Condemning the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/14 (December 8, 2003) which requests the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render an advisory opinion concerning the international legal consequences arising from Israel's construction of a security fence in parts of the West Bank, and for other purposes.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5773)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 18, 2004
States that Congress: (1) condemns the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/14 (December 8, 2003) which requests the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render an advisory opinion concerning the international legal consequences arising from Israel's construction of a security fence in parts of the West Bank; (2) deplores the use of the International Court of Justice by the United Nations General Assembly for political purposes that only do harm to the credibility of the General Assembly and the Court, and threaten to impede international and United States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (3) commends the Administration for its leadership in opposing the manipulation of the International Court of Justice into a political forum for denunciation of Israel and its legitimate self-defense; (4) expresses the continued commitment of the United States to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, its security and its right of self-defense, including the right to build a security fence as a direct consequence of more than three years of Palestinian terrorism; (5) condemns the ongoing failure of the Palestinian leadership to take action to cease all violence and terrorism against Israel and to instead pursue misguided political alternatives to the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, democratic reform, and direct peace negotiations; and (6) reiterates support for the President's June 2002 speech setting out the conditions necessary for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for the achievement of a negotiated two-state solution based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), and 1397 (2002) calling for the exchange of territory for peace, direct negotiations between the parties, and the immediate cessation of all violence.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Con.Res.390 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Con.Res.390 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Con.Res.390 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Con.Res.390 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.