The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Wall
On 9 July 2004 the International Court of Justice found that the wall Israel was building inside the occupied West Bank was contrary to international law, that Israel must stop building it, dismantle what stood and make reparation — and that other states must not recognise the situation it created.
Israel began building the barrier in 2002, during the second intifada, describing it as a temporary security measure. Its route did not follow the Green Line: for most of its length it ran inside the occupied West Bank, enclosing settlements on the Israeli side and cutting Palestinian towns off from their farmland, their wells, their schools and each other. On 8 December 2003 the General Assembly, meeting in emergency special session, asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of its construction.
The Court delivered the opinion on 9 July 2004. It held that the territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, are occupied territory in which the Fourth Geneva Convention applies; that Israeli settlements there have been established in breach of international law; and that the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, together with its associated regime of gates, permits and closed zones, is contrary to international law. Israel could not justify the route by military necessity or self-defence. The Court found the wall’s course and the regime around it severely impeded Palestinians’ freedom of movement, work, health and education, and risked creating a fait accompli tantamount to de facto annexation.
The legal consequences the Court set out were specific. Israel is under an obligation to cease construction, to dismantle the sections already built within the occupied territory, to repeal or render ineffective the legislative and regulatory acts relating to it, and to make reparation for all damage caused. All states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the wall’s construction and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining it, and states party to the Fourth Geneva Convention have an obligation to ensure Israel’s compliance with it. The United Nations should consider what further action is required to bring the situation to an end.
On 20 July 2004 the General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/15, which acknowledged the opinion and demanded that Israel comply with the legal obligations set out in it. Construction continued. Twenty years on, the barrier is largely complete along a route that leaves a substantial part of the West Bank, including some of its most fertile land, on the Israeli side — and the advisory opinion stands as the clearest statement, before 2024, of what international law says about the occupation and the answer it received.
Sources
Cited works
2- icj-cij.org(opens in a new tab)https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131
- docs.un.org(opens in a new tab)https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/ES-10/15