Michael Karayanni
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199873715
- eISBN:
- 9780199366477
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199873715.003.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Private International Law
This chapter discusses the legal status of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, from both the point of view of international law and that of Israeli municipal law. As this ...
More
This chapter discusses the legal status of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, from both the point of view of international law and that of Israeli municipal law. As this status was intertwined with major peace processes that took place in the region, such as the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Peace Process, as well as other unilateral actions such as the Israeli settlements project, disengagement from the Gaza Strip, and the building of the Separation Wall/Fence, and Palestinian statehood, the implications of these processes on the status of each of these territories are also laid out here.Less
This chapter discusses the legal status of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, from both the point of view of international law and that of Israeli municipal law. As this status was intertwined with major peace processes that took place in the region, such as the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Peace Process, as well as other unilateral actions such as the Israeli settlements project, disengagement from the Gaza Strip, and the building of the Separation Wall/Fence, and Palestinian statehood, the implications of these processes on the status of each of these territories are also laid out here.
Ganna Yudkivska
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- November 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780198830009
- eISBN:
- 9780191868399
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198830009.003.0008
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Human Rights and Immigration
The international law of occupation—as it has developed since the nineteenth century—traditionally regulates the conduct and obligations of occupying forces. Very little is said about the obligations ...
More
The international law of occupation—as it has developed since the nineteenth century—traditionally regulates the conduct and obligations of occupying forces. Very little is said about the obligations of an occupied State, or a ‘victim’ State. This chapter focuses on a limited practice of the European Court of Human Rights in developing some principles in this respect. The main emphasis is put on the landmark judgment Ilascu v Moldova and Russia, in which, for the first time, the Court has found that a State, which lost effective control over a part of its territory and was unable to exercise its jurisdiction there, still had some positive obligations deriving from its de jure jurisdiction. It is argued that the Court’s approach represented a new development in international law, which traditionally considered human rights obligations to be primarily triggered by an effective territorial control. It is further discussed that it might be quite difficult to reconcile positive obligations towards people remaining in occupied territories with a State’s obligation to refrain from supporting separatist regimes. Substitution of effective control for the concept of ‘positive obligations’ necessitates a very delicate assessment of different political, diplomatic, judicial, and other measures, which requires a high degree of sensitivity on the part of the international court. The scope of the positive obligations of an injured State vis-à-vis the positive obligations of an occupying State needs to be elucidated further.Less
The international law of occupation—as it has developed since the nineteenth century—traditionally regulates the conduct and obligations of occupying forces. Very little is said about the obligations of an occupied State, or a ‘victim’ State. This chapter focuses on a limited practice of the European Court of Human Rights in developing some principles in this respect. The main emphasis is put on the landmark judgment Ilascu v Moldova and Russia, in which, for the first time, the Court has found that a State, which lost effective control over a part of its territory and was unable to exercise its jurisdiction there, still had some positive obligations deriving from its de jure jurisdiction. It is argued that the Court’s approach represented a new development in international law, which traditionally considered human rights obligations to be primarily triggered by an effective territorial control. It is further discussed that it might be quite difficult to reconcile positive obligations towards people remaining in occupied territories with a State’s obligation to refrain from supporting separatist regimes. Substitution of effective control for the concept of ‘positive obligations’ necessitates a very delicate assessment of different political, diplomatic, judicial, and other measures, which requires a high degree of sensitivity on the part of the international court. The scope of the positive obligations of an injured State vis-à-vis the positive obligations of an occupying State needs to be elucidated further.
