THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds public hearings in the advisory proceedings on the Obligations of Israel – China; Senegal; Slovenia; Sudan; Switzerland; Comoros International Court of Justice Date: 2 May 2025 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k15/k15t3esmrn Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- ICJ · President [0:05]: La go. Please be seated. Good morning. The sitting is now open. The Court meets this morning to hear the following participants on the questions submitted by the General Assembly, namely: China, Senegal, Slovenia, Sudan, Switzerland, and the Comoros. Each of the delegations has 30 minutes at its disposal for its presentation. The Court will observe a short break after the presentation of Slovenia. I shall now give the floor to His Excellency Ma Ximin, speaking on behalf of China. Sir, you have the. China [2:02]: Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court, it is a great honor and privilege to appear before you on behalf of China. For over half a century, Palestinians in the occupied territory has endured persistent suffering, with many communities dependent on humanitarian assistance for basic survival. Following the October 2023, the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, even this basic lifeline has been severely threatened. With each new restriction and every law Israel enacts to block assistance, the situation grows more desperate. In Gaza and throughout the occupied territories, we are witnessing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis threatening to overwhelm and already suffering people. The suffering of Palestinian people touches the very heart of China. For 12 straight years, President Xi Jinping has sent messages to the UN's special commemorative meeting in observance of International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. expressing China's unwavering support for Palestine's just cause. China continues to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, while also participating in broad international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and support post-conflict reconstruction in Gaza. President Xi puts it simply and powerfully. I quote, "The humanitarian cause is humanity's shared mission." End of quote. This principle guides China's position that the United Nations, as the cornerstone of multilateralism, should play both a central and unique role in leading and coordinating humanitarian assistance. As stakeholders in this humanitarian mission, all states should work together to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. Ultimately, the fundamental solution to the Palestinian question lies in the implementation of the two-state solution. This addresses the core of this conflict, Palestinian people's fundamental right to self-determination. At the same time, Israel's legitimate security concerns should be respected. China champions the parties to move forward with each other and stands ready to work with the international community toward early realization of this vital goal. Two states living side by side in peace, their peoples sharing the benefits of friendly coexistence. China submitted its written statement to the court in February 2025. Today, I will present China's view in three parts. First, the advisory jurisdiction of the court. Second, Israel's obligations as the occupying power to the UN. Other international organizations, and third states, namely third parties. Finally, Israel's obligations as a member state of the UN. China submits that the court has jurisdiction over questions requested by the General Assembly, and there's no compelling reason for the Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction. China supports the Court's exercise of its advisory jurisdiction in accordance with international law. China hopes that the Court will focus on the specific legal questions requested by the General Assembly. Building upon its advisory opinion of the July 2024 to provide legal guidance on relevant issues. The guidance will serve to promote lasting peace, stability, and development in the Middle East. Moreover, it will safeguard international peace and security. By upholding the authority of international law and advancing international justice and fairness. Mr. President, I now turn to the obligations of Israel as occupying power in relation to the third parties. Since 1967. Israel has been the occupied power of Palestinian territory, including the Gaza Strip. While Israel withdrew its physical military presence from Gaza in 2005, this did not change the status as occupying power. a position this Court affirmed in its OPT Advisory Opinion. In armed conflict, particularly in a situation of occupation, Israel's obligations as occupying power, specifically in relation to the third party's presence and activities, derive from two fundamental sources of law:. International humanitarian law, and international human rights law. In terms of obligations of Israel as occupying power under international humanitarian law, four fundamental sources should be noted: the Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the First Protocol, and customary international law. From these sources emerge five principal obligations, which I will examine in turn. First, Israel has the undisputed primary responsibility to ensure the basic needs of civilians in the occupied territory. The obligation explicitly required by Article 55, paragraph 1, of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 69, paragraph 1. Of the First Protocol. These provisions require Israel to ensure to the fullest extent all supplies essential for civilian survival in the OPT. Second. Israel has obligation to agree to humanitarian assistance from third parties when the population in the OPT is inadequately supplied. This is not a discretionary choice. Refusing such assistance could constitute denial of humane treatment of civilians. Or a form of collective punishment, both prohibited under international law. Third, Israel has obligation to allow and facilitate humanitarian assistance from third parties. In three specific ways, Israel shall ensure rapid and impeded passenger of the humanitarian assistance, enable humanitarian personnel to perform their tasks, and facilitate the distribution of relief materials. Fourth, Israel has obligation of respecting and protecting humanitarian assistance personnel and materials. Provided by the third parties. This entails a negative obligation to refrain from causing harm to them and a positive obligation. To take active measures to protect them. We are deeply concerned about casualties among humanitarian assistance personnel in the OPT. We call on all. Parties to comply fully with their obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure the safety of humanitarian assistance personnel. Fifth, Israel has obligation not to, for the purpose of civilian starvation, impede humanitarian assistance from the third parties by using Siege or blockade, one siege or blockade are not prohibited per se as a method of warfare. Under international humanitarian law. These methods become unlawful when intended to starve the civilian population. Moreover, as confirmed by the court, In its OPT advisory opinion, Israel, as occupied power, has no sovereignty over or no right to exercise sovereign power in any part of the OPT. In addressing the humanitarian crisis in Palestine, multiple Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Confirm and reaffirm Israel's relevant obligations, providing valuable guidance for the present case. It must be emphasized, Mr. President, the principles and the rules of international humanitarian law cannot be derogated from. Unless explicitly provided for. In practice. The occupying power may impose appropriate restrictions on the presence and activities of humanitarian assistance only under specific circumstances, which? I will now outline. First. Activity and movement of humanitarian personnel may be restricted only in a case of imperative military necessity. These restrictions face two critical limits. They cannot constitute a complete ban on humanitarian activities, and they must remain temporary, not permanent. Notably. These restrictions are not applicable to humanitarian materials. Second, specific humanitarian arrangements may be subject to temporary technical restriction based on the reasons of security. However, such restrictions cannot amount to either a denial of humanitarian assistance presence. Or a general prohibition on the access of humanitarian assistance. Third, providers of humanitarian assistance may be subject to appropriate restrictions on their presence and activities. If they violate humanitarian principles of humanity. Naturality, impartiality, and independence. These restrictions must be based on sufficient legal grounds and factual evidence, and each case must be evaluated individually. When misconduct occurs, restrictions apply only to the specific individual involved. unless such conduct is proven attributable to their organization or state. As a matter of international humanitarian law, humanitarian assistance is. Based on two pillars: the occupying power's primary responsibility and the third party's humanitarian assistance. Unlike the occupied power primary role, the third party play subsidiary and complementary role. The rule applies only when two conditions are met. First, the civilian population's basic necessity are not adequately supplied. And second, the occupied powers has given its consent, such assistance must adhere to humanitarian principles while respecting technical arrangements established by the occupying power. Under international law. China knows that. A few written statements assert that the occupying power has broad discretion to accept or deny the presence and activities of the third parties that provide humanitarian assistance. However, international humanitarian law explicitly constrains such discretion by establishing two distinct obligations. In situation of occupation, the occupying power shall agree to humanitarian assistance from third parties. In situation of armed conflict other than occupation, humanitarian assistance from the third party. Shall be undertaken, and the parties to the conflict shall not arbitrarily withhold their consent. In the situation of armed conflict, international human rights law complements international humanitarian law. Israel is a party to several key international human rights conventions. These conventions apply to acts done by. A state in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its territory. Therefore, Israel is bound by these conventions in its conduct in the OPT. Israel has occupying power. It's obliged to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Palestinian people in the OPT. These obligations include a full spectrum of rights, including Palestinian people's right to self-determination, life, work, and adequate standard of living, as well as the right to food, health, and education. More attention should be paid to the. Protection of the right of vulnerable groups, including children, women, and persons with disabilities. With respect to the humanitarian and development assistance, Israel is obliged to cooperate with the third party to ensure fulfillment of these human rights. This entails both positive and negative obligations. Israel shall actively facilitate humanitarian and development assistance, while refraining from creating obstacles to such assistance. Among these fundamental human rights, self-determination constitutes a collective and fundamental human right, serving as a prerequisite for the full enjoyment of all other fundamental human rights. The Court has affirmed that Israel, as the occupying power, has an obligation not to impede the Palestinian people from exercising the right to self-determination. A key element of this right is that a people may freely pursue its economic, social and cultural development. The right is also fundamentally linked with the right to development. Declaration on the Right to Development states that. The human rights to development implies the full realization of people's right to self-determination. Under the declaration, every. Human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political development. It necessarily follows from that, given the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and their right to development, Israel is under the obligation to facilitate and promote, rather than to impede, humanitarian and development assistance from the third parties. Moreover. Israel is under the obligation to take provisional measures indicated by the Court in the case concerning application of Genocide Convention to the Gaza Strip, and to comply with the Court's specific demands regarding humanitarian assistance. Mr. President. I will now turn to the obligation of Israel as a member state of the UN in relation to the third parties. These obligations flow from three sources:. The UN Charter, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, and the general international law. Under the UN Charter and the general convention. Israel undertakes the following main obligations in relation to the third party at all times. First, Israel is obligated to cooperate with the UN and other member states in providing humanitarian assistance. International cooperation is a fundamental principle of international law and a core purpose of the UN Charter under Article 1. This obligation to cooperate is set forth in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Israel shall give the UN every assistance for any action taken under the Charter. including but not limited to Chapter VII enforcement measures. Israel shall fulfill in good faith its obligation to cooperate, to safeguard and facilitate the provisions of humanitarian assistance by the third parties in the OPT. Second, Israel has obligation. To ensure the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the UN agencies and bodies. These include the inviolabilities of the premises, the immunity from executions for property and assets. And the tax exemptions, among others. Third, Israel has obligation to ensure the privileges and immunities of the UN personnel. These includes immunity from legal process and the travel facilities for UN officials, as well as the privileges and immunities. Of experts on mission. With that being said, I now move on to address Israel's specific obligation in relation to the UNRWA. UNRWA is backbone of humanitarian assistance operations in Gaza. Its role in alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is both indispensable and irreplaceable. As subsidiary organ of the UN established by the General Assembly, UNRWA is entitled. To all rights and privileges accorded to the UN organs by international law. In fulfilling its obligation toward UN organs in good faith, Israel shall safeguard and facilitate UNRWA humanitarian operations, protect the safety of the personnel, and ensure its privileges and immunities. By withdrawing from the 1967 Interim Agreement and enacting legislation to prohibit UNRWA operations. Israel clearly violates its obligations under international law. As set forth above, such action contravenes a fundamental principle of international law. No state may invoke its internal law to justify noncompliance with the international obligations. While. Differences may exist regarding the implementation of the interim agreement, Israel is required to consult and negotiate with the UN in good faith to resolve these matters properly. with respect to Israel's obligation concerning UN peacekeeping operations and their personnel. I wish to make the following observations. The UN peacekeeping operations play a vital role in restoring and