SINGAPORE’S EXPLANATION OF VOTE AFTER THE VOTE ON RESOLUTION A/C.4/77/L.12 REV 1 “ISRAELI PRACTICES AFFECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM” AT THE 77TH UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOURTH COMMITTEE, 11 NOVEMBER 2022

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman,

1 I am taking the floor to explain my delegation's vote on the draft resolution A/C4/77/L.12/ Rev1 entitled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem".

2 Mr Chairman, Singapore has voted in favour of this resolution, in line with our consistent approach to this and many other Palestine-related resolutions in the General Assembly. We have expressed longstanding and principled support for a negotiated two-state solution that would allow both Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side in peace and security.

3 It is with that in mind that we wish to place on record our reservations on OP18, which seeks an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the questions set out in that OP.

4 As a matter of principle, we have reservations about the use of the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction to bypass the need for a State’s consent to submit what are essentially political disputes between two parties for adjudication. Even if it is legally permissible for the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ, we do not consider it appropriate to involve the ICJ in this dispute in this manner. The underlying dispute is one concerning territorial boundaries. This can only be settled by negotiation among the parties concerned, or by the binding decision of an appropriate international tribunal to whose adjudication both disputing parties have given consent.  For the Israel-Palestine conflict, Singapore remains of the view that only direct negotiations between both sides will achieve a durable, just and comprehensive solution.

5 We are also of the view that a request for an advisory opinion requires serious consideration and inclusive and open-ended consultations with all delegations, including the parties involved in a dispute. In this instance, there was unfortunately no time for proper consideration and inclusive consultations on this substantive matter which was added to an existing resolution belatedly. 

6 Finally, Singapore wishes to register our position that references to Haram al-Sharif should be referred to as Temple Mount /Haram al-Sharif to reflect its shared and diverse history.

I thank you for your attention.

. . . . .