the Advisory Opinion, which found that the construction of the fence (the “wall” in its terminology) and the legal regime which accompany it violate international law, as most of the fence passes through the West Bank.  The Court found that the normative basis upon which the ICJ and the Supreme Court of Israel in The Beit Sourik Case based their decisions was a common one.  Despite a common normative basis, the courts reached different con-clusions. The difference in legal conclusions stems primarily from the difference in the factual bases upon which each court decided. 

The ICJ based its judgment upon the factual basis regarding the injury to the rights of the Palestinian residents, without dealing with the factual basis regarding Israel's security-military need to erect the fence. In...

Please subscribe to keep reading.