CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Veronika D’Evereux CYIL 12 (2021) created. 9 Responsible states remain obliged to fulfil the breached obligations. 10 The responsible state is also obliged to provide full reparation for the injury caused by an internationally wrongful act, while the injury includes any damage, whether material or moral. 11 The states should carry out the form of full reparation of the injury caused by the internationally wrongful acts, and the full reparation shall take the form of restitution (restoration to the original state), compensation, and satisfaction, either singly or in combination with other forms of compensation. If restitution is not realistically possible, material compensation can be considered. The state responsible for the internationally illegal act has an obligation to provide with satisfaction if the injury cannot be compensated by restitution or compensation. Satisfaction may consist of acknowledgment of violation, regret, formal apology, or other similar and appropriate means. However, satisfaction must not be disproportionate to harm and cannot take a degrading effect on the responsible state. 12 Theoretically speaking, it is possible to consider what specific steps the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority could be taken in relation to fulfilment of their responsibility for possible violations of international humanitarian law. The author believes that the State of Israel should primarily remove the security barrier, otherwise the construction, which the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion called the Israeli-Palestinian Wall and provide with full reparations, i.e., not only restore the terrain but also to compensate the Arab inhabitants which were affected by this construction. The State of Israel should also end the military occupation of the West Bank and relocate its citizens from West Bank settlements back to Israeli territory, on the grounds that the state pursuing the military occupation is not entitled to relocate its civilians to the territory of another state of the territory of which it occupies. A separate question then remains how the State of Israel should deal with the settlements, which are equipped with all the infrastructure needed for housing. In the case of an end of the occupation of the Gaza Strip, the State of Israel proceeded to demolish most of the real estates used by the Israeli citizens. In this case, it can be considered that the demolition of all Israeli settlements could be a very disproportionate form of restitution, and rather it might not be desirable to restore the landscape to its original state, which corresponded to the desert. A solution in the form of compensation, in which these settlements could be made available to Palestinian citizens, might eventually seem more appropriate in this case. The end of all military operations and actions would be a matter of course. In the case of Palestine, it could be found that all terrorist acts, including, ideally, a total ban or dissolution of the ideological base of Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, while reassuring the other party that there will be no recurrence of violence. Both the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority could provide each other with the satisfaction of acknowledging violations of international law, expressing regret, and, above all, considering concluding a peace treaty. The parties might also consider agreeing on a full demilitarization of the region. In the future, there could be mutual recognition of the States of Israel and Palestine, once Palestine has fully developed its statehood from the point of view of international law, and the establishment of diplomatic relations.

9 ONDŘEJ, J., MRÁZEK, J., KUNZ, O. ibidem pp. 79–81. 10 Čl. 29 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, ibidem. 11 Čl. 31 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, ibidem. 12 ONDŘEJ, J., MRÁZEK, J., KUNZ, O. pp. 213–214.

36