Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Building the Wall: The Efficacy of a Us-Mexico Border Fence]( "Building the Wall: The Efficacy of a Us-Mexico Border Fence")
Building the Wall: The Efficacy of a Us-Mexico Border Fence61,99 €![Great Britain: Sitting on the Fence Between the Us and the Eu]( "Great Britain: Sitting on the Fence Between the Us and the Eu")
Great Britain: Sitting on the Fence Between the Us and the Eu60,99 €![Homa: Israel's National Missile Defense Strategy]( "Homa: Israel's National Missile Defense Strategy")
Homa: Israel's National Missile Defense Strategy61,99 €![The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons]( "The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons")
The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons60,99 €![Wind Tunnel Analysis and Flight Test of a Wing Fence on A T-38]( "Wind Tunnel Analysis and Flight Test of a Wing Fence on A T-38")
Wind Tunnel Analysis and Flight Test of a Wing Fence on A T-3860,99 €![How Should the Department of Defense Approach Environmental Security Implications of Climate Change]( "How Should the Department of Defense Approach Environmental Security Implications of Climate Change")
How Should the Department of Defense Approach Environmental Security Implications of Climate Change61,99 €![Why Black Men Jump the Fence?]( "Why Black Men Jump the Fence?")
Why Black Men Jump the Fence?17,99 €
On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that Israel's construction of a security fence along the seam zone between Israel and the West Bank is illegal under international law. That same day, a spokesperson for the United States State Department, declared that the opinion is non-binding and that the United States does not support the Court's decision. A main concern was that the opinion is too political and inconsistent with the roadmap to peace process in the Middle East. Hot of the press, legal scholars from around the world critically studied the case and many of articles were published on this very controversial opinion. One especially controversial issue was the Court's almost flippant conclusion that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, dealing with a state's right to invoke its right to self-defense in response to an armed attack, is irrelevant to this issue.