Good Example Of Peaceful Settlement Of International Disputes Essay

The use of veto power-the power to influence the direction of action or inaction taken by multiple entities through a single vote, is a characteristic of a non-democratic process. The United Nation’s use of veto power raises questions on the rule of law in the world’s most powerful international organization-one whose aim is to reduce global conflict, foster development and improve human rights. Powerful countries, especially those who are permanent member of the United Nations security council, use their veto votes to protect and enhance their interest. The veto power in the Security Council often makes the United Nations unable to take any action to resolve or ease international crises and conflicts as the parties involved often have different and sometimes conflicting interests. The veto, therefore, acts as a self-regulatory system for the United Nations. However, it may be possible to bypass or circumvent the self-regulatory system-through the United Nations General Assembly. However, most states claim that powerful nations, such as the United States, abuse their veto power. The Security Council claimed that the United Nations used its veto power to frustrate the Council’s efforts in resolving the Palestinian conflict.
The court, by voting to demand that Israel comply with a ruling of the International Court of Justice, made a significant move by reasserting power in the General Assembly. However, the decision is non-binding, meaning that the court cannot enforce it The United States is compelled to stop obstructing the General Assembly by abusing its veto vote or risk alienation in International diplomacy. Since self-regulation through vetoing has proved to be unstable, international law should play the role of deterring inappropriate action. The court is guided by the goal of resolving international conflict through the affirmation of fundamental human rights. The court also affirms that a just resolution of international conflict is only possible without the violation of International law. Israel and the United States stated that the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
The legal issues arising from the issues in the article is the role of courts and the definition and implication of a jurisdiction. The former refers to the rendering of advisory opinions by judicial systems. The rendering of advisory opinions may undermine the role of the judicial system in conflict resolution, which is issuing binding decisions. The introduction of the power of the court to render advisory opinion in the United Nations was and still is controversial. However, the rendering of advisory opinion is in line with the basic nature of the court. Advisory opinion may not have a binding effect, but it gives answers to crucial questions in international dispute and is politically valuable. The court contends that the question regarding the wall being built by Israel is of a legal nature and the court can, therefore, give advisory opinion. The court also recognizes that legal international issues will often have a political nature. However, it contends that having a political side does not make a matter inadmissible in court as long it has a legal aspect. Indeed, the political implications of a matter do not have any relevance in court. The fact that one of the entities in the matter is not a member of the League of Nations and refused to take part in the proceedings also does not mean the court cannot offer advisory opinion. However, the court may decline the request to give an advisory opinion if it does not have enough facts to form a complete answer or where the answer may be misconstrued.

Works Cited

Akande, D. (1998). The Competence of International Organizations And the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Hauser, C., & Myre, G. (2004, July 9). World Court Says Israeli Barrier Violates International Law. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from nytimes.com: http://admin.writerbay.com/my_orders?subcom=detailed&id=213463577
International Court of Justice. (2015). Legal Consequence sof the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territiry.
Khalil, G. (2004, July 19). Just Say No to Vetoes. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/just-say-no-to-vetoes.html
Scobbie, L. (2009). Legal consequences for the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territiry: request for an advosory opinion.