Selected links

    Speeches and statements

    Statement by Norway to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel’s obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

    Speech/statement | Date: 01/05/2025 | Ministry of Foreign Affairs

    By Director General Kristian Jervell, State Secretary Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik

    On 1 May 2025, Norway made the following statement in the advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s obligation in relation to the presence and activities of the UN, other international organisations and third states.


    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

    ORAL INTERVENTION OF NORWAY

    1 May 2025

    OBLIGATIONS OF ISRAEL IN RELATION TO THE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THIRD STATES IN AND IN RELATION TO THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

    H.E. Mr. Rolf Einar Fife, Ambassadeur en mission spéciale, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Parts I and II)

    Mr Kristian Jervell, Director General, Department for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Part III)

    Mr Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Part IV)

                                                                                                                                         I.            Introduction

    1. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before this Court in this case on behalf of the Kingdom of Norway.

    2. Our oral intervention will consist of three parts. I will address certain elements of the specific legal framework applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In combination these give rise, with binding force, to obligations of Israel in the precise subject-matter under current consideration by the Court. Director-General Kristian Jervell will thereafter highlight essential obligations. Finally, State Secretary Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik will set out Norway’s submissions as to the suggested conclusions to be drawn, in a context that fully justifies the Court’s decision to treat the Request of the General Assembly with urgency and on a priority basis.

      II.             The Specific Legal Framework

    1. President, distinguished Members of the Court, seldom has an international presence in a territory and, I should add, rarely have the related obligations of key protagonists, been more formally and structurally embedded in a multilateral legal framework than in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    2. Three salient facts of significance may both illustrate this and help us structure our understanding of this specific legal framework.

    3. Firstly, when the military occupation started in June 1967 after the Six-Day War, there was an already legally established and significant international presence to support vital needs of displaced local population, and a recognized need for a major international effort to protect and assist vulnerable Palestine refugees.

    4. Secondly, the UN has a particular and long-standing responsibility originating in the Mandate and the 1947 Partition Resolution concerning Palestine. The indisputable right of self-determination for the Palestinian people and the need to devote key efforts to achieve a two-state-solution were early ascertained.

    5. Thirdly, since 1948, the realization of key objectives enshrined in a series of mandates and decisions adopted by the main organs of the UN, has required international assistance consisting of a composite of assisting actors. These include competent international organizations, States and relevant non-governmental organizations and entities, with the UN playing not only a central but also an essential role. It provides necessary relief, support and basic services to the civilian population. It also serves as a facilitator, organizer and catalyst for contributions by other third parties. Heads of UN agencies and other institutions, including key relief providers, have issued statements as to the indispensability, even the “backbone” role, of UNRWA in this context.[1]

    6. All of this is amply documented. Nevertheless, we would be remiss if I did not mention here the appeal made already in 1948 by the UN Mediator on Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte. Referring to “the desperate urgency”[2] of the situation, he called for a broad mobilization of relief efforts by the UN and the international community at large. UN organs, specialized agencies, States, and non-governmental actors rose to this appeal. Their swift response, and the subsequent creation of UN coordinating bodies and executive agencies, confirm the scale and magnitude of humanitarian, relief and reintegration challenges. They also confirm, which is of relevance here, the breadth of necessary assisting actors and voluntary contributions by third parties.

    7. Returning to the first point, the duty to respect the described pre-existing international presence and activities appears to have been recognized by Israel in June 1967. Fundamental rules of laws of occupation, notably enshrined in article 43 of the Hague Regulation of 1907, require (i) respect for the law in force in the occupied territory unless absolutely prevented from doing so, and (ii) a duty to administer the territory for the benefit of the local population. Within four days after the ceasefire after the Six-Day War, the so-called Comay-Michelmore exchange of letters thus confirmed that UNRWA would “continue” its assistance to eligible refugees, with “the full cooperation” of Israeli authorities.[3]

    8. This ensured practical and operational continuity, including respect for pre-existing arrangements and relevant immunities of the UN. Moreover, the juridical status and privileges and immunities of subsidiary bodies of the United Nations do not draw their original strength or legal basis from such an exchange of letters. Israel’s obligations in this regard follow, with respect to UN member States, from Article 105, paragraph 1, of the Charter, and are further detailed in the 1946 Convention on the privileges and immunities of the UN. These obligations apply as much in Israel’s sovereign territory as in the territory of Palestine.

