Continuing Debate on Report, General Assembly Speakers Say Diverse, Expanding Caseload Demonstrates International Court of Justice’s Growing Significance
Member States today reiterated their profound trust in the International Court of Justice's integrity, independence and expertise as the General Assembly resumed its discussion on the matter, with speakers pointing out that the Court’s geographically and topically expanding caseload demonstrates its growing significance.
The Assembly began its annual discussion on the Court’s work last Thursday, when its President, Joan Donoghue, briefed Member States on the judicial organ’s work in the past year. This afternoon, the Assembly continued its consideration of that report, along with the Secretary-General’s note on the matter (documents A/78/4 and A/78/194). (For background, see Press Release GA/12547.)
Many Member States acknowledged and commended the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, for the key role it plays in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and in clarifying the rules of international law. They commended the Court for keeping up with its growing workload, underscoring that the notable increase in cases attests to the importance of its functions.
Luxembourg’s delegate, echoing the sentiment of several speakers, said that the geographical distribution of the cases considered by the Court and the diversity of the subjects clearly illustrate the organ’s universal character. Turning to the situation in Europe, he said that the case between Ukraine and the Russian Federation concerning allegations of genocide seeks to establish, inter alia, that the Russian Federation has no legal basis to undertake unilateral military action against Ukraine on the basis of non-proven allegations of genocide.
Angola’s representative, speaking for the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, underscored that the Court’s decisions are based on integrity, impartiality, and independence. In the recent period under review, the Court experienced a high level of activity with a variety of issues, including territorial and maritime delimitation, human rights, reparation for internationally wrongful acts and environmental protection. The Community’s member States welcome the widening of the scope and cooperation for international law, he added.
Several speakers highlighted the issue of climate change, underlining that the World Court has a historic opportunity to seize the moment and clarify the legal obligations of States in addressing the phenomena.
Lithuania’s delegate, also speaking for Estonia and Latvia, said that the contribution of the Court is crucial for maintaining the health of planet Earth, as so many around the world witness the dire consequences of climate change. He also pointed out, with concern, that, in certain cases, the lack of enforcement power of the Court’s decisions remains an important factor.
Other speakers pointed out specific situations that relate to their own region or country, including Azerbaijan’s representative who recalled having instituted proceedings before the Court in 2021 to hold Armenia accountable for systematic violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. “The scale of these violations committed during Armenia’s 30-year aggression and occupation and after the end of the war in the fall of 2020 are shocking,” he said, reporting, among other details, that tens of thousands of people had been killed, and more than 200,000 Azerbaijanis expelled from their historical homeland in Armenia.
Similarly, the representative of Jordan, speaking for the Arab Group, recalled the decision of the General Assembly requesting the Court to issue an advisory opinion regarding the impact of the continued violations by Israel on the Palestinian people. The Arab League and Arab States have sent various written messages regarding the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and the need for Israel to respect the historical status quo in Jerusalem.
Bangladesh’s representative, also echoing the sentiments of several other speakers, said that enhanced cooperation by the Court with the Security Council is crucial towards the fulfilment of the Court’s mandate in a more robust manner. As a country hosting over a million Rohingya Muslims who fled Myanmar in the face of mass killing, rape, arson, torture and other forms of atrocity crimes, he said that Bangladesh attaches crucial importance to the case of The Gambia v. Myanmar. “We call upon Myanmar to comply with the order in letter and spirit,” he added.
Ireland’s delegate noted that the cases before the Court are of interest to all States. To that end, his country is carefully studying the Court’s recent judgment in the case on the Continental Shelf Delimitation (Nicaragua v. Colombia), which is of relevance to all States with broad continental margins. Joining other delegations who voiced their trust in the vital role of international law in settling international disputes, he stressed: “This trust is shared by Ireland, and we were happy therefore to make a declaration accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court a number of years ago.”
