Why Is Israel’s Presence in Territories Called “Occupation”?

Nannette · Joined: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 47813

Why Is Israel’s Presence in the Territories Still Called “Occupation”?

Avinoam Sharon 1

Executive Summary

“For false words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”
Plato, Phaedo

Introduction

There is a joke that is currently making the rounds about an Israeli going through passport control at JFK. The immigration officer asks: “Occupation?” The Israeli says: “No. I’m just visiting.” The joke is premised upon a general perception of Israel as an occupier. That perception is so pervasive in regard to Israel and Israel alone, that the joke will not work if you substitute any other nationality.2 But does that perception accurately portray Israel, even after all the regional developments brought by the peace process? And if it is not accurate, why does it persist so tenaciously? In order to address those questions, we must first examine the meaning of the term “occupation.”

When an armed force holds territory beyond the borders of its own nation, “occupation” is the term that most readily comes to mind. It may be difficult to think of a more felicitous term to describe the factual situation.3 But not all the broad spectrum of factual situations that we commonly think of as “occupation” fall within the limited scope of the term “occupation” as defined in international law. Not every situation we refer to as “occupation” is subject to the international legal regime that regulates occupation and imposes obligations upon the occupier.

A striking example of this dual usage of the term “occupation” is provided by the Army of Occupation Medal. In 1946, the United States War Department issued a medal bearing the words “Army of Occupation” to recognize soldiers who had served in post-war Germany and Japan. Yet, neither Germany nor Japan was deemed to be occupied territory subject to the international law of occupation.4 Indeed, when Iraqi President Jalal Talibani stated: “Iraq is not occupied, but there are foreign forces on its soil, which is different,”5 he correctly expressed an often-misunderstood distinction.

The distinction was also made by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in regard to Iraq. As Swiss jurist Daniel Thürer has explained, Iraq was occupied by the Coalition forces from the spring of 2003 until June 28, 2004, at which time authority was handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government.6 At that point, Coalition forces remained in Iraq, but Iraq was no longer occupied. While this maintains the distinction between our casual use of the term “occupation” and its strict legal sense, it raises an interesting question. The Coalition occupation of Iraq would not seem substantively different than the Allied occupation of Germany or the American occupation of Japan, which are generally not deemed to have constituted occupation under international law. On its face, the same reasoning that supports the prevailing opinion that neither Germany nor Japan was occupied should support the view that Iraq was not occupied in the legal sense of the term.7 Even if that were not the case, if handing over authority to a Coalition-appointed interim government ended the occupation of Iraq, would the same not hold true in regard to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and, a fortiori, following the Palestinian general election in 1996? Why would the same distinction not apply to Israel?

The Foundations of the Law of Occupation

Historically, occupation was conquest. “In former times, enemy territory occupied by a belligerent was in every point considered his State property, so that he could do what he liked with it and its inhabitants.”8 But the concept of occupation underwent fundamental change in the nineteenth century.9 With the growing acceptance of the idea that occupiers were subject to legal limitations came the need both to define those limitations and to define the situations to which they applied. The initial internationally accepted legal framework defining and regulating occupation is found in the Hague Regulations (Hague II), 1899.10 Articles 42 and 43 of those Regulations, which are identical to Articles 42 and 43 of the Hague Regulations (Hague IV), 1907,11 set out the conditions that constitute “occupation”:

Article 42

Article 43

These articles clearly recognize three preconditions for deeming an area to be occupied in the sense of being subject to rules of international law. First, the area is under the actual control of the hostile army. Second, the area was previously the sovereign territory of another state. Third, the occupier holds the area with the purpose of returning it to the prior sovereign. This third precondition would seem to be the underlying idea for respecting the laws in force, and for the other articles of the Convention that require maintenance of the status quo ante bellum. Thus, Oppenheim states: “As the occupant actually exercises authority, and the legitimate Government is prevented from exercising its authority, the occupant acquires a temporary right of administration over the territory and its inhabitants; and all legitimate steps he takes in the exercise of this right must be recognised by the legitimate Government after the occupation has ceased.”12

The idea that occupation is a temporary state during which foreign control suspends the sovereignty of the legitimate government may be said to express the essential difference between the conception of occupation as it was understood prior to the nineteenth century, and the conception of occupation that grounded its treatment in international law. Acceptance of the principle that sovereignty cannot be alienated by force distinguishes occupation from conquest, and stands at the basis of the Hague Regulations. “The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through the actual or threatened use of force....From the principle of inalienable sovereignty over a territory spring the constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant. The power exercising effective control within another sovereign’s territory has only temporary managerial powers, for the period until a peaceful solution is reached. During that limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign.”13

