Israel to reject the Hague court's authority on fence

[Scurrilous]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/379407.html

<snip>

"Israel will inform the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague that it rejects its authority to deliberate on the building of the separation fence, senior political sources in Jerusalem said Sunday.

Nevertheless, the sources said, Israel's statement to the ICJ will also present substantial arguments to justify the security need for the fence. These will also help Israel in a future campaign against any negative ruling made by the court."



"On December 8 the UN General Assembly tasked the ICJ with formulating an opinion on "the legal implications of building a wall in occupied Palestinian territory." The opinion has no binding validity, but if it rules against the construction of the fence for legal reasons, Israel will suffer significant political and public relations damage.

The ICJ hearing on the fence will be on February 23, and it has called for arguments in writing by January 30. Israel is sending the written statement but has yet to decide whether to appear for the hearing itself."

[Jim Sagle]

1. Maybe the Hague is named after AL Haig: "I'm in charge here!"

;)

[dudeness]

2. a ruling against Israel

will further alienate Sharon from world opinion..I can only assume Sharon doesn't care in the slightest..but I wonder if all Israelis share that view also..

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Internal matter

If the Hague can claim authority on building a fence, they can claim authority on just about anything. It is ridiculous.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. It's NOT an internal matter...

If the fence was being built inside Israel, then it would be an internal matter, but it's not, so it isn't...

What the ICJ has is the authority to deliberate and come up with legal opinions on matters referred to it, something that's not ridiculous at all...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

5. The Hague doesn't concern itself with the 30-odd wars going on

or the epidemics of AIDS and starvation.

But it concerns itself with a fucking FENCE.


I think we know the reason.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Do you know what the role of the ICJ is?

Why on earth would it deal with AIDS or starvation??

Maybe the reason the fucking fence is its concern is because the issue's been referred to it for legal deliberation. Issues have to be brought before it before it can deliberate...

But tell me, what is the reason *you* think you know?

Violet...

[JohnLocke]

7. Look, Violet...

The ICJ lacks any jurisdiction to rule on the fence.

[Darranar]

9. Why not?

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Yeah, I'd like to know as well...

n/t

[JohnLocke]

28. Well, read this...

It's from the ICJ's own website (you can find it here.)
---------------------------
Jurisdiction
---------------------------
The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:

by the conclusion between them of a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;

by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a disagreement over its interpretation or application, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court. Several hundred treaties or conventions contain a clause to such effect;

through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. The declarations of 64 States are at present in force, a number of them having been made subject to the exclusion of certain categories of dispute.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I've already read it...

What's yr point?

Violet...

[JohnLocke]

32. The point is that Israel has rejected the Court's authority...

...and therefore the ICJ has no jurisdiction.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Yes, the ICJ does have jurisdiction...

We're not talking about a dispute between states, John, we're talking about the ICJ having the authority to issue an advisory ruling, which it does not require the approval of any individual state to do. I posted a link to information on advisory rulings in post 19. You should go and read it...


Violet...

[JohnLocke]

36. I know about the advisiory ruling...

...however, some people here seem to think this is binding.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Then what's yr problem??

Why are you trying to argue that it's not the jurisdiction of the ICJ to deliberate on cases that are referred to them? Of course it's within its jurisdiction...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. The fence IS built on territory under Israeli control

As such, the Hague has no role in this.

[Darranar]

10. International law applies in occupied territories.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. And every nation builds things

Are you going to give international courts jurisdiction over every new bit of construction?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Not walls in occupied territory...

And as has been explained to you already, because the wall is not being built inside Israel, but in territory that it's occupying, it is well and truly within the jurisdiction of the ICJ to deliberate on the issue...

Violet...

[newyorican]

14. Well, we've got a Burger King in Iraq...

at least it's not Piggly Wiggly...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Territory

So, that means the U.S. can't build roads in Guam or Puerto Rico?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Occupied territory, Muddle...

I think there may be some differences between an occupying power occupying territory and Territories such as Puerto Rico and Norfolk Island, for example, though I expect most Puerto Ricans would have some major problems if the US started building settlements and roads solely for mainland US citizens all over Puerto Rico...


Yr claim that the ICJ has no right to issue an advisory opinion about the legality of the construction of the wall is incorrect. Do you know anything about the role of the ICJ and what cases it issues rulings on? Here's a link for you to read...

The Court At A Glance

Advisory Opinions

The advisory procedure of the Court is open solely to international organizations. The only bodies at present authorized to request advisory opinions of the Court are five organs of the United Nations and 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.

On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity of presenting written or oral statements. The Court's advisory procedure is otherwise modelled on that for contentious proceedings, and the sources of applicable law are the same. In principle the Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character and are therefore not binding as such on the requesting bodies. Certain instruments or regulations can, however, provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be binding.

