Skip Navigation



Chinese Journal of International Law Advance Access published online on January 23, 2008
Chinese Journal of International Law, doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmm046
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
7/1/33    most recent
jmm046v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burgis, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Discourses of Division: Law, Politics and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Michelle Burgis *

This article undertakes a critical reading of the arguments used at the bench and the bar in the 2004 ICJ Wall advisory opinion. The Wall case included an unprecedented number of State and non-State participants and it is therefore a valuable site in which to explore the parameters and limits of legal speech. What argumentative strategies were employed at the Peace Palace? How did different participants present the relationship between law and politics? In particular, because the example of Palestine can be seen as a challenge to the post-colonial order, how did Third World States employ the language of international law in support of Palestinian self-determination? It is shown that although international legal speech is highly restrictive, many Third World States are willing to challenge its boundaries through a deep-set faith in the dividends of legal argumentation.

* BA(Hons)/LLB(Hons) (University of Sydney), PhD Candidate, Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University (email: michmich78{at}gmail.com). This article forms one of four case studies in the author's PhD thesis entitled, "Boundaries of Discourse in the International Court of Justice: Mapping Arguments in Arab Territorial Disputes". Thanks to Hilary Charlesworth and John Braithwaite for their comments and support. The final version of this paper was completed on 22 November 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.