Wall illegal, says ICJ
On 9 July, the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) based in The Hague
By making reparation, the Court
meant the demolition of the wall within the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
the return of land, orchards, olive
groves and other property to its original owners (or, if that wasn’t possible,
the payment of compensation) and the compensation
of everybody who has suffered material damage
as a result of the wall’s construction.
These
were the conclusions of an Advisory Opinion by the Court requested by the UN
General Assembly under Article 96 of the UN Charter. This says “the General Assembly or the Security Council may
request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any
legal question”.
See
here
for a summary of the Opinion (entitled Legal consequences of the
construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory).
Only 8 out of 191
Of
course, by itself the Opinion is hardly worth the paper it’s written on, and
the same can be said of the subsequent General Assembly resolution passed on 20
July demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations contained in
it. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in
hell of Israel paying any attention to either, despite the fact that only 8 out
of the 191 members of the UN (including Israel and the US) voted against the
General Assembly resolution.
What
is required is enforcement action by the Security Council, that is, the passing
of a Chapter VII resolution calling upon Israel to comply and imposing economic
sanctions, of some kind, upon Israel, if it fails to comply. That would be a first: despite its serial
invasions of neighbouring states, and the occupation and annexation of Arab
lands, Israel, unlike Iraq, has never been the subject of a Chapter VII Security
Council resolution, let alone one with economic or military sanctions. The US would, of course, veto such a
resolution, as it regularly does to Security Council resolutions which are
merely condemnatory of Israel, and have no sanctions attached.
However,
that should not stop other members of the Security Council proposing a Chapter
VII resolution demanding that Israel fulfil the legal obligations specified by
the Court, on pain of economic sanctions – and forcing the US to veto it on
Israel’s behalf.
US veto
The
sequence of events which led to the ICJ ruling began with the US exercising its
veto in the Security Council last autumn on a resolution on the wall. This resolution did not seek to impose
sanctions on Israel: it merely declared the wall to be illegal and said it
should be removed. The operative
paragraph of it was:
“[The
Security Council] Decides that the construction by Israel, the occupying
Power, of a wall in the Occupied Territories departing from the armistice line
of 1949 is illegal under relevant provisions of international law and must be
ceased and reversed;”
This resolution, which was sponsored by Syria, Pakistan,
Malaysia and Guinea on 14 October 2003, was supported by 10 out of the 15
members of the Security Council (the sponsors plus Angola, Chile, China,
France, Russia and Spain) with only the US opposing. The UK abstained, along with Bulgaria,
Cameroon and Germany. On this occasion
there wasn’t a common EU position. It
is worth noting that Aznar was still in power when Spain voted for this
resolution.
Explaining the US opposition, the US
representative said:
“The draft resolution put forward
today was unbalanced and did not condemn terrorism in explicit terms. It failed
to address both sides of the larger security context of the Middle East,
including the devastating suicide attacks that Israelis have had to endure over
the past three years. A Security Council resolution focused on the fence does
not further the goals of peace and security in the region. We believe that all
resolutions on Israeli-Palestinian peace should reflect the kind of balance of
mutual responsibilities embodied by the Quartet’s road map. That draft
resolution did not do so.”
Under Article 12.1 of the UN Charter, the General
Assembly is not allowed to make recommendations on an issue being considered by
the Security Council. Ironically, the
failure of the Security Council to take a view on the wall because of the US
veto enabled the General Assembly to consider it.
Technically, this was done by reconvening the Tenth Emergency
Session of the General Assembly, which first came into existence in April 1997
to discuss “Illegal Israeli actions in
occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”,
and has been suspended and reconvened about a dozen times since, usually when
the Security Council failed to take a view on matters under this heading, often
because of a US veto.
After the US veto on 14
October 2003, the Tenth Emergency Session was reconvened and on 21 October 2003
resolution ES-10/13 (that is, resolution 13 of the Tenth Emergency Session) was
passed. It echoed the vetoed Security
Council resolution a few days earlier in demanding that the wall be pulled
down, the operative paragraph being:
“[The General Assembly] Demands
that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in
departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant
provisions of international law;”
This resolution was sponsored
by the EU amongst others and the UK voted for it, having abstained a week
earlier on a Security Council resolution which expressed the same demand. The resolution was carried overwhelmingly
by 144 to 4 with 12 abstentions.
