Israel's Obligations concerning Humanitarian Relief 
By Mr CROSATO NEUMANN 

 Alfredo Crosato Neumann, professeur adjoint de droit international à l’Université Kadir Has d’Istanbul, membre du barreau de Lima. 

III. ISRAEL’S OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING HUMANITARIAN RELIEF
​
1. Thank you, Mr President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you on behalf of Jordan. I shall now focus on Israel’s obligations concerning humanitarian relief in Gaza. 2. These arise from a variety of sources that include the law of occupation, human rights law, the law on the protection of persons in the event of disasters and this Court’s orders on provisional measures. 3. All told, international law requires Israel to provide humanitarian relief to the civilian population of Gaza, a territory which is at present far from adequately supplied ⎯ indeed, a humanitarian catastrophe is already unfolding75. Where Israel is unable or unwilling to fulfil its duties, it must facilitate relief schemes undertaken by third parties. Time is of the essence, and Israel must do so swiftly and in co-operation with the third parties involved in good faith. 75 See, more recently, Statement by UNICEF, 3 March 2025 (https://www.unicef.org/mena/press releases/stoppage-humanitarian-aid-deliveries-gaza-strip-unicef-warns-severe-consequences); Statement by Mr Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General, 4 March 2025 (https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official statements/decision-israel-stop-aid-gaza); Statement by Mr Muhannad Hadi, Humanitarian Coordinator, OCHA, 10 March 2025 (https://www.ochaopt.org/content/statement-humanitarian-coordinator-mr-muhannad-hadi-halt-entry-humanitarian supplies-gaza); Statement by Mr Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General, 10 March 2025 (https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/press-remarks-unrwa-commissioner-general-philippe-lazzarini-0); Statement by the ICRC, 10 March 2025 (https://www.icrc.org/en/news-release/israel-and-occupied-territories-icrc-warns worsening-humanitarian-crisis-gaza); Statement by the World Food Programme, 14 March 2025 (https://www.wfp.org/news/earlier-food-security-gains-gaza-risk-food-insecurity-concerns-grow-west-bank); Statement by Mr Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General, 17 March 2025 (https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official statements/briefing-unrwa-commissioner-general-philippe-lazzarini-european-parliamentary-committees); Statement by Ms Chaterine Russell, UNICEF Executive Director, 18 March 2025 (https://www.unicef.org/mena/press releases/statement-unicef-executive-director-catherine-russell-attacks-gaza); Statement by Mr Tom Fletcher, Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, 19 March 2025 (https://www.ochaopt.org/content/statement-gaza-tom-fletcher-under-secretary-general-humanitarian-affairs-and emergency-relief-coordinator); Statement by Mr Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General, 23 March 2025 (https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-commissioner-general-three-weeks-israeli-authorities banned-entry); Statement by Mr Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General, 28 March 2025 (https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-commissioner-general-gaza-humanity-its-darkest-hour); Statement by Mr Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner-General, 3 April 2025 (https://www.unrwa.org/ newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-commissioner-general-gaza-hunger-and-desperation-spread-food-and); Statement by the World Health Organization, 7 April 2025 (https://www.emro.who.int/opt/news/healthy-beginnings-hopeful-futures-on world-health-day-who-calls-for-an-immediate-ceasefire-in-gaza.html). - 36 - 4. Let me start with the law of occupation and two general remarks. 5. First: the Court recently reaffirmed that the law of occupation applies to the entire Palestinian territory, including Gaza76. That situation has not changed, and any contention that Israel does not currently occupy Gaza must be rejected77. Israel has not been liberated from its obligations as an occupying Power. 6. Second: the scope of Israel’s claimed authority as an occupying Power. Whatever the situation, international law does not confer such an authority or “discretion”78 allowing a State to circumvent obligations aimed at ensuring the survival of a civilian population. The PRESIDENT: I am sorry to interrupt you, but could you speak more slowly? Thank you very much. Mr CROSATO NEUMANN: Sure. It is impossible to conceive a good-faith interpretation of the law of occupation, consistent with its object and purpose, that would result in widespread suffering of civilians and destruction of civilian objects. 