Thank you for listening to Pictures Media Radio. Welcome to Policy and Rights,
the show about the government, Policy and human rights. Welcome back to Policy
and Writes. Here in Depictions of Media Radio. I'm your host Michael Kloggs
in a sect saying we're going to go back to the International Court of Justice
as their continuing hearings on Israel and Palestine. What Israel's policies are as a
government in dealing with Palestine, not only Gazo but all of Palestine with respects
to colonialism and occupation and settlements. We're going to hear some arguments for a
two state solution and other policies that could be instituted to maybe help settle a
peace and help Palestine find sovereignty. There are some questions about is Israel trying
to prevent Palestine from having sovereignty? And what are the real policies in dealing
with the Palaestinian people and the settlements that are developed in the Palestine's Palestinian territories.
How far is it that Israel is going to be allowed to go with
settlements and corraling in the Palaestinian people. So we're going to hit this next
segment is is Kuwait making statements about what is happening there, and according to
the rules of the presentation for the court itself and to keep things timely,
the presentation itself is going to be thirty minutes, and it is advise and
uh strictly here to to keep to that. With that thirty minutes, they
don't allow for a lot of overtime. So in the next thirty minute segment,
you're gonna hear testimony from legal minds in Kuwait as they talk about different
issues around colonialism and the policies that israel Is is imposing on Palestine. And
we're gonna hear some parallels being drawn with different other areas where sovereignty was given
through through this particular court to different areas around the world. So why don't
we listen in and as we as Kuwait makes testimony at the International Court of
Justice. So the Court meets this afternoon to hear quait Lebanon, Libya,
Luxembourg, Malaysia and Mauritius on the questions submitted to it by the United Nations
Javre Assembly. Let me one more time recall that each delegation is kindly asked
to respect the thirty minute time allocation for its presentation this afternoon. The Court
will observe a short break after the presentation of Libya. I shall now give
the flow to the Plant of Kuwait. His Excellency Mister Ali Ahmad Braheim al
da Fried, You have the floor, Excellency Rahim, as the President,
Honorable members of the Court, it is a great honor to appear before you
as the agent of the State of Kuwait and these proceedings. Kuwait deeply appreciate
the extraordinary offered taking by the Court to all others hearing to proceed smoothly in
light of the great number of participants. The Court advisory proceedings are of extreme
importance to the Bostilian people, Kuwait, the international legal order, and the
international community as a whole. Kuwait has always advocated that peace fosters the observance
of law and vice versa. Adhering adherence to dieted National Charter is an indispensable
prerequisite for the definitive establishment of national peace. Indeed, peastful relations are founded
on accepted rules and as as such, peaceful relations among the states are based
on the provisions of the United Nations Charter. These include, notably the principle
of no news of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes. These rules apply
to all states. Respect for these fundamental rules contribute to the consolidation of international
peace. Regardably, the above mentioned foundational rules have not been upheld in the
case of Palestine. The conflict between the Palestinian and Israel, hereafter referred to
as the Accubying Bower, is an illegal accubation conflict involving on one side an
accubying bower equipped with all military means, and the other side an occupied nation
without defensive capabilities, facing daily expulsion, human rights violation, and all sufferings
associated with any accuvation situation. Over the bust decades, situation between the ballot
Senians and the occupying Bower has been extremely tense, resulting in a serious human
right law and human enial law violation committed by the letter. Various untur governmental
and non governmental organization organizations have committed have decammented these violations by publishing comprehensive reports.
This climate of violence compromises any possibility of reasonably discussing ratiootistic This is further
exacerbated by the recent development in Gaza. The occupying bower has ways and in
the war on the Balestinians and Ghazam, characterized by numerous international law violations.
