Hopes and Fears   |    Hearing at the Hague

Introduction

This is the third educational feature on Israel's Security Fence, which began with an examination of facts and perspectives on the Fence, addressed potential issues that appeared relevant to the ICJ and now explores aspects of the process and findings in that opinion.

The ICJ advisory opinion is overwhelmingly condemnatory of the Security Fence and damaging to Israel's basic rights to self-defense, and quite probably damaging to the rights of other countries, in terms of their rights to defend themselves against terrorist organizations. The opinion also has potential as a means of undermining Israel's legitimacy in international forums and isolating her diplomatically - both subjectively, and legally, in relation to vitally important documents and conventions in International Law.

There are many excellent points being made in the media, on Israel's behalf, about the miscarriage of legal process - some accompanied by a great deal of rhetoric; focus material, however, is thin on the ground. The ICJ brought texts from these major international instruments in its advisory opinion, but applied them neither in good faith, nor consistently. Unified diplomatic and legal action, based on analysis of the opinion itself, has the potential to expose details of this inequitable process. As educators, we share below the major points of International Law that we believe to have factored - or should have factored - into the ICJ's decision, together with links to the best online briefings, and the source documents.

Table of Contents | Next