This article undertakes a critical reading of the arguments used at the bench and the bar in the 2004 ICJ Wall advisory opinion. The Wall case included an unprecedented number of State and non-State participants and it is therefore a valuable site in which to explore the parameters and limits of legal speech. What argumentative strategies were employed at the Peace Palace? How did different participants present the relationship between law and politics? In particular, because the example of Palestine can be seen as a challenge to the post-colonial order, how did Third World States employ the language of international law in support of Palestinian self-determination? It is shown that although international legal speech is highly restrictive, many Third World States are willing to challenge its boundaries through a deep-set faith in the dividends of legal argumentation.