Summary
A Judge of the International Court of Justice who sat on the 9 July 2004 Advisory Opinion on the wall and appended a concurring separate opinion stressing annexation, the “sacred trust” for the former mandated territory and the erga omnes character of the Court’s findings (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, PDF p.5, p.55-56).
Details
-
In his separate opinion he holds that the construction involved annexation of parts of the occupied territory contrary to the non-acquisition of territory by force, that occupation is by its essence temporary and must serve the population’s interests and the occupying Power’s military needs, and that the question — whether an occupying Power may unilaterally change an occupied territory’s character — is eminently legal (PDF p.55).
-
Self-determination, in his reading, entitles the Palestinian people “to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed”, and the international community, holding a “sacred trust” for the former mandated territory, must not recognize any unilateral change in its status brought about by the wall (PDF p.56).
-
The Court’s findings are in his view erga omnes, binding on and of interest to all States; all parties must respect humanitarian law at all times even though “a prolonged occupation would engender resistance”; and the General Assembly should use the findings toward a just and peaceful solution rather than recriminations (PDF p.56).
-
The same opinion is ingested as a standalone ICJ source at Separate opinion of Judge Koroma, Wall Advisory Opinion, PDF p.1-3, with its own pagination.
Related pages
International Court of Justice, Erga omnes obligations, Self-determination, Separation wall