Introduction:
It is apparent that the conflict between two states in the Middle East, Palestine and Israel, has been prominent to the idea of how international law is implemented throughout countries, and how it plays a big role in keeping two unlike states at peace. The idea of Israel wanting to construct a wall through the occupied Palestine territory was up for debate within the courts, questioning whether Israel was committing an illegal act upon Palestine. Within the courts, it was their responsibility to determine what the legal consequences of constructing a wall between two states should be. This paper will determine what these consequences are, while giving a brief background to the history behind the Palestine and Israel conflict, the key elements of how the dispute played out, the future implications associated with international law regarding implications risen in the case, and how exactly this case is of importance in the essence of international law. Although the conflict between these two countries is yet to be settled, by having Israel remove the wall and repair the damages arising from its unlawful wrongdoing, there is hope that both countries will come to an agreement, and peace will be restored to both these well-known states.
Background:
For years, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. However, the ending of the First World War introduced a Mandate for Palestine, which suggested “Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” This mandate proposed the idea that Palestine would be considered an independent nation and should be assisted until able to handle itself as its own country, meaning that at the time, Palestine wasn’t seen as a country that could rule itself. However, the General Assembly believed that the future government of Palestine could be supported by the “Plan of Partition”, which would seek the resolution between two independent states, with them being unlike due to one Arab, and the other Jewish. This was rejected by the Arab population of Palestine and the remaining Arab states, proposing it to be an unbalanced agreement. By the Arab population rejecting this idea, this strengthened Israel by the state proclaiming its independence, resulting in armed conflict breaking out between Israel and Arab states, resulting in the Plan of Partition not being implemented. Throughout the years, Israel has occupied territories that drastically effected the function of Palestine as a state, therefore, there have been a number of agreements between these two states, one of which “required Israel to transfer Palestinian authorities specific powers and responsibilities in the occupied Palestinian territory by its military authorities…”. Therefore, although there have been many treaties signed and attempts to bring these two states peace, the construction of the wall still suggests that there is still underlying conflict, and there is still work to be done to resolve their issues.
Advisory Opinion:
Between both Israel and Palestine, it was difficult for these two states to settle upon an agreement of whether the construction of the wall would benefit both countries. With Israel having its best interest in mind in terms of protecting itself from terrorist attacks, the court takes into consideration that Israel and Palestine have both expressed different views regarding the construction of the wall, and is strictly now trying to determine the legal consequences should be implemented upon Israel if they so choose to go through with it. An advisory opinion would therefore help decide what state is in the wrongdoing, and the actions needed to be taken in order to bring peace to both countries. This then would help settle the conflict as the two states have a general assembly involved, finding reason and proof to answer the question raised throughout this case which is what the legal consequences would be if there was construction of a wall between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.
Israel’s Violations Against Palestine:
With respect to Israel’s request to build a wall between Palestine, Israel argued that by doing this, it will help tackle terrorist attacks committed by the West Bank. This then introduces the idea of the use of force, and whether or not it can be applicable in this case. Due to Israel believing they were going to be under attack, whether imminent or not, this was enough reason for them to believe that a wall was necessary in keeping the peace between the two states. Should the wall be removed, would things then change and progressively get worth between Israel and Palestine? Israel argued that the wall would only be a temporary fix, saying “As soon as the terror ends, the fence will no longer be necessary. The fence is not a border and has no political significance, it does not change the legal status of the territory in any way.” With the state suggesting it would only be temporary, they are implying that they are looking for a permeant fix other than a wall, suggesting that there is room for a peaceful agreement. Although Israel tried to have both states best interest in mind, it is evident that the construction of the wall throughout the occupied Palestinian territory was an extreme violation. The state of Israel violated Palestine’s territory by violated the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination with respect to its obligations under international humanitarian law. Therefore, by Israel violated Palestine in such a way, it was ordered under an obligation to return the land obtained, which included land that was immovable, taken from any legal person, with the intent of constructing the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory. However, for other damages that were arisen from the construction of the wall, Israel was obligated to compensate the persons for the damage experienced. In regards to Israel, the construction of the wall on their behalf posed more of a threat to international law, and thus, numerous violations arisen and had to be addressed by Israel as they were responsible for solving them. Although the odds aren’t in favor of Israel constructing a wall through Palestinian territory, the court debated on whether or not the idea of state necessity was in favor for Israel, as the country believed it would be protecting them from terror attacks. However, the court dismissed this plea, proving that once against, Israel was in full violation of Palestine’s rights as an independent state.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall:
