now, just with the more than a 100 people are killed in the past 24 hours of days really strikes target displaced, palestinians, and central and southern guns, news, hello, and associates. this is all just here at life and of breaking points, the head of the un agencies. and how often in refugees says is randy prussia funding freezes, approaches, organizational. yet more than 75 to use the largest diploma city and

people has been to treat it as an exception to the international don't catch on the housing international court of justice that israel's occupation of palestinian territory is a legal and a threat to international security. for on the front line and east of democratic republic of congo with thousands of force to free fighting between the 23 and the minute train the palestinians have enjoyed. and now that night is really at tax targeting areas across the goal is a strip. 60 people were killed in central garza and organized strikes on to crowded refugee camps. overall, a 104 people had been killed in the past 24 hours. based on the heat, you begins on coverage and warning, some of the images you'll see auto stopping. digging in the door using the phones,

flashlight touch, the heavy machinery and the fuel needed to run it are not available to search for bodies. overnight is rarely air strikes, cost further destruction in neighborhoods and central gods. the with more palestinians killed and the injured taken to hospitals barely operating after months of bombing. children who make up nearly half of causes populations filled the treatment rooms of alex the hospital. the un agency unison says at least 17000 children had been orphaned or separated from their families during the war. so far. the number of dead of all ages continues to increase every day that the laws of i'm not the messiah came down and killed 10 of my family members and the whole house got destroyed. my mother is in the intensive care unit. it's like going to be a con to us. this child was born during the war,

the 13th day of the was the hospitals courtyard has become overwhelmed with funding turning a place of healing into one of morning as airstrikes. again, target the cell. it's a similar picture in rough up the city once considered as the last remaining safe. so that i mean to be left there because when we were sleeping peacefully at home, my brother called crying my sister and all her children were killed. they were all innocent civilians. my sister was killed with her children, including her 2 year old daughter and 3 year old son did already an old special offer. and the good, this is our gift. on the advent of the holy month of ramadan government, new bombs and missiles from the us, instead of enforcing a ceasefire and letting the displaced return home, the americans in israel is continued to kill up them all families, oliver guys are struggling to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and are

finding little room to mourn the dead with no end in sight to the as rarely bombardment. that'd make you cheat out 0. well, do you an agency for palestinian refugees under a says it's reached breaking point. as israel puts more pressure to dismantle the agency, 16 countries including the u. s. u k, and germany have suspended funding, totaling some $450000000.00 under a chief felipe. and as it really says, the agency's ability to fulfill its mandate is now on the serious threat. adding to that moving a 150 or more facilities have been targeted by is really as strikes since the war began. as i spoke to tomorrow, i'll revise folks one minute for and i'd be gone by asking just how much longer and i can survive without adequate funding. we go through us for a few more weeks. thanks to the news. the for the new funding we got from some of our donors who are still supporters of the agency and believe or is in the mission

of the despite the decision by some of our other largest builders. this is better. so for example, ireland just gave us $20000000.00 euros. for example, we managed to advance the payments by some of our donors. so payment that was supposed to be scheduled for later in the year. it was paid in advance to allow us to hold on for another few weeks. and the real question is, will that take you now to the hague, where the international court of justice is on the 5th day of hearings and to israel's occupation of palestine entire trees. the 1st representative from the british delegation. you see how this tale langrish, she's a legal advisor and director general of legal at the phone come up and development office is beginning, have presentation that says, and then in participating in these proceedings, the united kingdom underlines its respect and continued support for the quote. oh position on this right, the palestinian dispute as long established we firmly believe between negotiated 2

state solution is the only way to end as far as occupation to develop a palestinian self determination and to preserve israel's identity and security about police has found it on the relevant security council resolutions and the policies existing agreements. recent events only reinforced the importance and urgency of implementing the existing framework. on the 7th of october, israel, suffolk, the worst terrorist attack in its history. how much this terrorist attacks. and you can see you and conflicting garza have resulted in tragic and large scale loss of life and injury to civilians. palestinians not face a desperate humanitarian crisis. in garza, the united kingdom wants to see an immediate suspension of the fighting and garza and then progress towards the sustainable permanency spa. it is essential to ensure