The ongoing flagrant violations have been highlighted in a series of statement issued, among
others by the Yuan Secretary General, the Yuan High Commissioner for Human Rights and
the Special Procedures of the Yuan Human Rights Council then presented violence and gaza as
a result of fifty seven years of a legal occupation of the Balestinian territories and
it must stop. The late a mirror of the set of Kuwait, His
High chehah MEDL Jabber Sabah sabaize this situation in twenty eighteen by stating, we
asked the whole world by stating, God, we sorry, mister pison God,
why do we ignore I do not eplement Security Council resolutions? Why we
ask the whole world? Why the Brazilian people blight continues? Why the international
community incapable of resolving this cause? Why does the victims continue to be portrayed?
H h yeah, m hm, m hmmm. Why does the victim?
Why does the victim continue to be portrayed as a killer. According to
Result's nerds. Why does is why I always escape punishment? Why have all
these souls been lost? A bid absence of word conscious? Sorry, mister
President, that's a president, Distinguished members of the Court. It is in
this context that Quates appears for the first time before the Court, following the
adoption by the Young General Assembly of the seven seven two four seven, the
questioning the Court to deliver an advisory opinion on two legal questions. The first
question asked the Court to evaluate the illegality of the occupying bobbers specific policies and
actions within within its occupation of the Balistonian territories, while seeking the Court's determination
of irresponding legal ramification. The second question addresses a cour issue, has the
eccuation become illegal? Quate with demestery the illegality of this accupation under scoring the
necessity of its cessation. Mister President, ornamble members of the Court, My
distinguished Police will now address this issue in these issues in a great and greater
depth. Second verse has excellency versus Excellency Ambassador tar Alban Nai Burmet, Representative
of Kuwait, to the end will address why the Court does have the addiction
to deliver the advisory opinion the question by the u Entiary by the and General
Assemble Assembly. He will also highlight certain legal practices and policies of the occupying
bower. Second, Her Excellencitanian Nasa Assistance, Foreign Minister for for Legal Affairs
of Kuwait, will start by enumerating the grounds proving the illegality of the occupation
of the Balestinian territories, hereafter refaired as to us the obit. She will
then focus on the legal consequences arising from the breaches of those fundamental rules,
and finally, she will provide the Court with a certain concluding remarks. President,
Honorable members of the Court, for the privilege of admitting before you,
and now kindly ask him. It's a president to invite Ambassador Alban nine to
address the Court. I think his excellency mister as the fury. I now
give the floor to the Excellency mister Alban Nin. You have the floor,
Excellency, Miss President, Honorable members of the Court, it is a tremendous
honor and privilege to appear before you on behalf of the State of Kuwait.
Twenty years have passed since the Seminole Wall Advisory Opinion today in these current proceedings,
the question of the illegality of the occupation of the Palestinian territory is directly
before the Court. With your permission, I turn now to my first topic,
focusing on whether the Court has jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion requested.
In Quate's view, the answer is a categorical yes. Indeed, the majority
of submissions in these proceedings argue in favor of the Court's jurisdiction. Article sixty
five of the Statute of the Court provides that the Court might render an advisory
opinion and I quote on any legal question at the request of any organ or
institution authorized by the Charter of the United Nations, or in accordance with its
provisions to request such an opinion. In turn, Article ninety six of the
UN Charter quote, the General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International
Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on any legal question quote. In practice,
it is primarily the General Assembly that has most frequent utilized this procedure to
date. After all, when the General Assembly decides to request the Court to
deliver an advisory opinion, this means that the request reflects an important concern of
the international community seeking a legal answer. The Court itself observed that the General
Assembly, within the scope of its peacekeeping responsibilities, has a broader perspective than
that of the Security Council, as it also considers humanitarian, social and economic
aspects. An attentive look at the Court's jurisprudence points to the fact that quote,
only compelling reasons may lead the Court to refuse its opinion in response to
a request falling within its jurisdiction unquote. Although the Court has the discretionary power
to refuse to respond to a request for an advisory opinion for reasons of judicial
propriety, it has not availed itself of this option thus far. In the
present case, it is incontestable that the questions included in the relevant General Assembly
resolution are clearly specific questions of legal character. Any attempt to qualify them as
nonspecific or non legal should fail. It is worth noting that the Court in
the Wall Advisory Opinion rejected similar attempts in essence. In the Wall Advisory Opinion,
the central issue revolved around the construction of the wall and its impact on
the right to self determination of the Palestinian people. Twenty years later, the
context has broadened substantially. The Court is now tasked with determining the legal status
of the ongoing occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory since nineteen sixty seven, given
its persistence for over fifty seven years. Prior to addressing the next topic,
I feel compelled to briefly refer to an argument certain states have made, fallaciously
alleging that the issuance of an advisory opinion might undermine ongoing negotiations and peace processes.
