There seems to be a disagreement on what a 'non-binding' judgement of the International Court of Justice represents. I'm taking the view that the court looks at the law and looks at Israel's actions and then decides whether Israel is breaking the law or not. The ruling in 2004 is unequivocably clear - Israel is breaking international law:
Ruling of the ICJ
On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its opinion against the barrier, calling for it to be removed and the Arab residents to be compensated for any damage done. The Court advised that the United Nations General Assembly, which had asked for the ruling, and the Security Council should act on the issue.
The ICJ opinions were as follows:
The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law;
Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;
Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;
The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
The opinion were passed 14-1 by the court judges, except for the 4th decision which was passed 13-2.
Thomas Buergenthal, the American judge, was the sole dissenting member of the 15 judges on this ICJ panel. In his declaration he concluded that the court should have declined to hear the case since it did not have before it "relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel's legitimate right of self-defense". Judge Buergenthals choice of entitling his opinion a 'declaration' instead of the more contrarian 'dissent' was apparently due to his view that "there is much in the Opinion with which I agree"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... of_the_ICJ
Now, does the fact it is non-binding on the UN change the fact they ruled Israel's actions are illegal?
Cheers,
Shafique
