Questão 739302

Text IV – items 47 to 50

1____Israel is in the dock again. The International Court of

Justice (ICJ) is investigating the legality of the security fence

being raised on the West Bank. Even a numb er of I srael’s

4 traditional friends are alarmed by the policy. Some worry that

the fence will harm the Palestinian economy, cutting off

workers from their factories and farms. Others see it as an

7 attempt to extend Israel’s border beyond its pre-1967 limit

and feel that such walls have no place in the modern world.

These are major objections and they deserve to be

10 answered separately. First, though, it is worth asking why this

question should have come before the Hague judges at all. The

ICJ is not a supreme court; it is an arbitration panel. It provides

13 a mechanism whereby two states can, by mutual agreement,

refer a dispute to third-party lawyers. By sending this case to

the Hague, th e UN is striking at the principle of territorial

16 jurisdiction that ultimately underpins diplomatic relations. That

principle is already threatened by the European courts at

Strasbourg and Luxembourg, and by the refusal of Spanish and

19 Belgian judges to recognise national sovereignty. We are slowly

returning to the pre-modern idea that lawmakers need not be

accountable to the people, but rather to abstract ideals.

22___Faced with a choice between international

disapprobation and more Israeli deaths, Mr Sharon has

understandably opted for the former. He believes that the fence

25 would have prevented yesterday’s atrocity in Jerusalem, and he

is almost certainly right. Gaza is already cordoned off, and no

Palestinian terrorists have penetrated the barrier in the past three

28 years (although two British Muslims were able to do so on the

strength of their UK passports).

_{Daily Telegraph, London, February 23rd , 2004 (with adaptations).}

Concerning the text above, judge the following items.

In the text, the original phrase " should have come before the Hague judges at all " ( L.11) can be correctly replaced by should have come before the Hague judges in the f irst place.