ICJ Ruling Against Israel | Jurisprudence Podcast

[@thelawacademy1]

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

[@thelawacademy1]

Question in live chat by @S E: "it seems the Court is looking to make it known that the actions by Israel are not within the rule of law yet is lacking in its effort to reinforce those rules for fear of creating repercussions?" I wouldn't necessarily say that there are fears of repercussions in the International Court of Justice. The ICJ ruling here is fundamentally damning on Israeli practices. While there are slight disagreements here and there in the opinion, and a lack of clarity in some determinations, there is still remarkable consensus among the judges. If it feels like some of the results are somewhat 'watered down', this appears to be in order to maintain consensus within the court. This is not uncommon and also happens with a lot of courts around the world.

[@revisionreader1922]

Whilst advisory is definitely persuasive- it looks like good lawmaking/ jurisprudence will consistently fail in the face of American strategic interests in this issue

[@revisionreader1922]

To clarify , I don’t mean the decision outcome is necessarily good but rather that the decision is able to happen is good

[@thelawacademy1]

I would generally be inclined to agree. However, with regards to West Bank settlements in addition to ceasefire negotiations, it appears the US has been taking a far from pro-Israel line.

[@UncleKlausSchwab]

Let's be honest, international law is rather illusory. Perhaps at the natural law level the law exists but in the real world law is governed by politics. I'm a legal realist in many respects. Look at the way powerful countries can conveniently not recognise the ICC or how certain countries are treated differently by supposed non political international organisations like FIFA or the Olympics. The russians have been ostracised yet according to many commentators the second Iraqi was illegal in the absence of a UN security council resultion, yet no NATO countries faced the same expulsions at the time or post factum. The veto power is a joke at the UN security council level and its provenance, "accept it or have no UN", established the absurdities at the outset. Nemo iudex in causa sua comes to mind with regards to conflicts of interest and the veto power of the big five. What resolves international disputes is diplomacy, or more importantly, power.

[@UncleKlausSchwab]

The very fact that an organ was motivated to examine this issue, in of itself, speaks volumes. The law for the laws sake is rather redundant given the motivations implicit in its very conception.

[@UncleKlausSchwab]

I'm a lawyer myself and gorge on jurisprudence. Surely the very existence of textbooks that argue on the meaning of "what is law", suggests that even the substance of that claim is defacto contentious given the existence of disputed theories, so a blanket dismissal of dismissing critique of the process is an attempt to pigeon hole law into a rigid defintion. However, even answering that most fundamental question is itself contentious.