Text IV – items 47 to 50
Israel is in the dock again. The International Court of
Justice (ICJ) is investigating the legality of the security fence
being raised on the West Bank. Even a number of I srael’s
traditional friends are alarmed by the policy. Some worry that
the fence wil l harm the Palestinian economy, cutting off
workers from their f actories and farms. Others see it as an
attempt to extend Israel’s border beyond its pre-1967 limit
and feel that such walls have no place in the modern world.
These are major objections and they deserve to be
answered separately. First, though, it is worth asking why this
question should have come before the Hague judges at all. The
ICJ is not a supreme court; it is an arbitration panel. It provides
a mechanism whereby two states can, by mutual agreement,
refer a dispute to third-party lawyers. By sending this case to
the Hague, the UN is striking at the principle of territorial
jurisdiction that ultimately underpins diplomatic relations. That
principle is already threatened by the European courts at
Strasbourg and Luxembourg, and by the refusal of Spanish and
Belgian judges to recognise national sovereignty. We are slowly
returning to the pre-modern idea that lawmakers need not be
accountable to the people, but rather to abstract ideals.
Faced with a choice between international
disapprobation and more Israeli deaths, Mr Sharon has
understandably opted for the former. He believes that the fence
would have prevented yesterday’s atrocity in Jerusalem, and he
is almost certainly right. Gaza is already cordoned off, and no
Palestinian terrorists have penetrated the barrier in the past three
years (although two British Muslims were able to do so on the
strength of their UK passports).
Daily Telegraph, London, February 23rd , 2004 (with adaptations).