 |
| Volume XI, Winter 2004, Number 4 |
| |
| EXCERPT: Implications of the U.S. Reaction to the World Court Ruling against Israel's "Separation Barrier" |
| |
| Stephen Zunes |
| |
|
|
Dr. Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of the peace and justice studies program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project (www.fpif.org) and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
On July 9, 2004, the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) deter-
mined that the Israeli
government's construction of a separation barrier, or "wall," running through the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal. The court called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, to dismantle what has already been built in areas beyond Israel's internationally recognized border, and to compensate Palestinians who have suffered losses as a result of the wall's construction.1
The decision, with fourteen of the fifteen jurists voting in favor on most provisions, was not unexpected, given the overwhelming consensus of international legal experts regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers. The majority included the highly respected conservative British jurist Rosalyn Higgins; the sole dissenter was the American judge, Thomas Buergenthal. The 57-page decision examined in detail the various arguments raised by the interested parties and was consistent with strictures set by the United Nations Charter, a series of UN Security Council resolutions, previous ICJ rulings and relevant international treaties.
Despite the seemingly clear-cut nature of the ruling, however, the Bush administration, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress immediately denounced the verdict. Never before has there been such a unified negative response by America's political leadership to a decision by the world's highest court.
This unprecedented reaction to an ICJ ruling appears to be less the result of a moral commitment to the security of Israel or an example of the power of the "Jewish lobby" than it is an example of the growing bipartisan hostility to any legal restraints on the conduct of the United States and its allies beyond their borders, particularly in the Middle East. Both Republicans and Democrats have determined that any effort to raise legal questions regarding the actions of occupying powers must be forcefully challenged.
1 International Court of Justice, "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory," No. 131, July 9, 2004.
|
| |
|