In light of the fundamental premises of the law of occupation, the problem in defining the Allied presence in post-war Germany and the American presence in post-war Japan becomes clear. As Kelsen explains:

14

Gerhard von Glahn has explained that belligerent occupation “as regulated by customary and conventional international law, presupposes a state of affairs in which the sovereign, the legitimate government, of the occupied territory, is at war with the government of the occupying forces.”15 And as Yehuda Blum has explained:

16

The law of occupation as envisaged by the Hague Regulations was widely disregarded in the course of World War I, and the need for reconsideration and adjustment was already clear before the onset of World War II. By the end of World War II, the situation was even worse. This led Benvinisti to conclude, “[t]he poor record of adherence to this law compromised the status of the Hague Regulations as customary law. Indeed, there is sufficient ground to claim that in light of the recurring disregard of the law of occupation, the Hague Regulations had lost their legal authority by the end of the war.”17 This provided the background for the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention to supplement the Hague Regulations.

It is important to note that while the Fourth Geneva Convention marks a significant change in focus, it does not purport to change the definition of occupation. Rather, it would appear that the Convention employs the term “occupation” in accordance with its definition under customary law, as declared in the Hague Regulations. But whereas international law had traditionally focused upon the obligations of states toward other states, the Geneva Convention appears to shift the emphasis to the obligations of belligerent states toward the population of the occupied territory rather than toward the sovereign of that territory. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that Part I, Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically states:

The references to High Contracting Parties would appear to reinforce the conclusion that, although the Convention was drafted with a clear recognition of the changing perceptions of the role of states, and with a view toward shifting emphasis from preserving the rights of sovereigns to protecting populations,18 nevertheless, the underlying political nature of the conflict giving rise to the situation of occupation remains unchanged. This should not come entirely as a surprise given that, unlike the Hague Regulations, which declared in the Preamble the purpose “to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining them more precisely, or of laying down certain limits for the purpose of modifying their severity as far as possible,”19 and is thus primarily a declaratory restatement of customary law, the Geneva Convention was drafted as conventional law in order to address the deficiencies in customary law made apparent as a result of the two World Wars. Indeed, as the Introduction to the ICRC commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Convention does not invalidate the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 on the same subjects but is supplementary to them (see Article 154 of the Convention).”

As far as the Convention is concerned, occupation remains occupation in its customary sense. The Convention addresses the treatment of civilians in occupied territory as made necessary in light of the deficiencies of international law made apparent in the course of the World Wars, deficiencies that were, at least in large measure, the result of the fact that international law, as it evolved in the nineteenth century, was primarily concerned with the rights of states and their obligations towards one another. The issue of the treatment of civilians that was ancillary to that purpose is primary to the purpose of the Geneva Convention.

In sum, as Glahn points out: “Conventional international law recognizes only one form of military occupation: belligerent occupation, that is, the occupation of part or all of an enemy’s territory in time of war; this is the type of occupation covered by the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.”20 And as earlier noted, according to Glahn: “Belligerent occupation, as discussed up to this point and as regulated by customary and conventional international law, presupposes a state of affairs in which the sovereign, the legitimate government, of the occupied territory, is at war with the government of the occupying forces.”21

It is against this background that we may proceed to examine the usage of and ensuing developments in the definition of “occupation.”

The Israeli Occupation – 1967 22

Occupation in the Absence of Prior Sovereignty

In June 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, Israeli military forces held territories beyond its pre-war borders.23 These territories comprised the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the West Bank. Under customary law, the Israeli military presence in the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights clearly constituted occupation in the legal sense.24 The Sinai Peninsula had been under Egyptian sovereignty and the Golan Heights had been under Syrian sovereignty.25 The situation was not as clear in regard to the Gaza Strip, over which Egypt did not claim sovereignty and which it held under a military government,26 and the West Bank, over which the Jordanian assertion of sovereignty did not gain international recognition.27 The status of these two areas has been the source of much debate both in Israel and in the international community.

