scholarly journals Advisory opinion of the international court of justice in the “wall case” in the service of a possible solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 338-352
Author(s):  
Senad Ganic
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Beneficial Impact ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Surprising Fact ◽  
The Way

The Arab-Israeli conflict even today represents one of the most complex problems facing the international community. The biggest controversy of the problem lies in the conflicting interpretations of the reasons offered by both sides. The way to overcome this impasse, is precisely the way recourse to international institutions. For this reason, the surprising fact is, that one very important decision of The International Court of Justice, it seems, remained unjustly neglected, especially if we take into account the importance of the issues which the Court dealt and the beneficial impact that this decision may have in the process of resolving the conflict in the Middle East. We believe that Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory hides the way to a possible solution of this exhausting conflict. To consider because it comes to a legal analysis of the situation, which was given by the authorities in whose objectivity we supposed not to suspect as we supposed not to doubt on the objectivity of international law. Therefore, we consider it important to once again remind the decision, believing that in this way we can help to better understand the nature of this conflict, but also the reasons which indicate its possible peaceful solution.

Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel’s Security Wall

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Folk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a security wall on occupied Palestinian territory, declaring that the wall was in violation of international law. The advisory opinion also indicated that Israel should forthwith cease construction of the wall, dismantle what had been so far constructed, and make reparations to the Palestinians for all damages caused by the project. On July 20, 2004, at the Tenth Emergency Session of the General Assembly, Resolution ES-10/15 was adopted by a vote of 150 in favor, 6 opposed, and 10 abstentions, demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations as specified by the advisory opinion.

Smoke, Mirrors and Killer Whales: the International Court's Opinion on the Israeli Barrier Wall

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 1107-1131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Scobbie
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Killer Whales ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Occupied Palestinian Territory ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Near Unanimity ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Barrier Wall

One of the consequences of the method the International Court of Justice employs to draft its pronouncements is that, at times, its reasoning is less candid than one might desire. The Court's advisory opinion on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of 9 July 2004 provides a clear example. To reach unanimity, or near unanimity, on the points decided, one can only assume that the judges bargained hard over the discursive normative component of the Opinion.

The 2004 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 450-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Crook
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
State Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Crown Prince ◽  
Palestinian Territory

During 2004 the International Court of Justice decided three important matters. In March the Court found that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations with respect to a number of Mexican nationals sentenced to death in U.S. state court proceedings. In a much-noted advisory opinion, the Court concluded in July that Israel's construction of a security wall or fence in occupied Palestinian territory violated international law. And in December it found that it did not have jurisdiction over Serbia and Montenegro's claims against eight NATO countries regarding NATO's 1999 bombing campaign aimed at halting the conflict in Kosovo. In other developments, the Court heard and had under deliberation Germany's preliminary objections to Liechtenstein's suit regarding certain property of Crown Prince Adam. Finally, Judge Gilbert Guillaume, a member of the Court since 1987 and its former president, announced that he would resign in February 2005.

Canada and Namibia

1980 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 314-323
Author(s):  
Livia Meret
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Consequences

In 1971 The International Court of Justice in an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia concluded that the mandate for South-West Africa had been validly terminated by the General Assembly in Resolution 2145 (XXI) of October 27, 1966, and that “the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under an obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory.” Further, the Court said that:States Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa’s presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and, in particular, any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration.

The Absence of State Consent to Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice: Judicial and Political Restraints

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-207
Author(s):  
Mahasen Aljaghoub
Keyword(s):  
Main Role ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Integral Role ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, (UN) and its Statute is an integral part of the UN's Charter. The court's integral role within the UN has largely been misunderstood especially in the way the court has viewed its advisory jurisdiction. The ICJ always asserts that the delivery of an advisory opinion represents its participation in the UN's work and thus, in the absence of compelling reasons, a request for an opinion ought not to be refused. Some commentators note that the principle that the ICJ must participate in the work of the Organisation might sometimes conflict with its judicial character, which might result in not embracing the philosophy of “judicial restraint” in the court's advisory jurisdiction. They also contend that the absence of consent in advisory cases has led the court to overlook its judicial restraint. This article argues that those commentators have overlooked the main role of the ICJ's advisory function in clarifying the law and providing guidance for future action by the UN organs, and has consequently called for applying the principle of consent as a condition for giving an advisory opinion on questions relating to disputes pending between States. In the present article, the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory opinion is analysed to see whether the absence of Israeli consent has undermined the ICJ's judicial character. The author is of the view that the court, as the principal judicial organ of the UN, should, by a cautious judicial policy, provide enlightenment to the UN and participate to achieving its goals while at the same time adhering to its judicial character.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document