One Year Later: Implementation of the International Court of Justice’s Opinion on Israel’s Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Friday, July 15, 2005
Summary of a Palestine Center Briefing by John Quigley and Josh Ruebner
For the Record No. 226 (15 July 2005)
Through the United States (US) government’s financial and political support for Israel, the US is facilitating Israel’s construction of the West Bank Wall, which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found to be illegal. “There is a well-established doctrine in international law that says if one state is doing something that violates an international obligation, it is unlawful for a second state to facilitate that legality by providing it with the physical means to commit an unlawful purpose,” explained John Quigley, professor of law at Ohio State University. Josh Ruebner, grassroots advocacy coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, added that by supporting Israel’s “oppressive Wall regime,’ the US is “abusing its power as a global leader.”
Speaking at a briefing at the DC-based Palestine Center, Quigley and Ruebner agreed that there have been “positive developments” as a result of the advisory opinion issued by the ICJ on 9 July 2004 despite the lack of action on the part of nation-states. Their remarks, made during an 11 July 2005 briefing entitled “One Year Later: Implementation of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” were made in commemoration of the advisory opinion.
According to Ruebner, the ICJ ruling has provided great “moral authority and a renewed sense of purpose” for those who strive to reform foreign policy and institute the application of human rights and international law. Even though governments have not implemented the ICJ ruling during the past year, members of international civil society have taken action in support of the Court’s opinion.
Ruebner stressed that although the US government has been reluctant to adhere to the conclusions of the ICJ ruling, “the response of US civil society has been encouraging.” He noted that some US Christian denominations have taken constructive action that provides activists with legitimatization and a strong framework from which to act.
For example, the 25th General Synod of the United Church of Christ issued a resolution in July 2005 calling for an investigation of “its holdings in companies that perpetuate violence and injustice in Israel and Palestine,” said Ruebner. In addition to its move toward a more socially-conscious investment strategy, the Church introduced a second resolution reflecting the language used in the ICJ ruling. It called upon the Israeli government “to cease the project to construct the barrier, tear down the segments that have already been constructed, and pay reparations to those who have lost homes, fields, property, and/or lives and health due to the barrier and its effects,” said Ruebner.
Quigley argued that since its issuance, the Advisory Opinion has had significance in the Israeli courts as well. He pointed out that petitions submitted by attorneys on behalf of Palestinians cite the ICJ ruling in their arguments against the Wall. He added that although the High Court of Israel “has not taken a definitive position on the ruling,” the High Court has suggested that it is giving the ruling attention.
In a May 2005 case, Israel’s High Court concluded that the Wall was only justifiable on the grounds of security concerns. Quigley believes this ruling was significant because it implied that the construction of the Wall was to continue under the guise of security and not under other justifications, such as political reasons. Under that interpretation, Quigley argued that “the Wall around Israeli settlements would not be legally valid because the Wall had nothing to do with suicide bombings inside Israel.”
However, in the year since the ICJ found that Israel was obligated to end the construction of the Wall, the daily-life conditions of Palestinians have worsened. “The Wall continues to interfere with the rights of Palestinians to pursue their normal activities,” said Quigley.
Citing an article in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz on 8 July 2005, which detailed the unlawful conditions Palestinian farmers endure in crossing the Wall to reach their fields, Quigley stated that Palestinian farmers are denied access to their olive groves and land, their primary source of income. According to the article, of the 1,000 applications by Palestinian farmers for an Israeli permit to access their land, 600 were denied and 380 resulted in no reply. In less than one percent of cases, or 70 of the 1,000, was the application for a permit granted. Farmers are allowed only to cross the gates of the Wall with equipment “they can carry in their hands,” said Quigley, quoting the article. As a result, thousands of olive saplings continue to die without the regular care and agricultural machinery essential to their growth.
Ruebner said that the US has proved to be a strong ally of Israel’s “oppressive Wall regime” by restricting a portion of the $200 million in humanitarian aid that US President George W. Bush recently promised to Palestinians and allocating it for preservation of the Wall. Although monies from the Palestinian aid package, presented as part of the 2005 US Supplemental War Budget, are ear-marked for “building bridges to help improve the flow of people and goods between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza,” Ruebner and other activists fear that such funds will instead “concretize the occupation, pay for checkpoints, and enable other restrictions on movement under the guise of helping the flow of people and goods.” In May 2005, Congress approved the use of $50 million of the $200 million for constructing 34 high-tech, militarily secure crossings in the Wall.
Reaffirming US support of Israel and disregard of the ICJ, Ruebner reported that members of Congress in both houses have presented resolutions rebuking the Court and accusing it of ulterior motives. For example, Ruebner noted that shortly after the ICJ released its advisory opinion, House Resolution 713 was passed accusing the ICJ of abusing its power by promoting the Palestinian position. In a somewhat bleaker stance, Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) presented Senate Resolution 408, which disapproved of the ICJ ruling and supported Israel for its institution of the Wall. However, Ruebner noted that SR-408 did not pass due to anonymous holds by two “courageous” senators.
Ruebner further argued that by denouncing the ICJ ruling and providing Israel with a $3-billion economic and military aid package in 2004, the US continues to undermine the significance of the Advisory Opinion and, more disturbingly, the rule of law. While the ICJ ruling itself may not be legally binding, Ruebner noted it is based on “general principles of international law” that are. Quigley stressed that at minimum, the Wall’s construction is “unlawful and the occupying power has the obligation to avoid disrupting lives of those under occupation” under the ICJ ruling.
The above text is based on remarks delivered on 11 July 2005 by Professor John Quigley and Mr. Josh Ruebner. The speakers’ views do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund or its educational program, The Palestine Center. This “For the Record” summary may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Palestine Center. It was drafted by Rasha Uthman and her fellow summer 2005 interns, Laura Breslin and Zack Bernstein.