irreversible momentum towards the 2 state solution guaranteeing security justice and peace for both the palestinians and israelis. the united kingdom has own the address, much as a propriety and a switch and statement process in the merits of the request. it takes the same approach and these oral submissions in doing so, united kingdom should not be taken to accept any financial obligation or legal proposition fall in spite of the participants. over the course of this week, we have heard such and characterizations of israel's actions which we don't accept . we have also heard characterizations of our own conduct and the motivation for it which we in fact to keep reject. we are confident that the court to find the knowledge is with unrelated cases, to be entirely unhelpful. what my says is the case before it today. the united

kingdom confines that submissions to relevant matches of legal principles. so it'd be fine just on the quotes and jurisprudence. we submit the terms with the request to not allowed the quote to give an opinion in a manner consistent with its traditional functions. the united kingdom will focus today on 3 key points concerning propriety, which will be developed by professor, sorry she fail. first. a scam type depend on so a convention principle in this case. second, the unsuitability of the fact find the exercise that the quote would have to conduct to own. so the request as presently framed set the effective security council resolutions 242 and 338. each of these points independently provides a cogent reason for declining to wants the request the quote to have

a have a will have observed the task search reason, because i'll keep quite a particularly permanent place in the participants. schools submissions shoots the quote to be mind to, to issue and opinion. then the united kingdom with respect for the jet to reformulate the questions to concentrate on the security council framework. in this scenario, the court should focus on assisting the general assembly in supporting urgent progress towards a negotiated solution. i will address this point, including the united kingdom submissions later. but 1st, mister president, i invite you to give the floor to professor sylvie. she to address issues of propriety language i and i'll give you the flow to progressive a saddle she you have before. so mister president, members of the court, it is an honor to appear before you on behalf of the united kingdom. i shall 1st

address the non set convention principle. the quote's jurisprudence has long recognized the distinction between its advisory and contentious jurisdictions. the court has held consistently, but its advisory jurisdiction cannot be used to one to mind the fundamental requirement of state consent for that it should not provide a form of judicial recalls for parties. nor should the court resolve. disputes between parties usually gets advisory jurisdiction. instead, the quotes advisory function is to offer legal advice to the you and organs requesting the opinion in order to assist them in their activities. let me be clear . the gnostic kingdom does not submit to the state whose rights all duties may be affected by an opinion can prevent the court from giving an opinion rather

consistent with the court's jurisprudence. the united kingdom submission is that wherever request is by quote, directly related to the main points of a dispute between 2 parties. then the court should refrain from giving an opinion in the woods of the court in western sahara to give an opinion in such a case, i quote, would have the effect of circumventing the principle that a quote is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial set 2 months without it's consent was quite if the quote was the last of the request as currently formulated would entail a breach of the non such convention. principle. united kingdom makes full points. the 1st relates to the nature and content of the by that true dispute, it is more than a me a difference of use. it is

a dispute of acute sensitivity. it is long standing. it concerns the status of israel's occupation. issues of securities and the conditions under which israel 10 and should withdrawal from the occupied palestinian territories. second, the court engages sorry the the request engages that cool dispute to the general assembly box the court to consider the express terms and rule long. but the legal status of the occupied territories and the legal consequences of that status . the quote is also invited to make findings of these really responsibility in relation to its policies and practices. this engages key permanent status issues which are with the house of these writing palestinian dispute, including on jerusalem,

on settlements on security arrangements and on board is indeed a key participant, has described the assemblies request as taking the entire palestine question to be looked at by the highest course in the globe. the 3rd point concerns the relief requested. the court is asked to determine that israel is occupation is unlawful. and to order that these roles should withdrawal immediately from the occupied territories as a result. over the course of this hearing, the court has repeatedly been requested to order israel's immediate unconditional unto to withdrawal. this repeated insistence further demonstrates that the court is being asked to decide the main points of the dispute,

which several states recognize. finally, his royal has not consented to the main points of the dispute being resolved by this court. to the contrary, it is asked the court to refuse to respond to the request. given the contents of the request this courtney formulation, there is just no basis on which the court should answer it. the participants have identified 2 main cancer arguments as to why the quote should proceed to answer the request. first, they say the court can determine key issues relation to the parties by that to dispute. because it is often brought a concern to the you with. their argument relies on the quotes recognition in the wall opinion that the general assembly has a permanent responsibility towards the question of palestine. the result they say is that the request arises, quote, in a much broader frame of reference than

