specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons." In particular, the ICJ replied that it cannot conclude in a definitive statement as to whether the use of nuclear weapons would be lawful, or unlawful, in extreme situations where the survival of a State would be at stake because all States are entitled to the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. The ICJ concluded that existing international environmental law does not specifically prohibit the use of nuclear weapons and does not impose on States an obligation of total restraint during military conflict, but that nevertheless States are obliged to take environmental factors into account when implementing the law that is applicable in armed conflict (i.e. the law on the use of force in the UN Charter and the international legal rules pertaining to armed conflict). Consequently, although international environmental law does not preclude States from exercising their right of self-defense, ‘respect for the environment is one of the elements that go to assessing whether an action is in conformity with the principles of necessity and proportionality’. The Court supported its approach with further examples, referring first to Principle 24 of the Rio Declaration, which pronounces: "Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary". Subsequently, it cited Article 35(3) and Article 55 of Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, pointing out that there is a general obligation to protect the environment against ‘widespread, long-term and severe environmental damage’, a prohibition on methods and means of warfare that cause such damage and a prohibition on taking reprisals that amount to attacking the environment. Finally, it referred to General Assembly resolution 47/37 of 25 November 1992 on the ‘Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict’ to support its view that destruction of the environment, when not justified by military necessity, is contrary to international law.