ABSTRACT

This chapter examines the similarities and differences between the UN legal strategies for decolonization and self-determination in Namibia and Western Sahara, and the legal struggle for self-determination and ending the occupation in Palestine, as well as what lessons from the former cases can apply to the latter. Its focus is on the development of the applicable legal frameworks within the United Nations (UN) in general, including efforts to obtain and implement favorable decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in each of these lengthy struggles. It sets out the background of the Namibia, Western Sahara, and Palestine situations and the development of their respective legal frameworks through the UN. The chapter also describes legal and political strategies for influencing UN decisions and resolution of the conflicts, particularly in the case of Namibia, including the role of ICJ Advisory Opinions. It then briefly recounts the findings of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and subsequent efforts to implement those findings.1 Finally, the paper examines legal and political differences among the three cases, and in light of the Wall Opinion, concludes with recommendations on legal strategies aimed at securing the exercise of the right of Palestinian self-determination.