- Thread starter
- #21
Your quite cavalier with the language.
In order to have been accurate your statement should have read
"I use the advisory opinions of the ICJ, they are the UN appointed representatives. Your ridiculous denial of these opinions changes nothing".
Although I could simply point out, in the words of one of those appointed representatives
Quote
Judge Buergenthal is prepared to assume that on a thorough analysis of all relevant facts, a finding could well be made that some or even all segments of the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law. But he believes that for the Court to reach such conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without having before it or seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel’s legitimate right of self-defence, military necessity and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel proper coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territory to which Israel has been and continues to be subjected, cannot be justified as a matter of law. In this connection, Judge Buergenthal shows that the right of self-defence does not apply only to attacks by State actors and that armed attacks on Israel proper originating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory must be deemed, in the context of this case, to meet the requirements of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Judge Buergenthal also concludes that the Court’s overall findings that the wall violates international humanitarian law and human rights instruments are not convincing because they fail to address any facts or evidence specifically rebutting Israel’s claim of military exigencies or requirements of national security. Judge Buergenthal recognises, however, that some international humanitarian law provisions the Court cites admit of no exceptions based on military exigencies, namely, Article 46 of the Hague Rules and paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. While Judge Buergenthal believes that the Court’s analysis of the relevance to this case of Article 46 is not well founded, he concludes that Article 49, paragraph 6, which provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and that they violate Article 49, paragraph 6. Hence, the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of that provision.
Finally, Judge Buergenthal notes that it could be argued that the Court lacked many relevant facts bearing on the legality of Israel’s construction of the wall because Israel failed to present them, and that the Court was therefore justified in relying almost exclusively on the United Nations reports submitted to it. This would be true if, instead of dealing with an advisory opinion request, the Court had before it a contentious case where each party has the burden of proving its claims. That is not the rule applicable to advisory opinion proceedings. Israel had no legal obligation to participate in these proceedings or to adduce evidence supporting its claim regarding the legality of the wall. Consequently, the Court may not draw any adverse evidentiary conclusions from Israel’s failure to supply it or assume, without itself fully inquiring into the matter, that the information before it is sufficient to support its sweeping legal conclusions.
End Quote
See
Summary of the Advisory Opinion
So not only did the court fail to investigate the premise of the claim concerning this wall distraction of yours but it was obvious they failed to investigate the assumptions within the request. That Israel was an occupying power, that a state of war does not exist. That Israel as the defending party is not bound by articles 47 or 59 of the IV Geneva convention. Or that Israel has a right to defend itself against a belligerent.
Which leaves us once again
If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.
Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law
In order to have been accurate your statement should have read
"I use the advisory opinions of the ICJ, they are the UN appointed representatives. Your ridiculous denial of these opinions changes nothing".
Although I could simply point out, in the words of one of those appointed representatives
Quote
Judge Buergenthal is prepared to assume that on a thorough analysis of all relevant facts, a finding could well be made that some or even all segments of the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law. But he believes that for the Court to reach such conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without having before it or seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel’s legitimate right of self-defence, military necessity and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel proper coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territory to which Israel has been and continues to be subjected, cannot be justified as a matter of law. In this connection, Judge Buergenthal shows that the right of self-defence does not apply only to attacks by State actors and that armed attacks on Israel proper originating from the Occupied Palestinian Territory must be deemed, in the context of this case, to meet the requirements of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Judge Buergenthal also concludes that the Court’s overall findings that the wall violates international humanitarian law and human rights instruments are not convincing because they fail to address any facts or evidence specifically rebutting Israel’s claim of military exigencies or requirements of national security. Judge Buergenthal recognises, however, that some international humanitarian law provisions the Court cites admit of no exceptions based on military exigencies, namely, Article 46 of the Hague Rules and paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. While Judge Buergenthal believes that the Court’s analysis of the relevance to this case of Article 46 is not well founded, he concludes that Article 49, paragraph 6, which provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and that they violate Article 49, paragraph 6. Hence, the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of that provision.
Finally, Judge Buergenthal notes that it could be argued that the Court lacked many relevant facts bearing on the legality of Israel’s construction of the wall because Israel failed to present them, and that the Court was therefore justified in relying almost exclusively on the United Nations reports submitted to it. This would be true if, instead of dealing with an advisory opinion request, the Court had before it a contentious case where each party has the burden of proving its claims. That is not the rule applicable to advisory opinion proceedings. Israel had no legal obligation to participate in these proceedings or to adduce evidence supporting its claim regarding the legality of the wall. Consequently, the Court may not draw any adverse evidentiary conclusions from Israel’s failure to supply it or assume, without itself fully inquiring into the matter, that the information before it is sufficient to support its sweeping legal conclusions.
End Quote
See
Summary of the Advisory Opinion
So not only did the court fail to investigate the premise of the claim concerning this wall distraction of yours but it was obvious they failed to investigate the assumptions within the request. That Israel was an occupying power, that a state of war does not exist. That Israel as the defending party is not bound by articles 47 or 59 of the IV Geneva convention. Or that Israel has a right to defend itself against a belligerent.
Which leaves us once again
If you can't establish within international law the exact statutes that support your claim, your claim is invalid.
Your incessant distractions only go to show you have no such facts within the law