a bilateral dispute. with the respect, the united kingdom disagrees. the general assembly is consideration of a bilateral dispute. does not mean that the non circumvention principle is in a political. if it did, the principal would never apply in any advisory proceedings. since then, he bought a dispute on which the assembly made a request would always full within the so called broad a frame of reference. such an approach would deprive the non sec dimension principal of whole practical application. this approach of the united kingdom is consistent with the will opinion that opinion did not concern the core aspects of the is riley palestinian dispute, the quoted soul, except that it could not properly address what it referred to as the great. so hold

of the dispute judge higgins characterized that approach as wise and correct. judge karema was careful to distinguish the request in the will case from any such brutal request. the consent is reading palestinian conflict. a search for its resolution. the judge auto accepted that the court spencer should not quite be tense amount to adjudicating on the very subject matter of the underlying concrete by law to dispute. the currently undoubtedly exist between israel and palestine, relates in point of several participants have advanced. is that these really palestinian dispute is multi lot fully character because it concerns the on these obligations. the fact that a bother to dispute may involve obligations in which states have

a collective interest. does not of the, the need for consent for that dispute to be resolved before the court. nor does it change the fact that there are 2 participants involved in that by that to dispute. the 2nd counter argument on set convention is that the non binding nature of advisory opinions means that a court kind of pine on a bilateral dispute. like the 1st argument, this would deprive the non circumvention principles of all practical application. by definition, mister president, boil advisory opinions on non binding. and so the principal would never apply in any advisory proceedings. this ignores that the court is being asked to make findings about his rouse liability and responsibility for various alleged breaches

of international law that are central to the bye left to dispute. the court would, in substance be deciding on the main points of the dispute. if it were to answer the request as formulate as, and that is precisely the problem that the non circumvention principle is intended to avoid, to this submission also, it knows that serious legal consequences may result from the court's findings. this risk is even more pronounced since several participants off the court to make legal determination for the express purpose of clarifying the more relevant to the policies negotiations. in some, the principle of non circumvention is engaged in this case. as the president, members of the court, if this fundamental legal principle is ever to have any real meaning or application,

the court must decline to answer the request as courtesy formulated by now to into the united kingdom's argument concerning the court spectrum inquiry. let me be clear, the united kingdom is not questioning the quotes, confidence to make factual findings. the court can't, of course, do so, and the united kingdom does not suggest otherwise. nor is there any doubt that the information and evidence available to the court is voluminous. rather, it is the sheer scale and complexity of the factual determinations that would need to be made by the court in these advisory proceedings, which is the problem. if united kingdom is not the only participant to raise this issue, allow me to highlight a few features of the factual determination process. in this case. the request in the present case makes no attempt to set out is factual basis. this stands in stark

contrast to the will opinion. in that case, the request by the general assembly was based on assumed facts described in a single report by the un secretary general as one to participate in eclipse. and as the quotes choose fruitless reflects. this means that it is for the court in exercising its judicial function to independently evaluate the factual materials that have been submitted to it. in this case, the requests asked the court to determine a long list of legal issues and make the necessary factual findings to support them . this is by reference to the ty, factual records stretching back some 57 years and the you in dusty a spending nearly 30000 pages. as a matter of practicality, it is unclear how the court can properly make the broad range of findings required to answer the request. and consider such a volume of material,

especially when exercising its advisory jurisdiction with the code cannot fall back upon considerations a burden of proof. it is no answer to assume that the cold can defer to the reports of human bodies. the court must reach its own independent findings. of fact, we emphasize that several states, including the united kingdom, have expressed reservations about these un reports. the quotes task is further complicated by factual landscape that's rep rapidly shifting in the context of an ongoing and this conflict. this creates the serious risk that the quote may truly conclusions on an incorrect factual basis. the problem is further heightened by the gravity of the accusations leveled against these ro, where it is not a policy, and with the proceedings of the expedited. as this quote has long recognized quite

planes against the states involving charges of exceptional gravity must be proved by evidence that is fully conclusive. or in some, the united kingdom submits that there is a serious risk that the quote by under minus judicial function by giving an advisory opinion in such a context. mister president, members of the court, i now turn to the existing framework. the 3rd point for resolving the parties dispute and its impact on these proceedings. the court is well aware of the agreed framework for a permanent settlement of the parties, disputes as containing security council resolutions, $242.33 a. and then the policies entering the agreements, the precise terms a resolution to fall to a worth recalling. they identified the 2 independent principles of withdrawal and securities to which the court was referred on wednesday. to be clear,

