In part two of our series on missions to Israel, we discussed what we learned about international law. We suggested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will soon issue an opinion on the status of the West Bank area known as Judea and Samaria. Verdict The verdict was handed down on Friday. To the surprise of no one, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel was occupying the territory in violation of international law.
There Single opinion It combines the Court’s ruling with 14 separate documents. (There are 15 justices on the Court.) To save time, let’s just look at the opinion of the only justice who dissented from the entire ruling. Judge Julia Sebutinde of UgandanHere’s a summary of her opinion:
Although the Court has the power to grant a request for an advisory opinion, it should have exercised its discretion carefully and refrained from issuing the requested advisory opinion in order to maintain the integrity of the judicial role. It omits historical context It is crucial to understanding the multifaceted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One-sided “forensic audit” Israel’s failure to comply with international law—The advisory opinion does not reflect a balanced and impartial consideration of the relevant legal and factual questions—It is essential to grasp the historical nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the competing territorial claims between the parties in the former British Mandate of Palestine, as well as past and ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict through a negotiating framework identified by the Security Council—The Court There is a lack of relevant, accurate, balanced and reliable information In order to reach a fair assessment and wise conclusion on the factual issues at issue, the Court prepares advisory opinions. Advisory opinions not only avoid Israel’s consent to the Court’s resolution of the relevant issues, but also: It could jeopardize the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding negotiating framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.—The Advisory Opinion has several shortcomings, particularly with regard to its answer to Question 2: the Court’s proposed timeline for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories is unfeasible; It ignores what has been agreed in existing negotiating frameworks, security threats to Israel, and the need to balance competing sovereignty claims.— The Court’s application of the principle of full reparation is not appropriate in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; — The Court misapplied belligerent occupation law and adopted a presumption implicit in the General Assembly question without a prior critical analysis of relevant issues, such as the application of the “uti possidetis juris” principle to the territory of the former British Mandate, Israel’s border issue and competing sovereignty claims, the nature of the Palestinian right to self-determination and its relationship to Israel’s own rights and security concerns;The only path to a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the negotiating framework set out in the UN and bilateral agreements.
Sevtinde beautifully sums up how I understand the ICJ proceedings: as unilateral efforts to invoke legal principles to force Israel into submission in a complex diplomatic situation. It is a myth that the opinions of elite lawyers in The Hague can resolve issues that Israel and Palestine have struggled with for decades.
You might not think of Uganda as a strong defender of Israel, but Sebutinde has consistently opposed various International Court of Justice rulings against Israel regarding Gaza. Unfortunately, Judge Sarah Cleveland, President Biden’s appointee to the court, Agreed With the majority.
Robert Nicholson The Wall Street Journal He gives some background that can explain Sebutinde’s jurisprudence.
Even more interesting is the phenomenon that Judge Sebutinde represents: an African woman steeped in Pentecostal Christianity, with a natural affinity for one side of the conflict. If Judge Salam’s Muslim identity shapes his views, Judge Sebutinde’s Christian faith surely shapes hers. And she is no exception. In a crucial geopolitical development in the last century, American missionaries sowed the seeds of evangelical Christianity in Africa, Asia and Latin America, bringing with them a well-known evangelical commitment to Zionism. The political consequences are only now beginning to be felt.
I agree with Robertson’s conclusions.
Judge Sevtindeh wrote that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be resolved through a political process based on negotiations between the parties, not through a judicial settlement at The Hague. She was courageous and set herself apart from the other judges in asserting the legitimacy of Jewish rights throughout Mandate Palestine. She cited legal documents and principles that justify these rights, recounted the history of Palestinian intransigence, and pointed to the Jewish presence in the land dating back to ancient times. “Israel is not a colonialist,” she wrote.
Judge Sebtindeh also noted that the “pro-Palestinian national group” has hijacked institutions like the International Court of Justice to create on paper what cannot be realized on the ground. The national group speaks in legal terms, but its aims and motives are foreign to the law. The Palestine Liberation Organization is waging a multi-front legal battle after rejecting seven peace proposals and mismanaging the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Intifada The aim is to sway public opinion and pressure the UN Security Council to take action.
Up until now, President Biden has maintained a fairly hard-line stance against Israel, but now things could change. As a lame duck, he is no longer seeking the nomination and is not even voting in the general election. Moreover, given his declining mental capacity, it is unclear who actually holds the power. The decision-making committee will be faced with a choice on how to respond to the ICJ’s decision. The president can denounce the decision for the reasons Sevtinde explains and side with Israel. Or the president can call for sanctions. Or the president can do nothing.
Vice President Harris, the likely Democratic nominee, may or may not agree with President Biden. Differences between the two could cause confusion and upheaval in our nation’s foreign policy. This six-month lame-duck period, combined with the president’s weakened mental health, will bring many new challenges to a unified executive branch.