7. The Court has determined that Israel’s occupation is illegal79. Its policies and practices “manifest an intention to create a permanent and irreversible Israeli presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”80, breaching the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force81 and the principle of self-determination82. You also found that Israel has engaged in a “sustained abuse . . . of its position as an occupying Power”83. 76 Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, paras. 93, 96, 264. 77 Cf. Written Statement of Hungary, para. 37; Written Statement of Israel, para. 84; Written Statement of the United States of America, para. 8. 78 Written Statement of Israel, paras. 86-92. 79 Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, paras. 261, 285. 80 Ibid., para. 252. 81 Ibid., para. 254. 82 Ibid., para. 257. 83 Ibid., para. 261. - 37 - 8. Any territorial control still exercised by Israel, until it has withdrawn, must therefore ensure the well-being of Palestinians and respect for their right to self-determination. Moreover, since Israel has been abusing the law of occupation, it cannot claim broad rights or powers arising from it. This is the core legal consequence of the general principle prohibiting the abuse of rights. 9. Israel’s relevant obligations are primarily found in the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law. As long as Israel occupies Gaza, the customary rule reflected in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations requires it to act “for the benefit of the local population”84. This is a general guiding principle and a fundamental duty of Israel. 10. Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires Israel, “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”, to ensure “the food and medical supplies of the population”, including by “bring[ing] in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate”. Article 69 of Additional Protocol I, which reflects custom, expands the range of supplies that must be provided. 11. Under Article 56, Israel must ensure and maintain “the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene”, and allow “[m]edical personnel of all categories . . . to carry out their duties”. Article 50 mandates the facilitation of “the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children”. 12. The Convention also contains key provisions concerning third parties when the occupying Power does not or cannot fulfil the obligations I just mentioned. Where Israel fails to act, civilians are not left to their own fate without more. 13. Article 59 stipulates that if the occupied territory is “inadequately supplied”, the occupying Power “shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the . . . population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal”. Such schemes may be undertaken by States or by “impartial humanitarian organizations”, and shall consist, in particular, “of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing”. 14. These are erga omnes obligations of both result and conduct. Israel cannot oppose those relief schemes. Agreement is the required outcome ⎯ no exception. Israel must also facilitate those 84 Ibid., para. 105. - 38 - schemes, using all available means. This is a high standard of conduct, consistent with the gravity of the situation that Article 59 addresses, prohibiting Israel from actions or omissions that may hinder humanitarian relief. 15. Article 59 must be read together with Article 1, which contains States’ undertaking “to respect and to ensure respect for the . . . Convention in all circumstances”. Every State party must ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations, while respecting of course other rules of international law85. The PRESIDENT: Excuse me for interrupting you. Could you please speak more slowly? Mr CROSATO NEUMANN: 16. Article 59 is a form of application of Article 1 ⎯ a means for States to ensure compliance with Israel’s relief obligations86. When States seek to provide relief schemes, individually or jointly, they do not do so only by virtue of an option envisaged by Article 59 ⎯ they have an obligation to act of their own. 17. Article 59 may require practical arrangements for the orderly supply of humanitarian relief87. In so far as these are needed, Israel must consider them in good faith, bearing in mind the needs of civilians. Arbitrary or unjustified delays would not be consistent with Article 59 ⎯ they would defeat the purpose of the obligation. 18. In the present circumstances, Jordan, like virtually all participants88, considers that Gaza is inadequately supplied89 ⎯ this is manifest ⎯ and that Israel’s obligations have been triggered. 85 Ibid., para. 279; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 199-200, paras. 158-159. 86 See also Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 124, para. 242. 87 Cf. Written Statement of Israel, para. 98. 88 See, for example Written Statement of Algeria, pp. 7-15; Written Statement of Bangladesh, paras. 