Statements
ALAIN GERMEAUX (Luxembourg), associating himself with the European Union, said that the geographical distribution of the cases considered by the International Court of Justice [also known as the World Court] and the diversity of the subjects clearly illustrate the organ’s universal character. The case between Ukraine and the Russian Federation concerning allegations of genocide seeks to establish, inter alia, that the Russian Federation has no legal basis to undertake unilateral military action against Ukraine on the basis of non-proven allegations of genocide. “We recently presented a written argument to the Court in the framework of the request for advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences derived from the policies and practices of Israel in occupied Palestinian territories,” he reported. The Court now has a historic opportunity to clarify the legal obligations of States in the area of climate change and to encourage the international community to continue to take ambitious and effective measures to combat the scourge, he added.
FRANCISCO JOSÉ DA CRUZ (Angola), speaking for the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, fully acknowledged the key role played by the Court in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and in clarifying the rules of international law. Its decisions are based on integrity, impartiality and independence, he observed, also highlighting its readiness to face challenges that may arise. In the past two decades, the Court’s workload has grown considerably, and the flow of new and settled cases reflects its great vitality. In the recent period under review, the Court experienced a high level of activity with a variety of issues, including territorial and maritime delimitation, human rights, reparation for internationally wrongful acts and environmental protection.
The increase in the Court’s workload attests to the importance of its jurisdiction to the international community, he continued. The high rate of compliance with the Court’s judgments throughout its history is also very encouraging, as it demonstrates the respect and trust of States in the independence, credibility and impartiality of the Court. He further noted that the Community’s member States welcome the widening of the scope and cooperation for international law as the Court’s judgments and advisory opinions have inspired other international decision-making bodies. It is also commendable that the Court is similarly paying due regard to the work of other international courts and tribunals, he said.
RYTIS PAULAUSKAS (Lithuania), also speaking for Estonia and Latvia, and aligning with the European Union, said that the Court continues to play a fundamental role in the prevention and settlement of international disputes between States. The contribution of the Court is also crucial for maintaining the health of planet Earth, as States witness the dramatic consequences of climate change. However, in certain cases the lack of enforcement power of the Court’s decisions remains an important factor. In particularly, in situations when the Security Council is paralysed by veto power of one of its permanent members, the international community should find means to ensure that decisions, including orders of the Court for provisional measures, are complied with.
The most obvious example has been the Court’s binding order on provisional measures in March 2022, he continued, noting that it orders the Russian Federation to immediately cease its military actions that it commenced in February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine. The Russian Federation has not obeyed it, and the war of aggression is continuing for more than 20 months. In this regard, he voiced his support for initiatives to reform the Security Council with the view of restraining the veto power of its permanent members when it concerns matters related to maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. The reform should also empower the Security Council with a strengthened role in supervising the execution of the Court’s decisions. The blocking by the Russian Federation of the Council's attempt to address matters related to the aggression reveals the limitations of the UN system and the need for it to be revisited.
TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan), speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, stated: “The International Court of Justice has a significant role in promoting and encouraging the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means,” adding that the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Movement will further work towards achieving full respect for international law. Noting that the Security Council has not sought any advisory opinion from the Court since 1970, he urged that organ to make greater use of the Court — the principal judicial organ of the United Nations — as a source of advisory opinions and interpretation of international law. He also invited the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations to request advisory opinions of the Court.
He went on to stress the importance of the Court’s advisory opinion in 1996, when it concluded unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control. He also reiterated the call to Israel, the occupying Power, to fully respect the 2004 advisory opinion of the Court on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Further, all States should respect the provisions for the end of the Israeli occupation and the independence of the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Speaking in his national capacity, he spotlighted the pending cases regarding Azerbaijan and Armenia and the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Azerbaijan instituted proceedings before the Court in 2021 to hold Armenia accountable for systematic violations of this Convention. “The scale of these violations committed during Armenia’s 30-year aggression and occupation and after the end of the war in the fall of 2020 are shocking,” he said, reporting, among other details, that tens of thousands of people were killed and more than 200,000 Azerbaijanis expelled from their historical homeland in Armenia. In addition, Azerbaijan is now one of the most contaminated countries, with landmines and other explosive devices planted by Armenia in the formerly occupied territories to deter Azerbaijani civilians from returning to their homes. Calling for that country to be held accountable for the war and atrocities, he emphasized that Azerbaijan will continue its efforts to end impunity for serious violations of international law, promote the rule of law and build, strengthen and sustain peace and stability in the region.
