Following United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution No. 1610 in October 2003, the secretary-general has requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legitimacy of the wall that Israel is building in the occupied Palestinian territories. No sooner had the secretary-general made this request than Israel presented an extended memorandum, running to 150 pages, setting out its point of view. The memorandum focused on the fact that the ICJ was not authorized to take action on the request and that the General Assembly had been mistaken in asking the ICJ to look into the issue as it was a legal dispute rather than a political one. Leaving this aside, the UN Charter states:
Article 92: The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.
Article 94: Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
Article 96 states: The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
Without referring to the statute of the court, we can see that the ICJ has the right to review any case that is presented to it or to give an advisory opinion at the request of the General Assembly or the Security Council.
Doubtless the lawyers in Israel are fully aware of these articles which is why the politicians hastened to present a memorandum that totally ignores the substance of the matter, attacks the secretary-general for asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion and criticizes the General Assembly, evidently considering the majority of countries that backed the review to be wrong.
After failing to prevent the issuance of the General Assembly resolution in this matter, Israel caused a stir in the media, casting doubt on the authority of the ICJ in a desperate attempt to pressure it into refusing to review the request and hoping to influence European public opinion, claiming that resorting to the ICJ would impede the peace process.
Yet the secretary-general’s request for an advisory opinion was not a personal initiative; it was based on a resolution issued by the General Assembly. He cannot, by virtue of his position, refuse to carry out either the General Assembly or the Security Council’s decisions. The ICJ is an integral part of the international organizations and bodies that make up the UN. None of the members of the UN have the right to oppose the court’s decision to review any issue that is referred to it by authorized bodies.
Despite being fully aware that the ICJ is only required to submit a non-binding advisory opinion, Israel still vehemently opposes the review, because it knows that the ICJ will condemn Israel and confirm the illegality of the wall. The ICJ carries great moral value and can entrench an important legal principle. Such an opinion will also reveal Israel’s continued and false claims regarding its security issues and will confirm once again that illegal and illegitimate unilateral actions make it the country which is the greatest threat to peace and security — which only confirms the recently surveyed EU public opinion.
