ECCP
EUROPEAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NGOS
ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE
The 24th of October, ECCP organised at the Belgian Parliament a round table of lawyers whose theme
was:
« Means in national, European and international law that the European Union and its Member
States can use in order to ensure Israel complies with its commitments towards the European
Union and the international agreements it signed”.
Below is the report of the proposals decided during this meeting
The European Union is based on the rule of law (Art. 6 of the Treaty of the European Union) and the
compliance with International Law. By tolerating Israel’s systematic violations of its commitments and of
the international law while being a EU partner, the EU contributes to weakening its own foundation and
to encouraging a climate of non-compliance of law in the region. This tolerance shatters the necessary
conditions for a productive political dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians and affects our values and
the European social network.
While important actors of the Israeli and Palestinian societies resume dialogue and set up proposals for a
viable and sustainable peace agreement between the State of Israel and a future State of Palestine, it is
important that Europe makes every effort so that International Law be respected, as it is the only
guarantee of a peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the region.
I.
Means taken from European law
Since the EU has had commercial relationships with Israel, it is facing the problem of products coming
from the settlements. The EU refuses to recognize them as products from the Israeli territory according
to Public International Law. However, these products continue to be exported to the EU with a
preferential treatment.
We consider that the exportation of products coming from the stettlements is much more than a mere
customs problem or a minor issue in the external relationships of the EU. By tolerating such a violation by
Israel of an agreement based on shared values as to the compliance of Human Rights and of Public
International Law, Europe is eventually weakening the consistency of the actual foundations of the
community construction.
To the EU, the compliance of its own principles should weigh more than that of immediate political
interests.
With the implementation of the Association Agreement in June 2000, this problem systematically appears
at each Association Council and has not reached a satisfactory solution.
However, no solution will be found as long as the Israeli customs certify these products as being of Israeli
origin according to a national legislation illegal with respect to International Law, and all the more, as long
as the State of Israel does not stop its colonization policy. In addition, by considering this problem as an
issue in the interpretation of the treaty and not as a violation thereof, and by consequently refraining from
notifying the Member States that the Israeli customs illegally produce certificates of origin, the European
Commission is not playing its role of guardian of the treaties and prevents a solution to the problem to be
found.
We call for appropriate measures from the Member States of the Union and the European Commission in
order to put an end to this violation of the Association Agreement by Israel. We at least call for a
notification by the European Commission to the Member States stating that the Israeli customs produce
certificates of origin based on a legislation contrary to International Law and thereby create a substantial
confusion as to the origin of all products exported by Israel. In this way, in case of confusion concerning
the origin of the product, the Member States will have a legal basis to lay a tax on the products for which
there is a doubt as to their true origin.
Besides, we consider that Israel cannot be associated to the system of paneuropean cumulation of origin,
should such a situation go on.
In addition, the process of colonization started by Israel is one of the numerous violations of public and
humanitarian international law.
The EU Member States, acting in the framework of the second pillar have already been able to take
measures against the substantial violations of Humanitarian Law in ex-Yugoslavia by adopting a serie of
restrictive and coercitive measures in the political and economic fields. The EU also suspended its
relationships with Zimbabwe and Haiti on the basis of Article 2 of the EU-ACP agreement, and partially
its agreement with Serbia for fraud reasons.
The EU and its Member States undergo repeated violations of the public and humanitarian international
law by the State of Israel and repeated violations of its commitments towards the EU.
On the one hand, by totally shirking its obligations, taken from the Fourth Geneva Convention, as the
occupying power, namely for example ensuring a good operation of the health and education services,
Israel forces the Palestinian Authority sponsors, and the EU in the first place, to comply with the
obligations of the failing occupying power. Even worse, the State of Israel is destroying the Palestinian
infrastructures financed by the EU and its Member States, and is hindering the humanitarian help with its
continuous closures of the Palestinian Occupied Territories.
The same closures and discriminatory policy of the State of Israel make it impossible to implement the
EU-PLO Association Agreement signed in 1997.
Finally, the gross violations of International Law and the UN resolutions by Israel deeply prevent all
cooperation projects and agreements between the two sides of the Mediterranean Sea. These violations
also worsen the risks of lack of understanding between the peoples, whereas cooperation and peace in the
Meditarranean area are essential to the European future. In this context, the solution to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict has a central position.
