International Law Professor Ruth Lapidot explained to Arutz-7 today that the hearing in The Hague is being held because the United Nations asked the ICJ for its opinion on the matter. She further explained that the nations that sent representatives to speak exercised their rights to offer comments on the proceedings.
"The Court is not authorized to impose sanctions on Israel," Lapidot said, "but must rather decide if it has the authority to deal with the matter, and even whether it is appropriate to do so. If it decides that it is authorized to reach a decision regarding the legality of the partition, only then will it submit its opinion to the UN. The UN General Assembly, in turn, [can] adopt whatever recommendations the Court makes, and can decide to impose sanctions on Israel, though these will be non-binding."
Contrary to public perception, "Israel is not boycotting the session," Lapidot said, "and has in fact sent a 100-page document outlining its stand. Israel is simply not appearing in order not to create the impression that we agree that the Court is authorized to deal with this issue. Israel's stand is that the Court has no such authority, and that even if it does, it is not appropriate to exercise it in this case."
"The Court is not authorized to impose sanctions on Israel," Lapidot said, "but must rather decide if it has the authority to deal with the matter, and even whether it is appropriate to do so. If it decides that it is authorized to reach a decision regarding the legality of the partition, only then will it submit its opinion to the UN. The UN General Assembly, in turn, [can] adopt whatever recommendations the Court makes, and can decide to impose sanctions on Israel, though these will be non-binding."
Contrary to public perception, "Israel is not boycotting the session," Lapidot said, "and has in fact sent a 100-page document outlining its stand. Israel is simply not appearing in order not to create the impression that we agree that the Court is authorized to deal with this issue. Israel's stand is that the Court has no such authority, and that even if it does, it is not appropriate to exercise it in this case."