re: un vote on fence, from the scotsman
Some extracts of UN debate, note the Turkey, Swiss and UK stance on the role of ICJ.
Before the Assembly took action on the two draft resolutions, the representative of Turkey spoke in explanation of position, saying he would vote in favour of the draft resolution because it would carry the issue into the legal forum. Although his country agreed with much of the statement made by the representative of Italy, on behalf of the European Union, it also held that the political process and the process of obtaining a legal opinion were not mutually exclusive.
The construction of the wall could affect negatively the interests of Palestinians and Israelis alike, he said, and so play into the hands of terrorists aiming to polarize society and prevent any just and lasting peace. Moreover, it was wrong to build the wall on other peopleÕs land -Ð that could push the Palestinian population into further desperation and give extremism the upper hand.
With regard to the threat of terrorism faced by Israel, he acknowledged that a series of acts had pushed Israel to construct the wall. However, while the international community should work to convince Israel that it had overreacted, it must also work to convince the Palestinian leadership to redress the situation and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. Both sides must work to break out of the vicious cycle, casting aside their old maps. They should embrace wholeheartedly the Road Map.
++++++++++++++
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said he remained concerned by the route marked out for the barrier and regretted that Israel had not complied with the General AssemblyÕs demand to halt and reverse the construction of the barrier. Nevertheless, he had abstained on the vote requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ because it was inappropriate to take such action without the consent of both parties. Moreover, the advisory opinion was unlikely to change the actual situation on ground. The case was not one in which the Assembly needed the CourtÕs legal advice in order to carry out its functions. The question could only be settled through direct negotiations between the two parties. Pursuing an advisory opinion would not help to relaunch the dialogue nor to implement the Road Map, which should be the priority.
++++++++++++++
PIERRE HELG (Switzerland) said his delegation was firmly opposed to the construction of the wall. It was contrary to the Road Map and hampered efforts to achieve the two-State solution long envisioned by the international community. With respect to the text under consideration today, however, Switzerland had abstained in the vote. Despite its commitment to international law, Switzerland believed that it was inappropriate to bring a subject with highly political implications before the ICJ.
