By Jordan Schneckloth

On 24 November at 6:00 pm, the International Court of Justice heard their Advisory Opinion. The case on Israel’s construction of a concrete barrier in Palestinian territory questions whether security can justify territorial violation and whether international law is still worth the paper it is printed on when power refuses to recognize it.

Palestine argued that the wall is objectively illegal, with 80 to 85 percent constructed inside Palestinian territory and is functioning as a de facto annexation rather than defense. They argued that the building of this wall was an assault on the self-determination of farmers and their land, children and schools and communities, water and resources. The Representative of Palestine said, “The barrier doesn’t separate two states…it fractures one people.” On the other hand, the Representative of Israel then countered with an argument of necessity. Citing over 300 suicide bombings since Oslo II, the barrier is defended as a temporary, reversible security measure rooted in their inherent right to self-defense. The Representative of Israel argued that only five percent of it is concrete; the rest is fencing and surveillance. Not political, just protective, they claimed. Yet their refusal to recognize Palestinian statehood left a core contradiction hanging; how does one invoke Article 51 against an entity they deny exists?

The justices pressed back against each Representative’s perspective. Why spend $1.4 billion on something that is temporary? How does cutting off farmers from their land not violate humanitarian obligations? How is construction in occupied territory not de facto annexation?

As a third-party state, Egypt framed its arguments as a defense of international law in favor of the Palestinian position and accused Israel of ignoring the Green Line by bottlenecking humanitarian flow. Canada, in the same fashion as Egypt, reinforced the idea that no legal right can emerge from an illegal act. A strong opinion risks challenging the normalization of occupation, and a weak one risks validating it; this ruling, advisory or not, will echo far beyond the chamber.

After more than 15 hours of deliberation, the court has found that Israel has not provided a credible argument that would prevent the court from issuing an advisory opinion. The Court has determined the following: The building of the Israeli border wall breaches the sovereignty of Palestine, as Palestine is still entitled to self-determination even though it is not recognized by the United Nations as an independent state. Along with that, the Court determined the Israeli wall was in violation of the United Nations Charter, as there are no credible threats that would justify its construction. Additionally, the Court has found that Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention and several Security Council resolutions (271, 446, 592). The Court also found Israeli claims of security responsibility in the zones of Palestinian territories are obsolete, as the Green Line has been recognized as the international border. Finally, the court ruled that Israel’s construction of the wall in Palestine has violated the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and ordered Israel to deconstruct the wall, pay out reparations and be held responsible for reconstructing everything that was destroyed during the wall’s construction.