Upon the assumption of control of the territories, Israel had to make a decision as to the applicable law. There were several reasons for Israel not to wish to view the captured territories as occupied, and therefore subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. From a legal standpoint, Israel took the view that in the absence of a prior sovereign, Israel’s control of the West Bank and Gaza did not fall within the definition of “occupation” inasmuch as a fundamental premise of the law of occupation – a prior legitimate sovereign – was lacking.28

Israel’s argument concerning the de jure application of the law of occupation did not, however, deter it from declaring its intention to act in accordance with customary international law and the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or from adhering to those rules in practice.29 This intention seems consistent with the view of Blum:

30

Under the circumstances, one might reasonably ask why Israel insisted upon making the distinction between the de jure force of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its de facto application. There would appear to have been a number of political considerations that argued in favor of making the distinction, and arguing against the automatic application of the Fourth Geneva Convention. First, as Shamgar points out:

31

Second, saying that the territories were occupied by Israel “could conceivably be interpreted as a renunciation of sovereign rights by Israel to the areas. After all, one does not ‘occupy’ one’s own territory, and one most certainly is not bound therein by the International Law of Belligerent Occupation.”32 Third, in light of the above, saying the territories were occupied by Israel could be construed as acceptance of the 1949 ceasefire lines as international borders.

Thus, the primary difference of opinion between Israel and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concerning the Fourth Geneva Convention centered on the question of formal applicability. Interestingly, the ICRC’s argument for the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not rely upon a rejection of Israel’s legal interpretation of the definition of “occupation” in customary law. Rather, the position of the ICRC focused entirely on the interpretation of Article 2, which reads:

As Shamgar explains:

33

In other words, it was and remains the view of the ICRC that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to all forms of armed conflict, and the question of whether or not a particular territory is “occupied” in the legal sense is irrelevant to the question of the application of the Convention’s provisions.34

Indeed, there is much to be said in favor of the interpretation advanced by the ICRC. Primarily, the view that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to all conflicts is consistent with the shift in focus from states to people. If the purpose of the Convention is to protect people, the legal status of the source of the threat to their safety and well-being should not make any difference.

Of course, that statement is far too broad, and it is unlikely that the community of nations would accept a statement of obligation that threatens so severe an infringement of sovereignty. While limiting that broad protection only to persons threatened by a conflict of an international character may appear to resolve the issue of a threat to sovereignty, Israel’s concerns in regard to the question of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza demonstrate that the issue is not so easily resolved. It is not, I think, easy to maintain the argument that a state will agree to the automatic assumption of the political obligations imposed under international law toward a belligerent party in a conflict over territory that the state claims as its sovereign territory.

Moreover, we must bear in mind that to the extent that we are not concerned with the application of customary law, but rather with the construction of a provision of conventional law, care must be taken to respect the intention of the parties. In regard to the second paragraph, the ICRC itself admits: “The wording of the paragraph is not very clear, the text adopted by the Government Experts being more explicit.”35 But more explicit language was not adopted. While the ICRC’s opinion may be persuasive, it is neither definitive nor constitutive. Ultimately, the parties to a convention cannot be expected to assume obligations beyond those originally contemplated by them. In ratifying a convention, a state does not relinquish its sovereign power to the ICRC. Moreover, in the absence of any example of a state actually acting in accordance with the interpretation of the ICRC in this regard, the ICRC’s view, however laudable in theory, is not the view accepted by the community of nations in practice.

A similar view to that of the ICRC is expressed by Bothe: “The unclear status of an occupied territory does not prevent the applicability of the rules of belligerent occupation. The application of humanitarian law cannot be made to depend on such legal niceties as the recognition of legal titles to territory.”36 As high sounding and convincing as these statements may appear at first glance, it is worrisome that anyone might think that a source of conflict, wars and bloodshed can be swept away as “legal niceties.” But even if we ignore the unfortunate choice of words, the statement remains problematic. Its acceptability is largely dependant upon what is meant by the notoriously slippery term “humanitarian law.” If the author’s intention is to say that the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention should be applied to all conflicts, then the Israeli case provides a supporting precedent for this view. However, if by humanitarian law we mean something broader, e.g., the rules of international law deriving from the Hague and Geneva Conventions, or the international law of armed conflicts, or even the Fourth Geneva Convention in its entirety, then arguably, the “legal niceties” may present a serious stumbling block to the acceptance of a view that might impose international standards and political obligations upon what a state may deem as a purely internal matter.