NADIEN ISAM FRAIH BISHARAT(Jordan), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, stressed the importance of the International Court of Justice in upholding peace, saying it has become even more important now due to the increasing challenges international law is facing. She hailed the role it has played in issuing rulings on a number of issues. She welcomed the Court’s report for 2023 on its role, stating the role of the Court in strengthening the primacy of the rule of law, and encouraging understanding of young people in international law via various internships offered by the Court.
Speaking on the situation in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank, she recalled the advisory of the Court on the separation wall in 2004 and the obligation on Israel, as the occupying Power, to respect international humanitarian law. She recalled the decision of the General Assembly requesting the Court to issue an advisory opinion regarding the impact of the continued violations by Israel on the Palestinian people, the expansion of settlements and the status of the holy sites in Jerusalem. The Arab League and Arab States have sent various written messages regarding the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and the need for Israel to respect the historical status quo in Jerusalem, the need to put an end to the occupation and the need to end settlements. She stressed the necessity of the Court for stability and security in the world and to resolve disputes by legal means. She said the Group seeks to strengthen the Court’s role via implementation of its decisions and advisory opinions.
SIDI MOHAMED LAGHDAF (Mauritania), speaking for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that fundamental basics of international law were being undermined, risking the stability of the multilateral order. The establishment of the Court is a watershed moment in the history of international law and international relations, he said, adding that the Court remains the principal judicial organ to ensure international peace and security. He rejected Israel’s violations and wilful failure to uphold its responsibilities and obligations, as stated in numerous United Nations resolutions, which has led to a worsening situation. OIC is grateful for the unprecedented participation by States and other international organizations, which only confirms the importance and centrality of the question of Palestine to the United Nations and to the rule of law.
He went on to say that Israel violates the Charter of the United Nations through its prolonged occupation, settlements and apartheid regime, and he called for legal consequences. He said Israel, the occupying Power, has enjoyed impunity for 75 years, and he condemned in the strongest terms Israel’s crimes and Israeli aggression against the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the heinous massacres perpetrated against civilians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli occupation forces. He also warned of the danger of continuing the policy of deliberate targeting of civilians and collective punishment accompanied by policies of starvation, water deprivation and a lack of electricity, which portends a real disaster for all health and humanitarian services, in contravention of international humanitarian law, amounting to international crimes.
KAJAL BHAT (India) reaffirmed support to the role of the Court as a principal judicial organ of the UN in settling disputes peacefully among Member States. The volume and quality of the Court’s work demonstrate that the organ has passed the test of fulfilling the task of settling disputes between the States. It is beyond doubt that the Court has acquired a well-deserved reputation as an institution, she added. The geographical spread of the cases brought before the Court and the diversity of their subject matter clearly illustrate the universal character of the Court’s jurisdiction and the importance of its role in upholding the rule of law. She recognized and commended the Court’s ability to remain sensitive to political realities and the sentiments of States, while acting in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, its own Statute and other rules of international law.
THOA THI MINH LE (Viet Nam) said the geographical spread of cases brought before the Court, and the diversity of their subject matters, demonstrated the trust that Member States have placed in it. One core function is its provision of advisory opinions, which contribute significantly to the elucidation of international law, including the legal aspects related to major issues of international concern. One such issue is climate change, a challenge that extends from the present generation to posterity and poses an existential threat to many low-lying nations, small island States and coastal regions worldwide. While efforts have been made, including net zero commitments, they fall short of the comprehensive response needed. More ambitious and immediate actions are imperative, including seeking an advisory opinion of the Court reflecting obligations under various treaties. These processes could create profound impacts upon environmental obligations under international law, she said, adding that legal opinions provided by the Court will establish prerequisites for the more robust implementation of commitments related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
JAMES KIRK (Ireland) said that the cases before the Court are of interest to all States and his country is studying carefully the Court’s recent judgment in the case on the Continental Shelf Delimitation (Nicaragua v. Colombia), which is of relevance to all States with broad continental margins. The increasing resort to the Court is a demonstration of the confidence that States have placed in its integrity, independence and expertise, he said, adding that it is also testimony to their trust in the vital role of international law in settling international disputes. “This trust is shared by Ireland, and we were happy therefore to make a declaration accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court a number of years ago,” he stressed, encouraging all States to consider such a declaration. He also said the Court plays a valuable role in clarifying international law through its advisory opinion function.