    9. Turning to the second point, the context and the legal framework applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory entail a particular and long-standing responsibility of the United Nations. This has been noted by the Court in its Wall Advisory Opinion and in its July 2024 Advisory Opinion.[4] This was already reflected in the “commitments” made to cooperate with the United Nations in Israel’s Declaration of Independence of 14 May 1948.[5] Israel’s application for membership in the UN specifically stated that independence had been proclaimed “in pursuance of” the 1947 Partition resolution. It added that Israel “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations”[6]. In May 1949, General Assembly resolution 273 (III) on admission to membership explicitly referred to Israel’s assurances made “in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions”[7].

    10. After the vote, Foreign Minister Sharett stated that the aftermath of the 1948 war had “changed some elements” in the pattern envisaged in the 1947 Partition Resolution, and that “modifications” were therefore called for. However, these did not vacate the continued relevance of the framework. He noted that “Israel’s organic connection with the United Nations had combined with its own compelling interest in dictating its course of action in international affairs – a course of undivided loyalty to the Charter of the United Nations and of consecration of the cause of peace.”[8]

    11. In our Written Statement, we have detailed how the specific legal framework applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory sets out clear obligations for Israel not only under international humanitarian law, including as regards humanitarian relief schemes under Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, but also under human rights law, refugee law and United Nations law. They combine in requiring duties of cooperation, facilitation, assistance and protection for the international presence to continue the activities mentioned. My brief overview serves as an invitation to consider more in detail the analysis made in our Written Statement in this regard.

    12. As to the third point, the mandates of UN agencies and specialized agencies have indeed not been static. As documented in an overwhelming number of reports, resolutions and agreements provided by the UN Secretariat, and as analyzed in our own Written Statement, the relevant mandates have regularly been not only adopted but also adapted to evolving demands and circumstances. Their international legality is unequivocal.

    13. In a broader sense, we are reminded that international law took a series of decisive legal turns with the creation of the UN, the emergence of new functions of international organizations, and the protection of human dignity and fundamental rights. Moreover, in the context just described a legal framework was established.

    14. Nevertheless, the underpinning, or one may perhaps more accurately say a lynchpin, of our international legal order, rests on legal obligations incurred by States in this regard. Built brick by brick over decades, it depends on their compliance, whether the obligation derives from the UN Charter, other international legal instruments or rules determined on the basis of other valid sources of international law.

    15. In the formulation of the requested legal guidance, Norway would suggest also taking into account work carried out by the International Law Commission as regards the protection of persons in the event of disasters.[9] Its state-of-the-art definition in 2016 of possible “assisting actors” may reflect the breadth of scope of relevant categories of institutions actually engaged in relief and support. The Commission’s references to the importance of transit are relevant also in this context. It is moreover suggested to take into full account the legal obligations related to self-determination. Further detail will be provided by Director General Jervell.

    16. I would respectfully request the President to now give the floor to him. I thank you for your attention.

     III.            Obligations relative to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination

    1. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before you on behalf of the Kingdom of Norway.

    2. The Request put to the Court makes specific reference to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. As was observed by the Court in the July 2024 Advisory Opinion, Israel, as the occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, has an obligation not to impede the Palestinian people from exercising its right to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign State.[10] The Court specifically referred to the obligation to preserve the territorial integrity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory; to refrain from measures aimed at dispersing the population and undermining its integrity as a people; to respect the right to exercise permanent sovereignty over natural resources; and the right of the Palestinian people to freely determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.[11]

    3. Norway supports the Court’s interpretation on these issues as applied to this specific factual context. In the context of the present case, it is, in the perspective of Norway, pertinent to build on those observations and assess what implications that flow from them with regard to the question of obligations concerning international presence in and in relation to the Occupied Territories. I will make two points:

    4. First, there is an interlinkage between the obligations referred to by Ambassador Fife and the obligation not to impede the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

      1. Hindering the presence and activities of the UN, other international organisations and third States, and thereby the provision of development assistance and humanitarian relief to the local population, constitutes a significant impediment to the Palestinian people’s exercise of its right to self-determination. This is so, in the perspective of Norway, because such acts and measures undermine the integrity of the population as a people and because they obstruct the right of the Palestinian people to freely determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.

