Summary
The General Assembly’s resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003, whose single operative decision is to request the International Court of Justice, under Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Court’s Statute, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the Secretary-General’s report, considering international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions; its preamble records grave concern that the wall departs from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line), has involved confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and de facto annexation, and affirms ending the conflict on the two-State basis on that line (Resolution ES-10/14: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (8 December 2003), PDF p.1-3).
What the file is
United Nations document A/RES/ES-10/14, General Assembly, Distr.: General, 12 December 2003, Tenth emergency special session, Agenda item 5, 3 PDF pages, about 882 words in the text copy. Adopted at the 23rd plenary meeting on 8 December 2003, without reference to a Main Committee (A/ES-10/L.16). The text copy is clean and matches the original. No vote count is given in the file.
Section by section
- Preamble (PDF p.1). Resolution ES-10/13 reaffirmed; Charter principles, inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force and self-determination; resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 recalled as having partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish; twelve Security Council resolutions recalled with dates, from 242 (1967) to 1515 (2003); applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I reaffirmed.
- Preamble continued (PDF p.2). Hague Regulations of 1907; the 15 July 1999 Conference of High Contracting Parties and its 5 December 2001 declaration; settlements affirmed illegal, and Israeli actions changing East Jerusalem’s status affirmed null and void, by recalled resolutions; the Israel–PLO agreements noted; grave concern at the wall’s construction, its departure from the Green Line, confiscation, disruption of thousands of protected civilians’ lives and de facto annexation, and at the projected parts’ impact; the Special Rapporteur’s report of 8 September 2003 welcomed; the two-State basis on the Armistice Line of 1949 affirmed; the Secretary-General’s report under ES-10/13 received.
- Operative decision (PDF p.3). Time compounds the difficulties while Israel refuses to comply; the Assembly requests the advisory opinion on the question reproduced in the Key passages.
Key passages
- “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?” (operative decision, PDF p.3)
Evidence the work relies on
A General Assembly resolution, not an evidentiary work. Its stated bases are the Secretary-General’s report submitted under resolution ES-10/13 (A/ES-10/248), which describes the wall and which the question incorporates by reference, the Special Rapporteur’s report of 8 September 2003 (E/CN.4/2004/6), and the treaties and resolutions its preamble recalls. It gives no figures for land confiscated or persons affected beyond thousands of protected civilians.
Analysis
The resolution is a single-question referral: everything in its preamble builds the factual and legal frame — occupied territory, applicable Convention, illegal settlements, nullity of Jerusalem changes — and the operative part then asks the Court only about legal consequences, not about the wall’s legality in the abstract alone. It is the origin of the 2004 Wall opinion, and its question’s wording, tied to the Secretary-General’s description, is what the Court answered in the form reproduced by ES-10/15.
People, organizations, places and events
UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/14, International Court of Justice, Separation wall, East Jerusalem
Concepts
Two-state solution, Self-determination
How it relates to other sources
- Resolution ES-10/15: Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (20 July 2004) acknowledges the opinion this request produced and demands compliance with it; the two resolutions are request and answer.
- Resolution 77/247: Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (30 December 2022) demands compliance with the same opinion nineteen years later and uses its second request, in paragraph 18, the same Article 96 route this resolution first used for the wall.
Open questions
- No vote count is given in the file.
- The Secretary-General’s report A/ES-10/248, which describes the wall and is incorporated into the question, is not reproduced in this file.
Coverage
PDF p.1-3 of 3, read in full.