MARITZA CHAN VALVERDE (Costa Rica) was encouraged by a significant rise in activity in the Court, “which is a positive sign of increased State trust and confidence”. She expressed concern that a considerable number of States still do not recognize its jurisdiction. Highlighting failure to comply with the Court’s decisions and judgments, she said, “Compliance with international law cannot be selective.” The report demonstrates the close relationships between the maintenance of international peace, security and justice. She called for the Court to receive a budget reflecting its importance. She noted that the Court’s annual budget is equivalent to the cost of a state-of-the-art fighter jet. “Is that not a disgrace?” The lack of a system to ensure the enforcement of international judicial decisions is a fundamental problem of the regulatory mechanisms, she said, and called for addressing compulsory international jurisdiction and compulsory enforcement of international judicial decisions as a priority. Access to international justice must be democratized by the Court’s adopting other working languages, particularly Spanish.
LUIS UGARELLI (Peru), welcoming the report before the General Assembly, underlined the importance of the role the International Court of Justice plays as the supreme judicial organ of the United Nations, helping to maintain international peace and security and the upholding of the rule of law. He also noted that the Court has ruled on ambitious matters. In that regard, he stressed that abiding by the rulings of the Court is essential, adding an encouragement to non-participating States to recognize its jurisdiction and welcoming the Court’s outreach efforts. He expressed gratitude to the host State, the Netherlands, for its constant and significant support for the work of the Court. In conclusion, he reiterated Peru’s unwavering backing of the Court whose work is crucial at a moment of major global challenges, including the breakdown of legal norms and the search for immediate solutions addressing violence.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL MUHITH (Bangladesh), associating himself with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, commended the Court for its crucial role in promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes, upholding the rule of law at the international level and thus contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security. Enhanced cooperation by the Court with the Security Council, as well as Member States, is crucial towards the fulfilment of the Court’s mandate in a more robust manner. As a country hosting over a million Rohingya Muslims who fled Myanmar in the face of mass killing, rape, arson, torture and other forms of atrocity crimes, he said that Bangladesh attaches crucial importance to the case of The Gambia v. Myanmar. “We call upon Myanmar to comply with the order in letter and spirit,” he emphasized. Further, he underscored that his country also strongly denounced all illegal acts by Israel in the Occupied Palestine Territory, including during its current military operations in Gaza.
BURHAN GAFOOR (Singapore) said the Court is a cornerstone of the rules-based multilateral order judicial settlement. Noting that it functions on a budget of around $29 million, less than 1 per cent of the regular budget of the United Nations, it is very clear that there is significant underinvestment in an institution that plays a critical role in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and the rule of law. Looking ahead, there is a clear need to provide the Court with a more substantial increase in resources to reflect the considerable increase in its workload, and to place the Court on a more secure financial footing. Further, as the Court adjudicates cases worldwide, it is important to communicate its values and purposes to people around the world, especially to the youth. There is a need for the next generation to be advocates and champions of the Court and to be advocates of a multilateral rules-based system founded on international law.
MOHAMMED ALI AHMED AL SHEHHI (Oman), associating with the Arab Group, OIC and the Non-Aligned Movement, said the fact that a number of countries bring their disputes to the Court proves their acceptance of its jurisdiction. Turning to the legal consequences of Israel’s ongoing violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, he stressed his country’s position in support of the Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital. “The Court must decide that the Government of Israel needs to immediately cease all activities, policies and laws that obstruct the right of Palestinians to self-determination by ending the occupation of the Palestinian territory,” he emphasized. “The impartiality and quality of the work of the ICJ [International Court of Justice] is the reason why it is trusted by the States that resort to its role for the dispute resolution as the main and principal organ of the UN,” he said.
MOHAMMED IYLIA OMAR(Malaysia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and OIC, highlighted the 1996 opinion that recognized that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the rules of international law in armed conflict. Since 1996, Malaysia has annually tabled to the First Committee and the General Assembly a resolution, "Follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons". He invited Member States that have not done so to support and co-sponsor the draft resolution. He also called for the UN, especially the Security Council, to utilize the Court’s issuance of advisory opinions, voicing support for the current advisory proceedings regarding the question of Palestine. The Court’s advisory opinion will provide credence and valuable support to the Palestinians’ push for their inalienable rights to self-determination in an independent and sovereign State of Palestine.
