Israel v. Palestinian Authority (International Court of Justice)

Israel is Not in Violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention
By Kirsten Dunn

Kirsten Dunn is a third-year student at Albany Law School, scheduled to graduate in May 2016. She is also a candidate to receive an M.S. in bioethics from Albany Medical College.
Kirsten is the co-Executive for the student chapter of the National Association of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), as well as a member of the Elder Law and Health Law Societies.
Kirsten was recently profiled on the Albany Law School website: Family Matters: Dunn '16, Mother of 9, Closing in on J.D. (http://www.albanylaw.edu/students/spotlight/Pages/Kirsten-Dunn-16-Mother-of-9-Closing-in-on-J-D.aspx)
She wrote this paper on Israel v. Palestinian Authority, for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime seminar, Fall 2015. 

LETTER FROM THE AGENT OF ISRAEL TO THE REGISTRAR

OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE . 

I have the honour to submit for consideration of the Court the Application instituting proceedings for Summary Judgment with regard to Israel’s alleged violations of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (Israel v. Palestinian Authority).  Understanding that the Palestinian Authority is not a recognized member state within the United Nations, Israel hereby seeks recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the areas of Judea and Samaria through this summary judgment motion.  In the event that this Court cannot make such a judgment over the non-member state of the Palestinian Authority, Israel hereby requests an Official Advisory Opinion be issued in lieu of such Summary Judgment.

(Signed) Kirsten Dunn,
Agent for the Nation of Israel
____________________________
To read the entire paper, open HERE.

The ICJ: Composition, Cases & Clout [presentation]

By Brielle J. Danko
Brielle Danko is a third year student at Albany Law and is a teaching assistant for the Litigation Clinic. She completed her undergrad studies at Virginia Tech where she majored in English Pre-Law and minored in Women's Studies.
Brielle prepared this presentation for Prof. Bonventre's International Law of War & Crime Seminar, Fall 2013.

The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is composed of 15 judges. There are two types of cases that the Court can entertain: contentious cases and advisory proceedings. But it can entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction. Even though the Court has a $47 million budget, it has a declining influence and is highly under-utilized..

(click to enlarge slides) 

___________________________

For the entire presentation, open HERE.
(It is then best to Download [by clicking on File] and then Open the downloaded power-point presentation.)

The International Court of Justice: A Survey of Contentious Cases from 2001 to 2011

By Alexander H. Hill

Alex Hill, a second year student at Albany Law School, is an associate editor of International Law Studies. He currently works at the Albany Law School Low Income Taxpayers Clinic and spent the last year interning for the Executive Offices of the New York State Department of Financial Services.

He prepared this paper for the Judicial Process Seminar, Fall 2011.

Publication of his associated presentation was previously published by the Center for Judicial Process.

We are haunted by the greatest unfinished task of civilization which is to create a just and peaceful international order. If such a relationship between states is to be realized, we know its foundations will be laid in law, because legal process is the only practical alternative to force.
--Robert H. Jackson, Address to Inter-American Bar Association, 1941.

After the world witnessed the horrors of man exposed in World War II, the Four Powers of the globe (the United States, the United Kingdom, the USSR, and China) collaborated to form an International Court of Justice, keeping in mind the principles of sovereignty and international law. The Four Powers prepared a proposal that was submitted to the United Nations and resulted in the creation, or re-creation, of an international court established with general jurisdiction and the ability to hear complaints between nations, in the hope of bringing and maintaining peace throughout the world.

The court was named International Court of Justice (ICJ). It continues the pursuit of peace through the jurisprudence of international law to this day.

The ICJ is the main judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945, through the Charter of the United Nations, its role is to hear and decide disputes of international law that states submit to, as well as to provide advisory opinions regarding legal inquiries by members of the United Nations and specialized agencies that are authorized to do so. It is the only court in the world that has general jurisdiction over international law.

Given the evolving globalization of the states of the world, as well as the ever growing complex issues that arise internationally, the natural presumption is that the ICJ is a court that would receive and address complex cases involving difficult issues from all over the world, and that the processes utilized by the ICJ would allow for an unbiased decision in such cases. A review of data from the last ten years (2001–2011), however, indicates some issues in that the contentious cases heard by the ICJ are not representative of the globe.

Its role thus appears to be evolving into one of more advisory and procedural, using judicial restraint on an international level to defer more controversial and politically charged issues to other venues such as regional tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC), and acting as a guide for these tribunals, both in structure and decision making.*
_____________________________

* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.

To read the entire paper, open HERE.