This argument, Mister President, Honorable Members of the Court, is groundless
and without merit. Quait has always underscored the importance of resuming peace negotiations with
a view of reaching a just and comprehensive peace based on the terms of reference
of the peace process, the resolutions of the Security Council and the Arab Peace
Initiative. However, the relevant UN resolutions and the Wall Advisory Opinion may clear
any negotiations that take place must have as their objective the achievement of a just
and lasting peace in accordance with international law. The Court has an important role
to play in this regard by stating what the applicable rules of international law are
including the rights and obligations of the relevant parties, all States and the United
Nations. This is exactly the first purpose of the UN General Assembly resolution requesting
the Court to deliver an advisory opinion. By doing so, the Court may
in fact help revive negotiations and inspire a return to a peace process premised on
international law. After all, the Court's advisory opinions shed light on complicated legal
issues, appeasing tensions, uncertainties and potential disputes. Mister President, Honorable Members
of the Court, I will now address our second topic, providing you with
examples of the occupying powers, unlawful and egregious policies and practices in the opt
In the interest of time, I will limit my presentation to three policies which
demonstrate the true nature of the illegal occupation. The first is forced displacement,
the second relates to the illegal settlements on and the annexation of the Palestinian territory,
and the third is discrimination at a scale and nature that amounts to appetite.
The remaining issues were discussed thoroughly in the written submission of Kuwait in the
nineteen forty eight NECBA seven hundred and fifty thousand Palestinians were forcibly displaced, and
since then millions more. The situation has deteriorated exponentially. Since the illegal occupation
started in nineteen sixty seven, the occupying power has engaged in a forced displacement
campaign against the Palestinians by demolishing their homes and confiscating their lands. Force displacement
violates international law. The occupying power is under the obligation to ensure that its
operations in the OPT comply with the Forced Geneva Convention of nineteen forty nine relative
to the protection of civilians persons in time of war to which it is a
party. Article forty nine of this convention clearly prohibits quote forcible transfers individual or
mass, regardless of their motive, quote, which includes forced displacements as well
as expulsions from the OPT. Furthermore are Article fifty three of the same instrument
prohibits the destruction of property. Finally, under Article one four seven, illegal
transfers, destruction and appropriation of property carried out on a large scale is prohibited.
As Kuwait explained in its written submission, the occupying power has also committed
other grave violations of international law, including the policy of settling parts of its
population in the opt This unlawful policy has and continues to be deplorably promoted by
the successive governments of the occupying power. Since nineteen sixty seven, the occupying
power has embarked on an intensive campaign of colonization. Some settlements consisted of just
a few prefabricated houses, while others expanded to become fully fledged small towns.
In early twenty twenty three, there were around seven hundred and thirty thousand Israeli
settlers and over two hundred and eighty Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank,
including two hundred and thirty thousand settlers in East Jerusalem. These settlements are sustained
by a network of military checkpoints and restricted zones, as well as Jewish only
roads and highways, all of which limit gravely the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians
and violate their fundamental human rights. Both the construction of settlements and the transfer
of settlers to the West Bank and Razze are grave violations of international law,
in particular Article forty nine of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that I
quote the occupying power shall not deport or tryans for parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies. It is also noteworthy, Mister President,
that settlers in the opt are not governed by the same laws that apply to
the indigenous inhabitants of the territory. Jewish settlers are provided with special rights,
facilities, and subsidies that are denied to the indigenous Palestinian population. The occupying
policy not only supports the existing settlers, but also incentivizes new settlers. The
discriminatory policies and practice also violate the sovereignty of Palestinians over their natural resources,
allowing the settlers and foreign companies to exploit the water and agricultural products of the
occupied land without any benefit to the occupied population. It is widely recognized that
the occupying power has codified its discriminatory policies and practices against Palestinians in its legislation.