maintaining international peace and security. As subsidiary organs of the UN, these operations enjoy all privileges and immunities accorded to the UN. For the young officials and experts on mission in peacekeeping operations. Their privileges and immunities are guaranteed under the General Convention and relevant international practices. Personnel serving in the national armed forces on their sending state's command and control are protected through status forces agreements between the host state and UN. Where no such agreement exists, customary international law provides these forces relevant immunity afforded to all state armed forces. The Security Council and the General Assembly have adopted a series of resolutions strengthening the importance of. Ensuring the privilege and immunities of UN, its agencies and bodies, and their personnel, as well as protecting the safety of UNRWA, UN peacekeeping operations, and their personnel. These resolutions reiterated the international law obligation that Israel shall fulfill in good faith. As a final point, general international law imposes two obligations on Israel. In relation to the third parties in the OPT. First, Israel shall respect sovereign immunity of states, immunity of state officials, and diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities of third states. Second, Israel cannot exercise sovereign power in the OPT, including any attempt to prohibit UNRWA's presence and activity. Such sovereign powers rest exclusively with Palestine. Mr. President, the Palestinian people face no greater urgent threat than deprivation of humanitarian assistance, while the Court Advisory Opinion of July 2024 still echoes. The reality of occupied Palestinian territory remains grim. Occupation continues, and starvation persists. The desperate eyes of Gaza's children pierce our conscience with two burning questions. Will international law surrender to the brute force? Will the pillars of civilization yield before the law of the jungle? China respectfully calls upon the Court to issue an advisory opinion. That upholds the integrity of international law and stirs the conscience of international community. Only by safeguarding fairness and justice through the rule of law can we build a community with a shared future for humankind. Mr. President, distinguished members of the court, this concludes China's statement. On behalf of Chinese delegation, I wish to thank you for your patient attention. I extend my appreciation to the registry and the staff for their kind support. ICJ · President [34:13]: I thank the representative of China for his presentation. I now invite the next delegation, the delegation of Senegal, to take the floor, and I call Her Excellency, Ms. Dieynaba Toure-Batilly, to the podium. Senegal [34:40]: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, judges, members of the Court, it's an honor for me to address the Court on behalf of the Republic of Senegal in the present advisory opinion proceedings. Senegal, in addition to holding the honour of chairing the Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People since its creation in 1975, is a party to most of the international initiatives whose objective is to find a lasting solution to the tragedy suffered by the Palestinian people. The special UN committee in charge of investigating Israeli practices in occupied territories the OCI ministerial committee of the six on Palestine and the interministerial committee of non-aligned countries on the question of Palestine. Senegal has long supported the Palestinian cause, not only because it is just, but also because it is based in firmly established international law. Our country is very attached to the effective and concrete protection of the rights of the Palestinian people, which is unjustly subject to prolonged and unlawful occupation. Senegal has thus, on several occasions, made a solemn appeal to the Member States of the United Nations, asking them to continue to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, that we will from now on call the Agency, and which, since it was created, has been providing basic services for millions of Palestinian refugees, in particular in the areas of education, health and humanitarian assistance. Senegal wishes to secure clarification of the legal obligations incumbent on Israel as the occupying power and as a Member State of the United Nations in relation to the organization of the United Nations and other international actors present and operating in the occupied Palestinian territory for the benefit of the Palestinian population. Mr. President, the international community is based on rules and on trust in the institutions in charge of interpreting them, foremost among which is your Court. When it is seized with a well-founded request, as is manifestly the case here, it must recall the collectively recognized principles and rules and to specify their meaning and scope. Several participants to the present proceedings have rightly recalled this this week. It is the very international legal framework itself, designed to guarantee respect for the law and establish responsibility in case of breaches, which is being tested today. The contribution of Senegal naturally directly follows the advisory opinion handed down by your court on the 19th of July 2024 on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. This opinion did not merely reaffirm the unlawfulness of the continuous occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel, but also underlined the obligations arising from it for all States. In accordance with this opinion, Senegal deems that it is incumbent on it, as on all other States, to cooperate to put an end to the unlawful situation deriving from the Israeli occupation and not to render aid or assistance to maintaining it. Mr. President, at the heart of this situation is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which must be preserved in all its dimensions: legal, political, territorial and humanitarian, as this Court has on many occasions recalled, including in its advisory opinions of 2004 and 2024. Israel's obligations concerning the presence and the activities of United Nations, other international organizations, and third states are intrinsically linked to the realization of this right. Senegal is of the view that any impediment to this presence and the activities of these organizations amounts not only to a breach of the specific obligations of Israel towards these actors, but also to a clear obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its fundamental right to freely determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development. Mr. President, members of the Court, Senegal has no doubt that the Court has jurisdiction to deliver the requested advisory opinion and that nothing would justify it not exercising this jurisdiction. Like Senegal and other participants, and there are many of them, have argued at the stage of the written and oral submissions, as well as in the two previous advisory opinions, there is no compelling reason to justify your declining to hand down this opinion. Your court will not be convinced by the arguments claiming that this opinion would risk unduly interfering with pending contentious cases. Indeed, to quote the Court, no state can prevent the giving of an advisory opinion which the United Nations considers to be desirable. and in regard to advisory opinions, even where the request for an opinion relates to a legal question actually pending between states." In the following presentations, Senegal will endeavor to suggest to the Court The answers to the question submitted to it, and let me recall that the question deals with Israel's obligations as the occupying power and as a member of the United Nations. These obligations consist of primary and secondary obligations. The relevant primary obligations will be presented by Professor Makane Moise Mbengue, and it will fall to Professor Jean-Marc Touvenin to discuss the secondary obligations. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, members of the court, I thank you for your attention, and I would ask you to now call my colleague, Professor Mackany Moise Mbenge, to the podium. ICJ · President [41:39]: Thank you, Ms. Bhatili. I now give the floor to Mr. Mackany Moise Mbenge. Sir, you have the floor. Senegal · Professor [41:47]: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, members of the court, it is an honor for me to represent Senegal. in these important proceedings. Mr. President, as Ambassador Toure-Batily has just recalled, there is an essential issue at stake in the present proceedings, that of guaranteeing that the relation between Israel and the Organization be conducted in accordance with positive international law. For Senegal, a relationship based on international law requires Israel to comply with its obligations, chief among which is a primary obligation, the obligation of cooperation. My task will be, first of all, to present the legal aspects of this obligation to you, and then to address the duties it involves in practice for Israel. The obligation originates from the Charter, in particular articles 55, 56 and 2, paragraph 5, which have abundantly been quoted during these proceedings. It requires on the part of every Member State of the United Nations to afford every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter. And I stress any action it takes, those are the very words of Article 2, paragraph 5, taken by the organization, and therefore not only that decided by the Security Council, but also the action taken by the General Assembly, including through a subsidiary body such as the Agency. This interpretation is the only possible interpretation, given your opinion in the case of the expenses. Article 2, paragraph 5 of the Charter, contrary to what a handful of participants to the present proceedings have argued, would be deprived of its intended effect if a Member State of the Organisation could, as it pleased, in the name of national security considerations, in relation to a territory over which it has no sovereignty, decide on the fate of the action taken by the United Nations. It goes without saying that the authors of the Charter never intended to afford to a member state such omnipotence over the organization and its action. On the contrary, The obligation to cooperate and full assistance are one and the same thing, and they are legally inseparable from each other. In law and in fact, Israel must cooperate in all circumstances to guarantee full functioning, full accomplishment, and full independence and effectiveness of the agency. The obligation of continuous cooperation in good faith for Israel with the organization and its subsidiary bodies, such as the Agency, does not involve variable geometry in the context of the Charter. It cannot be subject to deviations or to unilateral limitations. In other terms, any action on the part of a member state which would consist in reducing even minimally, or worse, in wiping out, as Israel is doing, the action of the organization in breach of the cooperation procedures provided by the organization is contrary to the obligation of cooperation. Security concerns provide no exception, none, especially when cooperation and dialogue mechanisms with the organization are available to alleviate these concerns. Senegal is convinced that the Court will give a practical effect to paragraph 2, paragraph 5 of article 2 in accordance with the customary rules for the interpretation of treaties. Such an interpretation of this provision is also likely to give a practical effect to the obligations incumbent on Israel as the occupying power pursuant to international humanitarian law and international human rights law, whose applicability and enforceability to Israel has been recalled many times by the Court. Indeed, the realisation of the well-being of the Palestinian civil population under occupation and its fundamental rights, such as the right to health, to life, to education, depend directly on the ability of the Agency and of third states to operate without impediment in the occupied Palestinian territory, as the occupying power is, to say the least, notoriously failing. Consequently, the obligation to cooperate and is an obligation that Israel must fully comply with. It is also an obligation which must be complied with entirely, seeing to it that the intervention of the organisation to the benefit of the Palestinian people is not impeded. It is not dependent on circumstance or on the discretionary and unilateral national security considerations of Israel, neither is it based on the principle of subsidiarity, as some participants have suggested, and this would enable national Israeli agencies to replace the Office. This is an obligation which must be applied in good faith, bearing in mind a number of specific duties, which I would now like to dwell on. The general obligation of co-operation can be broken down into several duties: that of assisting and facilitating, that of refraining and that of respecting. Each of those facets is linked to the others. First, Israel is under an obligation to assist and facilitate the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organisations and third States acting in accordance with international law in the occupied Palestinian territory and in relation to it. The obligation of assistance, which is discussed here, imposes more than passivity; it is about support. Everything must be done not only to support the action of the United Nations and other humanitarian stakeholders, but also to facilitate their work. Secondly, co-operation involves a duty of refraining from any action likely to impede, obstruct or jeopardise the presence and the activities of the United Nations, other international organisations and third States. This is the negative facet of the obligation to assist and facilitate, in the sense that even if no specific substance were to be attached to it, the minimum for Israel would be for it to refrain from harming humanitarian action. Thirdly, and this is fundamental, Israel has a duty to abide by the legal status, the mandates, the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, of its bodies, organizations and agents, and those of other international organizations and third states operating in the occupied Palestinian territory. Mr. President, members of the court, allow me to emphasize the privileges and immunities guaranteed by Article 105 of the Charter and the 1946 convention, to which Israel is a party, and which are absolutely necessary for the independent exercise of the functions of the agency and its agents. The latter undoubtedly enjoy these privileges and immunities, and Israel has recognised this in the exchange of letters of 1967 in order to renounce them. or generally to release itself from its obligation to cooperate with the organization, Israel relies in its submissions on a systemic defect in the form of the alleged lack of neutrality of the agency. Israel. Certainly is entitled to assert that Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires the impartiality of concerned humanitarian organizations. Israel is entitled to put into question the diplomatic immunity of a member of the staff of the Agency, but rather than cooperate with the Organization to establish the facts it is denouncing, Israel has decided to make allegations without proof and to fund a smear campaign against the Agency as a whole. It is the same bias expressed by Israel in its written statement, which accuses the Agency of being, and I quote, irremediably compromised. In accordance with section 29, paragraph 2 of the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities, any challenge as to the status of some members of the staff of the Organization must be