Anyway, I'm not saying the wall isn't condemnable, but in order for someone to say something is "illegal" there usually has to have been a clear preexisting rule (in this case a treaty or convention), and there was not. Also judicial bodies generally try to avoid weighing in on things that are being debated politically (example: the US supreme court system's reluctance to weigh in on gay marriage) because that politicizes the judicial body and casts questions on their legitimacy. I think it may be a highly viable opinion that the wall is wrong, but my opinion of the legitimacy of the ICJ has gone down significantly because they decided to weigh in on the subject.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: devil's advocate time
Date: 2004-07-11 02:17 pm (UTC)Anyway, I'm not saying the wall isn't condemnable, but in order for someone to say something is "illegal" there usually has to have been a clear preexisting rule (in this case a treaty or convention), and there was not. Also judicial bodies generally try to avoid weighing in on things that are being debated politically (example: the US supreme court system's reluctance to weigh in on gay marriage) because that politicizes the judicial body and casts questions on their legitimacy. I think it may be a highly viable opinion that the wall is wrong, but my opinion of the legitimacy of the ICJ has gone down significantly because they decided to weigh in on the subject.