Talk:Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
Merge? edit
This article with Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine? Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: a rich article that can be expanded and built upon. Sakiv (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- It was just a thought, the title is very long winded and the article is about whether Israel's occupation is legal, which is exactly what the other article is about. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I see your point. However, I don't think that all this article's text will fit in the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Since the draft has been adopted, this should . be reflected in the title, and in order to shorten it because it is too long. A map should also be added. Sakiv (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- The decision to request this opinion was included within the text of an annually recurring resolution, Clause 18 of [1] (the Israeli practices/OPT one). Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- I see your point. However, I don't think that all this article's text will fit in the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Since the draft has been adopted, this should . be reflected in the title, and in order to shorten it because it is too long. A map should also be added. Sakiv (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- It was just a thought, the title is very long winded and the article is about whether Israel's occupation is legal, which is exactly what the other article is about. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet. Can the ICJ choose to refuse cases referred to it by the GA? I forget. Anyway, if the ICJ takes the case it becomes a bigger story and we should keep the article renamed to the name of the case. If the ICJ doesn't take the case, the story becomes a dead end that can be merged with no more than an EL for the voting register. Meanwhile I think we should wait. Zerotalk 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- John Dugard first suggested an ICJ referral in 2007:
- "At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion." (further to the wall opinion)Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can't see that the case would not be taken up. I suppose they could say that they have not jurisdiction but Israel tried that argument in the wall case and it didn't fly. It's only advisory after all, it's up to the UN itself what they do with any opinion afterwards...in the case of the wall...sfa. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Now that the ICJ has taken the case, shouldn't the article be moved? edit
The case itself seems like it should be the main focus here, not the UN motion asking for it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
