Down by Law: The High Court of Israel, International Law, and the Separation Wall

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Lynk

In June 2004, the High Court of Israel (HCI) ruled on the ““Beit Sourik”” case in which Palestinian villagers challenged the legality of Israel's separation wall, which had been routed through their villages causing great hardship. This article examines the HCI decision---which upheld the legality of the wall under international law but mandated changes in its route---and the argumentation used. In the process, the article shows how the HCI, despite some disagreements with the state on narrow issues of administrative application, broadly supports the government's policies of occupation, and it explains how the court interprets international law in order to do so. The article also contrasts the HCI's ruling with the nearly simultaneous ruling of the International Court of Justice, highlighting the two courts' very different approaches to international law.

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-114
Author(s):  
Tran Thang Long

AbstractIn international relation, estoppel is a principle whereby a state is not able to say or act against what it said or did before. The theory of estoppel was originated in the past from the English law system, which was later incorporated into international law. Its main purpose is to prevent a State from benefiting from its inconsistent attitudes, and thus, causing damage to another State. Therefore, estoppel must meet the main conditions. First, the expression of the said State leads to the assumption of the estoppel must be clear and non-ambiguous. Second, this expression must be expressed voluntarily, unconditionally and must be well authorized. Third, there must be a goodwill trust from another State into the expression of a State giving that expression, resulting in damage to the State with this trust or to the benefit of the expressive side. The paper examines the principle of estoppel in international law and the practice of applying this principle in cases tried at the International Court of Justice. On that basis, the paper discusses explaining the factors that constitute an estoppel situation for Vietnam in order to reject the China’s wrong interpretation of the 1958 Diplomatic Note of the late Prime Minister Pham Van Dong.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-962
Author(s):  
Nur Rohim Yunus ◽  
Latipah Nasution ◽  
Siti Nurhalimah ◽  
Siti Romlah

The state is a subject of international law who has power or power, so that the state is required not to abuse its authority. State obligations have been regulated in various international legal instruments. The protection of human rights has implications for the emergence of the fulfillment of human rights as a form of state responsibility. The state in this case must ensure to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Therefore, all acts of the state that discriminate against citizens of a certain ethnicity by committing genocide are serious human rights crimes that must be prosecuted by the International Court of Justice. This study uses qualitative research with a sociological and juridical approach. The results of the study state that the State of Indonesia has also regulated the behavior of preventing the crime of genocide in order to protect human rights.Keywords: Genocide; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Abstrak:Negara merupakan subjek hukum internasional yang memiliki kekuasaan atau power, sehingga negara dituntut tidak melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang. Kewajiban negara telah diatur dalam berbagai instrumen hukum internasional. Perlindungan terhadap HAM berimplikasi terhadap munculnya pemenuhan HAM sebagai wujud tanggungjawab negara. Negara dalam hal ini harus memastikan to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Oleh karenanya, segala tindakan negara yang melakukan diskriminasi kepada warga negara dari etnis tertentu dengan melakukan genosida merupakan kejahatan HAM berat yang harus dituntut oleh Mahkamah Internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan sosiologis dan yuridis. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa Negara Indonesia juga telah mengatur perilaku pencegahan tindak kejahatan Genosida guna menjaga HAM.Kata Kunci: Genosida; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Абстрактный:Государство является субъектом международного права, обладающим властью или властью, поэтому от государства требуется не злоупотреблять своей властью. Обязательства государства регулируются различными международно-правовыми документами. Защита прав человека имеет значение для возникновения реализации прав человека как формы ответственности государства. Государство в этом случае должно гарантировать защиту, обеспечение и соблюдение прав человека. Следовательно, все действия государства, дискриминирующие граждан определенной этнической принадлежности путем совершения геноцида, являются серьезными преступлениями в области прав человека, которые должны преследоваться Международным Судом. В данном исследовании используются качественные исследования с социологическим и юридическим подходом. Результаты исследования показывают, что государство Индонезия также регулирует действия по предотвращению преступления геноцида в целях защиты прав человека.Ключевые слова: Геноцид; Ветчина; Чрезвычайное Преступление


Author(s):  
John G. Merrills

In 2015 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave three judgments and made a number of orders. In various ways this jurisprudence, although modest in extent, contributed to the elucidation of international law on several procedural, as well as substantive matters. In that year no new cases were begun, but one case was discontinued. At the beginning of 2016 there were therefore ten cases on the Court’s docket. The Court’s work in 2015 demonstrates that through its decisions it continues to assist states to resolve their international disputes peacefully and at the same time to contribute to the clarification and development of international law.


2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-901
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Geoffrey R. Watson

Mara'Abe v. Prime Minister of Israel. Case No. HCJ 7957/04. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html> (English translation).Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, September 15, 2005.In Mara ‘abe v. Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court held that the routing of a portion of Israel's “security fence” in the northern West Bank violated international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ordered the Israeli government to consider alternative paths for the barrier. The Mara'abe decision expanded on the Court's earlier ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. Israel, in which the Court ordered the rerouting of another segment of the obstacle. Mara ’abe also revealed some of the Israeli Court's views on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory— the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holding that construction of the barrier anywhere in occupied territory violates international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document