made either through a request to the General Secretary that their immunity be lifted, either by resorting to the dispute settlement means provided for by the Organization. These procedures have been duly followed after Israel made its allegations, as was demonstrated at the beginning of the week by the legal counsel of the Organization. In other words, Israel's allegations were duly tackled, as has been shown in several reports. The General Assembly has taken note of these reports in its resolution of the 16th of December 2024 and requested, I quote, that all parties, Israel included, enable the agency to carry out its mandate. End quote. Israel has taken note, but rejects those conclusions. However, Israel may not unilaterally reject them. It may contest them. But in that case, Article 30 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities provides that it is through an advisory opinion. That disputes concerning the interpretation or application stemming from them. Are to be definitively settled, not through a unilateral decision by Israel. That dispute, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is now before you, members of the Court. Senegal suggests that it be resolved, first, by stating that the procedures followed by United Nations bodies to deal with Israel's complaints are fully in compliance with what the convention requires, and that there is no reason to put them into question. Then, by determining that Israel has an obligation to comply with them in good faith, as it must comply in good faith with its treaty obligations. Mr. President, Members of the Court. Senegal considers that the different aspects of the obligation to cooperate, to assist and facilitate, to abstain and respect are interdependent and form an indivisible whole. Compliance with the obligation to cooperate is a sine qua non condition for the realization by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination. and of compliance by Israel with its obligations as an occupying power. This concludes my submission. I thank you kindly for your attention and would ask you, President, to call to the podium my colleague, Professor Jean-Marc Touvenel. President [54:36]: I thank Professor Mbenga, and I give the floor to Professor Jean-Marc Touvenel. Senegal · Professor [54:45]: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the court, it is an honor to present here some views of Senegal, whom I warmly thank for entrusting me to do so on its behalf. Professor Mbenge addressed the existence and extent of Israel's obligation to cooperate with international actors that are present, active, and indispensable in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. foremost amongst which is the Agency. This obligation is firmly established and cannot be unilaterally set aside on the basis of discretionary security considerations. It logically follows that total or partial repudiation, as a matter of fact or law, of Israel's. Cooperation with the United Nations in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, and especially with the Agency. Amount to internationally wrongful acts, which, in that they trigger its international responsibility, trigger in turn the corresponding secondary obligations. This is the point that I will be developing in the time that is given to me. by going very quickly back to the illegality of the practices in question, and then outline Israel's secondary obligations that stem from it. Mr. President, members of the Court, Israel's non-compliance with its obligation to cooperate is patent. Most of those who have pleaded before me have provided many details to this effect. including the legal counsel of the United Nations. Israel accepts its actions. "No humanitarian aid shall enter Gaza" is what the Israeli Minister for Defense, Israel Katz, said repeatedly a few days ago, ripping apart by the same token the written submissions of his own country, according to which there are allegedly alternatives to the agency. There are none. No humanitarian aid may enter Gaza. Indeed, there is therefore no disagreement as to the facts. On the contrary, they are being proclaimed. It is simply their illegal character that is being disputed, actually by a minority of speakers, according to which there is an exemption to the obligation to cooperate that a member of the United Nations might allegedly be able to unilaterally claim and on a discretionary basis. But Professor Mbeng and others before him have demonstrated that there is no such exception. It is impossible. It therefore follows that the facts are both established and illegal. or wrongful. Yet any internationally wrongful act by the state triggers its international responsibility. It follows that since Israel's behavior assuredly amounts to wrongful acts, its international responsibility is triggered. Then, since the question asked to the court invites it to list the obligations which fall upon Israel, which in competence and obligations of all kinds, there are no reasons to discriminate between primary and secondary obligations. They are all relevant here. Under these secondary obligations, Israel is foremost, of course, obligated to immediately put an end to its wrongful act. It is in particular, or in particular, has a duty to abrogate, suspend, or definitively deprive of effect in the manner of its choosing those laws or regulations that ban the activities of the office or that hinder its action. Israel must lift all unjustifiable restrictions to the access and circulation of humanitarian personnel and property or goods. It must order and implement an immediate cessation of all attacks against UN agents and other humanitarian agents and against the infrastructure in which they operate. It must prosecute the perpetrators of those attacks and fully respect the privileges and immunities of UN agents, including those of the agency, as goes without saying. Given the severity of the breaches it is responsible of, Israel also has an obligation to provide solid assurances and guarantees that they will not occur again. Israel must also provide full reparations for the already huge prejudice caused by its internationally wrongful behavior. This includes the whole of the material harm suffered by the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations, especially harm perpetrated against its premises, vehicles, and equipment, as well as the moral harm stemming from the assault on their dignity and their ability to act. It also includes the especially serious prejudice suffered especially by international and local members of the staff of the United Nations killed or wounded under Israeli attacks or under arbitrary detention. As the Court is fully aware, reparation must, as far as possible. Wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. In the present case, reparation should take the form of restitution, for example, by rebuilding or replacing those buildings or other property that has been destroyed, or, when restitution is not an option, compensation. Beyond this, the most serious harm stemming from Israel's obstruction of the organization's actions and of the actions of other humanitarian actors in the occupied Palestinian territory is that which the Palestinian people suffers, deprived of all indispensable things for it to exercise its right to self-determination. It is indeed the Palestinian people whose most fundamental rights are denied. Reparation by Israel must fully remedy this. Mr. President, members of the court, as I conclude, allow me to insist on what the General Assembly expects of you as a matter of priority and utmost urgency, and beyond that, what the international community expects of you, and of course, Senegal, as Madame Ambassador Touray Baccily recalled. What we expect of you is that you make heard what international law says about the obligations of Israel as an occupying power and as a member of the United Nations in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organisations and third States, in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. Nothing prevents you from answering that question. from answering the whole of this question, which concerns all relevant international law obligations, primary and secondary. Amongst the primary obligations, we find the obligation to cooperate, which is very broad, yes, yet precise concerning the duties that it specifically imposes in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. This includes in particular those obligations stemming from the Convention on Privileges and Immunities. In accordance with Article 30, this Court has jurisdiction to render a binding decision on the interpretation dispute concerning said Convention. Concerning the secondary obligations, whereas it goes without saying that they apply to Israel since the facts are established and undeniably wrongful, it is crucial that the Court state that they exist. That is what the General Assembly has asked you to do. It is what will help. Its accomplish its highest mission, which the member states of the United Nations have unanimous unanimously tasked it with in ratifying article one of its charter. That mandate, as specified by articles two and three of for article one, is, and I quote the charter, to develop friendly relations amongst nations based on the respect on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting encouraging respect for human. Rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Mr. President, members of the Court, it is with this magnificent text, which lays out the actions that you are being asked to help the organization undertake, that Senegal concludes its presentation, while thanking you for your kind attention. ICJ · President [1:05:08]: I thank the representatives of Senegal for their presentation. The delegation of Slovenia to address the Court, and I give the floor to Dr. Marko Rakovic. You have the floor, sir. Slovenia · Dr. [1:05:22]: Mr. President, Madam Vice-President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you in order to present the oral observations of the Republic of Slovenia on the question submitted to your scrutiny by the General Assembly. Slovenia co-sponsored resolution 79/232 and is grateful for the opportunity to address the question and to assist the Court in function to clarify the state of international law. Slovenia remains fully committed to the existing consolidated multilateral system based on an effective United Nations organization, collective security, the peaceful settlement of dispute, the principle of self-determination of peoples, highest human rights standards, and the powerful role of international law, of which the Court is the organ. The question submitted to you by the General Assembly is an important one. It concerns some of the most essential obligations for the functioning of the international legal order, for the dignity and worth of the human person, and for maintaining international peace and security. Slovenia considers that there are no compelling reasons that may lead the Court to refuse to give its opinion in response to the General Assembly's request. Mr. President. The current humanitarian and security situation in Gaza and in other parts of the occupied Palestinian territory is dire and unacceptable. It demands an urgent action of the international community based on international law. The oral statements presented by the United Nations and by Palestine last Monday, set out the shocking and intolerable conditions of the Palestinian people and the difficulties faced by the organization in fulfilling its mandate and providing humanitarian assistance. Slovenia is appalled by the decision to completely block humanitarian access and aid to Gaza. As we speak, no aid has reached the people in Gaza for two months. The civilian population is at acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease, and death. The list of unacceptable is long. The longest siege since the start of the war, the blocking of access of humanitarian workers, the attacks on humanitarian, medical, and media workers, the attacks on civilians and destruction of civilian objects, and attempts to dismantle United Nations agency UNRWA. that is the principal means by which essential assistance is supplied to Palestinian refugees. In the words of the Secretary-General, there is no realistic alternative to UNRWA which could adequately provide the services and assistance required. Members of the Security Council and the General Assembly confirmed that no organization can replace or substitute the Agency's capacity and mandate to serve Palestinian refugees and civilians in urgent need of lifesaving humanitarian assistance. Mr. President, Nothing can justify the attacks of 7 October and the deliberate killing, injuring, and abduction of civilians. and nothing can justify the total destruction of Gaza and the misery imposed on the Palestinian people in Gaza and elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian territory. No claim to the right of self-defence can justify the denial of urgently needed supplies and humanitarian assistance. Under international law, the exercise of the right of self-defence can never justify violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. As confirmed by this court in 2004, the use of ad bellum has no relevance. Rather, Israel's activities in the occupied Palestinian territory and its obligations to facilitate the unhindered provisions of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of Palestinian people of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance are governed by international human rights law and international humanitarian law, not by jus ad bellum. Members of the Court, more war does not bring more peace. War brings only the erosion of peace and security and more unbearable suffering. As the Court stressed last year, The early realization of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination would contribute to regional stability and the security of all states in the Middle East. The Republic of Slovenia, having realized its independence in 1991 based on the right of the Slovenian people to self-determination, is particularly sensitive to the long overdue realization of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, and even more so when the prospect of this realization is fading. Slovenia reaffirms its unwavering support for a negotiated two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, resulting in two sovereign, democratic states living together in peace and security in full respect of international law. Slovenia recognized the State of Palestine last June and fully backs, with the United Nations, the early realization of Palestinian people's right to self-determination. Mr. President, I will now turn to the first aspect of the question submitted to the Court: the obligation to ensure and to facilitate the provision of urgently needed supplies, basic services, and humanitarian assistance. This obligation is closely connected to the right of. The Palestinian people to self-determination, but also to human rights and international humanitarian law. Mr. President, Members of the Court. There can be no right to self-determination without a people entitled to exercise and enjoy it, or without the conditions for its full, effective, and efficient realization. The Court underlined last year, by virtue of the right of self-determination, a people is protected against acts aimed at undermining its integrity as a people. It also recalled Israel's obligation not to impede the Palestinian people from exercising its right to self-determination. The General Assembly recalled in its question. That the obligations that are the subject of the present request concern the survival of the Palestinian civilian population and humanitarian and development