Article contents
The UN, The ICJ and the Separation Barrier: War by Other Means
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Abstract
This article compares the Hobbesian realist and Kantian idealist analyses of international law and organizations with respect to the UN General Assembly resolutions and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on Israel's separation barrier. From the realist perspective, this case highlights the exploitation of moral claims in support of a particularist political agenda. In contrast, the idealist approach interprets the advisory opinion and resolutions as important normative expressions in the developing global system of governance based on universal human rights principles and treaty obligations.
The analysis begins with a detailed comparison of the ideological and intellectual foundations of these core approaches to international law and organizations, the evolution of this debate in the post Cold War international system, and the impact on protracted ethno-national conflicts. This provides the basis for examining the impact of both schools in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The specific case of the UN and ICJ's involvement in the question of Israel's separation barrier is then analyzed in detail from both the realist and idealist perspectives.
The implications of this debate are of major importance, not only with respect to the specific challenges posed by terrorism and the necessary responses, but also in the wider context of the crisis in the international system at the beginning of the 21st century. The analysis concludes by noting the degree to which this case illustrates a wider process in which international legal principles are manipulated in a manner that contributes to conflict and justification of violence, conforming to the realist interpretation. While still pursuing idealist objectives, wishful thinking cannot conceal the abuse ofuniversalist claims of morality in the pursuit of war by other means.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Israel Law Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1-2: Special Double Issue: Domestic and International Judicial Review of the Construction of the Separation Barrier , Spring Winter 2005 , pp. 331 - 347
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2004
Footnotes
Director, Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation, and Professor of Political Studies, Bar Ilan University.
References
1 The category of protracted ethno-national conflicts is generally considered to include Sri Lanka, the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, the Basque conflict in Spain, Cyprus, Chechnya, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.
2 Wendt, Alexander, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” (1992) 46(2) International Organization 391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Easton, David, The Political System (New York, Knopf, 1959) 1, 129–131 Google Scholar.
4 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (1651)Google Scholar.
5 Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1965) 284 Google Scholar.
6 In the international relations literature, classical Hobbesian approaches have been supplanted by neo-realist versions. See, for example, Walt, Steven, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories” Foreign Policy (1998) (110) 29–46 Google Scholar.
7 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among the Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, Knopf, 5th ed. 1973) 273 Google Scholar. See also Morgenthau, Hans J., “Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law” (1940) 34 Am. J. Int'l L. 260, at 283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Cited by Rabkin, Jeremy, “Lawfare” Wall Street Journal, 14 July 2004 Google Scholar.
9 See, for example, Gold, Dore, Tower ofBabbel: How the United Nations has Fueled Global Chaos (New York, Crown Forum, 2004)Google Scholar.
10 Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795)Google Scholar.
11 Carr, Edward Hallet, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939 (London, MacMillan, 1939)Google Scholar.
12 See, for example, Donnelly, Jack, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2nd ed., 2003,)Google Scholar; Falk, Richard, Human Rights Horizons: The Pursuit of Justice in a Globalizing World (New York, Routledge, 2000)Google Scholar.
13 Kagan, Robert, “Power and Weakness” (2002) 113 Policy Review 3 Google Scholar. See also Kagan, Robert, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York, Knopf, 2003)Google Scholar. For a European rebuttal, see Hutton, Will, A Declaration of Interdependence: Why America Should Join the World (New York, W.W. Norton, 2003)Google Scholar.
14 For reviews of recent European academic literature on this debate, see Byers, Michael, ed. The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; and Paulus, Andreas L., “Law and Politics in the Age of Globalization” (2000) 11(2) European Journal of International Law 465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Paulus does not include any mention of Hobbes or realism.
15 Lapidoth, Ruth, Israel and the Palestinians: Some Legal Issues (Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2003)Google Scholar.
16 Beker, Avi, The United Nations and Israel: From Recognition to Reprehension (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1988)Google Scholar.
