It’s an enemy state under military occupation.
It’s a state?
According to the [Westphalian system], every state, no matter how large or small, has an equal right to sovereignty.
Well, what would you call it? It’s not part of Israel and the country that used to administer it refuses to take responsibility for it.
My opinion on the matter is one that I have no way to enforce; I’m not in a position of authority. I could ask the students at a local junior-high classroom for their opinion, but I don’t think their decision would settle things either; they likewise have no way to enforce it, as they’re likewise not in a position of authority.
Does the ICJ have a way to enforce its opinion, as if it were in a position of authority? Or is it more like an unimportant irrelevance?
I think the issue is simply current government policy to banjax Palestinian sovereignty and Palestinian statehood in the areas in question.
Courts do not directly enforce laws. Not Israeli courts, either.
I’ll admit I phrased that inelegantly.
So: when an Israeli court makes a decision, what is the mechanism for enforcing it? Who, in a position of authority, responds accordingly? And, when I make a decision or the ICJ makes a decision or the students in a junior-high classroom make a decision: what happens?
Israel has units like the Border Police that are equipped to enforce laws in the West Bank. As for a step-by-step description of what happens in between the United Nations making a decision and the local commander getting a phone call and orders, I would love to hear more details from a knowledgeable source myself.
But that’s not exactly what I’m asking about. I’m asking something more along the lines of: if a junior-high class makes a decision and nobody enforces it, and the UN makes a decision and nobody enforces it, is there a difference?
When, e.g., the US ignored the ICJ judgement against it for all the Nicaragua Contras stuff, I assume they had to at least send a representative to the UN to hear how bad they were and to veto Security Council resolutions, but if it is a junior-high class you do not even have to do that!
Territory. Because if it’s a state, it’s sovereign and can kick out the occupiers.
Of course, that’s not going to happen.
Did Japan cease to be a state from 1945 to 1952?
But that’s my question: in this case — where, as you say, Israel wouldn’t have to send a representative if a junior-high class weighed in — did Israel have to send a representative after the ICJ weighed in? Or did they not actually have to bother with that, because the opinion of the ICJ carries no more weight than the opinion of some students in a junior-high classroom?
I’m not asking this flippantly; I’m genuinely curious as to whether the opinion of the ICJ is exactly as relevant and important — and requires exactly as much of a response — as said kids in said classroom.
The decisions of the ICJ carry some weight within the fraction of international relations that are based on morality and “hearts and minds”, rather than raw “might makes right” and “selfish wins every time”. It’s so-called “soft power” not “hard power”.
The size of that fraction within statecraft varies from era to era and location to location and conflict to conflict. It’s never large, but it’s rarely zero.
By comparing the ICJ to a grade school class, and especially asserting they are exactly the same, you (any you) are essentially re-defining soft power as useless. All forms of soft power. be careful what you wish for.
As the world just now seems hell-bent on taking a fascist hard-power turn for a century or so, soft power may in fact be close to useless for awhile.
As our (great?) grandkids recover civilization’s senses, they will try again to make soft power the law and practice worldwide. Maybe they’ll get farther than we did with the ICJ. And the UN. And the World Bank. And and and …
They have sent people
as well as submitted written statements (e.g., arguing that the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the occupied territories). Israel is a UN member, for what it is worth.
It costs a lot more money for all the UN officials to get together an hold their vote than it does to hold a junior high class.
Apartheid implies two legal systems.
How many Americans moved permanently to Japan during that period. Did they accept that they would eventually be subject to Japanese law? Did they learn the language?
…I’m not actually going to answer this question because it shows a complete misunderstanding of what the advisory opinion is all about and how it works, and an extended discourse about it takes iiandyiiii’s thread off track, and I don’t want to be responsible for that.
If you want clarification on the role of the ICJ is and how an advisory opinion differs from an enforcement order, perhaps General Questions is the right place for it. I’d be happy to jump over there if you want.
But in this thread, it’s relevant because the issue of apartheid is brought up in the advisory opinion.
The declaration also examines Israel’s discriminatory laws and measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, demonstrating that they are tantamount to the crime of apartheid. Israel has committed numerous inhumane acts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which the Opinion unambiguously identifies, as part of an institutionalized régime of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over another.
It lays out the legal case that will probably address most, if not all, of the “best defenses of the apartheid-like system.”
There is no blanket “how it will be enforced” and “enforcement” isn’t relevant to this particular thread. Because it depends on the specifics. For example, the opinion talks about breaches of article III of CERD, where enforcement starts at the domestic level. But if you want more details, I mean here is a good place to start.
That should help to explain the difference between people who possess “the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law” and the students in a local junior-high classroom.
I believe it is.
I believe the obvious answer to the OP’s question is the only real answer to the OP’s question: that Israel should act in its best interests when dealing with these people. And, in that context, the relevant question in response to the opinion of the ICJ or of a junior-high class would be: does that opinion alter the conclusion?
Maybe the reaction to the ICJ — or to a junior-high class — is to ignore it with no additional consequences, precisely because they believe the consequences remain unchanged. Maybe the reaction is a written statement that the ICJ — or the junior-high class — has no jurisdiction in the occupied territories, while Israel continues the same course of action: having seen no change in the cost-benefit analysis.
Maybe the reaction is to exclaim that, “gosh, what the ICJ has said” — or what the junior-high class has said — “matters a great deal to us, and will prompt us to reconsider our conclusion about what’s in our best interests.” If so, that’d strike me as interesting and relevant. But if that’s not so — if they breezily disregard the ICJ or the junior-high class, upon figuring that it makes no difference when it comes to ramifications — then I figure the situation would play out the way it currently does, regardless of whether the ICJ or that junior-high class weighs in.
…bolding mine.
Can you be very specific here: who are “these people?”
Because I have no idea. What people do you think should be allowed to be subjected to an “apartheid-like system”?
This isn’t remotely an answer - how are the present circumstances in the best interests of Israel? Not just now, but long term, taking everything into account? Apartheid was killed in South Africa because the world rejected it. It brought down White rule in South Africa. Even purely pragmatically, taking morality out of the debate - the status quo could bring about the end of Zionist rule in Israel. Is that risk worth whatever the benefits are of apartheid and brutality towards civilians?