Naturally, Israel opposed it, and as usual the US stood by its
side, but only the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands
voted with them.
Request for Advisory Opinion
Arab
states always regarded this resolution as a step on the way to getting the ICJ
to give an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the wall. To that end, the resolution contained a
request that the Secretary-General report back on Israel’s compliance
periodically, and initially within a month, with a view to further action
within the UN system.
The
inevitable negative report from Kofi Annan was used to trigger another
reconvening of the Tenth Emergency Session to consider a resolution to request
the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of the construction
of the wall. This was passed by 90
votes to 8 with 74 abstentions as resolution ES-10/14 on 8 December 2003. The Israeli representative took comfort in
the fact more than half the membership of the UN did not vote for, what he
called “the biased resolution”. How a resolution
that asks for a legal opinion can be described as biased is a mystery.
Again,
Israel opposed the resolution supported by the US, but this time they had the
additional company of Australia, Ethiopia, Nauru and Palau. This time the EU states, including the UK,
abstained. Speaking for the EU as a
whole, Italy reiterated the EU’s strong objection to the wall but declared that
“the proposed request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ would not help the
efforts of the two parties to re-launch a political dialogue and was,
therefore, not appropriate”.
General Assembly speaks again
Seven
months later, the ICJ delivered the Advisory Opinion. In yet another resumption of its Tenth Emergency Session, the
General Assembly has now done all it can to get compliance by passing a
resolution (ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004) demanding that Israel comply with its
legal obligations as set down by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion. The resolution also requested the UN
Secretary-General to establish a register of damage caused by Israel to
individuals or corporate bodies in the construction of the wall, so there will
be an internationally accepted record of Israeli despoliation of Arab property
in order to construct the wall.
There
was a remarkable degree of unanimity in favour of this resolution. It was carried by 150 votes to 6 with 10
abstentions. Israel and the US were
joined in opposition by Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall
Islands and Palau. Most states which
abstained last December on the vote to request the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion
(in resolution ES-10/14) now voted that Israel comply with the legal
obligations set out in the Opinion.
Amongst these were the 25 states of the EU. It was difficult for them to do otherwise since they had all
voted last October to have the wall stopped and reversed. Broadly speaking, therefore, the vote in
July was the same as the vote last October.
Chapter VII resolution
It
goes without saying that Israel is going to ignore the ICJ ruling and the
General Assembly resolution demanding Israeli compliance with it. What is needed now is that a Chapter VII
resolution be proposed in the Security Council demanding Israeli compliance and
imposing economic sanctions on Israel if it fails to comply. If such a resolution is proposed, it will
come from the four members of the Islamic Conference – Guinea, Malaysia,
Pakistan and Syria – which are members of the Security Council at the
moment. Any such resolution will, of
course, be vetoed by the US, but the more the US is seen to be isolated
internationally on Israel’s behalf on this issue the better.
The
degree to which the US is isolated on the Security Council depends crucially on
the four EU states on the Council. It’s
very unlikely that there would be a common EU stance in favour of such a
resolution. Most likely, there would be
a common EU policy to abstain, which would suit the UK down to the ground. Voting for such a resolution is the surest
way to get Britain off al-Qaeda’s hit list, and to get Muslim votes to return
to Labour (apart from withdrawing our troops from Iraq). No matter how anybody else votes, the
resolution will not pass because the US will veto it.
The
process should be driven to that point, because it would provide yet another
illustration that a system of law governing the action of states doesn’t exist
in this world. An independent
international court has decreed that Israel is engaged in activity contrary to
well-established international conventions.
But it doesn’t need to take any notice of the court’s Opinion because
the only body capable of making it comply with the obligations in the Opinion –
the Security Council – will be prevented from acting by a US veto.