      2. For similar reasons, acts and measures that obstruct the provision of development assistance and humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people by the UN and its subsidiary organs, constitute separate violations of obligations owed by Israel to the UN, and also constitute a significant impediment to the Palestinian people’s exercise of its right to self-determination.

    5. Second, the obligation incumbent on Israel not to impede the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination also entails negative obligations. Israel must refrain from impairing the ability of the representative authorities of the Palestinian Authority or of the State of Palestine to establish, conduct and maintain foreign relations with other international actors, including the United Nations and its specialised agencies, other international organizations and third States, and their representation to Palestine and the Palestinian people in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

      1. In this regard, the Court observed, in its July 2024 Advisory Opinion, that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination includes the right to an independent and sovereign State, over the entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as the right of the Palestinian people to freely determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.

      2. It follows from these observations that the Palestinian people have a right to establish and conduct foreign relations, which is part and parcel of the Palestinians’ exercise of their right to freely determine their political future. Israel has a corresponding obligation to respect this right. The conduct of foreign relations constitutes a key element to promote peace and security and develop the welfare of the people concerned. It is a precondition for a successful institution and State building process and integration into the international community. Regard may be had in this respect to the fact that the attributes normally attached to statehood in international law are generally perceived to include not only a population, a territory and a government, but also the capacity to enter into relations with the international community on an independent basis.

      3. Where international relations are established, or sought to be established, based on and in accordance with the free will of the recognised representatives of the Palestinian people, intentional impairment of such relations would, in the view of Norway, constitute a policy and practice that obstruct the right of the Palestinian people freely to determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development. As such, those measures would constitute a violation of the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The same applies to intentional impairment of the possibility for diplomatic representatives to be present in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the purpose of establishing and maintaining such relations.

      4. Norway is among the 146 of the 193 member States of the UN that have recognised the State of Palestine as an independent State and subject of international law. What is said here concerning the conduct of foreign relations is, however, valid regardless of whether the relations in question are based on a recognition of statehood or whether formal diplomatic relations have been established. This is so because the right to communicate and carry out foreign relations with the international community forms an integral part of the right of the Palestinian people freely to determine its political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.

      5. As regards foreign relations with international organizations, there is a long pedigree of practical evidence to that effect. There is also ample evidence of agreements having been concluded in this regard between the representatives of the Palestinian people and international organizations. As regards the United Nations, reference by way of illustration is here made to the Exchange of Letters concluded in 1994 between UNRWA and the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization for the purpose of facilitating UNRWA to continue to provide assistance to the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area and in the remainder of the West Bank.[12]

    6. Mr President, honourable members of the Court, I thank you for your attention and now ask you to give the floor to Mr. Kravik, State Secretary of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to present the final observations on behalf of Norway.

    IV.            Submissions

    1. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you on behalf of Norway.

    2. I stand before you at a time when the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has descended further into a living nightmare. In Gaza, a blockade of humanitarian aid and commercial supplies has been in place for 60 days. Despite repeated calls on Israel to lift these measures and to facilitate relief, Israel has instead further tightened, rather than eased, the measures. This is both unconscionable and illegal.

    3. In this context, Norway asks the Court to recognize the indispensable role of UNRWA in running infrastructure, healthcare, education, primary assistance and in providing relief to Palestine refugees.

    4. Norway has consistently condemned the heinous attacks of 7 October 2023; we have called for a ceasefire and for the immediate release of all hostages. With the same consistency, however, Norway has also held that Israel, like any UN Member and any State, is bound by its legal obligations.

    5. Against this backdrop, I will make three points: first, Israel’s obligations to cooperate with the United Nations and with other States; second, the Palestinian people’s right, under the principle of self-determination, to decide freely as to its external relations; and, third, Israel’s obligation to permit and facilitate assistance, including to facilitate the unimpeded transit of UNRWA and other UN personnel.

    6. First, Israel has an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations, as set forth in Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Charter. This is a general obligation, not limited to enforcement action taken by the Security Council. In the present context, this means, as the Secretary-General has correctly observed, that Israel is obliged “to give UNRWA every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the relevant decisions of competent organs adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Charter”[13].