assistance in support of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. Israel is bound not only not to impede the realization of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, but also to enable the conditions for its realization, including by providing supplies and aid necessary for the survival of the Palestinian people. The current humanitarian and security situations throughout the occupied Palestinian territory undermines the realization of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. Mr. President, Although Israel has no sovereign rights over the occupied Palestinian territory, it remains nevertheless bound by international human rights law and international humanitarian law in respect of the territory under its control and the population within that territory, and it bears the principal obligation to ensure the provision of urgently needed supplies, basic services and humanitarian and development assistance to the Palestinian people. This obligation is grounded in particular in the right to life enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This essential right is non-derogable. It must be respected even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, which includes situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The Human Rights Committee explicitly recognized the duty of States to protect life, including by taking appropriate measures to address the general conditions in society that may give rise to direct threats to life or prevent individuals from enjoying their right to life with dignity when widespread hunger, malnutrition, extreme poverty and homelessness are a reality on the ground. Everyone also Palestinians, has the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to adequate food, clothing and housing, the right to be free from hunger, and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. As a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Israel has undertaken to take steps individually and through international assistance and cooperation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights by all appropriate means. If any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education, a State is failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant. access to food, or to healthcare must be used as an instrument of pressure or war. Under international humanitarian law, the obligation to provide humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is central, as reflected in the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party, and in Additional Protocol I, which largely reflects customary international law. An occupying power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population and should in particular bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles in the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. Mr. President, Israel does not only bear an obligation to ensure the provision of essential supplies and humanitarian assistance by its own means. It is also bound to ensure and facilitate the provision of such supplies and assistance by the United Nations and, in particular, UNRWA, other international organizations such as the FAO, the third states, in furtherance of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and relevant agreements concluded in its name. Indeed, the Court observed, and I quote, the dependence of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and especially of the Gaza Strip on Israel for the provision of basic goods and services impairs the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to self-determination." According to Article 59, paragraph 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the protected population and shall facilitate them by all means at its disposal. Consent to such relief schemes cannot be arbitrarily withheld. In fact, the obligation to accept such relief provided by third states, by institutions or organizations capable of acting effectively and worthy of trust is unconditional. if it is the only or most appropriate means of meeting the needs of the population concerned. Although the occupying power has some residual rights of overview and control, it cannot prohibit relief supplied by third parties as such. Therefore, Israel must ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies, services, and humanitarian and development assistance to the population in the occupied Palestinian territory by third parties. This does include, in particular, UNRWA, which remains the backbone of the humanitarian and development assistance in the occupied Palestinian territory, and the General Assembly confirmed this obligation. Mr. President, members of the court, I thank you for your attention. Mr. President, may I now kindly ask you to give the floor to Dr. Mueller, who will continue the presentation of the Republic of Slovenia. ICJ · President [1:18:32]: I thank Dr. Rakvic. I would now like to give the floor to Dr. Daniel Mueller. You have the floor. Slovenia · Dr. [1:18:43]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a privilege to stand before you and to do it to assist the Republic of Slovenia in continuing its oral statement. Dr. Rakovic has just recalled that Israel, as the occupying power and as the State exercising jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territory, has an obligation to ensure and, above all, to facilitate the unhindered provision of essential goods, basic services, humanitarian and development assistance, and in doing this, in the interests of the Palestinian civilian population and in support of its right to self-determination. This obligation, which is firmly established in international humanitarian and human rights law, is by its nature erga omnes, which means that all states have a legal interest in its observance. Furthermore, and this is an important point, With regard to obligations under international humanitarian law, and in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, the High Contracting Parties must not only respect these obligations themselves, but they also undertake to ensure respect for the Convention and for its obligations in all circumstances. This commitment to ensure respect for international humanitarian law does not derive only from the conventions themselves, but from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the conventions merely give specific expression. It is now my task to provide some answers to two other aspects of the question posed by the General Assembly. On the one hand, the question concerns not only Israel's obligations as the occupying power, but also those that it has assumed and must fulfil as a member of the United Nations. Secondly, the question refers specifically to Israel's obligations with regard to the presence and activities of certain international actors providing or who have provided humanitarian assistance in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. Although these two aspects may overlap and complement each other, I will endeavor to address them in turn. Mr. President, it was recalled this week that when Israel was admitted to the United Nations, It solemnly pledged to accept, and I quote, "unreservedly the obligations of the United Nations Charter," and it undertook, and I quote once again, "to honor them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations," end of quote. Its declaration, made in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter, recalls that it must fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed in accordance with the Charter. One of the obligations incumbent upon each member of the Organization is that set out in Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Charter, and I quote: "All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter." End of quote. As it was recalled this morning, this obligation to assist is not just wishful thinking and cannot be reduced to simply accepting and carrying out the decisions of the Security Council, because, Mr. President, that would risk reducing Article 2, paragraph 5 of the Charter to a provision devoid of purpose or effect. Indeed, in its advisory opinion on reparation for damage suffered in the service of the United Nations, the Court was right to stress the importance of the duty to render the Organization every assistance which is accepted by the Members in Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Charter. It must be noted, as the Court continues, that the effective working of the Organization, the accomplishment of its tasks, and the independence and effectiveness of the work of its agents require that these undertakings should be strictly observed." Mr. President, this obligation of assistance, which is incumbent on all members of the Organization, takes on its full meaning in the context of the action, the duty, of the United Nations to enable the realization of the right of peoples to self-determination. The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States not only recalls the duty of all States to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; This declaration also recalls the duty to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle. With regard more specifically to the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, The Organization has assumed its permanent responsibility inter alia by establishing subsidiary organs specifically dedicated to its realization. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, that was established in 1948, plays an essential and vital role in the Organization's assistance to the Palestinian people in realizing their rights. This agency provides humanitarian and development assistance to Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere, humanitarian and development assistance. In its health centers, it works to realize the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. in its schools and training centers. It ensures the enrollment of Palestinian children to education, promoting their right to education recognized by the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is binding on and must be respected by Israel. This assistance is a sine qua non for the very existence of the Palestinian people as a prerequisite and indispensable condition for the effective exercise of self-determination, because, distinguished members of the Court, there can be no self-determination or right of return without the existence of Palestinian people. Israel is bound, as a member of the Organization, and in accordance with the obligations it has accepted without reservation, to assist the Organization, and in particular UNRWA, its operational arm in the field, in the full discharge of its mandate. It cannot relieve itself of its solemn international obligations towards the organization and its organs, agencies, and offices through. Legislative acts that simply prohibit UNRWA's operations in the territory of the State of Israel, and even less so prohibit the presence or activities of the agency in the occupied Palestinian territory over which it does not enjoy sovereignty. Mr. President, this brings me to my second point, namely Israel's obligations regarding the protection of the presence and activities of the Organization, including UNRWA, and more generally of all humanitarian activities and personnel. As I said earlier, these obligations overlap with and complement those whose aim is to assist the United Nations and to facilitate the unhindered provision of essential supplies and humanitarian assistance. Assistance and facilitation necessarily entail certain protection obligations in order to ensure the effectiveness of operations carried out by the Organization or by third parties. Given their importance, these obligations have been reiterated and clarified in other provisions and instruments. With regard more specifically to the Organization, its property, activities, and personnel, including those of UNRWA as a subsidiary organ, Israel's obligations arise directly from the Charter, in particular Article 100 on the one hand, and from the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, to which Israel acceded in 1958, on the other hand. By virtue of its obligations, Israel is required to grant, guarantee and respect the privileges and immunities of the Organization, its organs and agencies, including UNRWA, and their agents. It must therefore protect and guarantee the inviolability of the Organization, its premises and its personnel, wherever they may be, including those in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. in order to ensure the independence of the Organization, as recalled and protected by Article 100 of the Charter. Like diplomatic privileges and immunities, there is no more fundamental prerequisite than the inviolability of the Organization, its premises and its agents. Israel is also obliged to protect the physical integrity, the safety and security of the personnel of the organization and its organs and agencies. These obligations have been reaffirmed by the Security Council and General Assembly and are reflected in the provisions of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, and also in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons. As the International Law Commission has recalled, attacks on the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel are of concern to the international community as a whole, because they are committed against persons who represent the international community and risk their lives to protect its fundamental interest in maintaining the international peace and security of mankind. For these reasons, the obligations to guarantee the personal safety of the organized agents and their exemption from any prosecution are essential without any restrictions and are inherent to their function. With regard to humanitarian activities, humanitarian personnel on the ground and humanitarian consignments must also be protected under the relevant rules of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict. These obligations do not arise solely from the principle of distinction. They are inherent to the obligation to facilitate humanitarian assistance itself. They are specifically recalled in the Fourth Geneva Convention and in the First Additional Protocol. They form part of customary international law, and they continue to be binding on Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units, or vehicles employed in a humanitarian mission. Constitutes a war crime. Distinguished members of the Court, these obligations, whose purpose is no more and no less than to guarantee the safety and security of those. Working in the interests of the international community, are clear and firmly established in international law. Yet, they are far from being respected in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where humanitarian assistance is more essential than ever. To quote the Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations before the Security Council, and I quote. What he said, "What we see in Gaza is the erosion of humanity. We are appalled by the Israeli attacks on humanitarian workers in Gaza. The humanitarian workers of the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Palestine Red Crescent Society, UNRWA, FAO, Medecins Sans Frontieres, and Nasser Hospital have been under fire since the hostilities resumed. We are shocked by the latest attack on the humanitarian convoy, killing 15 medical and humanitarian workers. Slovenia condemns all attacks on all humanitarian, medical, and United Nations personnel. They must be protected and supported in their missions at all times. We call for an end to those attacks." Mr. President, Members of the Court. These remarks conclude the oral statement of the Republic of Slovenia. On behalf of the members