“Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”

Mr. President,

Distinguished members of the Court,

It is an honor for me to speak on behalf of Brazil before the International Court of Justice, the main judicial organ of the United Nations.

We are gathered here to fulfill another stage of a mandate conferred upon this Court by the United Nations General Assembly on December 30, 2022, when Resolution 77/247, entitled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem", was adopted. Through that resolution, the General Assembly tasked this Court with providing an advisory opinion in response to two main questions, which I quote:

"What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures"?; and

"How do the policies and practices of Israel affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?"

Brazil's decision to participate in this proceeding, presenting a written statement and now speaking at this public hearing, stems from the country's historical commitment to abide by international law, to foster multilateralism, and to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The Israeli-Palestinian question has been one of the most pressing unresolved conflicts on the international agenda for decades. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, persisting since 1967, in violation of international law and numerous resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, cannot be accepted, let alone normalized, by the international community.

From Brazil’s perspective, the current request for an advisory opinion, addressed to the highest judicial body in the UN system, could not be more timely. Brazil believes that the Court's pronouncement is necessary so that not only Israel, as the occupying power, but also all countries seeking to align their conduct within the limits of international law and justice can have clarity on the legal implications of Israel´s occupation and its policies and practices in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

It is not surprising, therefore, that around 50 countries have decided to participate in the proceedings concerning this advisory opinion.

Mr. President, esteemed judges,

The importance of the matter and the gravity of the situation in the Palestinian Occupied Territories were indisputable even before October 7, 2023. The tragic events of that date, and the disproportionate and indiscriminate military operations that followed, however, make it glaringly clear that the mere management of the conflict cannot be considered an option, and that a two-state solution, with an economically viable Palestinian State living side by side with Israel, is the only way to provide peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.

We know that the current request for an advisory opinion has a defined, restricted scope, excluding political considerations, as well as the legal and juridical definition of the events of October 7 and subsequent military operations. The consequences of these recent events notwithstanding, intrinsically linked to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, compels Brazil to mention them at this public hearing.

I do not intend today to delve into the legal considerations that Brazil presented in its written statement in July 2023, already well known to this Court. At this stage, I would like to highlight only its main points:

COURT JURISDICTION

There seems to be no doubt, according to Article 65 (1) of the ICJ´s statute, that this Court is competent to issue the advisory opinion commissioned by the General Assembly, an equally competent body to request it. The subject of the consultation is intrinsically linked to relevant principles of international law, such as the right to self-determination and the prohibition of the annexation of territory by force, making the opinion of this judicial organ even more crucial for the entire international community.

PEOPLES' RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in international law, including in the UN Charter, and widely recognized by the United Nations General Assembly. This Court, and the General Assembly, have expressly recognized that the existence of the Palestinian people, as much as their right to self-determination, is indisputable. Brazil would appreciate that the Court, within the scope of the present advisory opinion, could highlight the principled position that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories violates the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

OCCUPATION, SETTLEMENTS, AND ANNEXATION

In 1967, Security Council Resolution 242 emphasized the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force and directed Israel to withdraw its troops from the then recently occupied Palestinian territory. However, the occupation persists to this day and has been aggravated by the construction of the separation wall in Palestinian territory, the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the annexation of East Jerusalem. As recognized by the Court in the Wall advisory opinion, Israel has continued to have the status of occupying power.  The prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territories, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of these territories, including Jerusalem, violate relevant rules of international law.

PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, foundational instruments of the international human rights protection system, guarantee the right of all individuals to be treated equally, without discrimination based on race, color, gender, or religion. By extending its jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories and establishing two distinct legal systems - one applied to Israeli settlers and another imposed, under military rule, to Palestinians -, Israel is practicing discrimination against the Palestinian population, while impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. This differential treatment is evident and well-documented and should also be addressed by the Court.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE OCCUPATION

Brazil expects that the Court reaffirms that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and violates international obligations through a series of actions and omissions by Israel. The confiscation of Palestinian lands, the destruction of Palestinian properties, the construction of Israeli settlements and of the Wall, and the adoption of measures aimed at changing the demographic composition of areas within Palestinian territories must all be taken into account by the Court.  Those persistent practices are tantamount to annexation.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The practices described above, which have persisted for decades, result in obligations for Israel, the occupying power, and for all other states seeking to conduct themselves in accordance with international law, as follows.

ISRAEL
Cessation and Non-Repetition

First of all, Israel must put an end to the occupation of Palestine. Its primary obligation is to cease and not repeat the acts and omissions by which it occupies and prolongs the occupation of Palestinian territories.

Reparations

Secondly, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, a state violating principles and rules of international law must provide due reparation.

OTHER STATES

Thirdly, the illegality of the situation creates obligations not only on the occupying power but also on all states.

Obligation of Non-Recognition

The main obligation is that all states must abstain not only from formal recognition of this situation, but also from acts that could imply such recognition.

Obligation of Non-Assistance.

No state should collaborate with Israeli actions or initiatives related to the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

Obligation of Cooperation

Finally, states must cooperate to bring an end through lawful means to the occupation at the earliest.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President,

Distinguished members of the Court,

In concluding my statement, I would like to highlight that Brazil is fully committed to complying with these obligations. We have been consistently advocating for a two-state solution, allowing for the creation of an independent, sovereign, and economically viable Palestinian State, coexisting with Israel in peace and security within mutually agreed and internationally recognized borders, which includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as its capital.

It was not without reason that Brazil, in December 2010, extended recognition to the State of Palestine. It was not without reason either that Brazil enrolled to provide its contributions in the context of the present request for an advisory opinion from the Court.

By providing its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's practices and policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Court will not only contribute to upholding international law but also to the resolution of one of the most pressing issues on the international peace and security agenda. Brazil strongly believes in dialogue, peace, justice, and multilateralism and highly values the work of this International Court of Justice.

I conclude by requesting that any eventual questions or comments regarding the Brazilian intervention be formalized in writing, so that the necessary clarifications can be duly provided.

Thank you.