27-33; Written Statement of Belgium paras. 45-46; Written Statement of Bolivia, paras. 3, 5, 125-126; Written Statement of China, paras. 35, 41-46; Written Statement of Comoros, paras. 14-19; Written Statement of Egypt, paras. 197-226; Written Statement of France, paras. 4-9; Written Statement of Iceland, paras. 7-11; Written Statement of Indonesia, para. 62; Written Statement of Kuwait, paras. 2-4; Written Statement of the League of Arab States, paras. 4-14; Written Statement of Malaysia, paras. 41, 50; Written Statement of the Maldives, paras. 6-16; Written Statement of Mexico, paras. 22-27; Written Statement of Namibia, paras. 18-29; Written Statement of Norway, paras. 4, 61; Written Statement of Pakistan, paras. 10-11, 43-51; Written Statement of Palestine, paras. 1.9-1.33; Written Statement of Qatar, paras. 2-8; Written Statement of the Russian Federation, paras. 36-39; Written Statement of Saudi Arabia, paras. 6-25; Written Statement of Senegal, paras. 7-18; Written Statement of Slovenia, paras. 17-27; Written Statement of South Africa, para. 164; Written Statement of Türkiye, pp. 19-20. 89 Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, paras. 1.47-1.65. - 39 - 19. Jordan is also of the firm view that UNRWA meets the principles of impartiality and neutrality, as confirmed recently by the Colonna Report90 and the OIOS investigations91. Furthermore, there is no other actor that could realistically replace the Agency and its mandate to provide and distribute humanitarian relief and other services in Gaza92. 20. Israel must therefore allow UNRWA to continue its humanitarian operations and cease all conduct which prevents the Agency from doing so. There is no other way to give full effect to Article 59 of the Convention in the circumstances. 21. Israel’s obligations, as we noted, also arise from other sources. These are separate obligations which complement and are as stringent as the law of occupation. I will address a few key ones. 22. Israel must ensure the right to life of Palestinians, consistent with the ICCPR93 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child94, which apply in Gaza95. This includes a positive duty to take action to prevent foreseeable harm or injury that may result in arbitrary deprivation of life. In the present context, such risk is not only foreseeable but already materializing. To avoid further loss of life, Israel must strictly respect the fundamental principles of IHL and facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza. 23. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires Israel to ensure the right to an adequate standard of living96; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health97; and the right to education98. These rights are at risk of being altogether denied to Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel must take immediate action and allow the supply of relief to prevent such denial. 90 Ibid., para. 1.26. 91 Ibid., para. 1.27. 92 Ibid., paras. 1.5-1.11, 1.79-1.80, 3.130. 93 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6. 94 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 6. 95 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 180, paras. 111-112; Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, paras. 100-101. 96 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11. 97 Ibid., Article 12. 98 Ibid., Article 13. - 40 - 24. Jordan has also referred to the law on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, recently codified by the ILC99. The obligations in this area are closely linked to those under human rights law, and require Israel, among others, to co-operate in good faith with third parties, to facilitate humanitarian assistance, and not to arbitrarily withhold consent to such assistance. 25. Finally, Israel has obligations arising from the interim measures in the South Africa v. Israel case. It must take all necessary and effective measures to enable the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza; it must do so as a matter of urgency, without delay, and in co-operation with the United Nations100. 26. The obligations we have addressed should be interpreted and applied in a systemic manner and against the background of the principle of self-determination, which is of paramount importance. Time, again, is of the essence, and Israel must perform its duties swiftly and in good faith. The horror that Palestinian civilians are undergoing in Gaza must stop. 27. Mr President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation, and Jordan’s oral submissions. We thank you for your kind attention in these important proceedings. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representatives of Jordan for their presentation. Before I invite the next delegation to take the floor, the Court will observe a coffee break of 15 minutes. The hearing is suspended. 

Israel's Obligations Under the law of the United Nations  
By Mr. BJORGE

Eirik Bjorge- professeur de droit à l’Université de Bristol, 

: II. ISRAEL’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW OF THE UNITED NATIONS

​1. Mr President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you on behalf of Jordan to address Israel’s obligations under the law of the United Nations. 2. I make four points: first, Israel’s obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the United Nations; second, Israel’s obligation to give the United Nations every assistance; third, Israel’s obligation to co-operate with other States; and, fourth, Israel’s obligations regarding the safety and security of United Nations personnel. 38 Résolutions 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009), 2334 (2016) et 2720 (2023) du Conseil de sécurité. - 31 - Israel’s obligations as regards United Nations privileges and immunities 3. First: Israel has an obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the United Nations39. 4. Israel recognized in the Exchange of Letters with UNRWA of 1967 that a number of facilities were “essential” for the Agency to operate effectively40. The fact that Israel recognized these facilities as essential indicates that they are, pursuant to Article 105 of the Charter, “necessary for the fulfilment” of UNRWA’s purposes41. 5. The General Assembly has recalled that “the Agency, as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, enjoys the benefits of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations”42. The main provisions of the General Convention anyway reflect customary international law43. I will deal with three of these. 6. The immunity from every form of legal process set forth in Section 2 is essential for the independent exercise by UNRWA of its functions44. 7. The inviolability of UNRWA premises set forth in Section 3 guarantees that the premises “may not be entered and that the United Nations must itself be permitted to control activities occurring on those premises”45. 8. All UNRWA officials enjoy immunity and the privileges set forth in Section 18. The provisions relating to “officials” in the General Convention apply to all staff members, the only exception being those “recruited locally and assigned to hourly rates”46. Those criteria are cumulative47. 39 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 13 February 1946, 1 UNTS 15. 40 Exchange of Letters Constituting a Provisional Agreement between the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and Israel, 14 June 1967, 620 UNTS 186. 41 Written Statement of Pakistan, paras. 135-136. 42 General Assembly resolution 1456 (XIV) of 9 December 1959, sixth preambular recital; see also J. Salmon, “L’U.N.R.W.A. Un exemple de décentralisation internationale par service” in Mélanges offerts à Henri Rolin (1964), pp. 330-332; Radicopoulos v. UNRWA (1957), Vol. 24, ILR, p. 684, para. 2 (Madame Bastid, P.; Lord Crook; Petrén; Venkataraman). 43 United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 1967, p. 314, para. 11; Special Rapporteur Mr Abdullah El-Erian, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1977, Vol. II, Part One, pp. 151-152, paras. 57-62. 44 See e.g. “Brief for the United Nations as amicus curiae”, United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 1980, p. 232. 45 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1967, Vol. II, p. 227, para. 90. 46 General Assembly resolution 76 (I), 7 December 1946. 47 Statement made by the Legal Counsel at the 59th meeting of the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly on 1 December 1981, United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 1981, p. 162, para. 5. - 32 - 9. The immunity of UNRWA from every form of legal process48 and the inviolability of its premises49 are absolute. They may not be qualified or overridden by military expediency or national security50. 10. Israel has an absolute obligation to respect the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. Israel self-evidently has an obligation, inter alia, not to enter UNRWA premises, not to damage or destroy such premises, not to detain UNRWA staff without charge or trial, and not to seek to extirpate the Agency from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel’s obligation to give the United Nations every assistance 11. Second: the text of Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Charter is to the effect that Israel has a general obligation to give every assistance to the United Nations51. State practice52 — including that of Israel itself53 — confirms this54. The contention by Israel that the obligation relates only to enforcement action taken by the Security Council has no basis in international law55. The interpretation for which Israel now contends runs counter to the clear wording of Article 2, paragraph 5, and is inconsistent with the Court’s interpretation in the Reparations case56. 