PABLO AGUSTÍN ESCOBAR ULLAURI (Ecuador), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that, against the backdrop of the greatest number of conflicts around the world since the Second World War, the role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations is of particular relevance. He welcomed the sustained increase in the volume of the Court’s work in both contentious and advisory matters. Of the 20 cases currently pending, 17 were filed over the last five years, he pointed out, noting with interest the variety of the cases, which attests to the confidence that States have in the independence of the Court. He expressed support for the Court’s outreach efforts, in particular its internship programme. Moreover, noting the complementary nature of the Court and the Security Council in maintaining peace and security, he urged the Council to shore up that complementarity.
MYRIAM OEHRI (Liechtenstein) said the Court can only fully engage in the peaceful resolution of disputes when Member States are willing to accept its jurisdiction. Regrettably, only 73 Member States have accepted its compulsory jurisdiction, which means nearly two thirds of the UN membership have yet to do so. She therefore renewed her country’s call on States to make declarations under Article 36 of the Court's Statute in order to strengthen its reach and impact. Further, the Court also plays an important role in its advisory capacity by providing clarity on complex questions of international law. One such issue is climate change, the paramount existential issue of present time. States need clear and well-reasoned legal answers to be able to address the challenge appropriately. She said she trusted the Court to provide the clarity needed to navigate the complexities of international law concerning climate change, especially at the intersection with human rights.
ADAM KUYMIZAKIS (Malta) said that his country joined the cross-regional political commitment advanced by Romania through the declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the Court. Malta is also participating in the Court’s processes, including the case of Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). “As current members of the Security Council, we attach great importance to accountability, respect for the architecture of international treaties and the fundamental principles of international law — among which [is] the prohibition of the threat or use of force,” he said, adding that Malta joined the landmark consensual decision of the General Assembly in March asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion with regards to obligations of States in respect of climate change. He expressed hope that this advisory opinion will contribute to the work of the International Law Commission Study Group on sea-level rise.
DAVID ANTONIO GIRET SOTO (Paraguay), underscoring the importance of the work of the Court, underscored that his country values its orders and opinions as a key element in generating trust and predictability in the relations among States and providing certainty on key issues that make up international law. The work of the Court leads to a clearer understanding of the rules that govern the relationship between States and provides an ideal means for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Further, its efforts promote the rule of law and certainty in the interpretation of international law, which favours its progressive development. At a time of uncertainty and international commotion, international law offers “a response based on cooperation, dialogue and peace”, which is why his country advocates for its observance and respect, he said. More so, international law must be the central pillar of a rules-based multilateral system, he emphasized.
ELISA DE RAES (Belgium), aligning with the European Union, commended the International Court of Justice for work done this past year. International law is a cornerstone of the multilateral system and an essential tool to prevent conflict and thus maintain stability and security. It is more indispensable than ever, she said, adding that the figures mentioned in the annual report speak for themselves; they attest to the trust States place in the Court and their interest in finding a legal and peaceful solution to their disputes. She encouraged States that have not yet done so to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. The representation within the Court of different legal systems, languages and cultures contributes without a doubt to the quality and effectiveness of its decisions. However, the Court can only be truly effective if its judgments and orders are respected and its opinions brought into effect, she emphasized.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), associating himself with OIC and the Non-Aligned Movement, said the Court is the apex instrument for the promotion and preservation of a world order based on international law in particular, the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Regarding the conflict in Gaza, he noted the continued failure of the Security Council to even call for a ceasefire to stop the slaughter there. Pakistan eagerly anticipates the Court’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. His delegation believes that the Court can and must play a pivotal role in the resolution of conflicts and disputes through unbiased conclusions based on international law. To this end, its jurisdiction should be made mandatory for issues that are on the Security Council’s agenda and where resolutions of the Council remain unimplemented.
