Professor S. Michael Lynk:

Assuming the General Assembly adopts a resolution by a majority vote to send a specific question or questions to be posed to the International Court of Justice on, first, whether the occupation has now become illegal under international law, and if so, what legal consequences flow from that, we have a wonderful example from 50-some years ago with respect to Namibia. Those of us who are old enough to remember all this will recall the League of Nations gave South Africa a mandate to govern Namibia until it reached a certain stage of civilisation. Following the Second World War, after the League of Nations became the United Nations, South Africa began to introduce apartheid in Namibia and to treat Namibia as annexed territory, viewing it as its fifth province. Two African countries that were in 1945 original members of the General Assembly, namely, Ethiopia and Liberia, brought a series of questions and advisory opinions from the General Assembly or Security Council to the International Court of Justice asking whether South Africa's continued rule as a mandate holder over Namibia was now illegal under international law. The very clear answer, in one of the most determinative decisions ever issued by the International Court of Justice, was "Yes”. In fact, the court used the term "illegal occupation" with respect to South Africa over Namibia.

That raised the stakes, although, of course, it took a further 19 years for Namibia to gain independence. I do not think it would take that long if there were a declarative decision on an advisory opinion coming from the International Court of Justice in this context. It would shine a harsher spotlight on Israel and its activities. I do not doubt this will be difficult or that the United States will not be firmly opposed to having this issue litigated before the International Court of Justice. Indeed, I do not doubt there would not be leadership from many European countries with respect to the matter. Nevertheless, if there were leadership from countries such as Ireland, that would mean a great deal.

As for what would be the impact, it would indicate that the occupation was illegal and that Israel no longer had any claim on any part of the occupied Palestinian territory. It would become both a legal tool to use elsewhere and a campaign tool for civil society in its engagement with diplomatic and political leaders on this issue. How could they continue to have a relationship of business where the occupation has been deemed to be illegal?