As opposed to the approach that seeks to broaden the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention by extending it to all de facto situations of occupation, and on that basis argues for the de jure application of the Convention to the territories administered by Israel, others have challenged Israel’s de jure position that it is not an occupier. The basis of this approach is similar to that of the ICRC in that it focuses upon the issue of hostilities and deems the question of sovereignty to be irrelevant, but it differs in a fundamental way. While the view of the ICRC is that the question of sovereignty is irrelevant inasmuch as humanitarian concerns should not be contingent upon whether a situation constitutes an occupation, this approach argues that the question of sovereignty is not relevant to the definition of occupation. The problem with this approach is twofold: First, it seeks to define occupation without regard for its underlying premise. Second, it seeks to redefine a concept of customary law without regard for the actual customs and usages of nations.

Thus, although the commonly accepted view would seem to be that Israel became the belligerent occupant of the West Bank and Gaza in June 1967, maintaining that view seems to require redefining the customary concept of occupation without regard for custom.

As opposed to this, some authors refer to Israel’s presence in the territories as conferring upon Israel a status “no more than,” “no better than,” or “at the very least,”37 that of a belligerent occupant, or not conferring “any status beyond”38 that of a belligerent occupant. This approach is employed in the context of the question whether or not Israel is obligated to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in refutation of a potential Israeli claim to sovereignty. In the former case, it is, in essence, a moral argument that the issue of prior sovereignty should not be relevant to the granting of humanitarian protection to the civilians affected by hostilities or under military rule, and is not unlike the ICRC’s argument. The latter case concerns the premise that sovereignty over territory cannot be acquired by force of arms, and concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a prior lawful sovereign bestows upon a belligerent party any greater claim to sovereignty vis-à-vis the territory by virtue of the lack of a competing claim. Neither of these approaches concerns the question of whether or not Israel is an “occupier.”

When examined solely in terms of the meaning of the term “occupation” in international law, it would appear that Israel never occupied the West Bank or Gaza. It is another question entirely whether this means that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not automatically apply, or whether this consideration is irrelevant to the application of the Convention. Regardless of the answer to that question, it would appear that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are erroneously referred to as “occupied territory” as a result of their capture in Six Day War, and their subsequent administration by Israel.

Occupation and the Peace Process

Occupation in the Absence of Prior Authority

If we were to assume, nevertheless, that Israel had occupied the West Bank and Gaza in June 1967, the question would then arise as to what would bring about the end of that occupation. That question is of particular interest in light of the peace process that began with the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, and the continuing claim that the West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli occupation.

Inasmuch as Egypt never asserted any claim of sovereignty over Gaza, that treaty would not appear to be of any consequence in regard to Israel’s status as an occupier. The same cannot immediately be said in regard to the 1994 Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Article 3 of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty established the international boundary between the two states. In so doing, it would seem – at the very least – that two issues relevant to the occupation of the West Bank were affected.

Article 3(2) of the Treaty states:

The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.On the face of it, the “without prejudice” statement would seem to make the statement irrelevant to our discussion. However, the Article does bear at least two unavoidable implications for Israel’s presence in the West Bank. First, it settles the question of any Jordanian claim of sovereignty. Second, regardless of the “status of the territories,” it deprives the 1949 ceasefire line – the Green Line – of any but historical significance. With the permanent international boundary established, the pre-existing ceasefire line is of no further importance to the former belligerents. If occupation is a temporary state of affairs meant to protect and preserve the status quo ante bellum , then even if one were to argue that the legal status of the former government is not decisive but rather only its factual presence is important (i.e., “where territory under the authority of one of the parties passes under the authority of an opposing party”),39 then arguably, even under such a broad conception of occupation, an occupation would cease to exist following the withdrawal of all claims by the previous government, due to the lack of any further interest in protecting or preserving its prior status or interests. As for the Palestinian residents of the area, the historical significance of the Green Line appears to be assumed, although its legal significance is far from clear. Nevertheless, the legal literature appears to attach no significance whatsoever to the Treaty in all that concerns Israel’s alleged status as occupier.

