Skip Navigation


Journal of Conflict and Security Law Advance Access originally published online on February 3, 2006
Journal of Conflict and Security Law 2006 11(1):119-139; doi:10.1093/jcsl/krl001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/1/119    most recent
krl001v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Orakhelashvili, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2006; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Opinion and Reaction

Alexander Orakhelashvili*

* Fellow, Jesus College, Oxford.

The legal framework surrounding the construction of the Wall in the occupied Palestinian territory has been extensively discussed in the context of international politics as well as national jurisprudence. The International Court’s advisory opinion is meant to be an authoritative statement of law aimed at clarifying this much contested matter. This contribution examines the court’s treatment of the points of substantive international law applicable to the construction of the Wall and the ensuing legal consequences. Furthermore, it considers the reaction to the advisory opinion by the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mara’abe. This contribution concludes that the International Court’s treatment of the legal position in strict terms of legality must be preferred to the application of balancing tests by the Israeli Supreme Court, especially given the latter’s deficient treatment of the proportionality test.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.