12. Israel has an obligation “to give UNRWA every assistance in any action it takes . . . pursuant to the provisions of the Charter”57. 48 Legal Opinion of the Office of Legal Affairs, UN Juridical Yearbook 1984, pp. 188-189. 49 M. de Serpa Soares, 41st Annual Seminar on International Humanitarian Law, 20 March 2024, pp. 3, 11. 50 Opinion of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations rendered on 28 November 1988, A/C.6/43/7, para. 4; Legal Opinion of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 2003, p. 522, para. 11; Summary of the report of the United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry, A/63/855, S/2009/250, paras. 16, 91. 51 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 183; see also Written Statement of France, para. 37; Algeria, p. 18; the Arab League, paras. 165-170; Belgium, paras. 69-71; Chile, paras. 34-35; Malaysia, paras. 85-87; Maldives, paras. 61-64; Mexico, para. 88; Palestine, paras. 5.4-5.6; Saudi Arabia, paras. 54-57; Pakistan, paras. 115-117; Spain, para. 20; Tunisia, para. 57. 52 General Assembly, A/PV.923, 22 November 1960, p. 952, para. 39 (India); General Assembly, 4th Committee, A/C.4/SR.1479, 13 November 1963, p. 306, para. 11 (USSR); General Assembly, A/PV.2182, 28 November 1973, p. 4, para. 43 (Ghana); and General Assembly, Special Political Committee, A/SPC/37/SR.38, 29 November 1982, p. 10, para. 36 (Tunisia); see also Respect for the privileges and immunities of officials of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and related organizations, Report of the Secretary-General, 20 October 1983 (A/C.5/38/17), Annex I, p. 27, para. 7; United Nations Juridical Yearbook, 2015, p. 294, para. 5. 53 General Assembly, 1439th plenary meeting, A/PV.1439, 12 October 1966, p. 10 (Israel). 54 Written Statement of Jordan, para. 3.42. 55 Cf. Written Statement of Israel, para. 75. 56 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 183; see also Written Statement of Jordan, paras. 3.40-3.44. 57 Identical letters dated 9 December 2024 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the General - 33 - 13. There is a further aspect. Judge Lauterpacht was correct in Voting Procedure, where he observed that a State which ignores a series of General Assembly resolutions “acts at its peril when a point is reached when the cumulative effect of the persistent disregard of the articulate opinion of the Organization is such as to foster the conviction that the State in question has become guilty of disloyalty to the Principles and Purposes of the Charter”58. 14. Israel is obliged under the Charter to give “due consideration in good faith”59 to the resolutions of the General Assembly. In Whaling in the Antarctic, the Court adopted this reasoning in respect of the Whaling Convention60. It applies no less to the Charter61. Israel has the obligation to “give due regard”62 to General Assembly resolutions, notably those adopted in the Tenth Emergency Special Session63. Israel’s obligation to co-operate with other States 15. Third: one of the purposes of the United Nations is, according to Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter, “[t]o achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of [a] . . . humanitarian character”. 16. As Judge El-Erian observed, the principle of international co-operation in Article 1, paragraph 3, is, like the other purposes and principles of the United Nations, a “legal principle” binding on States64. The Charter recognizes this in Article 14, to which the Court was taken this Assembly and the President of the Security Council (A/79/684–S/2024/892); see also the Written Statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, para. 186; France, para. 38; Egypt, para. 113; Pakistan, para. 117. 58 Separate opinion, Judge Lauterpacht, Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South West Africa, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 120. 59 Ibid., p. 119; see also separate opinion of Judge Klæstad, p. 88. 60 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 257, para. 83. 61 A. Pellet, “Le droit international à la lumière de la pratique : l’introuvable théorie de la réalité” (2021), Vol. 414, Recueil des Cours, pp. 195-197. 62 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 257, para. 83; see also Written Statement of Jordan, para. 3.51. 