In Part II of my series on my mission to Israel, I discussed what I learned about international law. I signaled that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would soon issue an opinion concerning the status of the West Bank, known as Judea and Samaria. That ruling came on Friday. To no one's surprise, the ICJ found that Israel was occupying the territory in violation of international law.
There is a single opinion of the Court, combined with fourteen separate writings. (There are fifteen members of the Court). You can save yourself some time, and jump to the only member who dissented from the entire decision, Judge Julia Sebutinde of Ugande. Here is the summary of her opinion:
The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the request for an advisory opinion—However, in exercising its discretion judiciously and maintaining the integrity of its judicial role, the Court should have refrained from rendering the advisory opinion requested—The Advisory Opinion omits the historical backdrop crucial to understanding the multifaceted Israeli-Palestinian dispute and is tantamount to a one-sided "forensic audit" of Israel's compliance with international law—The Advisory Opinion does not reflect a balanced and impartial examination of the pertinent legal and factual questions—It is imperative to grasp the historical nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the competing territorial claims of the parties in former British Mandatory Palestine, as well as the previous and ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict through the negotiation framework identified by the Security Council—The Court lacks adequate, accurate, balanced and reliable information before it to enable it to judiciously arrive at a fair assessment and conclusions on the disputed questions of fact—The Advisory Opinion not only circumvents Israel's consent to the Court's resolution of the issues involved, but also circumvents and potentially jeopardizes the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding negotiation framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—The Advisory Opinion also contains several shortcomings, in particular with respect to its answer to Question 2—The timeline proposed by the Court for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories is impracticable and disregards the matters agreed upon in the existing negotiating framework, the security threats posed to Israel and the need to balance competing sovereignty claims—The Court's application of the principle of full reparation is not appropriate in the circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—The Court has misapplied the law of belligerent occupation and has adopted presumptions implicit in the question of the General Assembly without a prior critical analysis of relevant issues, including the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the territory of the former British Mandate, the question of Israel's borders and its competing sovereignty claims, the nature of the Palestinian right of self-determination and its relationship to Israel's own rights and security concerns—The only avenue for a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the negotiation framework set out in the United Nations and bilateral agreements.
.png?w=600)
