Soccer Dad

Rending Fences

The advisory opinion of the International Kangaroo Court of Injustice (thanks to LGF for the nickname) was hardly surprising. 14 of the 15 judges ruled against Israel. Judges from England, the Netherlands and Japan ruled against Israel depsite - as noted by David Makovsky and Ben Thien

All major industrial countries opposed referral and many issued written statements basically arguing that the IJC should not adopt an advisory opinion, including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, the entire European Union (EU), Japan, and Canada.

Makovsky's and Thien's article underscores another hypocrisy - 3 of the countries referring the case to the ICJ have built their own security fences: Turkey, India and Saudi Arabia.
While the judges invoked international law, Laurence E. Rothenberg and Abraham Bell in ISRAEL'S ANTI-TERROR FENCE:THE WORLD COURT CASE argue that the ruling in part violates international law. (When the PLO agree to Oslo it agreed not to pursue its dispute with Israel in any venue except for bilateral negotiations. This would be the most benign of the PLO's violations of Oslo.
In its summary of its decision the ICJ writes:

The Court considers further whether Israel could rely on a state of necessity which would preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. In this regard, citing its decision in the case concerning the Gabčíkovo‑Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), it observes that the state of necessity is a ground recognized by customary international law that “can only be invoked under certain strictly defined conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied” (I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 40, para. 51), one of those conditions being that the act at issue be the only way for the State to guard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril. In the light of the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction. While Israel has the right, and indeed the duty to respond to the numerous and deadly acts of violence directed against its civilian population, in order to protect the life of its citizens, the measures taken are bound to remain in conformity with applicable international law. Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.

This is not the same view of the Israeli Supreme Court that "...democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back," this is a view that essentially gives the terrorists the right to act with little or no resistance. The ICJ insists that the democratic Israel fight terror, fully manacled and blindfolded. This ruling is a disgrace to the notion of the rule of law.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad

Posted by SoccerDad at July 11, 2004 6:56 AM