Israeli-occupied territories: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:47, 14 February 2006

Revision as of 19:42, 14 February 2006

Line 46:

The [[United Nations Security Council]] (in [[UN Security Council Resolution 465|Resolution 465]] and [[UN Security Council Resolution 484|Resolution 484]], among others), the [[High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention]]{{ref|HCP}}, and the [[International Committee of the Red Cross]]{{ref|ICRC}}, have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the [[Fourth Geneva Convention]] provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its decision on the [[Israeli West Bank barrier|separation barrier]], the [[International Court of Justice]] ruled that the West Bank is occupied.{{ref|ICJ}}<!--{{ref|UPIBrilliant}}-->

The [[Government of Israel]] in its public statements and many of Israel's citizens and supporters [[Military_occupation#Disputed_to_be_a_military_occupation_by_nation_of_dominant_military_forces_in_area|dispute]] that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term "occupied" in relation to [[Israel]]'s control of the areas has no basis in [[international law]] or [[Land_of_Israel#The_Land_of_Israel_and_the_State_of_Israel|history]], and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing [[Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict|negotiations]]. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as "[[International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict#"Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories|disputed]]" rather than "[[Occupied territory|occupied]]" although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the [[Fourth Geneva Convention]] pending resolution of the dispute. However, in recent decades the government of Israel has always argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the [[Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)|Hague Conventions]]. The court has confirmed this interprettation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the [[Israeli West Bank barrier|separation fence]]. {{ref|HCJ2004}}{{ref|HCJ2005}}

<!--Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently-occupied territories [http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/cgi-bin/browse.py?sectionname=laws&action=view&item=1], but this order was withdrawn a few months later [http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/cgi-bin/browse.py?sectionname=laws&action=view&item=101]. Since then, Israel has argued on various grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. One such argument is that conventional international law only applies when supported by domestic legislation [http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/81/690/000/z01/81000690.z01.pdf]. This argument is contrary to the [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]], but Israel has not ratified that Convention. Another argument is that the Geneva Conventions only apply to the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party, andwhich therefore that the Conventions dodoes not apply sincein Jordanthis never exercised sovereignty over the region [http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/81/690/000/z01/81000690.z01.pdf]case. The Supreme Court of Israel has several times acknowledged the existence of this debate but has so far declined to make a definitive ruling on it. [The preceding paragraph was added without any references and may violate [[WP:OR]]]-->

== Palestinians and Israeli law ==