Things will look a lot different Monday, when the International Court of Justice is plunged into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
At issue is the legality of the security barrier Israel started building in and around the Palestinian territories after suffering a wave of suicide bombings. On Sunday, a 23-year-old suicide bomber from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades blew himself up on a crowded Jerusalem bus, killing eight people and wounding 59.
Outside the palace gates, demonstrators from Israel, Britain and Canada, flown to the Dutch capital on cheap charters, will square off against pro-Palestinian demonstrators drawn from the Netherlands' large Muslim immigrant community and its sympathizers.
Fearing clashes, city officials have slotted separate times for the protests.
Parked nearby will be the mangled shell of an Israeli bus, blown up Jan. 29 by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 11 lives lost. The bus is meant to illustrate why Israel believes it needs the network of walls and fences.
The Palestinians say the barrier, weaving around villages and across farmland, is an Israeli attempt to steal land because part of it crosses the Israel-West Bank frontier into Palestinian land. They say it will cut off hundreds of thousands of West Bankers from jobs, fields and hospitals.
In December, the U.N. General Assembly turned to the world court, the United Nations (news - web sites)' highest judicial authority. Such nonbinding opinions differ from arbitration cases, where its decisions are final and any nation failing to comply could face Security Council sanctions.
Though the General Assembly asked for an "urgent" decision, it could take months. On average, the judges need about a year to thrash out their views.
This is not the U.N. war crimes tribunal trying the likes of Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites). The International Court of Justice does not deal with individuals — it is the product of humankind's hopes of reordering the relationships among nations after two world wars.
Its judges are elected for nine-year terms by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Eminent jurists in their home nations, they do not represent their countries once they reach the world court, although no two justices may have the same nationality.
Sometimes it takes years before the judges don their black robes, settle into their cushioned chairs along the long, high bench in the Great Hall of Justice, and deliver their decisions. The court president usually takes hours to read just the summary. Rarely are the rulings reported outside a narrow circle in the countries concerned.
Of the 22 advisory opinions the court has given since 1947, only one — the 1996 ruling on the legality of nuclear weapons — has come close to this case for sheer drama and global importance.
For three days, legal experts from 13 U.N. member states, plus the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites), the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will state their arguments before the judges — far fewer than the 44 U.N. countries which submitted written briefs last month.
All the speakers are expected to support the Palestinian position urging the court to rule that the construction of the barrier on occupied territory violates international law.
Israel, the United States and the Europeans are staying away from the oral hearings. Israel says the question is political and beyond the court's jurisdiction. The United States and most European countries criticize the barrier's disruptive route, but believe the court should leave the matter to the diplomats.
They have, however, submitted detailed legal arguments in writing.
Israel's 120-page brief plus supporting documents say it is not bound by conventions concerning occupied territories, arguing that the West Bank's legal status has always been disputed, one diplomat said on condition of anonymity. No other country supported that contention, he said.
Routinely, the first issue addressed in an opinion is whether the court has legal competence to step in.
In the past, most decisions have been split. Each judge can publish a separate view.
In the most contentious case to date, on nuclear weapons, the court split 7-7, with its president casting the deciding vote. It said any use of nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law, but at the same time, it said it could not decide whether it is unlawful when a nation's survival is at stake.
___
On the Net: The International Court of Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org