Specifically, it grants rights to Israeli Jews and systematically discriminates against Palestinians.
For instance, the Land Acquisition Law of nineteen fifty three facilitates the alienation of
confiscated Palestinian land for the benefit of various institutions of the occupying power Quasai public
organizations such as the Jewish Agency, engage in material discrimination, in particular through
the allocation of confiscated Palestinian land to Israeli Jews. Mister President, honorable members
of the Court, thank you for your kind attention, and may I kindly
ask that you invite her excellency to Hani al Laser to the podium. I
think it's excellence, mister Alabana, and now i'd give the floor to the
Excellency Missus Dahani Nasir. You have the flow of accidency. Thank you,
mister Presidents, distinguished members of the Court. It's a great honor and a
privilege to appear before you on behalf of of Kuwait and the written submissions.
The great majority of a state's participating in these proceedings, along with the three
intergovernmental organizations, concluded that the occupation of the Opit is illegal. Kuwait firmly
agrees with this view and its threatened submission. Kuwait identified several reasons proofing the
illegality of this occupation. I will provide a brief overview of these reasons for
the Court. The occupation violates a series of use code and s norms.
First, the obligation to respect the right to self determination of the Palestinian people.
The right of people to self determinate is a writing clearly recognized in international
law, as evidenced by several instruments, and as submitted by thirty five estates
and international organizations participating in these proceedings. This is articulated in Article one two
of the UN Charter, which define the purposes of the United Nations, including
quote to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
a universal peace. The same obligations are expressed in Article one of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. Second, Kuway joined their participants in these proceedings, who have
concluded in their written submission that the ongoing military occupation of the Open is illegal
because it violates the use Cogen's prohibition on the use of force. Third,
the occupying power by confiscating and annexing parts of the opit violates the prohibition on
the acquisition of territory by force. This was underscored by thirty eight participants in
the retin proceedings. This fundamental norm was incorporated into in Security Council Resolution two
four two of nineteen sixty seven and reaffirmed in Security Council Resolution three three eight
of nineteen seventy three. Accordingly, the occupying power does not have the right
to claim sovereignty over the Opit occupied since nineteen sixty seven. For the occupation
is illegal because it obviously violates the law of military occupation. For instance,
the occupation of the Opit is not of minimal duration. Facts clearly demonstrate that
it is intended to be prolonged and ultimately permanent. A permanent occupation constitutes a
serious violation of international law. Based on the verifiable evidence available to us,
it's indisputable that this is precisely what is happening in the Opit. This a
prolonged occupation and identified violation of this of the Palestinian's right to self determination renders
the occupation illegal. Moreover, the conduct of the occupying power in the Opit
violates the rules of international humanitarian law. In the World Advisory Opinion, the
Court is stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Court also determined that the Hager relations are reflective of customary international law
and thus applicable to the conduct of the occupying power in the Opit. Far
from complying with the law of equips, the actions of the occupying power disregard
international law. These actions include, inter alia, the establishment of settlements in
the opity, confiscation of Palestinian public and a private property, and its failure
to protect Palestinians from violence caused by state actors and private parties, including inter
alia armed illegal settlers. Finally, the occupation violates the use Cogen's prohibition of
apartheid. Twenty one participants in these proceedings supported this and their written submissions,
while fourteen maintained that the situation of apartheid qualifies the occupation as illegal under international
law. The prohibition of apartheid is evidenced and various sources of international law.
