The U.N. adopted a resolution on Monday requiring the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to judge Israel’s security according to international law.
While the buffer has been widely criticized by the international community, including the U.S., for unilaterally drawing borders and isolating Palestinians, this will be the first time that it will be examined from a judicial, not a political stance.
While the ICJ’s decision on the legality of the buffer will only constitute a recommendation to the U.N., the decision will be monumental, said Professor Ibrahim Sha’ban of Al-Quds University’s Faculty of Law in Jerusalem. Namely, the world will recognize the legal violation inherent in Israel’s actions.
The security buffer counters “the very basic principles of international law,” Sha’ban told The Media Line. “I cannot see how any decision made by the ICJ will avoid these very clear-cut principles.”
“The resolution will say bluntly that no country has the right to annex territory, to occupy land and acquire territory by force,” he said with emotion.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
Sha’ban said that the ICJ is the world’s most authentic justice system because it unites judges from 15 “civilizations,” and thus 15 different legal systems, all of whom are experts in international law.
While the ICJ decision will be unable to halt construction of the buffer, Sha’ban explained that the U.N. Security Council could then propose resolutions to boycott Israel, or put the state under siege, for example, but he said that it would be unnecessary.
First, he said, the world would recognize Israel’s violation because of the prestige associated with the ICJ. Second, an anti-Israel resolution of that nature would not pass in the Security Council because the U.S., as a permanent member of the council, would veto it.
In a conflict of this nature between two official states, one would be able to sue the other in a civil trial, but because Palestine is not a country, this is not possible, Sha’ban said.
In Israel, many believe that the U.N. is permanently biased against its interests, but Sha’ban believes the opposite. “Israel thinks itself [above] international law although it was a state created by international law and must comply with international law.”
The fence cuts 14 miles into Palestinian-controlled territory and will isolate 400,000 Palestinians, according U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Israel claims that it is a necessary measure to defend itself from Palestinian terror attacks.
For an Israeli legal perspective click here [4].