Explore the vast range of titles available.

International law is fragmented and complex, and at the same time increasingly capable of shaping reality in areas as diverse as human rights, trade and investment, and environmental law. The increased influences of international law and its growing institutionalization and judicialization invites reconsideration of the question how should the authority to make and interpret international law be allocated among states, international organizations and tribunals, or in other words, \"who should decide what\" in a system that formally lacks a central authority? This is not only a juridical question, but one that lies at the very heart of the political legitimacy of international law as a system of governance, defining the relationship between those who create the law and those who are governed by it in a globalizing world.

The IDF withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the drastic restriction of Israel's control over the Palestinian population there signifies the legal end to 38 years of occupation, international law expert Prof. Ruth Lapidoth said Sunday. Lapidoth said the history of Gaza was somewhat complicated, since it was never annexed to any of its occupiers, including Israel. Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip, and since 1967, while it had been under Israeli rule, it was never annexed to the state as was done with the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem.

Among the 14 winners this year are Nachum Kedar, Ruth Lapidoth and Ya'akov Blidstein, all leading scholars whose contributions might have otherwise gone unappreciated by the general public. [Blidstein] knew that he was a candidate in a general way, but when acting Education Minister Meir Shitrit called, \"at first it didn't even occur to me he would talk about this.\" In fact, Blidstein thought he was calling about something else and, wanting to get off the phone, considered telling him, \"I'm not the person you need.\" Then Blidstein realized what the true purpose of the call was. 3 photos; Prof. Ya'akov Blidstein, winner of the Israel Prize for Jewish Thought. Prof. Nachum Kedar, who engineered the long life cherry tomato. Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, winner of the Israel Prize for Law.

IF [Shamir]'S statement that Israel needs \"the space for the new immigrants\" exploited \"the miracle\" of mass Soviet Jewish immigration for political purposes, the U.S. administration's sharp reaction made clear that the two allies are at cross-purposes on the meaning of Jewish immigration. While Shamir thinks of demographic politics and immigration making it easier to push for a bigger, stronger Israel, Bush thinks the West's contribution to pushing for Soviet Jewish emigration should compensate Israel in people for the land it plans to encourage Israel to relinquish. There has been no indication since Shamir's \"big Israel\" speech, that any Western government would place limits on Soviet Jewish immigration to Israel. The opposite is true. Estimates of Jewish immigration have tripled, and the Soviet government has been outspoken, even blunt, in condemning Arab attempts to end it. Shamir's bureau chief Yossi Ahimeir says \"all the attempts to give the impression that the U.S. has changed its policy because of what the prime minister said is not correct.\" But Shamir, in defending his refusal to say yes now to the Baker Plan, maintained he was shocked by statements made by the U.S. administration in recent weeks, which can be taken to include the U.S. reaction to his speech.

\"We have failed miserably,\" [Moshe Amirav] continues, \"because of our short-sighted policy of 'unification' - you can't unify Jerusalem, because it's too big and too diverse for one owner. I love this city; I was wounded fighting for this city in 1967. And because I love the city, I know that the division of Jerusalem as a political approach will accomplish more for us Israelis than the anachronistic political approach of the 'unification of Jerusalem.'\" Yet for four decades, politicians have avoided coming to terms with potential solutions that deviate from the \"United Jerusalem\" theme. Political pundits maintain that Shimon Peres lost the 1996 elections due, at least in part, to a successful Likud campaign that accused Peres of intending \"to divide Jerusalem.\" Even the Oslo Accords left Jerusalem \"for last,\" while it is widely accepted that [Ehud Barak]'s and [Yasser Arafat]'s unwillingness to confront their constituencies regarding the possibility of compromise over Jerusalem was one of the major reasons that the 2000 Camp David Summit failed. Neither Palestinian nor Israeli leaders have ever been willing to lead their people toward even reconsidering the mantras that have shaped the discourse about Jerusalem. Yet the politicians may be trailing behind public opinion. [Shlomo Hasson] argues that numerous surveys have repeatedly shown that when the question of Jerusalem is approached in a disaggregated fashion that avoids the term \"Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel\" and relates to specific neighborhoods within the city, a minimum of 72 percent of Israeli Jews, including a majority of Jewish Jerusalemites, are willing to consider transferring to Palestinian sovereignty those non-Jewish areas of the city, which have only limited importance in their subjective \"map\" of what constitutes Jerusalem.

It won't be a picnic, jurists warn, for Israel to defend the legitimacy of its West Bank security barrier at the International Court of Justice It could be and open-and-shut case, an instant victory for Israel, if the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decides that the legality of Israel's separation fence isn't in its purview. It could be a disaster, if the bench in The Hague issues a temporary injunction barring Israel from continuing to build the fence while arguments are being heard. But, most likely, it will be a long, difficult legal case with lots of potential embarrassment for Israel - even though the court's final ruling will be only a \"non-binding advisory opinion\" for the U.N. General Assembly, itself a toothless body. Other Israeli jurists and diplomats, however, offer a clear explanation for Israel's huff, along with its likely approach in court. Israel's experience with the U.N.'s \"evenhandedness\" has largely been negative, they say. And Jerusalem is jittery that the ICJ - whose justices are appointed by the General Assembly according to a regional key - will likewise be stacked against it. The president of ICJ is from China, and its bench includes two judges from Arab states - Nabil al-Arabi of Egypt and Awn Khasawneh of Jordan. (All 15 judges will hear the case, and the court's ruling will be based on the majority opinion, with dissenters allowed to append minority views.) \"Some of the judges are fair, but others aren't,\" says [Robbie Sabel], noting that, in their previous capacities as diplomats, the Arab justices expressed strongly anti-Israel views, with Al-Arabi stating that Israel's occupation of \"Palestinian territory\" is \"itself against international law.\" Gross does agree that the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 4th Geneva Convention permit an occupying power \"to take action, including the erection of a fence, if it deems this necessary for security needs.\" Yet the question at hand is not Israel's right to construct a barrier with the West Bank but where Israel may build it. As things stand, the fence - whether running parallel to the Green Line or looping further eastward - is being constructed mainly inside the West Bank, not on sovereign Israeli soil. \"So the Palestinians will argue: If you want to build a barrier to defend yourselves, by all means do so - on your own territory,\" predicts [Aeyal Gross]. And it will be futile, various experts agree, to try to stretch the protection-of-Israeli-civilians argument to cover the settlers - as grounds for extending the fence to include the town of Ariel, for example - because their very right to be in the West Bank is contested. The odds of the court accepting Israel's long-held claim that the settlements are legal, says Aeyal Gross, \"are nil.\"