The occupying power is bound by the nineteen sixty five Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination to which it is party. Furthermore, it shall
abide by the prohibition of apartheid as enshrined in nineteen seventy three International Convention on
the Suppression and the Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which codifies customary international
law. Several voices and independence independence experts have warned that the occupation of the
opt amounts to a regime of apartheid. For instance, in March twenty twenty
one, twenty two, the Special Reporter on the Situation of Human Rights in
the Palestinian Territories occupied since nineteen sixty seven and his report reached a similar conclusion.
Kuwait respectively suggested that the above violations cannot be reconciliated with the fundamental rules
of international law. Hence, the occupation must be declared illegal in accordance with
international law and the relevant UN Security Council resolution. It must stop. This
will guarantee the right of the Palestinian people to be vailable state and along nineteen
sixty seven borders with East Jerusalem at its capital. Mister President, Members of
the Court, the legal analysis of the question involving these advisory proceedings demonstrate that
the occupation of the OPIT is illegal in contravention of the fundamental rules of international
law. It has written. Submission. Kuwait did address the legal consequences arising
from the occupying powers numerous and long standing violations of these rules. Please allow
me to provide with this with a view do assembly. As indicated, the
action of the occupying power and the occupation as a whole are plinarily incompatible with
the rights of the Palestinian people and obligations of the occupying power under international law.
It's the preaches of these rights and obligation engage the occupying powers international responsibility.
The occupying power must therefore take several measures. First, it must provide
Palestinians with relief in accordance with the principles of customary international law on the responsibility
of states for internationally wrongful acts. This must be achieved through the immediate cessation
of its illegal occupation. Second, the occupying power must give assurance and guarantees
of non repetition of its international law violations. The occupying power shall commit its
power shall commit itself to not repeating the same preachers in the future. Finally,
the occupying power is under the obligation to make full reparation for the injury
caused by its occupation and discriminatory policies and practices. As for all other states.
There are obliged to refrain from acknowledging the legality of the situation created by
the illegal occupation and associated illegal policies and practices. They shall also abstain from
offering support or assistant to sustain the circumstances stemming from the lawful occupation and associated
actions. Third, the State shall also contribute to safeguarding the Palestinian population against
war crimes, genocide and the crimes against the humanity, and ensure that those
responsible for crimes committed within the framework of illegal occupation are held accountable. In
turn, the UN shall refrain from acknowledging the legality of the situation resulting from
the illegal occupation and associated associated actions. The UN shall also refrain from offering
support or assistant to prolong the situation, and should instead corporate to bring an
end to the illegal corporate occupation. Mister President, Honorable Members of the Court,
the Court's advisory opinion is now more than ever necessary to put an end
to the illegal occupation of the opity. Kuwait has sought to concisely summarize the
grounds for finding that the occupation is illegal as a whole, and submits that
each ground of illegality shall form part of the Court's dispositive. We are confident
that the Court will assess kuwait written submission and oral statement as an expression of
its faith and justice, its support for the rule of law, and its
desire for peace for all states in the region. Mister President, Honorable members
of the Court, this ends kuwaits oral statement. Kindly allow me, on
behalf of Kuwait's delegation to thank the Court for its kind attention, as well
as the Registry staff and the interpreter for all their support. Thank you very
much. There are a lot of questions around how should Israel be dealing with
palasigning, and of course its neighbors around its real does and should be given
the rate to defend itself and to keep its citizens safe. Because most of
Israel follow the Jewish faith and religion, there should be some way of protecting
them from those who want to strike against Israel just because of their hatred for
Judaism. But at the same time, should Israel be allowed to impose hatred
on other countries that's around them? Should they be allowed to use tools of
war to impose hatred on their own neighbors. It's a good question. Where
does the line get drawn between protection and defense and the line begin of hatred
and destruction of others. Hopefully the International Court and our global community will help
decide where that line is drawn, and hopefully Israel will find themselves to build
policies that observe where that protection and defense should be and where hatred begins,
and they stay within the stay away from the hatred, and only use protection.
Thank you for listening to Policy and Rice today. I'm your host,
Michael Cloggs, and I do ask that you find it subscribe button wherever it
may be. The show has been produced by Depictions Media. Please contact us
at depictions dot media for more information