63 See e.g. General Assembly resolution ES–10/20 of 13 June 2018; ES–10/21 of 27 October 2023; ES–10/22 of 12 December 2023; ES–10/24 of 18 September 2024; ES–10/25 of 11 December 2024; ES–10/26 of 11 December 2024; see also Written Statement of Jordan, paras. 3.95-3.104. 64 A. El-Erian, “International Law and the Developing Countries” in Transnational Law in a Changing Society: Essays in Honor of Philip C. Jessup (1972), p. 95; see also N. Bentwich and A. Martin, A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations (1950), p. 5. - 34 - morning, and which addresses the situation of “a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the purposes and principles of the United Nations”65. 17. This obligation to co-operate was developed in greater detail in the Friendly Relations Declaration66. Its fourth principle lays down “[t]he duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter”67. Israel’s obligations as to safety and security of United Nations personnel 18. Fourth: Israel’s obligations as regards the safety and security of United Nations personnel. 19. Israel has obligations in this regard under the rules of customary international law codified in the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel68. That this Convention codifies customary international law is evident from the fact that the General Assembly adopted it by consensus69. 20. Notable in this regard is Israel’s obligation to facilitate the unimpeded transit of UNRWA and other United Nations personnel across its own territory70. This obligation includes unimpeded transit from one part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory to another. Israel also has the obligation to ensure the safety and security of United Nations personnel71, to release detained personnel72 and to penalize crimes against them73. Israel has, finally, the obligation not to make UNRWA or other United Nations personnel the object of an attack or any other action that prevents them from discharging their mandate74. 65 Emphasis added; cf. Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 163. 66 General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970. 67 Ibid., Annex, fourth principle. 68 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by General Assembly resolution 49/59; 9 December 1994, 2051 UNTS 363. 69 Cf. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 47, para. 94; see also Written Statement of Jordan, para. 3.106. 70 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, Art. 5. 71 Ibid., Art. 7, para. 2. 72 Ibid., Art. 8. 73 Ibid., Art. 9. 74 Ibid., Art. 7, para. 1. - 35 - 21. That, Mr President, Members of the Court, concludes my presentation. I thank you and ask that you invite Professor Alfredo Crosato to the podium.

Israel's Primary Obligation is to Respect the Palestinian People's Right to Self-Determination
 By Mr. Marcelo Kohen- he spoke in French

Mr Marcelo Kohen
Emeritus Professor of International Law, Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, titular member of the Institut de droit international. 

I. L’OBLIGATION PREMIÈRE D’ISRAËL EST LE RESPECT DU DROIT DU PEUPLE PALESTINIEN À L’AUTODÉTERMINATION  

​  I. Introduction 1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c’est un honneur de comparaître devant vous au nom du Royaume hachémite de Jordanie et de ratifier son exposé écrit et ses conclusions, où nous dressons la liste de toutes les obligations d’Israël qui font l’objet de la présente demande d’avis consultatif26. 2. La Jordanie est particulièrement concernée par les questions qui sont débattues ici. Le Royaume hachémite accueille sur son territoire 2 400 000 réfugiés palestiniens enregistrés par l’UNRWA, il est le gardien des lieux saints musulmans et chrétiens de Jérusalem et se trouve en première ligne dans la fourniture d’aide humanitaire à la population du Territoire palestinien occupé. La Jordanie entretient des relations diplomatiques aussi bien avec l’État d’Israël qu’avec l’État de Palestine et œuvre sans relâche pour la paix au Moyen-Orient. 3. Après le dépôt des exposés écrits, la situation s’est dramatiquement aggravée comme conséquence de la rupture du cessez-le-feu, l’interdiction de l’assistance humanitaire à Gaza et les actions israéliennes en Cisjordanie, d’où l’importance et l’urgence de cet avis consultatif. 26 Exposé écrit de la Jordanie, « submissions ». - 27 - 4. Je vais brièvement aborder la question de l’exercice par votre Cour de la compétence consultative et examiner ensuite l’impact du principe d’autodétermination sur les différents aspects de la question posée par l’Assemblée générale. Mes collègues Eirik Bjorge et Alfredo Crosato aborderont respectivement le droit de l’ONU et l’assistance humanitaire. II. Rien n’empêche l’exercice par la Cour de sa compétence consultative 5. Monsieur le président, il existe des raisons décisives pour que la Cour exerce sa compétence consultative ; les Nations Unies ont une responsabilité permanente concernant la question palestinienne jusqu’à ce que tous ces aspects soient réglés en conformité au droit international27. 