Unchart(er)ed Waters?: Consequences of the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the Responsibility of the UN for Palestine

Practice, evolution and protection of human rights through the International Court of Justice jurisprudence

“…In particular the CJEU declared that: "(…) the indirect judicial review carried out by the Court in connection with an action for annulment of a Community act adopted, where no discretion whatsoever may be exercised, with a view to putting into effect a resolution of the Security Council may therefore, highly exceptionally, extend to determining whether the superior rules of international law falling within the ambit of jus cogens have been observed, in particular, the mandatory provisions concerning the universal protection of human rights, from which neither the Member States nor the bodies of the United Nations may derogate because they constitute "intransgressible principles of international customary law" (Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996, The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Reports 1996, According to our opinion the ICJ used the general principle of humanity as a principle capable of creating specific and ad hoc obligations on States, imposing on all the actors of the international law system in a binding manner. The consultative opinion gave the ICJ the opportunity to dwell on the question of the validity of human rights obligations even in the case of armed conflicts as we have seen in the case of the consultative opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, of 9 July 2004 (Stone, 1981;Cassese, 1992;Bowen, Stephen, 1997;Muller, 1997;Mazzawi, 1997;Araujo, 2004;Schrijver, 2004;Breau, 2005;Gareau, 2005;Scobbie, 2005;Wedgwood, 2005;Orakhelashvili, 2005;Crawford, 2007;Ruys, Corten, Hofer, 2018;Whitman, 2018) 59 , which was based on the decision just examined in relation to the delineation of the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights norms.…”

The Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion

“…Rather, in his view the opinion ' indicates that the Court as a whole thought that obligations erga omnes do impose substantive obligations on third states ' in the event of their breach. 138 Andrea Bianchi, too, notes this possibility, but wonders also whether perhaps, more simply what the Court had in mind was jus cogens and it simply did not dare mention it, preferring to focus on the erga omnes character of the obligations underlying jus cogens norms. 139 Bianchi does not fi rmly conclude the point, but it seems that he leans overall to this latter point of view.…”

Uluslararasi Adalet Di̇vani Danişma Görüşleri̇nde Yetki̇ Ve Devleti̇n Sorumluluğu Tartişmasi

“…65 Son olarak Divan, Genel Kurul ve Güvenlik Konseyinin, mevcut danışma görüşünü dikkate alarak, söz konusu hukuka aykırı duruma son vermek için başka ne gibi adımlar atılması gerektiğini değerlendirmekle yükümlü olduğunu belirtmiştir. 66 Görüldüğü üzere Divan İsrail'in uluslararası hukuka aykırı eyleminden ve sorumluluğundan bahsetmektedir. 67 Chagos danışma görüşünde ise Divan bir adım ileriye giderek doğrudan Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu (UHK) tarafından hazırlanan "Devletin Uluslararası Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Sorumluluğuna Dair Taslak Maddeler"in 1. maddesini alıntılayacak ve "bir devletin uluslararası hukuka aykırı eylemi o devletin uluslararası sorumluluğunu doğurur" diyecektir.…”