    7. Israel’s duty to cooperate with other States in solving international problems of a humanitarian character in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, is laid down in Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter. That provision is, as is evident from Article 14 of the Charter, legally binding on States. The obligation in Article 1, paragraph 3 is further developed in the Friendly Relations Declaration[14]. It is possible, as Professor Vaughan Lowe has observed, “to establish a legal duty to co-operate in specific legal contexts and to measure a State’s compliance with it”10. Norway submits that Israel has, in the specific context of the humanitarian disaster it has created in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, an obligation to cooperate with other States in facilitating the provision of humanitarian and development assistance where such is offered.

    8. To conclude on this point: Israel has obligations under the Charter to take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations and third States, the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. This can be achieved only by lifting the blockade, dramatically increasing the number and capacity of land crossing points and keeping them open.

    9. Second, Israel has an obligation to respect the establishment and conduct of foreign relations by the representatives of the Palestinian people with international organizations and third States. This includes the obligation not to impede the right of Palestine — and its people — to decide freely as to its external relations and the obligation for Israel not to impede Palestine’s conduct of its foreign relations, notably Palestine’s relations with the United Nations, including UNRWA, other international organizations and third States, and their representation to Palestine and its people in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    10. Third and finally, Israel has an obligation to permit and facilitate assistance, including free passage in transit through Israel, of necessary civilian supplies, personnel and equipment, from the United Nations, other international organizations and third States.

    11. Notable in this regard is the codification of customary international law represented by especially Articles 7, 8, and 9 of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel[15], which was adopted by consensus in the General Assembly[16]. The rules of customary international law codified in the Safety Convention oblige Israel to facilitate the unimpeded transit of UNRWA and other UN personnel across its own territory and from one part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory to another.

    12. Norway trusts that the Court, in its advisory opinion, will assist the United Nations, in the furtherance of its permanent responsibility for the former mandated territory of Palestine, and that it will also assist the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in their efforts to realize the right to self-determination for the peoples affected by the conflict, based on the vision of two States living in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

    13. Mr President, Members of the Court, I have come to the end of Norway’s oral statement. I thank you for your attention.

    ***

    [1] See, inter alia, Statement by Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council Mr. Jan Egeland to the Security Council, 28 January 2025, UN Doc. S/PV.9852 and Statement by Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Stop the assault on Palestinians in Gaza and on those trying to help them, 1 November 2025 https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/inter-agency-standing-committee/statement-principals-inter-agency-standing-committee-stop-assault-palestinians-gaza-and-those-trying [accessed 28 April 2025].

    [2] Progress report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, A/648, p. 52.

    [3] Exchange of Letters Between Israel and UNRWA, 14 June 1967, Jerusalem, United Nations, Treaty Series vol. 620, p. 183, Dossier No. N283.

    [4] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,
    I.C.J. Reports 2004 p.136; Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice, 19 July 2024 para. 35.

    [5] Declaration of Independence, Provisional Government of Israel, Official Gazette: Number 1; Tel Aviv, 5 Iyar 5708, 14.5.1948 p. 1. English translation available at https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/about/pages/declaration.aspx [accessed 28 April 2025].

    [6] UN, Security Council, Doc. S/1093.

    [7] UN, General Assembly, Resolution 273 (III), 11 May 1949, preamble.

    [8] UN, General Assembly, Doc. PV 207th plenary meeting, 11 May 1949, p. 332.

    [9] Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2016, vol. II, Part Two, p. 25, Draft articles on the

    protection of persons in the event of disasters.

    [10] Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice, 19 July 2024, para. 237.

    [11] Ibid., paras 238 – 241.

    [12] Exchange of Letters between the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization for the purpose of facilitating UNRWA to continue to provide assistance to the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area and in the remainder of the West Bank, 24 June 1994, Dossier No. N286.

    [13] Identical letters dated 9 December 2024 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council (A/79/684–S/2024/892); see also Written Statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, para. 186.

    [14] Fourth principle, General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970.

    [15] Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, 9 December 1994, 2051 UNTS 363.

    [16] General Assembly resolution 49/59 of 9 December 1994; cf. Legal Consequences for Stats 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, p. 47, para. 94.

    Go to the top