of the Slovenian delegation, I thank you for your kind attention. ICJ · President [1:33:19]: Thank you very much for the representative of Slovenia for their presentation. Therefore, the Court will observe a break of 15 minutes. The hearing is suspended. Please be seated. The sitting is resumed. I now invite the next participating delegation, Sudan, to address the Court, and I call Her Excellency Ambassador Umayma Al Sharif to the podium. You have the floor, Madam. Sudan · Ambassador [1:50:06]: Mr. President, Madam Vice-President, Distinguished members of the Court, it is indeed an honour to appear before you today on behalf of the Republic of the Sudan. The Government of the Republic of the Sudan acknowledges the importance of the advisory proceedings requested by the General Assembly resolution number 79/323, concerning Israel's obligation in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in occupied Palestinian territory. Sudan addresses this distinguished court in the spirit of the UN Charter. guided by its purposes and principles, including the fundamental prohibition against the acquisition of territory by force. These principles resonate with urgency in light of developments that have obstructed the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, the Relief and Works Agency, and the operations of third states in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, as mandated by the UN General Assembly. We are deeply concerned by respective legislations imposed by the occupying State, Israel, that has effectively terminated the operations of the Relief and Works Agency in the occupied Palestinian territory, leading to the collapse of the severely needed UN humanitarian response. This outcome is deeply troubling and carries grave implications not only for the humanitarian response, but also for the broader regime of UN privileges and immunities. Mr. President, the deteriorating conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory further diminish the already vanishing prospects for a peaceful, just, and durable resolution for the Palestinian question. The absence of a viable political horizon has led to catastrophic levels of suffering among the Palestinian people. There is now an urgent and compelling need for humanitarian relief. In these dire conditions, the Relief and Works Agency remains a vital lifeline for Palestinian refugees, particularly amidst the collapse of health and education systems and the destruction of essential infrastructure. Its work spans beyond Gaza to include the West Bank and neighboring countries such as Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Mr. President, Sudan recalls that the Relief and Work Agency, as a UN entity, symbolizes the international community's recognition of the plight of the Palestinian refugees. and expresses a spirit of global solidarity. Since 1949, it has shown itself to be effective, efficient, and indispensable. There is at present no viable alternative to its operations, nor can its responsibilities be transferred until a comprehensive and lasting resolution of the Palestinian question is achieved. Mr. President, I respectfully ask that you grant the floor to Professor Raimondo, who will continue the presentation of our oral statement. Professor Raimondo will address three core elements: first, whether the court should render the requested advisory opinion second the Israel's obligation to respect the Sovereign rights of the state of Palestine to engage with third states and international organizations and third the Israel's obligation to respect the UN privileges and immunities his remarks will be succinct yet comprehensive in outlining Sudan's position. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, distinguished members of the Court. ICJ · President [1:55:50]: I thank Ambassador al-Sherif. I now invite Professor Fabian Laimondo to address the Court. Sudan · Professor [1:56:12]: Mr. President, members of the Court, it is an honour to once again stand before this Court to address the issues outlined by Ambassador Al-Sharif. Objections to the admissibility of requests for advisory opinions from the United Nations General Assembly are neither novel nor uncommon. Yet, the Court has consistently and rightly dismissed such objections. I begin by recalling the Court's jurisprudence on this matter, which forms the foundation for addressing the current objections. As stated in the Court's advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, when a request is submitted, the Court must determine, first, whether it has jurisdiction, and, second, whether there exist compelling reasons to decline to exercise that jurisdiction. In the present proceedings, no participant has challenged the Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, I will not address this aspect and will proceed directly to the issue of admissibility. As noted in the 2024 Advisory Opinion, the existence of jurisdiction does not compel the Court to exercise it in every instance. The Court retains discretion to decline to render an opinion, but it has emphasized that it should do so only in the presence of compelling reasons. Israel and another participant raised four objections. First, that an advisory opinion would prejudge the ongoing contentious case between South Africa and Israel; second, that the question presented is prejudicial and one-sided; third, that the Court has already addressed similar issues; and fourth, that rendering the opinion would require extensive factual investigations. The first objection is misplaced. The South Africa versus Israel case concerns alleged violations of the Genocide Convention, whereas the present proceedings concern distinct legal obligations relating to the conduct of an occupying power and its treatment of international actors. Moreover, advisory opinions are by their nature non-binding and serve to assist the requesting United Nations body in its functions. Therefore, the risk of prejudicing the contentious case is unfounded and does not meet the threshold of a compelling reason. With respect to the second objection, Sudan recalls that the Court has the power to interpret and, where necessary, reformulate the questions put to it. It is for the Court to assess the formulation, scope, and meaning of the questions submitted. Accordingly, this objection cannot stand. I now turn to the third objection, namely, the argument that the question before the court allegedly involves matters already dealt with in previous advisory opinions. Although the court has earlier found that Israel violated international law and has an obligation to end the occupation, the current request presents distinct and unresolved issues, especially considering the ongoing humanitarian crisis. It specifically examines Israel's duties as an occupying power and as a member of the United Nations, as well as the role and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states within and regarding the occupied Palestinian territory. In addition, the reference to the need to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies highlights the main focus, while also allowing the Court to consider related legal obligations. there is no legal barrier preventing the Court from giving an opinion in these circumstances, and the short time elapsed since the previous advisory proceedings does not constitute a valid reason to decline. Accordingly, Sudan submits that this objection should be rejected. I now turn to the fourth objection, namely that the Court will need to make significant factual findings not suited to advisory proceedings. The Court has already dismissed a similar argument in the previous advisory proceedings concerning the occupied Palestinian territory. It is well established that the Court may rely on public information, including from United Nations organs and specialised agencies. In these proceedings, the Court has before it extensive materials submitted by the Secretary-General. It is for the Court to assess the sufficiency of that information, and there appears to be enough to answer the General Assembly's question consistently with the judicial function of the Court. Accordingly, Sudan submits that there is no basis for declining the request. Let me now turn to Israel's obligation to respect the sovereign prerogative of Palestine to establish and maintain relations with other states and international organizations, the United Nations among them. In its 2024 advisory opinion, the court confirmed that Israel, as the occupying power, must not obstruct the Palestinian people in exercising their right to self-determination, which includes the right to an independent and sovereign state across the entirety of the occupied Palestinian territory. As a core element of statehood, Palestine's right includes, and indeed requires, the capacity to participate in relations with other states and international organizations. This is not merely a technical attribute. Without the ability to engage internationally, statehood will be a hollow concept. Denial of this right strikes at the heart of what it means to be a sovereign people entitled to self-determination. Therefore, Palestine is entitled, through its recognized representatives, to develop and maintain relations with other states, the United Nations, and other international organizations. Conversely, other states including Israel, are obliged to respect that right. This includes diplomatic and consular relations, engagement with international organizations, and the conclusion of treaties among other sovereign rights. Where such relations are pursued freely by the Palestinian authorities Any effort to hinder them constitutes a breach of the right to self-determination. Likewise, deliberate efforts to obstruct the presence of diplomatic or consular actors in the occupied Palestinian territory infringe upon that right. I shall now turn briefly to Israel's obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. One participant in these proceedings presents five claims aimed at justifying Israel's actions regarding the Relief and Works Agency. Each of these claims is flawed in law and in principle. Sudan respectfully contests these claims, drawing upon the Charter of the United Nations, the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and settled United Nations practice. First, functional necessity. It is indeed true that Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations refers to privileges and immunities, I quote, "as are necessary," unquote, for the fulfillment of the purposes of the United Nations. But the interpretation of what is necessary is not left to the discretion of individual states. That interpretation was codified by the General Assembly in the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, a treaty in force for Israel. That convention grants the United Nations absolute immunity from legal process unless it has expressly waived that immunity. It follows that the doctrine of functional necessity defines the scope of immunity, but it does not empower states to make unilateral determinations of when that scope has been exceeded. Second, alleged violations of neutrality. That participant claims that the relief and works agency's privileges and immunities can be forfeited due to alleged neutrality violations. This proposition is legally unsustainable. In fact, the United Nations Secretary-General is the competent authority to assess whether acts fall within the official functions of United Nations personnel and to determine whether immunity should be upheld. Moreover, the 1946 Convention provides that United Nations property and assets shall be immune from any form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative action. that protection is not conditional on the perceived behavior of staff members. Even in cases involving serious allegations, any recourse must be sought through United Nations channels, not through unilateral action that undermines the United Nations' independence and inviolability. This interpretation is confirmed by the Court's advisory opinion of 29 April 1999. Third, substitutability of the relief on works agency. Whether other agencies could, in theory, fulfill the role of the relief on works agency is irrelevant to the question at hand. The legal test is not about indispensability. The Relief and Works Agency is a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, and as such, falls squarely within the protective scope of the 1946 Convention. Its privileges and immunities do not depend on how replaceable it may be, they derive from its institutional status. Moreover, the General Assembly has repeatedly reaffirmed the mandate of the Relief and Works Agency, most notably in resolution 64/89, which calls on Israel to cease obstruction of the Agency's operations in Gaza. Fourth, state party discretion. Israel cannot lawfully revoke or restrict immunities on its own initiative. The 1946 Convention confers absolute inviolability upon United Nations premises and archives. It further obliges States parties to actively protect these premises from interference, including by third parties. This inviolability includes immunity from physical searches of United Nations vehicles and materials, a point reaffirmed by the United Nations' own interpretation. Any obstruction of movement, searches, or disruption of operations, even if based on security justifications, must conform with Israel's duty of non-interference. Fifth, the Kome-Mitchell-Moore agreement. The same participant invokes this bilateral agreement to justify Israel's actions. However, the hierarchy of norms under Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations is clear. In case of conflict, obligations under the Charter prevail over any other international agreement. Furthermore, the Kome-Mitchell-Moore Agreement cannot displace the binding obligations under the 1946 Convention, which Israel accepted in full. As such, no bilateral understanding can lawfully be interpreted to override the core principles of inviolability, immunity and independence. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the framework established under Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1946 Convention, and United Nations practice is clear and coherent. The privileges and immunities of the United Nations are not optional. They are not revocable based on allegations or political disagreements. They are the legal foundation that enables the United Nations and its agencies, including the Relief and Works Agency, to operate independently and effectively. Allegations of misconduct, if substantiated, must be addressed through the mechanisms of the United Nations itself. To permit States Parties to the Convention to act unilaterally would be to undermine the very integrity of the international legal system and to erode the independence of the United Nations as a whole. Your Honours, I express my sincere gratitude for your attentive consideration. In times like this, when the authority of international institutions is questioned and the principles of international cooperation are at stake, we must confront the harsh reality that the pursuit of international justice is rarely straightforward and that the ideals we uphold often face formidable challenges. Yet it is precisely in these moments of trial that our unwavering commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles of international law must not only endure, but strengthen. Mr. President, I respectfully invite you to request Ambassador Al-Sherif to deliver the concluding remarks of the oral statement on behalf of Sudan. ICJ · President [2:17:34]: I thank Professor Raimondo. I now give the floor back to Her Excellency, Ambassador Umma Al-Sherif. You have the floor, ma'am. Sudan · Ambassador [2:17:45]: Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court, In light of the foregoing, Sudan concludes as follows: First, that the Court has jurisdiction to issue the requested advisory opinion and that no compelling reason exists to exercise its discretion to decline it. Second, that Israel, as an occupying power and a United Nations member, has obligation regarding the presence and activities of the United Nations, international organizations, and third states in the occupied Palestinian territory, which include the obligation to respect the sovereign right of Palestine to enter into relations with other states and international organizations. And finally, that Israel is also bound to uphold the privileges and immunities of the United Nations and its entities, including the Relief and Works Agency, and that its recent actions constitute a serious breach of the 1946 convention and the Charter of the United Nations. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members of the Court, for your patient attention. Thanks also to the registry and the staff of the Court for their continuous support. ICJ · President [2:19:22]: I thank the representatives of Sudan for their presentation. I would like to invite the following delegation, the delegation of Switzerland, to take the floor. And I call His Excellency Ambassador Franz Peres to the podium. Switzerland · Ambassador [2:19:44]: Mr. President, distinguished members of the court, it's an honor for me to appear before you on behalf of the Swiss Confederation. The dramatic situation in the Middle East, the violence and suffering, The prolonged occupation without any prospect in sight, declared illegal by the court, the atrocities committed on October 7th and since, the suffering of the hostages and their families, the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, the massive violations of international law by the parties to the conflict, all of this is of deep concern to us. Switzerland supports the UN Security Council's vision in which Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders. And Switzerland is convinced that a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians can only be achieved if international law is respected and a two-state solution negotiated in good faith and in accordance with international law is found. Israel has legitimate security concerns, but it also has an obligation to respect international law. Similarly, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination in order to live in peace but international law must also be respected in the pursuit of this goal. In recent months, not only have the obligations of international humanitarian law been called into question, but also other obligations due to the United Nations and the humanitarian actors playing an essential role in the occupied. Palestinian territory and with a view to a two-state solution. It is in this context that the UN General Assembly has asked the Court to give an advisory opinion to clarify Israel's obligations in respect of the presence and activities of the UN, other international organizations, and third states in the occupied Palestinian territory. My oral presentation will first briefly highlight some of the obligations incumbent on states with regard to the activities of the UN and other international actors under the UN Charter, the law of privileges and humanities, and international humanitarian law. I will then focus on the issue of security concerns and their influence on these obligations. Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court, by becoming a member of the United Nations, a state accepts the positive obligation of assistance set out by the Charter and is therefore obliged to assist the UN, its subsidiary bodies, and its agencies. The corollary of this positive obligation is that any action aimed at undermining or weakening the work of the UN is contrary to the Charter. A member state, therefore, has not only a positive obligation to assist the UN, but also an obligation to refrain from acting against the organization. And while states have some flexibility in the way they implement their positive obligation to assist, The obligation to refrain from obstructing the work of the UN is, in principle, more absolute. Regarding the privileges and immunities of the organs of the United Nations, the United Nations Charter and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations established the obligation to respect the immunities of the organization and its personnel. as well as the inviolability of its premises. Israel acceded to this Convention without making any reservations, and as long as Israel is a member of the UN, it cannot denounce this Convention. Finally, Mr. President, Members of the Court, since the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, are occupied by Israel, Israel as an occupying power is legally bound by the normative corpus of the law of occupation. As Switzerland emphasized in its presentations during the previous advisory opinion proceedings on the occupied Palestinian territory, this body of law must be interpreted in favor of the higher interests of the population living under occupation. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, when the population of the territory it occupies is inadequately supplied, Israel, as the occupying power, has the obligation to consent to relief schemes in favor of that population and to take all necessary and effective measures to ensure them. The Court also recalled this obligation in the context of several orders indicating provisional measures last year, and in particular, stressed the obligation here, I quote, "take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. In this context, the occupying power, that was the end of the citation. In this context, the occupying power has an obligation to respect and to protect humanitarian UN personnel. This was reiterated by resolution 2730, adopted by the Security Council in May 2024 at the initiative of Switzerland. Finally, Relief agencies present and respecting humanitarian principles must be able to continue their activities independently of the occupation, without any change which might be prejudicial to their activities on the part of the occupying power. To summarize, under the Charter, Israel has an obligation of assistance to the United Nations and its subsidiary organs. Under the Charter and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Israel has an obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the United Nations and its subsidiary organs. And finally, under international humanitarian law, Israel, as the occupying power, has an obligation to ensure, while cooperating with the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations, the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance and to ensure the well-being of the population under its control. Mr. President, members of the Court, I would now like to turn to the issue of security concerns and their influence on the obligations mentioned previously. These clear obligations may, in exceptional circumstances, conflict with legitimate security concerns of a state. Security concerns are not, as such, particularly defined. They are not, however, a blank check, the invocation of which makes it possible to evade international law and legal scrutiny. On the contrary, The fact that security concerns are incorporated into certain rules means that the concept itself is legal. It is therefore, from a legal perspective, that they must be analyzed. As the concept of security concerns is a legal one, judicial review must be possible. States themselves and their domestic legal systems usually allow judicial review of the measures relating to national security. In order to respect the rule of law, it is necessary for an independent judicial authority to be able to examine whether the invocation of national security is legitimate, so as not to give way to arbitrariness. The invocation of security concerns must not only be justiciable, it also calls for the analysis of objective criteria. Some of these are specific to each legal context, such as the UN Charter, privileges and immunities, and international humanitarian law. I will come back to these elements in a moment. That being said, a number of transversal elements can be identified. The World Trade Organization has already had to deal with a way in which exceptions relating to national security had to be taken into account in order to allow for an exception to certain obligations. In this context, the central conclusion reached by the panels is that the invocation of national security is not purely a subjective exercise of description. Making their existence dependent on the unilateral will of a state would empty the obligations of their substance. In other words, invoking Security Council concerns does not remove a complex of facts from international law and the obligations arising therefrom. A state invoking such concerns is not the sole arbiter of their existence and of the consequences that result from them. To invoke national security concerns, three criteria can be identified. Firstly, a state invoking security concerns must identify the security threat in concrete terms. Secondly, the security interest threatened must be clearly and concretely identified. To be a legitimate security interest, it must reach a particularly high threshold. Thirdly, there must be a causal relationship between the threat and the security interest advanced. A security concern that is only vaguely related to the alleged threat cannot be taken into account. With regard to these three aspects, the existence of a concrete threat, legitimate concerns for safety, and a causal link, a threshold of objectivity must be reached. This means that all the relevant elements must be presented on the basis of concrete and specific facts in an understandable and verifiable manner. It is not sufficient to rely on a vague threat to justify the invocation of safety concerns. Finally, the invocation of security concerns must be made in accordance with the principle of good faith. It cannot be accepted if the policy pursued is specifically aimed at inciting disorder. When all the above criteria are met, the response must comply with a number of fundamental legal principles. For example, the principles of necessity and proportionality must be respected. In short, the invocation of security concerns is not a wild card that can be used to avoid. Obligations under international law. On the contrary, such invocation must be provided for by law. Moreover, it is subject to strict legal conditions, in particular as regards the concrete and objective nature of the factors put forward. This is in the interest not only of the international legal order, but also of the state concerned, as it increases both the credibility and legitimacy of its measures and confidence in its good faith. In view of the foregoing, it would seem appropriate for the Court to address these conditions under which security concerns may be invoked in its advisory opinion. Mr. President, members of the court, having dealt with the cross-cutting aspects of security concerns, I now turn to the specific circumstances in which they may be invoked. According to the legal areas concerned, in particular, the obligation to provide assistance to United Nations organs under the United Nations Charter, respect for the privileges and immunities of United Nations organs, and the obligation to support and agree to relief schemes under international humanitarian law. With regard to the UN Charter and the duty to assist the Organization, Article 2, paragraph 5 of the Charter does not provide for any explicit exceptions to this obligation. Nevertheless, actions undertaken by the Organization must be in accordance with the provisions of the Charter for them to give rise to a duty of. Assistance on part of the States. If a State were to consider that a UN body was endangering its national security through its behaviour, it would have to put this forward in a concrete manner. Once the facts have been substantiated and the evidence transmitted, the UN would then be able to investigate, shed light on the problem and take appropriate measures. This is, for example, what was done in the case of ONIRA through the investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services and the measures taken by ONIRA. In addition, the Colonna report made 50 recommendations to further strengthen the neutrality of the organization, which Switzerland expects to be fully implemented. The report also underlined that UNRWA has put in place a significant number of mechanisms and procedures to ensure respect for humanitarian principles. UNRWA and its mandate remain relevant to a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state with the means to resume these services. Mere rejection of the Agency or its mandate as established by the General Assembly cannot constitute a legitimate security concern in and of itself. Furthermore. UNRWA continues to play a central role in the provision of quasi-state services such as health or education to the population of the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as in the provision of humanitarian assistance. It can be presumed that the United Nations, including through its agency UNRWA, acts in conformity with the provisions of the Charter. However. It cannot be ruled out that legitimate friction points may arise in relation to Israel's security. In such circumstances, the notification of security concerns based on concrete and verifiable facts to the UN, be it the General Assembly, the Security Council or the Secretary-General, is appropriate. The duty to assist the UN requires the search in good faith for a common and discussed solution in the interests of both parties and not the imposition of unilateral measures. It should be noted that in the event of a substantive dispute between a state and the UN, the court may be asked to give an advisory opinion. In the meantime, States are bound by their duty of assistance to the UN and must not hinder the organization's work. With regard to privileges and immunities, international law allows any security concerns to be taken into account. For example, if a State wishes to have access to the premises of the UN or to initiate criminal proceedings against one of its officials, it must request the lifting of the inviolability of the premises or of the immunity of that official from the UN itself in a specific case, clearly stating. The reasons for the request. As a host state, Switzerland has always been able to count on the cooperation of the UN in accordance with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, when problems arise in Switzerland in connection with UN officials benefiting from immunities. This procedure, which has proved effective, has the advantage of allowing progress to be made on two levels. On the one hand, if the immunity is waived by the organization, the State will be able to bring criminal proceedings against the persons or the person concerned, in compliance with the procedural guarantees provided by international law. On the other hand, the Organization is thus informed of the alleged facts and can, for its part, take action on the basis of its internal regulations. It goes without saying that under no circumstances is a State authorized to take unilateral measures that impede the proper functioning of the UN. Finally, Article 30 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations allows a state in dispute with the UN to have recourse to the Court to have the dispute settled in a legally binding manner. In short, states must respect the immunities of the UN and its staff. If a concrete and substantial security concern arises, it must be demonstrated verifiably. On