Wall in the Occupied Territories (Advisory Opinion)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2024
- In this international law case, the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to give an opinion about the legal consequences of a protective wall built by Israel, partly on occupied territory in Palestine. The whole legal exercise was pointless, though, as international law is essentially unenforceable.
Thank you. That was helpful for surviving the International Law unit. Hard to muster up any passion for this area of law. Reading any International Law ‘case’ (including this advisory opinion) feels like swimming through a sludge of acronyms.
I couldn't agree more. It's definitely not my favourite area of the law - but I'm glad I could help!
This always gets ignored in public conversation about the conflict. Thanks for mentioning it
My pleasure. I just wish I had an actual solution to propose ... but sadly it eludes me. Perhaps one day.
@@AnthsLawSchool - It would be useful to agree that the occupied territories were "booty" captured as a result of arab agression in the 6-day war, Yom Kippur etc. Israel created a "buffer zone" to afford itself protection against further attacks in future. Don't lose sight of the fact that Israel has been horribly out-gunned and out-numbered in every conflict ever undertaken by the arab states, yet they prevail. If you want some more insight into how/why that happened, you have my private email address.
The solution to Jerusalem? I suspect the closest they'll ever get is a situation we saw in Berlin following WW2 where all parties occupied an "international zone" where no one group had dominance. In Singapore (at least not so long ago - I don't know if it still exists now), police patrols comprised 4 officers - 1 x Chinese, 1 x Indian, 1 x bumi putra and 1 x Gurkha (to keep the others honest). This prevented racial bias being applied in what might otherwise be a volatile situation. Lee Kwan Yew's house was protected by Gurkhas, not by Singaporean police.
I support Israel's right to self-determination and to exist as a free state. The Palestinians can live in peace in Jordan, but they don't want to. Israel was 'gifted' the land as part of the UN declaration following WW2. The jews didn't forcibly take the land and eject the arabs. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Wow. Good to see you mentioning such a contentious topic, Anthony. As a veteran (and member of the Australian Jewish Association), I have some opinions about this as well, but this is your show, so I won't disrupt your channel by mentioning other aspects of this vexatious issue - unless invited, of course. Cheers, Peter
Hi Peter, I'd welcome your comments if you wish to provide them. I'm happy to host open debate, but if others join in, they need to understand that I will remove abusive, threats, or mere sloganeering. However I won't remove opinions just because they differ from my own.
Personally I find it hard to see an ultimate end to the conflict. the Palestinian people need and deserve a secure state and a positive future; the Israeli people need and deserve a secure state and a positive future; but the problem of Jerusalem seems intractable to me. The Dome of the Rock sits in the Temple Mount, and neither side can give an inch in relation to that which they regard as most holy.
What I do know is that any solution will ultimately be bilateral, not a matter of the UN pointlessly admonishing either side.
@@AnthsLawSchool - Thank you for being so generous, Anthony. My point is that there is already a Palestinian state. It is in Jordan. It has been there for a very long time. To establish a second Palestinian state is to generate (I think) the 52nd arab state in the world. There is only one Jewish state - the only democratic society in the Middle East. Israel makes a huge scientific and economic contribution to the region. The Israeli arabs are entitled to vote, be elected to public office and live peacefully within the legal framework of the state of Israel. I encourage everyone to watch Benjamin Netanyahu debate this topic when he was 28 years old - ruclips.net/video/g1c-DSZ_l9Q/видео.html
It was once said, "If the arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel was to lay down its arms there would be slaughter in the Middle East."
Israel was given it's Jewish state in 1948 as a result of the UN resolution and they are entitled to defend it. Indeed the first responsibility of our government in our Constitutional system is the defence of the nation.
When it comes to the current eviction of squatters, the property records of four nations (including arab nations) correctly indicated that the real estate was owned by dispossessed Jewish settlers and the arab people had simply stopped paying rent. They had been paying for a very long time (a contract by performance?), but they decided to stop paying for some reason. The landlords decided to take action and evict them. This type of response to non-payment is acted out around the world on a daily basis, but it became the flash point for the current situation and is pointed to around the world by ignorant people as being a "land grab" by the Israelis. It is anything but. I'll stop there. Again, thank you.
@@Inimitable dosn't deter the fact that Palestinians across the land live under various forms of Israeli subjugation - the crushing blockade in Gaza; the military occupation in the West Bank; and second-class status in East Jerusalem and within the Green Line.
Hi Peter,
All of those are fair points. Here's how I see it, just for the sake of transparency. I firmly believe that the world needed a Jewish state after the Holocaust, a state to reverse the diaspora. And I think the 1949 boundaries were a reasonable compromise, so on the basis of that agreement, I think it is reasonable for the Palestinians to regard the WB and GZ at Palestinian rather than Israeli.
At the same time, though, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the Israelis to note that Hamas wants them all dead and their nation ground to dust. No nation is required to ignore the fact that it has such an enemy, particularly not within rocket launching distance. If Hamas were to drop all of the "destroy Israel" rhetoric and simply focus on regaining the previous territories, and otherwise having peace with Israel, then their argument would be compelling. Jerusalem would still be an intractable problem, but the rest might be resolved.
For so long as Israel is threatened form within the WB and GZ, it is reasonable for Israel to respond - by building walls, by continuing to upgrade the iron dome, and by the direct use of force against rocket sites and commanders. Collateral damage to civilians is tragic, but not war crime. People don't understand this. Unless the firing is indiscriminate, or the civilians are targeted, or the target lacks a military justification, then the killing of civilians is a mere tragedy, not war crime.
Ultimately, though, there is always Jerusalem. Both sides believe that their God (a God whose existence I personally don't accept) gave them this piece of land in perpetuity, and neither side can back away from that even by one inch. Jerusalem is intractable, and as a result, this conflict can only be managed, never truly ended. And it certainly won't be ended by ridiculous organisations like the UN wielding impotent structures like international law.
@IcySaracen all of that is true. But what is the solution? How does Israel ease controls over the WB and the GZ without incurring more attacks which kill Israeli civilians? I completely agree that Palestinian people deserve self-determination and sovereignty within the WB and the GZ, but how is this to be accomplished in a way which does not embolden Hamas?
Thank you for this Sir, very informative!
Glad it was helpful!
No sir, international law may not be a law yet it is enforceable between the parties. Moreover, the jus cogens are never violated by ,almost, any state .
There are a few states the independence of which is questionable or not accepted by many states. Therefore , based on their intransigence to the international law it cannot be said that it's out and out unenforceable. Lastly, I completely agree with your stance that it's not a law at all but this fact is not univerally acceptable too
You conclusion that international law is unenforceable is not correct. The case itself wasn't meant to be enforceable under international law, as it was granted in excercise of ICJ advisory jurisdiction which is unenforceable. ICJ was even wrong to have granted an order as to reparation when it was merely required to proffer advisory opinion in the case. I pause!
Of course is it an advisory opinion. The hint is right there in the title where I say "advisory opinion".
None of that changes the fact that international law is essentially unenforceable pretend law: more like a system of contracts between nations, than like a system of law.
🤔🤔