We consider that all elements are gathered to allow the EU and its Member States to take the appropriate
countermeasures, such as the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and/or the cooperation
agreements in order to counter the numerous violations of International Law, Humanitarian Law and
Israel’s commitments towards the EU. Such a measure will be a strong sign as to the will of the EU and its
Member States to see law be respected in this region of the world.
In addition, the EU has to ensure Israel does not take advantage twice from its association with the Sixth
Scientific framework programme, i.e. it does not indirectly contributes to bringing nuclear weapons and
arms of massive destruction into the State of Israel.
II.
Request for an advisory opinion before the International Court of Justice
The heart of the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict results from the systematic violation by Israel
of the peremptory norms of International Law and from the refusal to accept the authority of the UN to
recognize the right of both Jewish and Palestinian peoples to each live in an independent and sovereign
State. It would be misleading to believe that States do not have efficient means at their disposal in order to
have Israel comply with the obligations resulting from International Law. If the States have doubts as to
the content and the scope of the legal framework in order to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they
have to ask at the UN General Assemby that the International Court of Justice provides them with an
advisory opinion.
In such a context, the UN General Assembly is entitled and has the obligation to refer to the International
Court of Justice as the judicial organ of the UN when a wrong interpretation and implementation of the
decisions of the UN by the parties in the conflict endanger the peace process.
We consider that a request for an advisory opinion before the International Court of Justice in order to
clarify the relevant legal framework regarding the sharing of the territory, the status of Jerusalem and the
right of return of the refugees would be adequate because it would allow the start of a peace plan and
negotiations having International Law as foundation..
III.
Adequate responses based on International Law to the construction of the wall in the
West Bank.
The State of Israel is building a wall since June 2002 in the western part of West Bank which will
eventually sever West Bank by 10% of its territory and put 14 000 Palestinians between the Green Line
and this wall.
On 24 October 2003, the Israeli Prime Minister announced the construction of a “fence” along the Jordan
Valley which, with the eastern “fence”, would annex 60% of the West Bank.
This Israeli measure breaks the Charter of the UN since it constitutes a de facto land annexation by force.
In response to this gross violation of Humanitarian and Public International Law, the UN General
Assembly adopted a resolution (A/RES-10/L.15) on the 21st of October 2003 drafted by European States
calling for the stop and reverse the building works of this wall.
In the same resolution, the General Assembly asks the Secretary General to provide with a regular report
on the way the provisions of this resolution regarding the stop and reverse the building works are
respected, the first report being due within one month. The resolution states that new measures should be
taken by the UN organizations if necessary.
We ask the members of the international community and the European States in particular, authors of this
resolution, to follow up this procedure. In case the Israeli government refuses to comply with the
obligations of this resolution, the appropriate measures to a so patent violation of Humanitarian and
Public International Law have to be adopted. The EU countries can agree to have the Security Council
deploy peace keeping forces on the Green Line, as recommended by the European Parliament on the 23d
of October 2003, or take adequate countermeasures namely the suspension of association and/or
cooperation agreements in the framework of the EU.
A request for an advisory opinion before the International Court of Justice on the consequences of the
refusal to abide by the request of stop and reverse the construction of the wall can also be considered.
Made in Brussels, 24th of October 2003.
Participants:
Brabandere Eric (de) (assistant and researcher in international law at Gent University, Belgium)
Dubuisson François (assistant and researcher in international law at the Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Belgium)
Gallo Domenico (magistrate, Roma, Italy)
Gillmann Christiane (barrister in Paris, France)
Hatam Shirin (Comité international des juristes pour les droits de l'homme, Genèva, Switzerland)
Nart Javier (barrister in Barcelona, Spain)
O'Keeffe Roger (lecturer in International Law, University of Cambridge, United Kindom)
Waart Paul (de) (Profesor Emeritus of International Law, Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Weerts Laurence (assistant and researcher in international law at the Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Belgium)
Reporters: P. Galand, chairman of ECCP
A. Bertrand-Sanz, lawyer and coordinator