Internationaler Gerichtshof, Rechtsgutachten v. 19.7.2024 betr. die rechtlichen Konsequenzen, die sich aus den Politiken und dem Verhalten Israels im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet einschließlich Jerusalem ergeben

Hier sind die englische Fassung dieses Rechtsgutachtens, die zugehörige Presseerklärung und eine ausführliche Zusammenfassung.

Der Gerichtshof kam folgendem Ergebnis:

THE COURT,

(1) Unanimously, 

Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;

(2) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

 (3) By eleven votes to four,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;

(4) By eleven votes to four,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;

 

(5) By fourteen votes to one,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

(6) By fourteen votes to one,

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

(7) By twelve votes to three,

Is of the opinion that all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

(8) By twelve votes to three,

Is of the opinion that international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

(9) By twelve votes to three,

Is of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Hier die zentralen Punkte in deutscher Übersetzung:

- Die fortgesetzte Anwesenheit des Staates Israel im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet ist rechtswidrig.

- Der Staat Israel ist verpflichtet, seine rechtswidrige Anwesenheit im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet so schnell wie möglich zu beenden.

- Der Staat Israel ist verpflichtet, alle neuen Siedlungsaktivitäten unverzüglich einzustellen und alle Siedler aus dem besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet zu evakuieren.

- Der Staat Israel ist verpflichtet, den Schaden zu ersetzen, der allen betroffenen natürlichen oder juristischen Personen im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet entstanden ist. 

- Alle Staaten sind verpflichtet, die Situation, die sich aus der rechtswidrigen Anwesenheit des Staates Israel im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet ergibt, nicht als rechtmäßig anzuerkennen und keine Hilfe oder Unterstützung zur Aufrechterhaltung der Situation zu leisten, die durch die fortgesetzte Anwesenheit des Staates Israel im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet entstanden ist.

- Internationale Organisationen, einschließlich der Vereinten Nationen, sind verpflichtet, die Situation, die sich aus der rechtswidrigen Anwesenheit des Staates Israel im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet ergibt, nicht als rechtmäßig anzuerkennen.

- Die Vereinten Nationen, insbesondere die Generalversammlung, die diese Stellungnahme angefordert hat, und der Sicherheitsrat sollten die genauen Modalitäten und weitere Maßnahmen prüfen, die erforderlich sind, um die rechtswidrige Anwesenheit des Staates Israel im besetzten palästinensischen Gebiet so schnell wie möglich zu beenden.

Der Gerichtshof begründet ausführlich, warum auch Gaza besetztes palästinensisches Gebiet ist (Rn. 88 ff.)

Zur zeitlichen Reichweite des Gutachtens führte der Gerichtshof Folgendes aus:

80. In terms of its temporal scope, question (a) requests the Court to take account of measures adopted by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. However, the Court is not precluded from having regard to facts predating the occupation, to the extent that this is necessary for the proper discharge of its judicial function.

81. The Court notes that the request for an advisory opinion was adopted by the General Assembly on 30 December 2022 and asked the Court to address Israel’s “ongoing” or “continuing” policies and practices (see resolution 77/247, twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth preambular paragraphs, and paragraph 18 (a)). Thus, the Court is of the view that the policies and practices contemplated by the request of the General Assembly do not include conduct by Israel in the Gaza Strip in response to the attack carried out against it by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October 2023.

Zu den Verpflichtungen der Staaten heißt es in dem Gutachten:

275. With regard to the right to self-determination, the Court considers that, while it is for the General Assembly and the Security Council to pronounce on the modalities required to ensure an end to Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the full realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, all States must co-operate with the United Nations to put those modalities into effect. [...]

278. Taking note of the resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, the Court is of the view that Member States are under an obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem, except as agreed by the parties through negotiations and to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Court considers that the duty of distinguishing dealings with Israel between its own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory encompasses, inter alia, the obligation to abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part thereof on matters concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part of its territory; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory; to abstain, in the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic missions in Israel, from any recognition of its illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, pp. 55-56, paras. 122, 125-127).

Zu der Frage, ob Israel nach Ansicht des Gerichtshof  Apartheid praktiziert, siehe einerseits die gesonderte Stellungnahme des deutschen Richters Nolte (Ziff. 8-19) und andererseits die Erklärung des südafrikanischen Richters Tladi (Ziff. 36-41).