Much Ado about International Court of Justice Hearing on Israel's Apartheid Wall

By Williams, Ian | Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2004 | Go to article overview

Much Ado about International Court of Justice Hearing on Israel's Apartheid Wall


Williams, Ian, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs


On Jan. 30, over 40 countries, including the U.S. and Israel, submitted written briefs to the International Court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague on the question put to it by the United Nations General Assembly: "What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant security Council and General Assembly resolutions?"

Oral pleadings will take place Feb. 23.

In almost every media report about the court case, Israeli and American spin doctors have managed to insert that the Court's findings are "not binding." That, however, is not the view of most legal experts internationally. True, the Court cannot enforce its judgments-but its findings are an irrefutably authoritative statement of international law. It is ICJ judgments that paved the way for detaching Namibia from apartheid South Africa, and which have been the last bastion against Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara.

And, should Israel persist in its course of action following an unfavorable verdict, it will not be able to plead, as it has done for decades, its own idiosyncratic reading of the law, Instead it will be a clear international scofflaw. This may come as no surprise to Washington Report readers, of course, but will undoubtedly wound the tender sensibilities of many Israel-firsters.

Despite a fairly constant stream of negative statements about the United Nations from Israel and its supporters, the Jewish state does in fact have an existential problem in undermining international law and the United Nations. Unless its attorneys can call Moses and the Lord Almighty into the witness box, Israel's legal statehood depends on a series of decisions made firstly by the League of Nations, and culminating in the United Nations partition resolution of 1947.

For years, however, Israel has benefited from creative ambiguity about the status of its territory and boundaries. In the years prior to 1967, it claimed the "Green Line" as its international boundary. Increasingly the EU and the U.S. have regarded it as such-as did the Israelis before they occupied the West Bank. But since then the Israelis have denied the significance of the Green Line, saying its frontier must be settled in negotiations.

In fact, Israel's only internationally accepted boundary is the partition line of 1947. While this may seem a far-fetched legal fiction, in fact, except for a few heavily bribed governments, most nations have not placed their embassies to Israel in Jerusalem. Their refusal to do so is precisely because, under Resolution 181 that partitioned mandatory Palestine, the city is a "corpus separatum" under United Nations control, and not accepted as Israeli territory.

Despite their public derision, the Israelis are under no illusions about the significance of the case. They have asked the U.S. State Department to hold off publication of its annual country-by-country Human Rights Report until after the World Court delivers its verdict. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon well knows that the State Department will condemn the wall and its consequences for the Palestinians.

The Israeli government also is racing through a hearing on the Wall in the Israeli Supreme Court, in order to get a judgment it can wave about before the ICJ. Reportedly, however, the Israeli attorney general himself is worried that he may not have a convincing enough case even for the relatively tame domestic court. In an attempt to head off criticism, Sharon is dangling carrots such as an adjustment of the wall's route.

Despite the attorney general's worries, the official Israeli line is that the wall is legitimate for self-defense. Since almost no other country in the world accepts that point of view, there should be no rational objection to this moot point being cleared up by the ICJ, the most authoritative body in the field of international law. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Much Ado about International Court of Justice Hearing on Israel's Apartheid Wall
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.