The Permanent Court of International Justice, the predecessor to the International Court of Justice, had developed considerable experience with advisory opinions. This chapter surmises how the questions sought by Syria might have been framed to the International Court of Justice, had votes in the Security Council and General Assembly gone in its favor. The chapter sets the stage for posing a series of questions to the Court. Advisory opinions are not adversarial in nature. Any UN member state is entitled to make argument. The chapter supposes that Israel might have been invited to argue, given its interest in the matter. The chapter then puts together a legal team that might have argued for Israel, and another that might have argued for Syria. Three international lawyers are named for each team. All six were involved at the United Nations at the same time; hence, their positions are matters of record. This chapter opens the way for the next sixteen chapters, each of which gives the arguments the two legal teams might have made on a particular sub-issue.