An Unfair Advantage: Comparing the International Court of Justice to a Form of ADR and Why it was Inappropriate for the Court to Issue an Advisory Opinion in the Case of Israel's Separation Fence

Authors

Mimi Trenk, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Abstract

This Note will begin with a concise background of the ArabIsraeli conflict. It will then explain the three arguments presented to the Court as to why it should have declined to exercise jurisdiction and the Court's response. It will explore the similarities of non-binding arbitration, as a form of alternative dispute resolution, and the Advisory Opinion. It will then examine whether, in the interests of justice, it was appropriate for the Court to issue the opinion, even though it is considered to be non-binding. This Note will examine the Israeli Supreme Court as the proper forum to enforce the rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Finally, game theory will be discussed as a tool to aid in understanding the ramifications of the Court's involvement.

Disciplines

Comparative and Foreign Law | Constitutional Law | Courts | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Environmental Law | International Law | Law

Recommended Citation

Mimi Trenk, An Unfair Advantage: Comparing the International Court of Justice to a Form of ADR and Why it was Inappropriate for the Court to Issue an Advisory Opinion in the Case of Israel's Separation Fence, 8 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 371 (2006).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjcr/vol8/iss1/13