Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel’s Security Wall

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Folk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a security wall on occupied Palestinian territory, declaring that the wall was in violation of international law. The advisory opinion also indicated that Israel should forthwith cease construction of the wall, dismantle what had been so far constructed, and make reparations to the Palestinians for all damages caused by the project. On July 20, 2004, at the Tenth Emergency Session of the General Assembly, Resolution ES-10/15 was adopted by a vote of 150 in favor, 6 opposed, and 10 abstentions, demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations as specified by the advisory opinion.

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

House Approves Proposal Permitting ICJ to Advise Domestic Courts

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-340
Author(s):  
Jack M. Goldklang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
National Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Advisory Opinions

On December 17, 1982, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting an expansion of the advisory opinion jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The resolution (H.R. Con. Res. 86) urges the President to explore the appropriateness of establishing a United Nations committee to seek advisory opinions from the ICJ. The committee would act when asked by a national court seeking advice regarding any international law question under the national court’s jurisdiction.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVO, ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dov Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’ It is to answer this question that the General Assembly of the United Nations (‘UNGA’) requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’). The request, adopted in October 20081 and initially sponsored by Serbia, was triggered by the declaration of independence of Kosovo issued on the 17 February 2008.2 Some two years later, on the 22 July 2010, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion.3 By a 10–4 vote, the ICJ found that the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.

scholarly journals Advisory opinion of the international court of justice in the “wall case” in the service of a possible solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 338-352
Author(s):  
Senad Ganic
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Beneficial Impact ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Surprising Fact ◽  
The Way

The Arab-Israeli conflict even today represents one of the most complex problems facing the international community. The biggest controversy of the problem lies in the conflicting interpretations of the reasons offered by both sides. The way to overcome this impasse, is precisely the way recourse to international institutions. For this reason, the surprising fact is, that one very important decision of The International Court of Justice, it seems, remained unjustly neglected, especially if we take into account the importance of the issues which the Court dealt and the beneficial impact that this decision may have in the process of resolving the conflict in the Middle East. We believe that Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory hides the way to a possible solution of this exhausting conflict. To consider because it comes to a legal analysis of the situation, which was given by the authorities in whose objectivity we supposed not to suspect as we supposed not to doubt on the objectivity of international law. Therefore, we consider it important to once again remind the decision, believing that in this way we can help to better understand the nature of this conflict, but also the reasons which indicate its possible peaceful solution.

The Kosovo Advisory Opinion: Conflict Resolution and Precedent

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Falk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Political Movements ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The somewhat surprising majority view in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) assessing Kosovo's declaration of independence has some bearingon prospects for an eventual end to the bitter conflict between Kosovo and Serbia. It may also have some relevance for a variety of political movements around the world whose leaders might be more inclined than previously to tempt fate by declaring their people and territory to be internationally independent of the sovereign state within which they are now geographically located. Significantly,the ICJ majority sidestepped the question put to it by the General Assembly, in a move objectionable to the four dissenting judges,recasting it in such a way as to limit its response to whether Kosovo's declaration of independence, issued on February 17,2008, was “in accordance with international law” to the rather bland assertion that the declaration did not violate international law. The Court did not say, and explicitly ruled out any interpretation suggesting, that Kosovo's declaration was acceptable under international law, although by Lotus reasoning, what a state is not expressly prohibited from doing is permitted.3 The majority also expressed its view that the declaration was not to be viewed as decidingupon Kosovo's final status in world diplomacy.

The Absence of State Consent to Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice: Judicial and Political Restraints

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-207
Author(s):  
Mahasen Aljaghoub
Keyword(s):  
Main Role ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Integral Role ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, (UN) and its Statute is an integral part of the UN's Charter. The court's integral role within the UN has largely been misunderstood especially in the way the court has viewed its advisory jurisdiction. The ICJ always asserts that the delivery of an advisory opinion represents its participation in the UN's work and thus, in the absence of compelling reasons, a request for an opinion ought not to be refused. Some commentators note that the principle that the ICJ must participate in the work of the Organisation might sometimes conflict with its judicial character, which might result in not embracing the philosophy of “judicial restraint” in the court's advisory jurisdiction. They also contend that the absence of consent in advisory cases has led the court to overlook its judicial restraint. This article argues that those commentators have overlooked the main role of the ICJ's advisory function in clarifying the law and providing guidance for future action by the UN organs, and has consequently called for applying the principle of consent as a condition for giving an advisory opinion on questions relating to disputes pending between States. In the present article, the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory opinion is analysed to see whether the absence of Israeli consent has undermined the ICJ's judicial character. The author is of the view that the court, as the principal judicial organ of the UN, should, by a cautious judicial policy, provide enlightenment to the UN and participate to achieving its goals while at the same time adhering to its judicial character.

Critical Reflections on the International Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
Geneva Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

I shall confine my brief thoughts on the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) to the Court’s treatment of international humanitarian law (IHL) in general, and to the law of belligerent occupation in particular. To that end, I will focus on the following four areas: the Court’s consideration of the applicable law as regards IHL; the Court’s interpretation of Article 6 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; the Court’s consideration of the concept of military necessity in the context of foreign military occupation; and the Court’s consideration of the responsibility of third states, particularly the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, for violations of relevant principles of IHL by an occupying power.

Kosovo – So What? The Holding of the International Court of Justice is not the Last Word on Kosovo's Independence

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 837-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

At a first glance the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has given a clear negative answer to the question submitted to it by the General Assembly. According to the ICJ's advisory opinion from 22 July 2010, Kosovo's declaration of independence did not constitute a violation of international law. Yet, reading the reasons the ICJ offered in support of its holding, one soon discovers that many relevant questions have been left open.

A3. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ““LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY,”” THE HAGUE, 9 JULY 2004 (EXCERPTS).

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-154
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Occupied Palestinian Territory ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Palestinian Territory

On 8 December 2003, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague to render an ““advisory opinion”” on the legality of Israel's separation wall in the occupied territories after a Security Council draft resolution condemning the wall had been vetoed by the United States on 9 October. The ICJ initiated proceedings on 10 December, receiving written and oral statements over the next two months. Israel's statement focused on challenging the ICJ, while the United States and a number of European states also questioned the appropriateness of the court's rendering an opinion on a political matter. Almost a fourth of the court's sixty-four-page ruling was taken up with addressing these challenges on grounds of law and precedent. The fifteen-member court ruled unanimously that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, but there was one dissenting voice (the American judge, Thomas Buergenthal) as to whether the ICJ should comply with the request to give an advisory opinion. At the end of six months of hearings and deliberations, the court voted on the five questions put to it by the General Assembly pertaining to the legality of the wall. The vote (paragraph 63) was fourteen to one (with Judge Buergenthal dissenting; see Doc. D3) on four of the five questions, as follows: (1) that 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””; (2) that Israel must dismantle the structure forthwith (as in para. 151 reproduced below); (3) that Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage (as in para. 153 below); and (4) that ““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.”” Concerning the question of whether all UN member states had an ““obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the wall's construction”” (see para. 159 below), Judge Kooijmans of Holland joined Judge Buergenthal in his dissent, making the vote 13-to-2. The full text of the opinion is available online at www.icj-cij.org.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document