Deploring Misuse of International Court of Justice By United Nations General Assembly for Political Purpose

DEPLORING MISUSE OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE -- (House of Representatives - July 14, 2004)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 713) deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow political purpose, the willingness of the International Court of Justice to acquiesce in an effort likely to undermine its reputation and interfere with a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and for other purposes, as amended.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for rendering an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the "Israeli Wall," and condemning the U.N. General Assembly for requesting such an opinion.

This legislation was only introduced last night-and strikes me as the type of knee-jerk posturing that does more harm than good. I oppose the bill for the following reasons:

The ICJ rendered an advisory opinion on the legal consequences on the construction of the wall on its current route, an opinion requested by the U.N. General Assembly. The ICJ did so as it has done in the past, and the General Assembly was within its rights to request such an opinion.

Condemning the General Assembly for asking for an opinion, or the ICJ for analyzing the situation and making a nonbinding statement of opinion on the matter is essentially condemning people for asking questions or having an opinion-key elements in civilized discourse or democracy.

The sponsors of this bill, well-intentioned as they are, claim that the advisory opinion denies that Israel has a right to self-defense. This is not so-paragraph 141 states "The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous and indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens."

The resolution is factually incorrect:

It claims the General Assembly asked for an opinion on the legality of the barrier. They did not. They asked for an opinion on the legal consequences construction of the barrier.

It says that a similar security barrier exists around Gaza. The barrier around Gaza is on the armistice line, not beyond it, does not isolate Palestinian villages, or envelop settlements on territory described by the Israeli Supreme Court as being held "in belligerent occupation," and therefore is not similar.

The resolution is hypocritical-it calls on members of the international community to "reflect soberly" on a number of matters-although this body held no hearings on this resolution, and has not even had 24 hours to review it. I would hazard a guess that fewer than 2 percent of the Members of this body, or their staffs have actually read the opinion in question, much less reflected soberly on it.

The resolution is needlessly belligerent-it threatens that anyone who seriously considers the ICJ ruling to raise questions about the resolution of this issue "Risk[s] a strongly negative impact on their relationship with the people and government of the United States." At this time, we need to be working with our colleagues in the international community to find a solution, listening to what they have to say, rather than threatening them.

The opinion states that construction of the barrier inside Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal under international law. I'm not a lawyer-but I know that if I build my fence on your property, I've got to take it down.

The resolution notes that the Israeli courts themselves have been critical of the barrier, and have directed that changes be made to the wall's route. While this is true, it does not mean that other states concerned with the stability of the region, should not have the benefit of an advisory opinion on the legal ramifications of the wall by an outside party.

Interesting points from that Israeli Supreme Court case (which only covered one portion of the fence):
86. Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and destruction wrought by terror against the state and its citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state's struggle against those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the state's struggle against the terror that rises up against it, we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle according to the law will strengthen her power and her spirit. There is no security without law. Satisfying the provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94 The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, at 845:

"We are aware that this decision does make it easier to deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy-she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.

"That goes for this case as well. Only a Separation Fence built on a base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.
A nonbinding opinion is just that. Disagree with it all you want-pick it apart, show how it is wrong. But to condemn people for voicing an opinion is undemocratic and should be beneath this body.