Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:18:27.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Normative Dimension of International Relations and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on the Separation Barrier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Arie M. Kacowicz
Get access

Abstract

In this paper, I address the relevance of the normative dimension of international relations against the background of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of July 9, 2004, with reference to the legality of the security barrier/fence being erected by the Israeli government since March of 2002. I examine different approaches to the study of norms in international relations, focusing upon the Grotian approach, which represents a middle ground between the extreme Hobbesian (Realist) and Kantian (idealist) traditions of international relations. According to the Grotian approach, international norms affect the foreign policy of individual countries through their institutionalization in the international society, usually through multilateral instruments of international law. In this sense, both the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court of June 30, 2004, and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of July 9, 2004, represent and reflect those instruments. The International Court of Justice is the major legal institution of the United Nations, which is the embodiment of our international society. Hence, even if its ruling is considered biased or distorted (by Israel), it still carries an important normative and political baggage, by underlining paramount norms such as self-determination and protection of human rights.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1-2: Special Double Issue: Domestic and International Judicial Review of the Construction of the Separation Barrier , Spring Winter 2005 , pp. 348 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of International Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

References

1 Lergo, Jeffery W., “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism” (1997) 51(1) International Organization 31, at 31 Google Scholar; Barkun, Michael, “International Norms: An Interdisciplinary Approach” (1964) 8(2) Background 121, at 128–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kacowicz, Arie Marcelo, The Impact of Norms in International Society: The Latin American Experience, 1881-2001 (Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

2 Tannenwald, Nina, Dogs That Don't Bark: The United States, The Role of Norms, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons in the Post WWII Era (New York, Ph.D. thesis Cornell University, 1992) 9 Google Scholar.

3 Nardin, Terry, “Ethical Traditions in International Affairs” in Nardin, Terry and Mapel, David R., eds. Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992) 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kelsen, Hans, Law and Peace in International Relations (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1942)Google Scholar; Jones, Dorothy, “The Declaratory Tradition in Modern International Law” in Nardin, Terry and Mapel, David R., eds. Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992) 58 Google Scholar.

4 Nadin, Terry, Law, Morality, and the Relations of State (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

5 Arend, Anthony C., “Legal Rules and International Politics: A Constructivist Approach” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association (Canada, March 17, 1997)Google Scholar.

6 Kratochwil, Friedrich, “Norms and Values: Rethinking the Domestic Analogy” (1987) 1 Ethics and International Affairs 135; at 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See especially Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York, Macmillan Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Kegley, Charles and Wittkopf, Eugene R., World Politics: Trend and Transformation (Belmont, CA, Thomson and Wadsworth, 9th ed., 2004) 585 Google Scholar.

9 Arend, supra n. 5, at 25-26.

10 Kelsen, supra n. 3, at 115.

11 Kratochwil, Friedrich, “Thrasymmachos Revisited: On the Relevance of Norms and the Study of Law for International Relations” (1984) 37(2) Journal of International Affairs 343, at 350 Google Scholar. Jones, supra n. 3. at 44-45: Barnett, Michael N., “Bringing the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy, and the United Nations” 49 (4) World Politics 526–551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Jones, supra n. 3, at 44-45; Barnett, supra n. 11, at 542.

13 H.C.J 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel 58 (5) P.D. 807; for the English translation of this case see “H.C.J 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel 58 (5) P.D. 807” (2005) 38(1–2) Is.L.R. 83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Muller, Harald, “The Internalization of Principles, Norms, and Rules by Governments” in Rittberger, Volker, ed. Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993) 361 at 385 Google Scholar.

15 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinians Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, I.C.J. See this issue of the Israel Law Review: “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinians Territory” (2005) 38(1–2) Is.L.R. 17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 H.C.J. 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, supra n. 13, at 23, President Barak.