As the debate between whether Israel is able to construct a wall to protect itself as a state, the question of what are the legal consequences of doing so throughout occupied Palestinian terrorist is raised, and is up for answer throughout this case study. To begin, a key legal consequence of the construction of this barrier is the idea of the Palestinian people having their right to self-determination being destroyed. This is of concern as it is an obligation for every state to have. If there was a wall running through an already occupied land by a state that is going to war with said land, the country and its citizens right to self-determination would no longer be granted, ultimately making the state lose its sense of statehood and identity. This is especially of concern as Palestine would become unrecognizable to its own citizens, therefore, having to rely on other states and powers to introduce a new identity to the country. With respect to international law, the concept of building a wall or a barrier throughout the already occupied Palestinian land raises the concern of it being contrary to international law itself. From this, it is necessary that both states acknowledge and are an obligation to thoroughly observe the rules and regulations of International Humanitarian Law, as its main goal and focus is to protect civilian life. Therefore, if the states go against what International Law stands for, they risk further damaging their states as they are no longer protecting international law’s common values. The legal consequences of Israel organizing a construction of a wall throughout an already conquered Palestinian territory, as a result of this they are responsible for facing the repercussions. Israel therefore has a legal obligation to bring the illegal situation to an end, thus cancelling any operation or plans to move forward with constructing the wall, and to assure the court that there will be no repetition of these plans in the future. From the damages risen throughout this process, Israel has full responsibility to repair such damages. This would take place in the form of restitution; where the Israeli government would remove portions of the wall that had been constructed throughout the state of Palestine, following that, they were to be given an annulment of the legal acts associated with such construction, implying that the restoration of the property be demanded or given back. The reparation Israel has been commanded to due for the damages made by their construction should also include appropriate compensation to the individuals who had their homes or land neglected and disturbed, as well as the citizens of Palestine’s agricultural holdings and the reparation of those if injured. Therefore, the legal consequences of the construction of the wall throughout an already occupied Palestinian land were for Israel to acknowledge their wrong doing, and desperately try to seek ways on how to restore and repair the land that wasn’t there’s, while agreeing that such a drastic and complicated thought wouldn’t be of concern in the future of the two states.
The Construction of the Wall and International Law:
When looking at this case, many questions are risen in respect to what were the rules and regulations in Israel committing such an act, and how international law would handle such a situation that posed a threat on many civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory. International law is formatted on the understanding and concept of the use of force and self-defense. Referring to the course text book, it states that “in order to be able to resort to force in self-defense, as state has to be able to demonstrate that it has been the victim of an armed attack and it bears the burden of proof”.This being said, as long as Israel is able to demonstrate that their state is in jeopardy and has had an attack that was previously carried out from Palestine occur, their argument of self-defense would then be relevant and applicable within the construction of the wall. Israel’s then argued that their reasoning for the construction of the wall was the right of force, as well as self-defense in the sense of the state being fearful of terrorist attacks carried out in the West Bank of Gaza. Should Israel feel threatened in any way, with the ideas of international law to back their judgments up, the country would therefore believe that building a wall between both divided states wouldn’t be of concern throughout international law, and the court system. The courts, however, considered Israel’s plea of self-defense, but later found out that Israel cannot rely on the right of self-defense as Israel does not actually claim that the attacks are going to be committed by a foreign state. With this in mind, it is safe to say international law’s notion on the premise of use of force and self-defense aren’t applicable in this case, as there is no logical reasoning for Israel to build a wall throughout an occupied state. This case is also of importance to international law as it is the opposite of what international law is trying to exclaim and implement in our world today. International law must take into consideration the fundamental rights of states, and how to make these two unlike states co-exist without introducing more damage. The fundamental rights of the states would include independence, equality, and a peaceful co-existence. In respect to international law in this sense, it has an obligation to respect the fundamental rights of both Israel and Palestine. Should it disregard one of these fundamental rights, it would be going against the contrary of international law, thus, potentially introducing new conflict and wreaking havoc between Israel and Palestine. In terms of the right of a peaceful co-existence, the “principle of non-aggression and the execution of international obligations in good faith” is notable as that was the goal for the courts, and how international law would support the idea of wanting both states to coexist without the fear of conflict arising in the future, resulting in the demolition of the wall as it showed how it would drastically effect the people of Palestine, potentially causing future problems between the two states. Therefore, international law is especially important in this case because it is the premise of the function between these two states. International law has rules, regulations, and obligations to follow and be applicable when making the decision of whether the construction of the wall throughout the occupied Palestinian territory should be permitted or not. Without the idea of self-defense and the fundamental rights of each states, International Law would have a difficult time working around both needs of the states, therefore, potentially introducing new conflict if the old one isn’t settled and the states are incapable of co-existing.
