| Abstract: | In Mara'abe v. Prime Minister of Israel (September 2005), Israel'sHigh Court addressed the effect which it should give to theInternational Court's Legal consequences of the constructionof a wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory advisory opinion.This had declared the wall illegal but, while affirming thatit shared the International Court of Justice's normative rulings,the High Court reiterated that it thought the wall a lawfulsecurity measure. Rather than dissect the substantive treatmentof the issues involved, this article examines the structureand rhetorical techniques employed by President Barak in hisleading judgment in Mara'abe. He effected a skilful practicaldisregard of the International Court's normative findings throughan elision of argument by relying on the doctrine of res judicata—aconcept that has no relevance whatsoever to advisory opinions. |