6. Les arguments avancés contre l’exercice de votre compétence ne sont pas fondés, à savoir 1) qu’il existerait un risque de préjugement du fait de l’existence d’une affaire contentieuse pendante, 2) que la question aurait déjà été traitée par la Cour dans son avis de 2024, 3) que la question serait « unidirectionnelle » et éviterait de tenir compte du contexte, 4) que la Cour n’aurait pas les éléments de faits nécessaires28. 7. Il suffira de dire ici que l’affaire Afrique du Sud c. Israël concerne exclusivement la convention sur le génocide29, alors que la question posée ici a trait aux obligations d’Israël dans un cadre plus général. 8. La question diffère aussi de celles déjà répondues par la Cour en 2024. L’avis consultatif de l’an dernier fournit des éléments juridiques précieux pour mieux répondre à la question posée maintenant30, qui n’a pas été soulevée par l’Assemblée générale dans sa demande précédente. 9. Si la question se réfère uniquement aux obligations d’Israël, c’est parce que c’est cet État ⎯ et pas d’autres ⎯ qui occupe le territoire palestinien. 10. La question posée a une portée limitée, elle ne vise pas à aborder l’ensemble des questions liées à la persistance de l’occupation ou à la situation découlant du 7 octobre 2023. L’Assemblée générale tout comme le Conseil de sécurité et votre propre Cour ont déjà exigé la libération 27 Conséquences juridiques découlant des politiques et pratiques d’Israël dans le Territoire palestinien occupé, y compris Jérusalem-Est, avis consultatif du 19 juillet 2024, par. 35. 28 Exposé écrit d’Israël, par. 59-70 ; exposé écrit de la Hongrie, par. 12-18. 29 Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide dans la bande de Gaza (Afrique du Sud c. Israël). 30 Cf. exposé écrit de la Jordanie, par. 3.4. - 28 - immédiate et inconditionnelle des otages détenus à Gaza31. Cette situation ne décharge pas Israël du respect de ses obligations en vertu du droit international. Par ailleurs, la question posée porte sur les obligations juridiques et la Cour possède les éléments des faits lui permettant de se prononcer. Si Israël a des griefs contre les Nations Unies ou ses organes, la convention sur les privilèges et immunités des Nations Unies lui donne les moyens nécessaires pour y recourir. III. Le principe d’autodétermination prime par-dessus tout 11. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, le principe d’autodétermination revêt une importance capitale pour répondre à chacun des éléments de la question posée. En effet, le respect et la mise en œuvre de ce droit par le peuple palestinien sont la toile de fond à partir de laquelle toutes les autres obligations incombant à Israël doivent être interprétées et appliquées. Il exige en outre qu’Israël, dans les circonstances actuelles et conformément à son obligation de ne pas entraver la réalisation de ce droit, adopte toutes les mesures nécessaires et efficaces pour protéger la population civile palestinienne. 12. L’autodétermination étant un principe fondamental du droit international, un droit erga omnes et une règle impérative de droit international32, les obligations d’Israël le sont non seulement à l’égard du peuple palestinien, mais aussi par rapport aux compétences des Nations Unies en la matière et à la communauté internationale dans son ensemble. Comme le dit l’article premier commun des deux pactes des droits humains, « [e]n aucun cas, un peuple ne pourra être privé de ses propres moyens de subsistance »33. 31 Résolutions 2712 (2023) et 2720 (2024) du Conseil de sécurité, résolutions ES-10/21 du 27 octobre 2023 et ES-10/22 du 12 décembre 2023 de l’Assemblée générale ; Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide dans la bande de Gaza (Afrique du Sud c. Israël), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 26 janvier 2024, p. 30, par. 85 ; Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide dans la bande de Gaza (Afrique du Sud c. Israël), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 28 mars 2024, par. 50. 