Search results

This book will be of interest to international lawyers, UN officials, policymakers, and scholars. It urges a critical examination of the UN's handling of the question of Palestine and how the organization can discharge its functions more effectively, in line with international law and justice.

"This book will be of interest to international lawyers, UN officials, policymakers, and scholars. It urges a critical examination of the UN's handling of the question of Palestine and how the organization can discharge its functions more effectively, in line with international law and justice"--

Abstract
This article takes a critical look at the United Nations' commitment to the international rule of law through an examination of its position on occupied Palestine post 1967. Occupation of enemy territory is meant to be temporary, and the occupying power may not rightfully claim sovereignty over such territory. Since 1967, Israel has systematically and forcibly altered the status of occupied Palestine, with the aim of annexing, de jure or de facto, most or all of it. While the UN has focused on the legality of Israel's discrete violations of humanitarian and human rights law, it has paid scant attention to the legality of Israel's occupation regime as a whole. By what rationale can it be said that Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestine remains legal? This article argues that the occupation has become illegal for its systematic violation of at least three jus cogens norms. Although an increasing number of commentators have subscribed to this view, little attention has been paid to its relevant international legal consequences which dictate a paradigm shift away from negotiations as the condition precedent for ending the occupation, as unanimously affirmed by the international community through the UN.

I shall confine my brief thoughts on the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) to the Court's treatment of international humanitarian law (IHL) in general, and to the law of belligerent occupation in particular. To that end, I will focus on the following four areas: the Court's consideration of the applicable law as regards IHL; the Court's interpretation of Article 6 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; the Court's consideration of the concept of military necessity in the context of foreign military occupation; and the Court's consideration of the responsibility of third states, particularly the high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, for violations of relevant principles of IHL by an occupying power.

The magnitude of Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinian people has been well documented by independent scholars, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. However, relatively little has been written regarding the role the official Israeli state ideology has played in encouraging and upholding the Jewish state's policies regarding the indigenous Palestinians. Set against the backdrop of the fiftieth anniversaries of both the establishment of the State of Israel, and the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the author partially surveys Israel's prolonged violation of Palestinian human rights and argues that the Jewish state is a racist state owing to its unwavering commitment to Zionism. Drawing on a variety of authoritative and independent sources, the author offers a thorough analysis of the history and central tenets of Zionism. This is followed by a detailed examination of a selection of Israeli laws and policies that have violated the human rights of the Palestinian people since the conquest of Palestine in 1948. Concerned with the moral and political implications of Israel's continued persecution of the Palestinian people, the author concludes that as long as the international community continues to tolerate the existence of Israel as a state based on doctrines of exclusivism and racism, a just settlement to the conflict in the Middle East will never be realized. *** L'ampleur de la violation des droits de la personne contre les Palestiniens a été bien documentée par des spécialistes indépendants et des organisations intergouvernementales et non-gouvernementales comme l'Organisation des Nations-Unies, "Amnistie Internationale" et "Human Rights Watch." Cependant, peu a été écrit sur le rôle de l'idéologie officielle de l'État israélien vis-à-vis les Palestiniens. Voyant venir le quinzième anniversaire de la Constitution de l'État d'Israël et la proclamation de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme, l'auteur regarde partiellement le prolongement de la violation des droits de la personne des Palestiniens par Israël et argumente que l'État juif est un état raciste dû à ses obligations impératives au sionisme, l'idéologie coloniale du dix-neuvième siècle, concernant la notion que la Palestine est un droit donné au monde juif. Donnant une variété de sources crédibles et indépendantes, l'auteur offre une analyse de l'histoire et les principes importants du sionisme. Cela est suivi par un examen détaillé d'une sélection des droits et politiques d'Israël qui ont violé les droits de la personne des Palestiniens depuis la conquête de Palestine en 1948. Avec les implications morales et politiques d'Israël, qui constituent la persécution des Palestiniens, l'auteur conclue qu'aussi longtemps que la communauté internationale continuera à tolérer l'existence d'Israël comme étant basée sur la doctrine de l'exclusivité et de racisme, une entente afin d'arrêter les conflits dans le Moyen-Orient ne sera jamais réalisée.