Ref: 167/2003

PCHR welcomes yesterdays decision by the United Nations General Assembly to refer
the issue of the legality of Israel’s so-called “Security Fence” to
the International Court of Justice.

 The resolution, adopted by 90 votes in favour, with 74
abstentions, asks the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory
opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of the
“Security Fence” in the occupied West Bank.  Most of the European
Union states, including the United Kingdom, abstained from voting.  The
United States, Israel and Australia were among the 8 votes against the
resolution.

 The resolution had been called for by various Arab states
following the publication of a report on the barrier by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
last month, in which he stated that the Israel “is not in compliance
with the Assembly’s demand that it ‘stop and reverse the construction of the
wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'”.  The Secretary
General was required to report on the implementation of General Assembly
Resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003 which called upon Israel to halt and
dismantle construction of the barrier on land in the OPTs.  Annan’s report
further concluded that the “only through a just, comprehensive and
lasting peace settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and
338 (1973) can the security of both Palestinians and Israelis be assured.”

 PCHR welcomes the adoption of this resolution as a clear
indication from the international community that the rule of law is fundamental
in addressing the issue of Israel and Palestine.  However, PCHR notes with
bitter regret the failure of EU states to support this call for respect for
international law.  In abstaining from this resolution, these states have
further undermined the rule of law, and have once again demonstrated their
consistent policy of subjugating the fundamental principles of international
law in favour of political interests.  This failure to take concrete
action to ensure a halt to Israel’s ongoing violations of international human
rights and humanitarian law stands in clear breach of their obligations as High
Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Article 1 of the
Convention requires that states take measures to “ensure respect for
the Convention in all circumstances”.  Article 146 further
requires states to take “measures necessary for the suppression of all
acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention” and to
search for and prosecute those responsible for grave breaches of the
Convention.  PCHR further expresses its disappointment at this latest attempt
by the United States to actively halt efforts aimed at ensuring the
implementation of international law in the region.

 PCHR has repeatedly reiterated its position that a fair and just
resolution for all cannot be achieved in the absence of international
law.  A sustainable peace can only be achieved through the implementation
of the rule of law, respect for human rights and democratic principles. 
This request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is
a first step towards realizing these principles.  We hope that the
remainder of the international community will recognize the importance of this
step and support further moves towards implementing the rule of law in the
region. Yesterday’s decision is particularly pertinent in light of the
celebration, tomorrow, 10 December, of the anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.