I I.C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion (9 July 2004) (http://www.icj-cij.org) (hereinafter: Advisory Opinion).

2 See R. O'Keefe, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Commentary, 37 Belgian Rev. Int' L. (R.B.D.L), 142-146 (2004); V. Lowe, The significance of the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Legal Analysis, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, Report (27 may 2005); United Nations, International Meeting on the Question of Palestine, Geneva (8 and 9 March 2005) (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/frontpage5 !OpenPage), 22-24; P. Weckel, Chronigue de jurispru- dence internationale, 108 R.G.D.I.P. 1035 (2004). 3 See P. Bekker, The ICJ's Advisory Opinion regarding Israel's West Bank Barrier and the Primacy of International Law, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 64-70; M. Chemiller-Gendreau, The Responsibility of Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations in Upholding International Law, ibid., 71-77; R. Falk, Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel's Security Wall, 99(1) A.J.LL. 42-52 (2005). 5 Article 94 U.N. Charter. 6 Article 92 U.N. Charter and Article 1 LC.J. Statute. 7 See Articles 65, 68 and 38 I.C.J. Statute. See P. Bekker, op. cit. See however the argument of Israel expressed before the General Assembly: "[Wlhile the opinion of the International Court is advisory only, the Supreme Court ruling is bind- ing upon Israel" (Intervention of Mr. Gillerman, U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/PV.24 (16 July 2004), 14). 9 Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma, para. 8. 9 150 against 6 (US, Israel, Australia, Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands), with 10 abstentions. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jeru- salem, U.N.G.A. Res. A/RES/ES-10/15 (20 July 2005).

" Emphasis added. 'Z See P. Bekker, op. cit.; M. Hmoud, The Significance of the Advisory Opinion Rendered by the ICJ on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territorv, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 53-60. 13 Advisory Opinion, paras. 90-101. ibis., paras. 102-113. ibis., para. 118. 16 /bid., para. 120. 17 lbid., para. 75 and 122. 'e Ibis., para. 162. 19 Ibid., para. 162 (Emphasis added). 20 See M. Kohen, The Advisors Opinion provides the legal framework for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 88-92.

21 On this matter, see P. D'Argent, Cessation, Restitution and Reparation in the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 44-52. Z2 See Written Statement of Israel on Jurisdiction and Propriety (30 January 2004) (http://www.icj- cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm). z3 See A. Panchuk, The Responses in Israel to the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 32-26. The PM Orders the Continued Construction of the Separation Fence As Directed by the High Court of Justice, Press Release (11 July 2004) (http://www.pmo.gov.il). See also PM's Statement Regard- ing the Opinion of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Press Release ( I 1 July 2004) (http://www.pmo.gov.il).

25 See the Intervention of Mr. Gillerman (Israel), U.N. Doc.A/ES-IO/PV.24 (16 July 2004), 12-17. 26 Ibid., at 16. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., at 14. 29 Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04 (30 June 2004), http://elyonl.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html. On this case, see G.R. Watson, The "Wall" Decisions in Legal and Political Context, 91(1) A.J.LL. 19-26 (2005).

3° Ibid., paras. 26-31. 1. 31 Ibid., paras. 36 et seq. 32 At the weekly Cabinet meeting (20 February 2005) (http://www.pmo.gov.il). 33 unofficial Summary of State of Israel's Response regarding the Security Fence (28 February 2005) 3a (http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/news.htm#news27). l6id., paras. 16-20.

3s Ibis, paras. 17-18. 36 Ibid., paras. 22-23. 3� At the weekly Cabinet meeting (10 July 2005), para. 2 (http://www.pmo.gov.il). See also the Report, made before the Security Council, by Mr. Alvaro de Soto, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General of the UN: "Israel has also continued and accelerated construction of its barrier in the West Bank. On 10 July, the Israeli Cabinet discussed and approved remaining details of the route of the barrier around Jerusalem, which, it is projected, will cut off some 55,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem from the rest of the city. The Government also decided on I September as the new deadline for the completion of the barrier around Jerusalem" (U.N.S.C., Sixtieth year, 5230th meeting, U.N. Doc. S/PV.5230 (21 July 2005)). 's Advisory Opinion, paras. 116-122.

39 Ibid., para. 121. See R. O'Keefe, op. cit., 134-135. 40 see amongst other article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 41 Advisory Opinion, paras. 135-136. See R. O'Keefe, op. cit., 120-121; M. Bothe, Legal Conse- quences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Legal Analysis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion, in IMPLEMENTING THE ICJ ADVISORY OPINION ON THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 25-31, at para. 2.2.

azIbid., para. 141. a3 Ibid., para. 137. see I. Scobbie, Words My Mother Never Taught Me - "In Defense of the International Court", ", 99(1) A.J.I.L. 76-88 (2005). Contra R. Wedgwood, The ICJ Advisor Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the Limits of Self-Defense, 99(1) A.J.I.L. 52-61 (2005); S. Murphy, Self- Defense and the Israeli- Wall Advisory Opinion: An Ipse Dixit from the ICJ?, 9 1 (1) A.J.LL. 62-76 (2005). as /bid., paras. 138-140. See A. Imseis, Critical Reffections on the lnternational Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion, 99(1) A.J.I.L. 109-114 (2005). a� For the official position of the Israeli Government, see "Israel's Settlements - Their Conformity with International Law", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (December 1996) (http://www.mfa. gov.il). °g Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (30 July 1980) (http://www.mfa.gov.il).

°9 Advisory Opinion, paras. 75 and 120. See especially U.N.S.C. Res. 446 (1979), U.N.S.C. Res. 478 so 1980). See the terms of the question adressed by the General Assembly to the International Court of Justice (U.N.G.A. Res. ES-10/14 (8 december 2003)): "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 51 Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?" I See M. Lynk, The Wall and the Settlements, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 78-87; R. Falk, op. cit., 47. 52 ibis., para. 122.

s3 Declaration of Judge Buergenthal, para. 9. sa Report by Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, pursuant to U.N.G.A. Res. ES-10/15 (27 June 2005), Annex to the letter dated 30 June 2005 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly, A/ES-10/304 (5 July 2005), para. 43: "Although it has stressed the temporary nature of the barrier, Israel does not want to make any advance promise to dismantle, even if the security situation were to improve. Israel has said that it will pursue its construction of the barrier."

55 council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions, Brussels (16 and 17 June 2005), Annex IV, Declaration on the Middle East Peace Process, 10255/O5, (http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_ Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/85349.pdf). See also Council of the European Union, External Relations,

Conclusions, Brussels (25 April 2005), 8036/05, (http://www.europa.eu.intlcomm/external_rela- tions/gac/date/2005/04_250405_er.pdf#mepp). sb Group of 77, Second South Summit, Doha, Qatar (12-16 June 2005), Doha Declaration, G-77/SS/2005/1, para. 58 (http://www.g77.org/southsummit2/en/intro.html).

XlVth Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, Durban (17-19 August 2004), Declaration on Palestine (http://www.nam.gov.za/media/040820a.htm). 58 Ibid. s9 See Written Statement of the United States of America (30 January 2004) (http://www.icj- cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm); Intervention of Mr. Cunningham, the US Representative before the General Assembly (A/ES-IO[PV.27) (16 July 2004), 4. See Remarks by the President and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Press (14 April 2004) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-4.html).

61 US House of Representatives, H. Res. 713 [108th Congress] (15 July 2004) (http://www. govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bi)l=hr)08-7)3). 62 See also U.N.G.A. Res. 59/122, Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories (10 December 2004): "[The General Assembly] [c]alls upon all High Contracting Parties to the Convention, in accordance with article I common to the Fourth Geneva Conventions and as mentioned in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004, to continue to exert all efforts to ensure respect for its provisions by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967". 63 See Advisory Opinion, para. 158. See also I.C.J., Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits), LC.J. Reports 1986, § 220; L. Boisson de Chazournes & L. Condorelli, Quelgues remargues a propos de 1'obliga- tion des Etats de "respecter et faire respecter" le droit international humanitaire "en toutes cir- constances ", in Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet 17-35 (1984); L. Boisson de Chazournes & L. Condorelli, Common Article I of the Geneva Conventions revisited: Protecting collective Interests, 837 /.R.R.C. 67-89 (2000); N. Levrat, Les consequences de 1'engagement pris par les Hautes Parties contractantes de "faire respecter" les Conventions humanitaires, in Implementation of International Humanitarian Law 267-269 (F. Kalshoven & Y. Sandoz, eds. 1989); E. DAVID, PRINCIPES DE DROIT DES CONFLITS ARMTS (3rd ed.) 562-569 (2002). Contra Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, paras. 46-50; F. Kalshoven, The Undertaking to Respect and Ensure in all Circumstances: From Tiny Seed to

RipeningFruit, 2 Y.I.H.L. 3-61 (1999): "I may repeat that the authors [of article 1 of the Geneva Conventions] never meant to suggest that contracting states are under an affirmative international obligation to "ensure" that belligerent parties respect the Conventions" (at 38). 65 J. Pictet (ed.), Les Conventions de Geneve du 12 aout 1949, Commentaire (Vol. IV) 21 (1956). ibis. (Emphasis added). Advisory Opinion, para. 156. See G. Abi-Saab, The Responsibility of Governments and Intergovernmental Organization.s in Upholding lnternational Law, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 61-63; M. Chemiller- Gendreau, op. cit. 6� See N. Levrat, op. cit., 275-281. 6$ See P. Weckel, op. cit., 1036. Advisory Opinion, para. 159.

'° See U. Palwanker, Mesures auxquelles peuvenr recourir les Etats pour remplir leur obligation de faire respecter le droit international humanitaire, 805 I.R.R.C. 11-27 (1994); L. Boisson de Chazournes & L. Condorelli, op. cit., 76-84. 71 See L. Boisson de Chazournes & L. Condorelli, op. cit., 77; N. Levrat, op. cit., 281-293. 'Z See A. Imseis, op. cit., 114-117.

�3 See Advisory Opinion, para. 162. 74 letter dated 11 January 2005 from the Secretary-General to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/294 (13 January 2005).

�5 Advisory Opinion, paras. 152-153. �6 See Article 3 of the The Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907, and Article 29 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. �� Report by Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, pursuant to U.N.G.A. Res. ES-10/15 (27 June 2005), Annex to the letter dated 30 June 2005 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/304 (5 July 2005).

78 bid., para. 17. '9 Ibid., para. 25-26. 80 Ibid., para. 30.

8'Ibid., para. 52. gz Ibis., para. 59. 83 In this respect, it should be noted tat the General Assembly has adopted several resolutions con- demning Israel on the basis of the Advisory Opnion. See for instance U.N.G.A. Res. A/RES/59/179 (3 May 2005), The Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination: "Recalling the conclusion of the Court, in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004, that the construction of the wall by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, along with mea- sures previously taken, severely impedes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination." s' See Proposals of the Palestinian Authority, Report by Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, pursuant to U.N.G.A. Res. ES-10/15 (2 August 2004), para. 48-50.

report by Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, pursuant to U.N.G.A. Res. ES-10/15 (2 August 2004), para. 48-50. 86 see G. Abi-Saab, op. cit., 61-63. 87 Advisory Opinion, para. 160. 88 To recall, a proposed resolution condemning the Wall was rejected by the Security Council because of an American veto in October 2003 (U.N. Doc. S/2003/980, S.PV 4842 (14 October 2003). See Advisory Opinion, para. 31. g9 /bid. See A. Kassim, The Advisory Opinion of the lnternational Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.: Significance and lmplications, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETY, op. cit., 37-43.

90 See J. Salmon (ed.), Dictionnaire de droit international public 1007 (2001). 9� Euro-Meditarrenean Agreement, establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, O.J. 2001 (L 147/3) (21 June 2001 See in particular, Article 81: "Each of the Parties may denounce the Agreement by notifying the other Party. The Agreement shall cease to apply six months after the date of such notification". On this matter, see also M. Chemillier-Gendreau, op. cit. 9z Articles 22 and Articles 49-54 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (2001). 93 Article 48 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 94 Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (2001 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Fifty-third session, Official Record.s of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth session, Supplement No. /0 (A/56/10), IV.E.2, 355. See Article 54 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 9S See P. Weckel, op. cit., 1035.

Reply to a Parliamentary Question by Christian Brotcome to Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 concerning the Separation Wall constructed by Israel (n° 3-960), 15 July 2005, Belgian Senate.

9� Advisory Opinion, paras. 155-157. 98 UN Experts Mark Anniversary of ICJ "Wall Opinion": Call on Israel to Halt Construction of the Wall, HR/05/092 (4 August 2005): Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, Prof. John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, Mr. Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, Ms. Yakin Erturk, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Mr. Vernor Munoz Villalobos, Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Mr. Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Mr. Doudou Diene, Chairperson, Rapporteur, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Ms. Leila Zerrougui, Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially in Women and Children, Ms. Sigma Huda.

On this matter, see M. Kohen, op. cit. See G. Abi-Saab, op. cit., 61-63. 101 See United Nations International Conference of Civil Society in Support of Middle East Peace, UNESCO (12 and 13 July 2005) International Coordinating Network on Palestine, 2005 Plan of Action (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF7OpenDatabase). See Campaign "Against the Wall", initiated by the European Coordinating Committee of NGOs on the question of Palestine (ECCP) (http://www.against-the-wall.org). See a.o. Campaign Stop the Wall and et Plate-forme des ONGs françaises pour la Palestine (http://www.france-pa)estine.org/artic)e)962.htm)). See the various communications on the theme The Role of Parliaments and Civil Society in Advocating Adherence to lnternational Law, in Implementing the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The Role of Governments, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society, op. cit., 93-150.