Kuwait appeals before ICJ, calls for peace in Palestine

KUWAIT, Feb 22 (KUNA) -- The State of Kuwait presented Thursday its oral appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the repercussion caused by the violations of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine.
In a speech before the Hague-based court, Kuwait's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Tariq Al-Banai said, "Kuwait has always underscored the importance of resuming peace negotiations with a view of reaching a just and comprehensive peace based on the terms of references of the peace process, the resolution of the Security Council and the Arab Peace Initiative." He added that any negotiations that take place must have as their objective the achievement of a just and lasting peace in accordance with international law.
He went to say that the "ICJ 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.
"It is a tremendous honor and privilege to appear before you on behalf of the State of Kuwait. Twenty years have passed since the seminal wall advisory opinion. Today's proceedings question the illegality of the occupation of the Palestinian territories.
"With your permission, I turn out my first topic focusing on whether the court has jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion requested. In Kuwait's view, the answer is a categorical YES." Indeed, the majority of submissions in these preceding argued in favor of the court's jurisdiction.
He said Article 65 of the Statue of the Court provides that the court may render an advisory opinion "on any legal question at the request of any organ or institution authorized by the Charter of the UN or in accordance with its provisions to request such an opinion." In turn, Article 96 of the UN Charter stipulates, "The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on any legal question," the ambassador noted.
"In practice, it is primarily the General Assembly that has most frequently 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," he pointed out.
"The court itself observed that the General Assembly within the scope of its peacekeeping responsibilities has a boarder prospective 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 "only compelling reason may lead the court to refuse its opinion in response to a request falling within its jurisdiction", he noted.
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, he said.
"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 non-specific 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 Palestinian people," he made clear.
Al-Banai indicated that "twenty years later, the context has broaden substantially; the court is now tasked with determining the legal status of the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian Territory since 1967, given its persistence for over 75 years". (more) hm