Israel barrier violates law - Court

The International Court of Justice ruled today that the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank violates international law.

The court dismissed Israel’s arguments that the barrier was essential for its security, and said the system of walls and fences went too far in infringing on the freedom of the Palestinians.

The decision by the world court in the Hague was part of a lengthy and complex ruling read by court president Shi Jiuyong of China.

The court also ordered Israel to pay reparations to Palestinians harmed by the barrier and return land seized to construct the wall.

The court urged the United Nations to take action to stop the wall's construction.

“The court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated regime, are contrary to international laws,” the court said.

“The court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall,” the judgment said.

The judges were unexpectedly united in backing the decisions, by a vote of 14-1 for most paragraphs of the decision, with only the American judge dissenting.

The court said the barrier was routed in a way that would encompass 80% of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, while cutting off more than 230,000 Palestinians from their surrounding areas.

Despite Israel’s protests that the barrier was temporary and not designed as a political boundary, the court said it could amount to “de facto annexation” by creating new facts on the ground.

It said the building of the barrier “severely impedes the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and therefore is a breach of Israel’s obligation to the respect of that right”.

The 15-member court’s advisory opinions are nonbinding, but bear moral and historic weight.

The court dismissed Israel’s objections that the UN General Assembly acted irregularly in asking the court for an advisory opinion.

It also rebuffed Israel’s argument – supported by the United States and several European countries – the court should refrain from interfering because the issue was political, not legal, and could disrupt Mideast peace efforts.

“A legal question also has political aspects,” said the ruling.

“The court accordingly has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion” requested by the General Assembly, it said.

The court said it was aware of the political negotiations called the “road map,” but said it was not clear its legal opinion would influence those efforts.

“The court has no compelling reason to use its discretionary power not to give that opinion,” the ruling said.

The court dealt in passing with issues long at dispute between Israel and the Arab states.

It determined that the lands captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war are occupied territory, including East Jerusalem. Israel has refused to recognise Jerusalem as occupied since it was formally annexed by the Israeli parliament shortly after the war.

While the General Assembly and Security Council had never recognised Israel’s claims, it was the first time Israel’s status in the West Bank was the subject of an international legal judgement.

The court said Israel was obliged by all international treaties and conventions of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and common humanitarian law.

Opinions issued by the 15-member panel of judges at the International Court of Justice:

:: The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law. (14 votes to 1)

:: Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated. (14 votes to 1)

:: All States are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. (13 votes to 2)

:: The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime. (14 votes to 1)