17 Neuer, Hillel C., “The UN's Food Politics”, National Post (Toronto, Ca.), 6 September 2004 Google Scholar.
18 The American Jewish Committee, “One-Sided: The Relentless Campaign Against Israel in the United Nations (A Report on 2003-2004 General Assembly Resolutions on the Arab-Israeli Conflict)” (September 2004) http://ajc.org/upload/pdf/UNGA_one_sided_58th_session.pdf Google Scholar.
19 Bayefsky, Anne, “Israel and the United Nations' Human Rights Agenda: The Inequality of Nations Large and Small” (1995) 29(3) Is.L.R. 424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hartwick, Jeffrey Andrew, “Non-Governmental Organizations at United Nations-Sponsored World Conferences: A Framework for Participation Reform” (2003) 26 (2) Loy LA Int'l & Comp L Rev 217–280 Google Scholar, Blitt, Robert Charles, “Who Will Watch the Watchdogs? Human Rights, Nongovernmental Organizations and the Case for Regulation” BHRLR (2004) 10 Google Scholar.
20 American Enterprise Institute, “"The United Nations and Israel” (Conference transcript) 4 August 2004 available at the American Enterprise Institute website available at http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.862/transcript.asp.
21 Gold, Dore, “From ‘Occupied Territories’ to ‘Disputed Territories’” (2002) 470 Jerusalem Viewpoints published at theJerusalem Center for Public Affairs website available at http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm Google Scholar.
22 This exploitation is also seen in the NGO campaign against the separation barrier. See, for example: NGO, “HRW's Political Condemnation of Israel's Separation Barrier” (2003) 2(2) NGO Monitor Analysis, October 4, 2003 published at the NGO website available at http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n02/v2n02-3.htm Google Scholar
23 Rothenberg, Laurence E. and Bell, Abraham, “Israel's Anti-Terror Fence: The World Court Case” (2004) 513 Jerusalem Viewpoints: available at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs website: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp513.htm.Google Scholar
24 Ibid.
25 This history is presented in great detail by Ross, Dennis, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (New York, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2004)Google Scholar.
26 Declaration of Judge Buergenthal, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_seperate_declaration_Buergenthal.htm.
27 http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/news.htm#news19; Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, “The Anti-terrorist Fence Saves Lives”, 1 July 2004, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism-obstacle+to+peace/terrorism+and+islamic+fundamentalism-/anti-terrorist+fence+saves+lives.htm.
28 Bayefsky, Anne, “Had Enough?” National Review Online, 17 July 2004 Google Scholar.
29 H.C.J. 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel 58(5) P.D. 807. See this issue of the Israel Law Review for an English translation of this decision: “H.C.J. 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village v. The Government of Israel 58(5) P.D. 807” (2005) 38 (1–2) Is.L.R. 83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Prior to the Jordanian annexation, the terms Judea and Samaria were used in UN reports. See United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Recommendations to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947.
31 Gold, supra n. 21; Rothenberg and Bell, supra n. 23.
32 Makovsky, David and Thein, Ben, “Unilaterally Constructed Barriers in Contested Areas” (2004) 465 Peacewatch published at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy website: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2156Google Scholar.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Dershowitz, Alan, “Israel Follows its Own Law, not Bigoted Hague Decision” Jerusalem Post, 11 July 2004 Google Scholar.
36 Makovsky and Thein, supra n. 32.
37 Rothenberg and Bell, supra n. 23.
38 UN Watch, “In Focus: Abuse of Mandate by Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food”, available at http://www.unwatch.org/speeches/ZieglerFocus.html.
39 On the problems of NGO legitimacy and accountability see Hugo Slim, “By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Non-Governmental Organizations” The International Council on Human Rights Policy, International Meeting on Global Trends and Human Rights Before and after September 11, Geneva, 10-12 January 2002. A copy of the lecture is on file with the author.
40 Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (NY Public Affairs, 2004)Google Scholar; Steinberg, Gerald M., “NGOs Make War on Israel” (2004) XI (3) Middle East Quarterly, available at The Middle East Forum's website: http://www.meforum.org/article/633 Google Scholar.
- 4
- Cited by