Occupation in the Absence of Effective Control

Although one might imagine that the Interim Agreement40 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization would mark an important development in terms of Israel’s status in the territories, this would not appear to be the generally accepted view. Inter alia, the Agreement provided for the transfer of authority from the Israeli military government to a Palestinian self-governance body – the Palestinian Authority – and for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from designated areas. On the face of it, it would seem that at least those areas placed under the effective control of the Palestinian Authority, and from which Israel had actually withdrawn its military forces, could no longer be termed “occupied” by Israel. Although Israel retained certain overall authority even in regard to those areas, it no longer maintained a military presence there, and it no longer exercised day-to-day control over their governance. It might further be argued that having redeployed its forces in accordance with an international agreement with the Palestinian Authority, its troops no longer constituted an occupying force in any part of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Rather, since the continued presence of Israeli troops in the area was agreed to and regulated by the Agreement, that presence could no longer be viewed as an occupation.

Of course, this view can be countered with the argument that, unlike the Coalition presence in Iraq, for example, the Palestinian Authority continued to view Israel as an occupying power, and in the absence of its agreement, Israel’s status remains unchanged. But it is not clear that the declarations of the parties should govern their status. Indeed, if the status of the parties is to be decided on the basis of their subjective declarations rather than upon an assessment of the facts, then it might be argued that the Palestinian Authority’s repeated claim in U.S. courts that it constitutes a “foreign state” and that it is protected by sovereign immunity41 might be taken as an official Palestinian affirmation that Israel is no longer an occupier, unless it is the contention of the Palestinian Authority that it is a government in exile within its own territory, or that the agreements under which it was established are void.

In summing up Israel’s post-Agreement status in the territories, Yoram Dinstein has written:

42

If Israel is to be deemed an occupier of those areas directly under Palestinian control, it could be deemed so only if the term “occupation” is extended so that it comprises an area under the control of another government, and in the absence of a military presence and effective control, and this by reason of the agreed presence of the occupier in other areas that are the subject of negotiations between the parties pursuant to the agreement.

While the facts on the ground would argue for a reassessment of Israel’s position as an occupying power in Judea and Samaria, the International Court of Justice, for example, has held that the changing conditions and developments “have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of Occupying Power.”43 In contrast, Iraq is no longer deemed to be under occupation, even though the factual conditions of occupation have remained essentially unchanged, solely due to the political decision to recognize the sovereignty of the interim government in Security Council Resolution 1546.44 It is troubling that people who – in terms of the objective facts – may be in a situation that justifies their protection under international humanitarian law might be deprived of that protection solely on the basis of political interests and declarations that effect no actual change in the situation on the ground, while changing conditions that may make such protection unnecessary or unjustified may be afforded no legal recognition.

Occupation in Absentia

The next stage in the Israeli situation that might have affected the issue of occupation was the withdrawal of all Israeli military personnel and any Israeli civilian presence in the Gaza Strip, and the subsequent ouster of the Palestinian Authority and the takeover of the area by a Hamas government. Surely this would constitute a clear end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza.45 Indeed, even the International Court of Justice admits that “ territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”46

Surprisingly, it is nevertheless argued that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza. This argument is made on the basis of a variety of assertions, for example, that the bulk of “Palestinian territory” remains under Israeli control, and in the absence of a viable state in the West Bank, the residents of the Gaza Strip are deprived of fundamental political rights, that the Palestinian areas lack contiguity, and that Israel exercises absolute control over the borders.47 A particularly interesting argument is presented by Bashi and Mann.48 Their argument is that Israel continues to control Gaza by an “invisible hand,”49 on the basis of their definition of the term “occupation” as exclusively measured in terms of control, without regard for questions of sovereignty, military presence, effective governance by the occupier, or the existence of an alternative effective and independent government in the territory. Thus, they put forward the proposition that even a total withdrawal from Gaza constitutes merely a change in degree rather than in substance.50

The arguments advanced for viewing Israel as an occupier in Gaza present a number of difficulties. First among them is that they have no basis in the customary definition of occupation. Beyond that, if Israel’s control of Gaza’s borders constitutes an element of its effective control of Gaza, then arguably, that control is entirely contingent upon Egypt’s control of its border with Gaza. If Egypt were to open its border to the free flow of people and goods, Israel’s control would be rendered largely ineffective. Does this mean that Gaza is under Egyptian occupation, or under a joint Israeli-Egyptian occupation? Moreover, given that under the current situation, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank would not automatically place the Hamas-led Gaza Strip under the control of that state, does the end of Israeli occupation depend upon the outcome of a Palestinian resolution of the issue of the governance of Gaza?

