Work
ICJ advisory opinion on the wall (2004)
Opinion of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- Dates
- 9 Jul 2004
Connections 8
followed from
- Israeli West Bank barrier Primary record 1
- Israeli West Bank barrier Primary record 1
author
- International Court of Justice 9 Jul 2004 Primary record 2
-
International Court of Justice
9 Jul 2004
Primary record
1
Israel's position as the Court records it: its UN ambassador called the fence consistent with self-defence; Israel argued the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply de jure to the territories.
- International Court of Justice 9 Jul 2004 Primary record 1
influenced
- ICJ advisory opinion on Israel's policies and practices (2024) Primary record 3
influenced by
-
ICJ advisory opinion on Israel's policies and practices (2024)
Primary record
4
Operative votes: presence unlawful 11 to 4; end it as rapidly as possible 11 to 4; cease new settlement and evacuate all settlers 14 to 1; reparation 14 to 1; non-recognition by all States 12 to 3.
-
ICJ advisory opinion on Israel's policies and practices (2024)
Primary record
4
Judges Tomka, Abraham and Aurescu voted against several points, and Vice-President Sebutinde dissented on the ground, in her view, that the proceedings ignored the security threats to Israel.
Timeline 4 dates
- 9 Jul 2004 ICJ advisory opinion on the wall (2004)
- 9 Jul 2004 International Court of Justice authored ICJ advisory opinion on the wall (2004)
- 9 Jul 2004 International Court of Justice authored ICJ advisory opinion on the wall (2004)
- 9 Jul 2004 International Court of Justice authored ICJ advisory opinion on the wall (2004)
Proof 4 sources
-
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, International Court of Justice, 9 Jul 2004.
Primary record
It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.
Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence
the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter
that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because, under Article 2, pariigraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party involved in an armetl conflict
have been established in breach of international law
-
Press release 2004/28: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of Justice, 9 Jul 2004.
Primary record
By fourteen votes to one, The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law
under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall
-
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024, International Court of Justice, 19 Jul 2024.
Primary record
in its Wall Advisory Opinion as follows
-
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, International Court of Justice, 19 Jul 2024.
Primary record
Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity.
all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel
Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is not unlawful as such
one-sided
Page history 1 change
- Add 55 stories, each checked against its sources96e92fe6
Something wrong or missing? Tell us, with a source, or edit this page.