Yet another problem with the ICJ ruling on the wall
Posted by aogThursday, 15 July 2004 at 17:53 TrackBack Ping URL

Backspin points out that the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice on the Israeli Security Wall denies the right of self defense to the state of Israel because ‘”in the case of an armed attack by one state against another state”:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/14/EDGVN7KDLB1.DTL’. I.e., the Palestinian terror attacks don’t count because they aren’t a state. Yet the claim of jurisdiction by the ICJ is based on a Palestinian state, since the ICJ can only provide rulings on issues between states. Much of the early part of the document is concerned with this, yet when it’s inconvenient it’s just discarded. And people defend this as some sort of “law” rather than political opinion.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
pj Friday, 16 July 2004 at 12:13

Technically they weren’t actually giving a ruling, just an advisory opinion, and they say they don’t need jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. They only have jurisdiction over state-to-state disputes in which both states consent, and Israel didn’t consent, so recognizing a Palestinian state wouldn’t have gotten them jurisdiction. Had Israel consented, they might well have recognized a Palestinian state.

Your main point stands in spite of all these technicalities: international “law” is really just the opinion of a select group of international lawyers, nothing more, and so it’s not really constrained by legal issues like jurisdiction.

End of Discussion