July 2009 marks the fifth anniversary of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court for Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the construction of the Separation Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The ICJ found that the building of the Wall was illegal and that it constituted a violation of international law, and ordered Israel to dismantle it.

The legal struggle against the Wall has been conducted on two main levels: addressing the ICJ and submitting petitions to the Israeli Supreme Court. Activities on these two levels have employed various means of action and had different consequences and ramifications. The petition that was submitted to the ICJ was the one and only application on this matter, and the court’s ruling was in the form of an advisory opinion rather than a binding ruling. The Advisory Opinion held that the construction of the Wall must be halted, that parts of the Wall that had already been constructed should be dismantled, that orders to construct further sections of the Wall should be cancelled and that Palestinians harmed by it be given compensation.  The Advisory Opinion consisted of three main components: the ramifications of the construction of the Wall on the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and the legality of the Wall under international humanitarian law as well as under human rights law.

The Israeli Supreme Court, however, has received dozens of petitions against the Wall. Two of them (the Beit Sourik case and the Ma'arabe case) resulted in groundbreaking rulings in which the Supreme Court held that the route of the Wall constituted a disproportionate violation of the Palestinians’ rights and ordered it to be altered in some sections. These rulings set the legal framework for determining the legality of the route of the wall. However, many other petitions were filed in the aftermath of these rulings, but were rejected.

Five years after the ICJ issued its Advisory Opinion, Adalah asked the following two major questions:

A. To what extent has the local legal struggle against the Wall in the Israeli Supreme Court been beneficial, taking the following two factors into consideration:
1. The changes made to the Wall’s path have benefited some families;
2. The litigation contributed to the portrayal of the Supreme Court locally and internationally as a body that acts to defend the rights of individuals and the public at large.

B. What can be done at the local or international level to make use of the Advisory Opinion to advance the struggle against the Wall?