32 Conséquences juridiques pour les États de la présence continue de l’Afrique du Sud en Namibie (Sud-Ouest africain) nonobstant la résolution 276 (1970) du Conseil de sécurité, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recueil 1971, p. 31, par. 52 ; Sahara occidental, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recueil 1975, p. 31-33, par. 54-59 ; Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 566-567, par. 25 ; Timor oriental (Portugal c. Australie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1995, p. 102, par. 29 ; Conséquences juridiques de l’édification d’un mur dans le territoire palestinien occupé, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recueil 2004 (I), p. 171-172, par. 88 ; Effets juridiques de la séparation de l’archipel des Chagos de Maurice en 1965, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recueil 2019 (I), p. 131-135, par. 144-162 ; Conséquences juridiques découlant des politiques et pratiques d’Israël dans le Territoire palestinien occupé, y compris Jérusalem-Est, avis consultatif du 19 juillet 2024, par. 230-234. 33 [Anglais : « [i]n no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence ».] - 29 - 13. L’obligation de respecter le droit du peuple palestinien à disposer de lui-même n’admet de la part d’Israël aucune exception. Les pouvoirs que le règlement de La Haye et la convention IV de Genève reconnaissent à la puissance occupante ne peuvent pas être appliqués à l’encontre du droit impératif d’autodétermination34. En temps de conflits armés, seules les règles relatives à la protection de la personne humaine ont été considérées par votre Cour comme des « principes intransgressibles » du droit international coutumier35 et l’occupant doit les respecter. Comme la Cour l’a affirmé, les pouvoirs reconnus à la puissance occupante le sont pour une occupation temporaire, pas pour une occupation prolongée qui constitue de facto une annexion permanente en violation du principe d’autodétermination36. 14. Israël a l’obligation de coopérer avec les Nations Unies, les autres organisations internationales et les États tiers pour mettre fin le plus rapidement possible à sa présence illicite dans le Territoire palestinien occupé, afin de permettre le plein exercice du droit du peuple palestinien à l’autodétermination, de cesser toute activité qui empêche cet exercice et d’agir positivement pour le faciliter. Cela inclut l’obligation de respecter son intégrité territoriale, en empêchant toute forme de déplacement de ses composantes et en s’abstenant de tout changement de la composition démographique du territoire, en assurant et en facilitant la fourniture sans entraves des approvisionnements d’urgence essentiels à la survie de la population civile, ainsi que des services de base et de l’aide humanitaire et au développement. Israël a aussi l’obligation de respecter la souveraineté permanente du peuple palestinien sur ses richesses et ressources naturelles et de ne pas entraver les relations diplomatiques, consulaires et autres des États tiers et des organisations internationales avec les autorités palestiniennes. 15. La Knesset a adopté une déclaration indiquant qu’elle s’opposait à la création d’un État palestinien, et ce, un jour avant que votre Cour ne rende son avis consultatif en juillet 202437. Cette déclaration du Parlement israélien est à nouveau en contradiction flagrante avec le droit du peuple 34 Cf. exposé écrit d’Israël, par. 87 ; exposé écrit des États-Unis d’Amérique, par. 14. 35 Licéité de la menace ou de l’emploi d’armes nucléaires, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 257, par. 79. 36 Conséquences juridiques découlant des politiques et pratiques d’Israël dans le Territoire palestinien occupé, y compris Jérusalem-Est, avis consultatif du 19 juillet 2024, par. 109, 159-160, 173, 243 et 257. 37 “Knesset Plenum votes in favour of a declaration stating that parliament opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state”, 18 juillet 2024, accessible à l’adresse suivante : https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/news/pressreleases/ pages/press18724w.aspx#. - 30 - palestinien à l’autodétermination. Tous les organes de l’État d’Israël ont l’obligation de respecter ce droit et de ne pas faire obstacle à sa mise en œuvre. En ce sens, l’obligation existe d’abroger toute disposition législative ou administrative visant à empêcher la réalisation du droit à l’autodétermination. IV. Conclusion 16. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, rien ne justifie le maintien de l’occupation israélienne sur le peuple palestinien qui l’empêche d’exercer son droit à l’autodétermination. La première obligation pertinente est donc celle de respecter ce droit et de cesser sa violation. C’est par le respect strict du droit international et non pas par l’expansionnisme, l’oppression ou la force que l’on peut régler les problèmes. La meilleure garantie pour la paix de tout le Moyen-Orient est la solution à deux États dans le respect de leur indépendance et de leur sécurité38. 17. Je vous remercie de votre attention et vous prie, Monsieur le président, de donner la parole au professeur Eirik Bjorge.