this basis, a solution must be sought through discussions with the UN. If a satisfactory solution cannot be found, the state retains the option of referring the case to the International Court of Justice. Mr. President, members of the court, I now turn to the way in which security concerns are taken into account in international humanitarian law. In the context of occupation, international humanitarian law reconciles the military and security needs of the occupying power with the need for protection of the local population. The rules of international humanitarian law take account of security concerns in the sense that this body of law already reflects a balancing of security interests with respect for the rights of the people it protects. In this context, it is important to note that while some rules explicitly allow security considerations to be taken into account under certain conditions. Such as articles 27 and 63 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Other rules do not provide for such considerations, such as article 59 concerning the obligation of the occupying power to agree to relief schemes if the population of an occupied territory is insufficiently supplied. However. Even if a rule explicitly provides for security considerations to be taken into account, a state does not have complete discretion in invoking and applying them to a given situation. In addition to the conditions set out in the text of the rule itself, such as the temporary or exceptional nature of the measures, The criteria I have already mentioned of objectivity and specificity remain applicable. In addition, the restrictions in question must be necessary to ensure security, and the consequences for the public must be proportionate to the objective of ensuring legitimate security. With regard to the activities of relief societies, the occupying power is obliged to agree to and facilitate relief schemes by impartial humanitarian organizations if the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied. These organizations must be in a position to continue their humanitarian activities necessary for the maintenance of essential services. Only temporary restrictions. Imposed on an exceptional basis because of a real and urgent danger to security are permitted. Furthermore, the occupying power does not have a subjective and absolute right to determine whether a relief society does not meet the requirements of neutrality or impartiality. These elements must be established objectively. As far as the UN is concerned, the starting assumption is that it acts in compliance with these principles of neutrality and impartiality. The International Court of Justice must be able to rule on whether a party to a conflict is arbitrarily denying humanitarian access. Whether such jurisdiction is based on the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations or another treaty of international law remains a question for further consideration. We encourage the Court to analyse in depth the scope of security. Concerns in the context of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that the objective of that law. Is the protection of the victims of armed conflict. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Allow me to briefly summarize the essence of my remarks. A Member State of the United Nations has a duty of assistance to the Organization and its organs and agencies. Under the Charter. While it has some flexibility as to the extent to which it engages in support of the UN, It must refrain from obstructing the work of the organization, and it must. Respect the privileges and immunities of the UN in accordance with the convention of the same name. Or, as Senegal has just stated, Israel has an obligation to ensure, to refrain, and to respect. The United Nations, its organs, and agencies. Finally, under international humanitarian law, it must allow and. Facilitate the relief efforts of impartial humanitarian organizations, including the UN, when the population is in need. These clear obligations may, in exceptional circumstances, come under tension with certain legitimate security concerns of a state. this being the case. The invocation of security concerns insofar as this is provided for by law is not a new exception. It is an implementation of existing law. And calling upon security concerns is not a blank check, but must be based on legal considerations. These legal considerations, in addition to those provided for by the rule in question, include three criteria in particular. The state must, firstly, respond to a concrete threat aimed at, secondly, a particularly high national security interest, and it must, thirdly, establish a causal link between the two. These three elements must be. Demonstrable and concretely and objectively proven in a way that is verifiable, what's more. The measures taken must also respect certain principles, including those of necessity and proportionality. Finally, international humanitarian law does not allow for a security analysis. That would have the effect of falling below its standard of protection. In case of dispute, a state may not act unilaterally, but must seek in good faith a joint solution with the United Nations. If need be, the International Court of Justice is there to help resolve disputes. I thank you for your attention. ICJ · President [2:48:44]: I would like to thank the representative of Switzerland for his presentation and now invite the next delegation, the delegation of the Comoros, to take the floor. And I call His Excellency Ambassador Youssef Mandoja Asmani to the podium. I now call His Excellency Ambassador Youssef Mandoja Asmani to. Comoros · Ambassador [2:49:24]: Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before you today to express the position of my country, the Union of the Comoros, in the present proceedings. The Union of the Comoros has never ceased to support multilateral efforts to achieve a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian situation. It has historically been firmly and strongly committed to the realization of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign state within secure borders recognized by international law. In this respect, the Union of the Comoros would like to point out that it is one of the United Nations member states which voted in favor of resolution 79/232 adopted by a large majority by the General Assembly of the General Assembly and requiring an advisory opinion from the Court. In participating in these advisory proceedings, the Union of the Comoros is convinced that you will make a decisive contribution to changing the situation by letting the law speak in the present case. I would like to make a few introductory remarks regarding the context of the present proceedings before letting Dr. Guy-Fleury Nointwiri and Professor Pierre-Francois Laval address certain legal aspects which the Union of the Commerce would like to emphasize. Distinguished members of the Court, the Union of the Comoros would like to recall that the Palestinian people are being subjected to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. This is not the right place for me to refer to the events unfolding at this very moment in the occupied Palestinian territories. This is not why we are here. But I must say, Mr. President, that I cannot help but think of the plight of the martyrs of Gaza, like many of those who are here before you. The images that we are receiving are haunting. They show us women, children, the elderly, innocent people whose lives are ending in fear, in terror and the horror of indiscriminate and savage bombings? Who can possibly be indifferent to the sick who have succumbed to the worst sufferings, with no one able to do anything to relieve them? How not to think of all those broken souls wandering aimlessly without help? with nothing left but their starved, parched, disease-ridden bodies. How not to think of the women whose children are miraculously born in the smoking ruins, only to die because we are unable to keep them alive? In short, Mr. President, lives destinies and hopes are being destroyed by a calculated, destructive rage, which, according to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said, and I quote, "reveals a deliberate campaign of connected incidents which must be considered cumulatively." End of quote. This situation has been exacerbated by a strict blockade, resulting in critical shortages of food, drinking water and medicines, plunging the population into acute food insecurity. In addition, the health situation is catastrophic, with the environment contaminated by millions of tons of debris, including unexploded ordnance and human remains. Moreover, the Union of the Comoros respectfully reminds the Court that it has itself considered that there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights of the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, who need to be protected against acts of genocide. In this context, the presence and activities of the United Nations, its bodies and agencies, and other international organizations, as well as other well-intentioned third states, are crucial to the survival of the Palestinian people and to the satisfaction of the primary needs of the civilian population. In particular, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs, but above all, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, that is to say, UNRWA. UNRWA plays a key role in managing humanitarian aid and assistance to the Palestinian population. The Union of the Comores recalls that, thanks to its missions, UNRWA ensures access to education and health, as well as emergency relief, including food aid, benefiting more than 1.2 million people. The cessation of its activities without a credible alternative would worsen the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. To conclude this brief introduction, allow me to point out, Mr. President, that your Court has already largely clarified what the law says about Israel's conduct towards the Palestinian people and its territory. in its opinions of 2004 and 2025, but also in its orders for the indication of provisional measures in the contentious case brought against Israel by South Africa. In this latter case, the Court ordered the State of Israel to, and I quote, "take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and not to impede in any way the delivery of urgently required humanitarian assistance." Since then, It is indeed deplorable that no attention has been paid to this. On the contrary, the illicit action denounced has been amplified. These violations must stop. And we must make this very clear. Mr. President, international law is the sacred edifice that we must preserve. The Union of the Comoros suggests that the Court shows this by declaring that international law commands the State of Israel to put an end as soon as possible to the unjustifiable and blatantly unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territories, that the Court commands Israel to take without delay effective measures to enable the provision of the basic services and to remedy the difficult living conditions to which the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip are subjected. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I would like to thank you for your attention, and I would like to ask you to give the floor to Guy Fleury-Nitwari so that he can elaborate on certain aspects of the obligations of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. Thank you. ICJ · President [2:59:17]: I would like to thank Ambassador Asoumani, and I would like to give the floor now to Dr. Guy Fleury-Nataoary. You have the floor. Comoros · Dr. [2:59:37]: Mr. President, members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you today to clarify the position of the Comoros on the legal content of Israel's obligations. First of all, the Union of the Comoros notes from the written submissions that there is consensus on certain points among the participants in these proceedings. These include the Court's jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion requested, the absence of compelling reasons which would lead it to refuse to render its opinion, but also the fact that measures taken by Israel hinder the activities of the UN, including UNRWA, and constitute a violation of Israel's obligations under the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. under international humanitarian law, the obligations incumbent upon the occupying power under international human rights law, and under the international law of immunities. The United States of the Comoros notes and recalls that it fully subscribes to it and refers to its written statement for the development of the underlying legal arguments. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the Comoros would like to focus today on certain questions raised by some delegations in their written submissions. Indeed, it has been argued that the State of Israel cannot be qualified as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip and that UNRWA is not an impartial body, which has led, according to some, to an obligation to withdraw from the 1967 exchange of letters. The Union of the Comoros strongly contests this erroneous interpretation of certain fundamental principles of international law. Mr. President, First of all, the Union of the Comoros wishes to recall that a territory is considered occupied when it is placed de facto under the authority of the enemy army, and that it was by applying this definition that the Court qualified the State of Israel as an occupying power in its advisory opinions of 2004 and 2024. In the latter opinion of 2024, the Court clearly found that, and I quote, "Israel remained capable of exercising and continued to exercise certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea, and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005. This is even more true since 7th of October 2023." End of quote. Consequently, the Union of the Comoros notes that Israel continues to exercise effective control over the Palestinian territory since the Court's last opinion, and consequently, that its characterization as an occupying power still persists. Furthermore, the Union of Comoros notes the inconsistencies in Israel's claim. On the one hand, Israel contests its status of an occupying power, but on the other hand, it uses that very status, at least implicitly, to justify its initiatives with regard to UNRWA. Secondly, the Union of Comoros strongly disagrees with the argument that UNRWA's lack of impartiality justifies the laws passed by the Knesset, for two reasons. Firstly, UNRWA, which it should be recalled, was set up to provide assistance to Palestinian refugees. UNRWA conducts its activities impartially. In this respect, the Union of the Comoros deplores the campaign launched by the Israeli authorities to equate UNRWA with Hamas and to portray the UN agency as promoting terrorism. These accusations are erroneous and unfounded. The Union of the Comoros believes that they also pose a dangerous threat to UN personnel worldwide. It is also very important to understand what the concept of impartiality means in this case. Contrary to what certain isolated positions may affirm, which associate this notion with the promotion of a political agenda. Rather than with the strict application of the. Law or with biased representations of the conflict raging in the region, impartiality within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions And as this Court was able to affirm in 1986 on the basis of the fundamental principles proclaimed by the ICRC, in this sense there is no doubt that UNRWA is an impartial humanitarian organization. Secondly, the Union of the Comoros recognizes that Article 63 