Because
each of the five permanent members have a veto, it is impossible for the
Security Council to take enforcement action against any of them, or their
allies. The most powerful states in the
world, and their friends, are immune from sanction by the Security Council –
and they can invade their neighbours and ignore the judgements of the ICJ in
the sure and certain knowledge that they cannot be brought to book.
Nicaragua vs US
In
1984 Nicaragua took the US to the ICJ about US attacks on Nicaragua, both
directly and through its aid to the Contras, including the laying of mines in
Nicaraguan territorial waters. On 27
June 1986, the ICJ gave a comprehensive ruling against the US, ordering it to
cease such attacks, and to pay compensation to Nicaragua (later set at over $2
billion).
The
US ignored both directives, despite the fact that Article 94 of the UN Charter
says:
“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
94 goes on to say that if a party fails to comply, the other party may ask the
Security Council to take measures to effect compliance:
“If any party to a case fails to perform the
obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other
party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems
necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give
effect to the judgment.“
In
this case, the Security Council was unable to effect compliance: the criminal
had a veto in the supreme court – and he exercised it to get himself off,
voting against Security Council resolutions ordering compliance on 31 July 1986
and again on 28 October 1986.
The
UN Charter specifically obliges UN members to comply with the ICJ decision in
any case to which it is a party. There
is no such specific obligation in the Charter with regard to legal obligations
laid upon members by the ICJ in Advisory Opinions. That’s why an ICJ Advisory Opinion is said to be non-binding.
But,
in either case, if a state refuses to comply with legal obligations laid down
by the ICJ, the only way to enforce compliance is by a Chapter VII Security
Council resolution with sanctions. The
US is sure to veto such a resolution requiring Israel to comply with the ICJ ruling
on the wall. In this case, the criminal
has a friend with a veto in the supreme court – who will exercise it to get him
off.
US reaction
The
day the ICJ published its Opinion, New York's two senators, Democrats Hillary
Clinton and Charles Schumer, joined Israel's UN Ambassador, Danny Gillerman, at
a press conference in front of UN headquarters in New York to denounce it. Clinton said:
"It makes no sense for the United Nations to
vehemently oppose a fence which is a non-violent response to terrorism rather
than opposing terrorism itself".
Senator
John Kerry responded in similar vein:
"I am deeply disappointed by
today's International Court of Justice ruling related to Israel's security
fence. Israel's fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in
response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an
important tool in Israel's fight against terrorism. It is not a matter for the
ICJ".
By comparison, President Bush is a moderate: he went
so far as to say, albeit in July last year:
“I think the wall is a problem,
and I have discussed this with Ariel
Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence
between the Palestinians and the Israelis … with a wall snaking through the
West Bank.”
On
15 July, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution deploring the ICJ
decision by a 361-45 majority, the majority of Democrats joining their
Republican colleagues to commend “the President and the Secretary of State
for their leadership in marshaling opposition to the misuse of the ICJ in this
case”. The resolution deplored “the misuse of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) by a majority of members of the UN General
Assembly for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian
position” and went on to warn that states “risk a strongly negative impact on
their relationship with the people and Government of the United States should
they use the ICJ's advisory judgment as an excuse to interfere in the Roadmap
process”.
On 20 July, an even stronger Senate resolution was
introduced “Supporting the construction by Israel of a security fence to
prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks, condemning the decision of the
International Court of Justice on the legality of the security fence, and
urging no further action by the United Nations to delay or prevent the construction
of the security fence”. This Senate
resolution has yet to be voted on, but it has bipartisan support and is sure to
pass.
A
noteworthy aspect of it is that, if passed, it will be the first time either House of the US
Congress has passed a resolution which refers to the West Bank, not as occupied
territories, but as “disputed” territories.
It includes the clause:
“Whereas construction of the
security fence does not constitute annexation of disputed territory because the
security fence is a temporary measure and does not extend the sovereignty of
Israel;”
This distinction is important for
two reasons: the word “disputed” implies that the claims of Israel to the West
Bank are as legitimate as the claims of Palestinians who have lived on the land
for centuries; and, disputed territories – unlike occupied territories – do not
fall under the Fourth Geneva Convention and many other international legal
statutes.
Labour & Trade Union Review
August 2004