Ultimately, it would seem that, under the definitions currently advanced for “occupation,” Israel lacks the power to end its occupation. Rather, having once attained the status of occupier, that status continues until such time as the occupied territory attains international recognition of sovereignty. As we have seen in the case of Iraq, such international recognition need not be dependant on any actual change in the factual circumstances that constitute an occupation or that justify the application of humanitarian law. Until such time as the community of nations shows itself willing to accept a sovereign Hamas-led Gaza into its midst, or Gaza reverts to the effective control of the Palestinian Authority, it would seem that the Israeli occupation that may never have begun, cannot ever be brought to an end.

Conclusion

In terms of the definition of “occupation” in customary law, as understood at least since the drafting of the Brussels Code of 1874, Israel has never occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Developments since 1967 raise questions that further undermine viewing Israel as an occupying power under the customary definition. Nevertheless, rather than re-examine the questionable use of the term “occupation” to define Israel’s status vis-à-vis the territories, primary effort has been devoted to redefining the terms and parameters of occupation to fit the changing circumstances. At the same time, care has been taken to avoid or limit the use of the term “occupation” in regard to other conflicts.51

A number of explanations can be offered for this phenomenon in its various manifestations. The first, most obvious, is that the term is frequently employed loosely as a convenient description of a situation in which a military force controls territory beyond the sovereign borders of its own country. It is in this sense that we can understand the Medal of Occupation, or references to the Army of Occupation in Germany and Japan. While this casual description of a factual situation can explain much of the use of the term in regard to Israel’s presence in the territories following the Six-Day War, it does not adequately explain its continued use in regard to areas that were handed over to Palestinian control, and is entirely inapplicable to Israel’s relationship to Gaza. It also does not explain the studious avoidance of the term “occupation” in describing other situations of military control of foreign or disputed territory.

Unfortunately, it would appear that this casual use of the term “occupation” sometimes influences its use in circumstances where more caution is expected. On occasion, even legal scholars seem to assume that the existence of an Israeli occupation is self-evident and no longer requiring the rigorous examination that they would normally require in other cases. Indeed, in some cases, this commonly known “fact” of Israeli occupation is offered as a proof of the existence of some proposed principle or as proof of Israel’s alleged status as occupier itself.52

As opposed to the above, the evolving definition of the term “occupation” in scholarly literature often reflects what would seem to be an honest concern for the ineffectiveness of customary paradigms and conventional models in applying international humanitarian law to real situations, and the sense that legal lacunae should not translate into legal vacuums in the real world.53 This desire to prevent legal vacuums is not primarily directed at preventing the possibility that a geographic area might be “lawless,” nor is it related to the historical concern of international law for protecting sovereign rights. Rather, it is an expression of the growing trend toward extending the law of armed conflict to encompass areas of human rights law that has its origins in the shift in focus from states actors to individuals that began with the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This trend is also marked by the growing preference for the term “international humanitarian law” to refer to the law of war.

But broadening the term “occupation” in order to expand the incidence of international law in the fear of a legal vacuum is problematic. Redefining custom in the absence of real precedent in order to apply it to new or sui generis circumstances cannot be justified merely by a perceived moral imperative. Novel constructions of conventional law that do not reflect the contemplation of the contracting parties are not made legitimate by virtue of their internal consistency or perceived desirability. Broadening the scope of concepts like “occupation” and inventing subclasses of occupation to embrace every unforeseen development and every sui generis set of circumstances makes the scope of incidence vast beyond reason, and the ridiculous is easily ignored. Not surprisingly, the legal community’s attempts at redefining “occupation” have mainly succeeded in reinforcing and refining the customs and usages of non-compliance.

The scholarly world may well be disappointed that reality does not meet the standards of an idealized law. But rather than attempt to redefine without authority, it might be more fruitful to study that inadequate reality, and examine the many forms that “occupation” has taken in practice in order to arrive at a body of precedent – both positive and negative. The Israeli experience in this context can be of particular value inasmuch as it represents the only comprehensive attempt to apply international humanitarian law to a situation of military administration without regard for the question of whether or not that administration constitutes occupation or is sui generis.54 It is of further interest because the attempt has been carried out with civilian review under the watchful eye of the Israeli Supreme Court, a court that has earned the esteem of the international legal community.

