With regard to the legality under international law of Israel`s construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first established the rules and principles of international law relevant to the issue raised by the General Assembly. Recalling the customary principles enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and underline the illegality of such territorial acquisition, the Court also cited the principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed in resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which, in its view, had become part of customary law, and to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which were applicable in the Palestinian territories which, prior to the armed conflict of 1967, were east of the demarcation line of the Armistice of 1949 (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. period. Conflict. The Court also found that certain human rights instruments (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court continued to consider the consequences of such violations, recalling Israel`s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. The Court declared that Israel must immediately cease its violation of its international obligations by ceasing the construction of the wall and dismantling the parts of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and by suspending all legal and administrative acts adopted for the construction of the wall and the establishment of its regime. repeals or renders ineffective. The Court also clarified that Israel must make reparation for all damage caused to all natural or legal persons affected by the construction of the wall. With regard to the legal consequences for other States, the Court stated that all States were under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to provide assistance or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It also stated that it was the responsibility of all States, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that all obstacles to the exercise of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination arising from the construction of the wall were removed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure that Israel complies with international humanitarian law enshrined in that Convention, in accordance with the Charter and international law. Finally, as regards the United Nations and, in particular, the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court stated that it had to examine what additional measures were necessary to put an end to the unlawful situation in question, taking due account of that opinion. 3. A person is responsible for all consequences that he or she could reasonably have suspected would occur. The court then attempted to determine whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. The Court noted that approximately 80 per cent of the settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territories were traced by the wall and, citing Security Council statements in that regard concerning the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in violation of international law. After considering some concerns that the route of the wall might prejudge the future border between Israel and Palestine, the Court found that the construction of the wall and its associated regime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent and thus amounted to de facto annexation. The Court further found that the route chosen for the wall reflected Israel`s illegal measures with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and brought about further changes in the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and concluded that the construction of the wall, together with previous measures, seriously impeded the exercise of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and thus violated Israel`s obligations. to respect this right. In 2013, the province legally defined bullying as “generally repeated behaviour that is intended or should be known to cause fear, bullying, humiliation, stress or other harm to another person`s body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property, and can be direct or indirect and include aiding or promoting the behaviour in any way” and cyberbullying as ” electronic bullying.
through the use of technology, including computers or other electronic devices, social networks, text messages, instant messaging, websites or emails. In 2015, a Nova Scotia judge ruled that the law violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ordered its immediate removal. At the time of writing this report (December 2015), no legislation had been drafted to replace it. The Court first held that the general meeting which had requested the opinion was entitled to do so under Article 96(1) of the Charter. It also held that, in accordance with Article 10, paragraphs 2 and 11, of the Charter, the matter before it fell within the competence of the General Assembly. Moreover, in obtaining the opinion of the Court, the General Assembly did not exceed its competence, limited by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, according to which the Assembly may not make recommendations in this regard in the exercise of its functions in relation to disputes or situations, unless the Security Council so requests. The Court further noted that the General Assembly had adopted resolution ES-10/14 at its tenth emergency special session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), according to which, if the Security Council had not exercised its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter without delay with a view to making recommendations to Member States. The Court rejected a number of procedural objections and found that the conditions set out in that resolution were met at the time of the convening of the tenth emergency special session, and in particular at the time when the General Assembly decided to obtain the opinion, as the Security Council was unable at that time because of the negative vote of a permanent member: to adopt a resolution on the construction of the wall.