Since 1946 the Court has given 24 Advisory Opinions, concerning inter alia admission to United Nations membership, reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, territorial status of South-West Africa (Namibia) and Western Sahara, judgments rendered by international administrative tribunals, expenses of certain United Nations operations, applicability of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, the status of human rights rapporteurs, and the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

Yr going to have an impossible job trying to argue that it's outside the Court's jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions in this particular case. The reality is that it can and it will be...

And just in case the common 'argument' of 'They're Obsessed With Israel And Don't Bother About Anything Else!!' gets dragged out yet again by some folk, this is a handy guide for them to take a quick look at before inserting foot in mouth ;)

List of Cases brought before the Court since 1946

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Puerto Rico was taken during war

If Puerto Ricans suddenly poses a threat to the lives of Americans we built a wall splitting part of the island, we would be within our rights as the governing authority for the land.

Oh, the ICJ can ISSUE whatever opinions it wants. It just has no right to expect them to be carried out and no authority to make it so.

[bluesoul]

21. That's not very progressive

thinking...

[GabysPoppy]

22. So what would be in this instance

I would love to hear what a progressive has to say about the gentleman's remark.

[bluesoul]

23. Respect international law

and the ICJ. That's as progressive and liberal as it get as far as law is concerned.

[GabysPoppy]

24. Then by your logic

You should condemn the Arab countries surrounding Israel for massing on it's borders and attacking it once Israel was declared a state by the United Nations.

Or is the United Nations only relevant when you want it to be?

[bluesoul]

26. I have no love for those

violating UN resolutions, conventions and international law. That includes those Arab countries you talking about that attack others...

[GabysPoppy]

27. And I have seen that where?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Go look in the archives...

This whole subthread is totally ridiculous. Bluesoul has never ever said or implied anything other than there should be a respect from all for international law....

Maybe you'd care to actually discuss the upcoming ICJ case? Maybe you'd like to tell us all whether you think all states should respect international law?

Violet...

[Gimel]

29. A non-binding advisory

Since the request was sent to the ICJ for an opinion, not based on a treaty or a dispute that was brought by both parties to the conflict, there is only an advisory capacity available.

While Israel is not likely to totally disregard the advice given, it is non-binding. Perhaps it will provide a step in resolving the conflict.

The success of previous judgments can not be viewed without purchasing the documents. Only the case about the status of West African territory seems remotely similar to the I/P conflict and the issue of the separation fence. The area required to build the fence is about a quarter of a mile in width. Both sides should share in the project to make it fair. Both sides should give up land and resources. Maybe deduct half of the cost from tax receipts due the PA.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. It is NOT occupied territory, Muddle...

Puerto Rico has zero to do with yr claim that the ICJ has no jurisdication to issue advisory rulings when it comes to the construction of the fence in Palestinian territory. If you want to talk away about Puerto Rico, here's not really the place for it...

Don't you understand what an advisory ruling is?? It's non-binding, and it's never been claimed that they are, so I've got no idea what on earth you think yr arguing...

Did you go and read the links I gave you to look at?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. I know it's non-binding

It's also entirely interfering in the actions of an independent nation which should give it all the attention it deserves.

None.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyorican]

39. 3 things...

1. In 1897 home rule was established for the first time by the Autonomic Charter granted by the Spanish government and Puerto Rico was given the status of a Spanish dominion. This autonomy was short lived, however, as the United States defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War and was ceded Puerto Rico in 1898.

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3684/history.html

Muddle quote: "Puerto Rico was taken during war"

2. Shoot-Out on Pennsylvania Avenue

Thanks to the actions of the men assigned to protect him, President Harry S. Truman survived a harrowing attempt on his life by two Puerto Rican nationalists.

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blpennsylvania1.htm

3. Attack on U.S. Congress, March 1, 1954

muddle quote: If Puerto Ricans suddenly poses a threat to the lives of Americans we built a wall splitting part of the island, we would be within our rights as the governing authority for the land."

Next time talk about your own point of origin in the hopes that your knowledge of the region will be less laughable. Puerto Ricans ARE Americans...this is so effing funny...

[Gimel]

25. It would be "occupied"

If the Palestinians had accepted statehood in 1948, but they didn't. It would be occupied, if there were any agreed boundaries, but there aren't. If the Hague can dictate boundaries, and set up a Palestinian State dedicated to living in peace within it's borders, more power to it.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. It is occupied...

The West Bank and Gaza ARE occupied territory. That has zero to do with whether or not the Palestinians accepted statehood in 1948....

The role of the ICJ isn't to dictate boundaries or set up states. In this particular case, it's role is to hand down an advisory opinion. For information on the role of the ICJ, read this:

The Court at a Glance


Violet...

[newyorican]

12. previous thread

Intl Court hearings on separation fence to begin Feb. 23

[newyorican]

16. a better one

Israel will cooperate with Intl Court on security fence Oh yeah?