Future Implications for International Law:
Looking at the future implications for international law in the principle areas presented in the case, it is safe to say the legitimacy and international law’s obligations and rules are up for debate in the future. When observing Israel and Palestine’s on going conflict, having the construction of the wall placed between Israel and Palestine’s already occupied territory, it raises the question of how far can international law go in terms of trying to make these states peacefully co-exist? International law in the end defended Palestine’s rights, and had Israel terminate the wall and restore and repair the damages caused by doing such, proving that it had Palestine’s best intentions in mind and believed that the states could co-exist without a barrier being structured. This implicates the future of international law as it is assuming that once there is no wall, the two states will settle their disagreements and peacefully co-exist. International law should then try to dig deeper and determine what the underlying factors are, and how it can be applied to both states in attempting to restore both these countries. Also, although international law has its rules and obligations to both states, the future implication of how it handled the conflict is up for debate. With international law recognizing the fundamental rights of the states, it acknowledges that equality, independence, and peaceful co-existence, these three factors were used in determining how international law could be applicable throughout the case. In respect to the right for the states to co-exist, this already has implicated the future of international law as it isn’t a full resolution for the conflict. Although the wall between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory was removed, there are issues that have been raised for years now between these two states, suggesting that this is only a temporary fix, leaving the question of can international law’s obligation to both states be enough in resolving the full conflict? By international law promoting its restoration to Palestine, it is therefore reassuring that Palestine is its own country and can run itself how it please, disregarding any outside and foreign influences. Therefore, Palestine is reminded that it is a country and state that matters and has fundamental rights that need to be acknowledged. As for Israel, this could implicate the future of international law as it comes up with new ways and tactics to take back land that the country rightfully believes is theirs.
Conclusion:
Referring to the notion of what exactly were the legal consequences of constructing a wall throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, the courts were ultimately in favor of Palestine’s desires to have the wall terminated. Thus, Israel was forced to repair the damages inflicted upon Palestine and its people, while agreeing to never have a repetition of another wall. There were many legal consequences of this which were addressed in the paper, one of the main consequences being the idea of the Palestinian people having their self-determination rights taken away from them. This ultimately was one of the backbones of the court and advisory opinion agreeing in favor of Palestine, and requesting the removal of the wall. As for the case in relation to international law itself, with the many fundamental rights and obligations that need to be provided to the states, and the idea of the use of force and self-defense, without these key factors needed in international law, the case would have played out drastically different. As for the future implications, it’s hard to determine whether or not this is enough to justify the end of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, and if they can peacefully co-exist without having to go to drastic measures such as building a wall between two states. To conclude, the conflict between Palestine and Israel is one that will be remembered in history. With Palestine finally taking back its land and Israel looking for new ways to resolve its issues with the other state, there is hope that maybe one day both countries will be able to peacefully co-exist beside each other.