§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)On 8 December 2003 the UN General Assembly in Resolution ES-10/14 requested the International Court of Justice to render urgently an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In response to the request, the International Court of Justice has invited UN Member States, Palestine and certain international organisations to contribute written and/or oral32WS statements to the court if they wish to do so. On 30 January the UK submitted a national written statement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
As I have repeatedly made clear, here and elsewhere, the UK considers the building by Israel of a fence, or wall, in the West Bank to be unlawful. The UK's written statement submitted to the court recalls that we voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13, adopted on 21 October 2003, which demands that Israel stop and reverse construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I regret that Israel has not complied with the General Assembly's demand. We recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns. The latest, horrifying suicide bombing in Jerusalem on 29 January only too clearly shows the continuing threat faced by Israel from terrorists, but building the fence on occupied land only complicates efforts to make progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement.
Despite our view on the illegalities of the fence, we argued against this question being referred to the International Court of Justice. This approach is one shared by all members of the European Union including all accession states. This is being communicated by the Irish Presidency to the court. The UK has also submitted a detailed written statement to the court arguing that the court ought to exercise its discretion to decline to give an opinion. Our arguments are about the use of the court's advisory jurisdiction. We believe that it is inappropriate to embroil the court in a heavily political bilateral dispute. We also believe the court should not be engaged where the consent of both parties has not been given. An opinion is not necessary to assist the General Assembly in reaching a view on the fence. Nor, in the absence of participation from one side, will the court have all the facts before it.
Submissions to the International Court of Justice are confidential until the court decides to make them public. We expect the court will make the written statements submitted to it public at the start of the oral proceedings, due to begin on 23 February. At that stage, I will place a copy in the Library of the House.