The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on the legal implications of the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, demarcating the territories of Israel and the West Bank in 2004. The Court unanimously concluded that it had jurisdiction to decide this case and, by fourteen votes to one, it recognized that the State of Israel, in constructing the wall, had violated several obligations of international law. The Court indicated that the construction of the Wall violated several obligations under international law. the Wall and "its associated regime create a 'fait accompli' on the ground which could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel, it would amount to a de facto annexation". ICJ, Israel had to stop all new construction of the wall, dismantle all parts of the wall already constructed and return the repair to the injured party, including all damages related to this issue. Taking into account that some of the violated norms were erga omnes – concerns the entire international community – not all states “recognize the illegal situation” and should not assist Israel in its violations. In 2004, the United Nations General Assembly voted by one hundred and fifty votes to six to uphold the opinion of the International Court. of Justice.The context of the lawThe Court analyzed the applicable rules of international law while designating the facts linked to the construction of the Wall. First of all, by constructing the Wall, Israel is not complying with several major international obligations undertaken by In Annex I of the Secretary-General's report, it is stated that, according to Israel: "the construction of the barrier is middle of paper… positions, regime, weather and personalities”. Therefore, comprehensive details on protection embedded in IHL would promote the general provisions of international human rights law and could improve it through more enforceable and effective approaches. It is obvious that the wall does not constitute a simple construction barrier. , which annexes land, separates people, separates them from access to water and other vitally important resources, but there is a gap between human rights, the rule of law, customary law and the political will supported by the superpowers not to conform to universally accepted erga omnes norms. The unanimous acceptance of this question by the judges of the International Court of Justice gives all human beings of humanity the feeling that the world is always on the "right" side of the road, which leads to human dignity, the rule of law. law and human rights.