The General Assembly has requested an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine on the construction of a barrier wall by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. This conflict stems from the partition of Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in the permanent displacement of the Palestinian people, known as the Nakba. This war was concluded and resolved by the General Armistice Agreements of 1949, which ended the British mandate and declared the demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank (known as the “Green Line”). 

After several decades, there was a major uprising by the Palestinian people, known as the Second Intifada, regarding the construction of a barrier wall by Israel beyond the Green Line into the occupied Palestinian territory. As a result, this issue was brought before the General Assembly and has now been referred to the Court. The General Assembly is asking that the Court answer the following question:

What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

Palestine claims that the Court has compulsory jurisdiction to answer this question under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court. Further, they posit the barrier wall breaches the General Armistice Agreement of 1949 and violates the right to self-determination and self defense of the Palestinian people, as protected by Article 51 of the UN Charter and violates international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) and the Hague Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907). Egypt strongly supports these claims and further requests the deconstruction of the barrier wall. 

Israel refutes these claims by arguing that the Court does not have jurisdiction on this matter since it has not ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention. Further, they posit that an advisory opinion would be ultra vires, or beyond the legal authority of the Court. Finally, they argue that acts of terrorism by the Palestinian Liberation Organization violate all established customary and conventional international law, especially the United Nations Conventions on Terror. Canada supports Israel’s claim that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case and encourages them to pursue “the Roadmap,” a series of benchmarks designed to move Israelis and Palestinians, over three years, to a state of peace.

The Justices must consider the question before them as referred to by the General Assembly and the implications for human rights, self-determination and diplomatic negotiations by the construction of this barrier wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court will convene at 6:00 pm on Monday to hear oral arguments from Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Canada in the Tennessee room. Oral arguments are open to all AMUN participants, and we encourage all interested persons to attend.