World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal-Document

[donsu]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20040709/wl_nm/mideast_barrier_dc


The World Court will say on Friday that Israel's barrier in the West Bank should be torn down as it is illegal and has imposed hardship on thousands of Palestinians, a leaked copy of its ruling showed.

It urged the United Nations (news - web sites) to follow up with action, which could heighten Israeli concern about a move to impose sanctions -- as immediately demanded by Palestinian officials who said the court's judgment had branded Israel an "outlaw state."

Israel said it would disregard the decision and repeated that the barrier was vital to keeping out suicide bombers.

-snip-

A spokesman for President Bush (news - web sites) brushed aside the ruling. He said the World Court, formally the International Court of Justice, was not the right place to settle the issue:

"This is an issue that should be resolved through the process that has been put in place, specifically the road map," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
-snip-
------------------------------


there is a pic with the article. an ariel view showing the crookedness of the wall: zigs and zags, corners and angles. made me think of the nursery rhyme - there was a crooked man, who had a crooked wife, who built a crooked house, who built a crooked fence.....

[newyorican]

1. "Ariel view"

Freudian slip?

[donsu]

2. must have been :)

no, I was out sick the day they taught spelling.

[newyorican]

3. US Judge dissents...

Judge Thomas Buergenthal of the United States was the only judge to vote against the court's ruling that the construction of the barrier on occupied Palestinian territory breached international law.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5631690

Just a preview...

[tinnypriv]

4. His opinion is a joke

Reading his full opinion, it reduces to this:

* Israel declared itself exempt from the proceedings.

Therefore:

1. Israel was not obligated to provide the court with any facts, argument or documentation.

Hence, the court did not have the full facts at hand when deciding the case (i.e. Israel's reports on suicide attacks, data on prevention etc).

Therefore, the court should have recused itself from attempting to form an opinion.

Unless, the court was deciding a "contentious" case, rather than being asked for an advisory opinion!

One problem: that's impossible, since the Palestinians don't have a state, and any state that tried to bring one on their behalf would be vilfied and subject to US threats and maybe retaliation. Surely known to Mr Buergenthal.

He also states that had he been a judge in a non-advisory case on the wall, he'd probably rule against Israel, at least to judge by this:

"I share the Court’s conclusion that international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel. I accept that the wall is causing deplorable suffering to many Palestinians living in that territory. In this connection, I agree that the means used to defend against terrorism must conform to all applicable rules of international law and that a State which is the victim of terrorism may not defend itself against this scourge by resorting to measures international law prohibits."

Essentially the total content of the opinion he just rejected - or more accurately, the opinion he accepts, but rejects, because it was stated in public.