this resolution does not determine that the occupation is unlawful. the terms of the resolution like displaying the security council and the general assembly continued to endorse this framework. most recently in december 2023, the counselor, and it's on waiver and commitment to a 2 state solution. both organs also continue to recognize that a permanent settlement requires and negotiated solution under the auspices of the us. many states and these proceedings have emphasized the need for a negotiated solution and the importance of preserving the great framework in the context of these proceedings. the united kingdom shares these views. the parties agreed framework provides a further basis for declining to answer the request. that framework envisages the

negotiation. a visuals withdrawal, not a court decision requiring it. in response to this submission, 3 main points are being raised by all the participants. first to the said, the negotiation process has been store for some time. this does not negate the validity of the security council framework, nor does it change the reality. that integrated solution under the union's offices is the only possible way in which the conflict will be resolved. he's on the schools the need to strengthen that process rather than on the minor. second, some participants have referred to the quotes jurisprudence on whether we should take the account of adverse political consequences. when considering propriety the quotes to as prudence requires that to be an objective basis to assess the relevance of such consequences. in this case,

there is an objective basis. it is the established security council framework. the general assemblies general mandate in respect the palestinian question cannot override the security council framework. so it is argued that an opinion will not interfere with the security council framework or with the go see ations conducted under its offices. instead, it is claimed and opinion will assist that process. participants rely on the quotes statement in the wall opinion that negotiations must be conducted in accordance with international law and equivalent language and council resolutions. and sort of the quotes, legal conclusions can and should they say constrained the bases, which those negotiations are conducted with respect to dispose of this argument is flawed. it would undermine the very premise of the counselors framework. if the

quote what to address the status of the occupation and required, as well as rouse withdrawal. as i observed earlier, that framework extremely links withdrawn with the security and applies on a reciprocal basis. then unconditional or directed to any one positive contradicts that fundamental requirement. it also undermines the additional premise that is really withdrawal will be a cheese by negotiation rather than by court opinion. furthermore, an opinion addressing the policies obligations would prejudice then negotiating positions and thus contravene the court's injunction. in interpretation of peace treaties and the western sahara advisory opinions that

i quote, the legal position of the policies to a dispute cannot be in any way compromised by the answers that the court might give to the questions put to it. for these reasons, the united kingdom respectfully request the court to decline the request, as presently formulated a mr. president, i now invite you please, to give it a full back to me is languish. i think perfect. i think professor federal c 9, i'll give the floor to back to mrs. advantage. you have any throwing mother. thank you, mr. president, members of the quote, say professor 3, she has explained why the court should decline towards the request. but if the cost is none, the less minded to provide in the opinion, the united kingdom proposes an alternative course which seeks to respect the existing framework and to ensure the policy is compliance with it. we foreshadow

this approach in our written statement is, has finally reached it in the quotes, jurisprudence. let me stop by recording the quotes recognition in the will opinion that the resolution of the dispute requires the implementation of security council resolutions. in particular, resolutions 242 and 338. this anton requires a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a palestinian state. existing side by side with israel. judge higgins was even more prescriptive. she write clips of the recitations and body key underlying requirements, but the resolution of this, right, the palestinian dispute, namely that israel is entitled to exist to be recognized and to security. and the palestinian people are entitled to that territory to exercise self determination and to have their own state judge higgins for the recall resolution

1515 of 2003 and visit is that these longstanding obligations ought to be secured. most generally does to that detail find negotiations. i have you, what's the quote by quote should have use the latitude available to it in an advisory opinion. she reminded 1st part is not only of the substance of obligations under international but also of the procedural obligation to move forward symbol tenuously the united kingdom of position on the principles for the implementation of resolutions. 242, and 338 has long been clear 1st that must be an agreement on the borders of the 2 states, based on the 296 to 7 lines with the equivalent loan slip between the parties. second, security arrangements for the palestinians must respect best sovereignty and for

israel, they must protect it security for adjust the degrees unrealistic solution to the refugee question must be put in place as fools the aspirations. suffice. policies for jerusalem must be fulfilled through negotiations on the status of jerusalem as the future capital of both states. the united kingdom agrees with those states that judge the quote not to cause prejudice to the existing security council framework. or to decide any aspect of the policies bilateral dispute like other participants, united kingdom recognizes that. so that's an alternative route to respect. propriety is to reinterpret the request. we formulate its terms. there is no question that the power the court has the power to proceed in this way. it.