ABDOU NDOYE (Senegal), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and OIC, said that the crisis of multilateralism and the increase of tensions in all regions of the world must further encourage Member States to submit their disputes to the Court. “This universal jurisdiction remains an unquestionable guarantor of the international legal order and, consequently, a tool serving the maintenance of international peace and security,” he stressed, adding that the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court contributes greatly to the fulfilment of its mandate. Recalling that his country deposited the declaration of acceptance of this compulsory jurisdiction on 2 December 1985, he invited all Member States to do the same. He also reiterated commitment to the “Judicial Fellows” programme to enable young law graduates to acquire professional experience in the Court and improve their knowledge in the field of peaceful settlement of disputes.
CARMEN ROSA RIOS (Bolivia) said, with a backdrop of conflicts, geopolitical interests and hegemonic power, it is important to stress the need for peaceful dispute resolution and the “indispensable role” of the Court in achieving this. She said in this reporting period one of the Court’s judgements concerned the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia). She said her country will fully implement in good faith each decision issued by the Court and called for its counterpart to do the same. In 2018, the Court issued an historic judgement recognizing Chile’s obligation to negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute, a step to reconciliation and peace in the region. She believed the most appropriate path to peaceful dispute resolution between States will always be through dialogue but she was also sure that using the Court was a right of each State when it is affected in its integrity. She called on States to fulfil the Court’s decisions and for Spanish to become an official Court language so that parties can communicate in a clearer way for the benefit of administering justice.
VICTOR SILVEIRA BRAOIOS (Brazil), aligning with the group of Portuguese language countries, commended the judges of the Court for their tireless efforts to promote peace and justice. He said the annual debate offers an opportunity to assess the Court’s work and reflect on the role international law plays in defusing tensions between States. The Court helps make the world safer and more prosperous, in part as an effective channel for diplomacy. It also provides guidance in terms of interpretation of international law and its application. The 2023 report testifies to continued intense activity by the Court, he said, adding that the pending cases come from all parts of the world and involve a variety of issues, bearing witness to the relevance of the organ in promoting the peaceful settling of international disputes. He also expressed support for the Court’s internship programme and other outreach efforts.
ISABELLA REGINA RIVERA REYES (Honduras) said her country is convinced that implementing the international judgments handed down by the Court, as well as complying in good faith with commitments assumed within treaties, guarantees peace, harmony and security between peoples and Governments. In this regard, Honduras welcomes the efforts of the Court to maintain its effectiveness despite the increase in workload. Humanity, she said, is being buffeted by complex and interconnected crises, such as the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic and threats to the global economy. In this context, Honduras calls for the budget for 2024 to be adopted, so as to grant the Court the essential financial resources to fulfil its judicial functions.
ARIANNA CARRAL CASTELO (Cuba) said that the decisions and opinions of the Court have been particularly important not only for the cases submitted to it, but also for the development of public international law. She expressed concern that some countries do not recognize and do not comply with unfavourable rulings, which hinders the mechanisms to make the rulings effective and enforceable. “We consider useful a critical evaluation by the Court regarding its relationship with United Nations bodies, especially the Security Council,” she stressed, adding that this situation highlights the need to reform the United Nations system to provide greater guarantees to developing countries against powerful nations. She also said that her country attaches great importance to the two advisory opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and on legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which must be fully respected.
YOUSSEF HITTI (Lebanon) spotlighted the Court’s 2004 advisory on the building of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that said Israel as the occupying Power had an obligation to stop violating international law. Yet Israel continues to trample on international law. The General Assembly has now again turned to the Court on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. His country supported this referral and has submitted its written observations to the Court. The scale of current atrocities in Gaza, the settlement activity expansion in the occupied West Bank, and the violence of settlers against Palestinians continues to go ahead with the complicity of the Israeli authorities. He pointed out that some claim to defend justice and uphold international law, but then trample on it when the issue of Palestine comes up. The situation is way beyond selectivity and double standards and the credibility of the system is undermined, he said.
Right of Reply
The representative of Chile, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, addressed comments and legal statements made by the Bolivian representative on the obligation to negotiate. In its judgment, the International Court of Justice ruled that there had been no obligation for Chile to negotiate access to the sea for Bolivia and that its application lacked any legal grounding. He reiterated that this judgment resolves the difference between the two States and that there is no further dispute regarding this matter.