The United Kingdom asks the International Court of Justice not to express an opinion on Israeli practices in Palestine

Brussels, February 23 (EFE) – The United Kingdom urged the International Court of Justice on Friday not to issue an opinion on Israeli practices in Palestine, considering that this may affect the negotiations between the two parties.

One of the British representatives before the court, which is currently holding hearings on the positions of various countries, said: “The United Kingdom respectfully asks the court to reject the request in its current form.”

At the request of the UN General Assembly in 2022, before the attack on Gaza, the International Court of Justice this week analyzes “the legal consequences resulting from Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem,” to issue a non-binding legal decision. opinion.

Representatives of the United Kingdom affirmed that their country believes “with a firm belief that the two-state solution through negotiation is the only way to end the Israeli occupation, achieve Palestinian self-determination, and preserve Israel's identity and security.”

On the other hand, they ruled out that the opinion of the International Court of Justice at the request of the UN General Assembly would be useful for this purpose.

They noted that “recent events only reinforce the importance and urgency of implementing the current framework,” regarding the October 7 attacks by the Islamist Hamas movement against Israel, and “the resulting conflict in Gaza has caused a tragic loss of life and injury among the population.” “Civilians.” Widely.”

In London's view, the ICJ should not resolve disputes between parties using its advisory jurisdiction, which “on the contrary, consists of providing legal advice to United Nations bodies requesting an opinion in order to assist them in their activities.”

See also  British press criticizes Prince Harry for being "rude" towards Queen Elizabeth II

“The United Kingdom does not consider that a State whose rights or duties may be affected by an opinion can prevent a court from giving an opinion (…) because when the request relates to the main point of a dispute between two parties, they noted, “the court must refrain from giving an opinion,” they noted. In reference to the previous Western Sahara issue.

The British representatives noted that if the ICJ was prepared to rule anyway, the UK was proposing “an alternative route that seeks to respect the existing framework” and is rooted in the court’s jurisprudence.

They pointed to the necessity of implementing UN Security Council Resolutions No. 242 and 338 regarding reaching a negotiated solution and establishing a Palestinian state coexisting with Israel.

On this basis, the British proposal supports “the continued application of the Security Council framework to both parties and the need for its urgent implementation as soon as possible.”

We also point out the obligations of both parties to respect the terms of the Council’s framework and not to aggravate the conflict between them by taking any steps to change the status or integrity of the occupied territories until a negotiated solution is agreed upon,

Finally, it calls for a reaffirmation of the parties' commitments in their interim agreements to negotiate permanent status issues.

With this alternative path, the UK believes that the ICJ “could assist the General Assembly in achieving its stated objective, which is to support urgent progress towards a negotiated solution within the framework of the Security Council.” Evie


See also  The body of a man has been found at the wheel of a jetliner flying from Gambia to the UK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *