Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2003)

In one of the December 2003 convenings within the 10th emergency special session, the GA passed a resolution requesting the ICJ to render an advisory opinion “urgently” on the legal consequences of the construction of a separation wall in the OPT (A/RES/ES-10/14). Previously, in October 2003, the GA had passed a resolution (A/RES/ES-10/13) in which it demanded “that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”. The specific question put to the ICJ was: “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 …?” (ibid.).

On 9 July 2004, the ICJ rendered its opinion, concluding that the construction of the wall by Israel in the OPT “is contrary to international law” and “severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination” (A/ES-10/273, paras. 184, 200). It called on the UN to “consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall”, drawing particular attention to the GA to encourage these efforts (ibid., paras. 200, 201).

In response, the GA acknowledged the ICJ’s opinion in its resolution of 2 August 2004 (A/RES/ES-10/15), demanding that “Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion”. In the same resolution, it also requested the Secretary-General to establish a “register of damage caused to all natural or legal persons concerned in connection with paragraphs 152 and 153 of the advisory opinion” (ibid., para. 4). The UN Register of Damage Caused by the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was subsequently established as a subsidiary organ of the GA by resolution ES-10/17 of 24 January 2007 (A/RES/ES-10/17), which was still active at the time of writing.¹

The ICJ’s advisory opinion in this case also considered the scope of the GA’s authority, given objections by some Member States that in considering a peace and security matter concurrently dealt with by the SC, it was exceeding its authority. The ICJ’s finding that the GA was within its authority to consider the matters in question reinforced the legal interpretation that the GA can consider matters related to the maintenance of peace and security in parallel with the SC.