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides for an exception to the occupying power's obligations towards humanitarian organizations in the event of "imperative security considerations." However, this exception is interpreted strictly by the ICRC, which states that under no circumstances may an occupying power invoke security considerations to suspend in a general manner any humanitarian activity in occupied territory. Contrary to what the Israeli authorities assert, the Union of the Gmores maintains that the exception in Article 63 is not applicable to the situation in the Palestinian territories, insofar as the activities of relief organizations such as UNRWA, the Red Cross or the Red Crescent in no way constitute an imperative threat to the security of the State of Israel. Moreover, While the United States is right in stressing that the occupying power can indeed modulate its humanitarian obligations according to the circumstances, these obligations do not disappear. The phrase "to the fullest extent of the means available to it" in Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is only intended to take account of the material difficulties which an occupying power may have to face in time of war. as the ICRC stated in its commentary. And it is also specified that this power is under an obligation to use all the means available to it. In any case, even if these exceptions were to apply, they do not in any case allow for the adoption of general and absolute measures with regard to humanitarian assistance. Only specifically, strictly necessary and proportionate measures may be adopted by the occupying power. Thus, Israel's laws prohibiting all UNRWA activities are general and absolute measures and therefore unlawful. In this respect, the Union of the Comoros notes that the otherwise undocumented allegations made by the State of Israel concerning infiltration of UNRWA by Hamas are limited to Gaza and make no mention of UNRWA's activities in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. Consequently, the hindrance of UNRWA's activities in these two other territories is manifestly disproportionate. Moreover, the State of Israel admits in its written statement that it does not intend to hinder humanitarian aid or any other humanitarian assistance to the civilian population by adopting the law putting an end to UNRWA's activities. In practice, however, no measures have been taken to ensure even a temporary handover to UNRWA. Furthermore, The Union of the Comoros recalls that the provision of humanitarian assistance is a lawful activity under general international law and in no way requires the prior authorisation of the occupying power. At most, the occupying power may organise the delivery of humanitarian aid, that is, check the entry of goods needed by the civilian population, and regulate the times and the routes of their passage. Indeed, as the Court stated in the case concerning military activities in and against Nicaragua, "There can be no doubt that the provision of strictly humanitarian aid to persons or forces in another country, whatever their political affiliations or objectives, cannot be regarded as unlawful intervention or as in any other way contrary to international law." According to the Court, in order not to be regarded as an unlawful intervention in the internal affairs of a State, assistance must be given without discrimination to all in need in the territory concerned. This is the case with UNRWA's activities. The Union of Comores respectfully requests the Court to rule that Israel's withdrawal from the 1967 exchange of letters is unlawful and has no bearing on UNRWA's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It should first be noted, as indeed other participants to these proceedings have already pointed out, that this exchange of letters does not create any new obligation for Israel. These obligations exist independently of this exchange of letters by virtue of other treaties. Moreover, the provisional agreement as constituted by the exchange of letters of June 14, 1967, does not give the state parties the option of denouncing it unilaterally. At most, its provisions make the full implementation of Israel's commitment to facilitate the work of the agency, conditional on military security considerations. Israel's claim to unilaterally terminate the commitments accepted in 1967 is thus contrary to international law, and more particularly, contrary to the customary rules of the law of treaties as codified in the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which, and I quote, A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal." This was a quote from Article 56 of the Vienna Convention. The two exceptions allowed by this same rule provide that withdrawal remains possible if it is established a, that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; b, that a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty, these two exceptions cannot provide a legal basis for Israel's claim either, insofar as no intentional element is apparent from the negotiations surrounding the conclusion of the agreement in 1967, and that these agreements establishing an international institution or relating to its activities are not by nature acts which states may denounce unilaterally. As noted by others, the revocation of obligations entered into in 1967 required negotiation. and required a consensual basis. The Court itself calls for a reciprocal obligation of organizations and host states to cooperate in good faith when it comes to revising a headquarters agreement. In any case, even if the denunciation were valid, Israel, in accordance with the customary law codified in the 1986 Vienna Convention, can only exercise its right of revocation by giving 12 months' notice. During this period of notice, Israel must continue to respect its obligations under international law with regard to the Charter and UNRWA. Furthermore, the Union of the Comoros respectfully recalls that the State of Israel cannot exercise any sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territories. Consequently, it cannot prevent the Palestinian people from determining which form of humanitarian assistance they need and wish to accept. Thus, the Union of the Comoros fully endorses the arguments made by several participants that the State of Israel cannot prevent the Palestinian people from cooperating with the United Nations or other organizations or states with the aim of realizing their right to self-determination. Mr. Chairman, Mr. President, Members of the Court, I would like to thank you for your attention and respectfully ask you to give the floor to Professor Pierre-Francois Laval so that he can explain the consequences of the breach of international obligations thus established. Thank you for your attention. ICJ · President [3:13:08]: I thank Dr. Nandwari. I like to remind the delegation of Comoros that you have 60 minutes left. I am prepared to give some extension, but please bear in mind that you have limited time available. Comoros · Professor [3:13:24]: Merci, Monsieur. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members of the Court, it's an honor for me to come before you to present the views. Of the Union of the Comoros regarding the consequence of the breach by the State of Brazil and its agents of their international obligations. Some who have already spoken here at this podium have. Claimed, rightly, that in this case, what is at stake is the survival of several million people. Others have claimed. The Court simply does not have the. Obligation, nor even the ability, to determine the lawfulness, or rather the unlawfulness, of Israel's conduct and its legal consequences. The Union of the Comores would like, therefore, to begin by saying that the exercise by the Court of its advisory jurisdiction in no way restricts it to only identifying applicable law. Several times with advisory opinions, the Court has established the existence of violations of international rules that it had identified previously. In July's opinion already regarding the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Court said it was held by its judicial function to determine itself the lawfulness of the policies and practices mentioned by the General Assembly. The Union of the Comoros believe also that the purpose of the request and the way it was worded excludes from the mandate of the court the question of the Israeli responsibility. Let us recall that the General Assembly required in its resolution adopted in December that Israel should discharge without delay all legal obligations imposed by international, included those Stated by the court, thus the Union of the Comoros would like to stress the consequences that flow from the breach by Israel of its international organization. It will recall that the depriving of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population is. criminal that such as can constitute an international crime that would engage the criminal responsibility of those individual including agents of Israel that are responsible. Furthermore, the violation by Israel of its obligations calls into question its own responsibility for internationally wrongful act. These two points will be developed in succession. Regarding, first of all, criminal responsibility, need we at this? Stage. Recall that depriving a population of humanitarian assistance and causing intentionally great suffering or inflicting bodily or mental harm are acts that may amount to war crimes and genocide. And is it necessary today, again, to recall that starving deliberately civilians as a method of war by depriving them of the goods necessary for their survival, by preventing delivery of humanitarian aid, is a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions? Need we recall that the UN personnel must be protected against any harm likely to prevent it from carrying out its duties? And This means that today the Palestinian population cannot access water, food, and primary health services. By impeding relief efforts, the Israeli government is deliberately creating, taking the risk of creating widespread starvation. This. Has been observed by the General Assembly and the Special Rapporteur for the occupied territories that has noted that the deliberate destruction of infrastructure that are very precarious when it comes to health services amounts to slow genocide by attrition. We would like also draw the Court's attention to stopping UNRWA's activities may reveal intention to destroy in part or wholly the Palestinians as a group. The Israeli Minister of Finance has said earlier this year that it was justified and moral to starve all of the population of Gaza, even if 2 million people were to die as a result. Altogether, the measures adopted by the Israeli authorities that are aimed at depriving the population of services provided by UNRWA amounts to a conduct that from which can be inferred the intent to commit genocide. Having talked now about the criminal responsibility for agents, now we need to talk about the responsibility of Israel as a state for internationally wrongful acts. that can be attributed to it by applying what is provided for by the 2001 draft articles. First of all, Israel has and undeniably breaches international obligations because of the previous actions. accomplished by its agents and leaders that engage their individual criminal responsibility, but also create a responsibility for the State of Israel that its agents have served and continue to serve today. The Union of the Comoros has also recalled the fact that the laws adopted by the Knesset in October of 2024 are breaches of Israel's international obligation vis-a-vis the Palestinian people and vis-a-vis the UN. Because of all of these facts and In application of the obligations in the draft articles, Israel must cease its unlawful behavior and provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition that are appropriate if the circumstances so require. Furthermore, it has the obligation to repair fully the injury caused, a reparation can take one of the forms described in articles 35 to 37 of the draft articles, and that are restitution, compensation if restitution is materially impossible. And of course, this is the case when it comes to the numerous victims of Israeli actions. Or finally, satisfaction if the former two are materially impossible. And you will render your opinion on this. And also, based on the draft articles, these obligations of cessation and reparation can be owed to the international community as a whole. based on the nature and the content of the international obligation that is breached and the circumstances of the breach. In this regard, the Union of the Comoros asserts that impeding and interrupting the humanitarian work of the UN is a transgression of some obligations that are erga omnes. This is the case with the intransgressible rules of international humanitarian law, the right of peoples to self-determination, or once again, the prohibition of genocide. The breach of these obligations entails the application of rules of responsibility for serious breaches under Articles 40 and 41 of the draft articles that is applicable in the case of serious breaches by the state of an obligation that flows from a peremptory norm of general international law. Under these articles, these breaches are serious if the violation shows that there has been a systematic and gross failure to discharge the obligation. And the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child notes that the violations committed by Israel vis-a-vis its international obligations were not only committed in a way that was organized and deliberated, but also show a direct attack against those values that are by the international rule. This regime on serious breaches has two serious consequences. First of all, it poses on all states to not recognize as lawful a situation that is created by this serious breach and to cooperate in order to put an end to it. Then, under Article 48, all states can invoke the responsibility of Israel. As for Israel? It is not released from its duty to perform the obligations that have been breached by its conduct, as is recalled by Article 29. And first is the obligation to no longer impede humanitarian aid to the population, and in fact, the obligation to facilitate it. We could also cite the other international obligations, those that are incumbent upon Israel as a result of its status as an occupying power. Finally, we must also talk about the rights that the UN derives from the violation of its privileges and immunities, and also its agents. And that Israel is assuming, as a member state of the organization, the Union of the Comoros observes, once again, that by ignoring the privileges and immunities for UNRWA and its staff, and Israeli law adopted on October 20, 2024, basically is a breach of international law, in particular a breach of Articles 104 and 105 of the UN Charter, Articles 2 to 7 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, the 1967 agreement between Israel and also the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies. And we might say that here that there is no military reason, nor any disposition of Israeli's domestic law that can justify noncompliance of the obligations vis-a-vis the United Nations. With these observations, we have finished the presentation of the Union of the Comoros, and I. Thank you for your kind attention. ICJ · President [3:23:06]: - for their presentation. This concludes this morning's sitting. The oral proceeding will resume this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. in order for Tunisia, Vanuatu, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union to be heard on the question submitted to the Court. The sitting is closed.