Particularly noteworthy in this regard is the approach developed by the Supreme Court that views the armed forces as a state agency subject to the state’s administrative law even when operating outside the state’s sovereign territory. This approach imposes standards of civilian review of military conduct not common in other jurisdictions, and grants standing to persons affected by the military regime, even though such persons (whether or not viewed as residents of an “occupied territory,” or as “protected persons,” or as “unlawful combatants”) would not enjoy such standing to challenge military decisions under international law. It has also enabled the Court to apply human rights standards to military conduct by virtue of the army’s obligation – as an agent of the state – to act reasonably and in accordance with Israeli domestic law.55

This approach has produced a large corpus of legal precedent that can be studied, appraised and mined for application to other instances of alleged occupation, and particularly to the more common cases of military administration that deem themselves sui generis , exceptional or otherwise unbound by international law. Inasmuch as no other state has systematically applied the Fourth Geneva Convention and the law of occupation to territory under its control to the extent that they have been applied by Israel,56 or subjected its application of the law to the scrupulous review of its civilian courts,57 Israel provides a valuable and unique precedent. It is regrettable that in the main, the scholarly literature seems to prefer measuring this legal corpus against the criteria of theoretical ideals applied to conceptual models of occupation that deviate from customary international law of armed conflicts, rather than evaluating its actual efficacy in providing workable responses to an increasingly complex political reality.

Another possible explanation is that the term “occupation” is employed politically, without regard for its general or legal meaning. The use of the term “occupation” in political rhetoric can be useful in simplifying debate. It reduces complex situations of competing claims and rights to clear-cut, predefined categories of right and wrong. The possibility of using the term “occupation” as a pejorative to vilify or delegitimize a party to a conflict rather than confront the legal, military and humanitarian issues is also not easily discounted.58

The use of the terms “occupation” and “occupier” in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also serves to advance the argument that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians, while limiting or denying Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian terror,59 and while relieving the Palestinian side of responsibility for its own actions and decisions and their consequences. This purposeful use of the term “occupation” would appear to be an important factor motivating the reinterpretation and expansion of the concept of occupation.

The use of the term “occupation” to maintain Israel’s responsibility for the fate of the Palestinians also serves the agenda of those who question the legitimacy of the State of Israel or who view Israel as an American or Western proxy. This political abuse of the term “occupation” to demonize Israel as part of a general assault upon the West, or upon Israel’s legitimacy, underlies the continued use of the term in regard to Israel as part of a geopolitical narrative that has little to do with Israel’s status as an occupier under international law.

Unfortunately, political use and misuse of the term “occupation” has a detrimental effect upon the law and, potentially, upon the people deserving its protection. Making the definition of “occupation” subject to political interests and influence rather than to the formal requirements of international law erodes the power of the law to govern conflicts. While a criticism of “legalism” and “formalism” in the application of international law may serve the agendas of those seeking to broaden or contract the applicability of legal norms, it is legalism and formalism that provide the necessary degree of certainty that actors in the international arena require no less than individuals. The fundamental principles of law and legality should not be sacrificed to a momentary purpose no matter how noble, particularly bearing in mind how often in history noble purpose has proven to be evil in disguise.

Notes

1. A.B. (Columbia), LL.B. (Hebrew U.), M.A. (JTS), Lt. Colonel (IDF res.), former IDF Military Attorney for Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This paper expands upon and updates ideas presented by the author in his article Keeping Occupied: The Evolving Law of Occupation, 1 Regent J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 145 (2009). The views expressed here are the author’s, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the IDF, the State of Israel, or any of its agencies.

2. The joke would not work as well if we would say, for example, “Chinese” instead of “Israeli,” although the Chinese control of Tibet has been defined by the U.S. Congress as an occupation (see Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-138, § 355, 105 Stat. 647, 713 (1991), and Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 536, 108 Stat. 382, 481 (1994), stating, inter alia, “Because Congress has determined that Tibet is an occupied sovereign country under international law"). Indeed, it is likely that the average person would be hard pressed to name other instances of occupation, since so few territorial disputes are referred to by that term. On the avoidance of the term “occupation” in regard to other conflicts, see Dore Gold, From “Occupied Territories” to “Disputed territories,”
http://jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

3. Thus, for example, in explaining that Germany was not subject to the law of occupation following the Second World War, Kelsen refers to the “un-occupied” territory administered by the Allies as: “the territory of the German Reich occupied in the Second World War after the complete defeat and surrender of its armed forces” [emphasis added – A.S.]. Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law 76 (1952).

4. As Lauterpacht concluded, “the government of Germany by the Allied forces was not in the nature of belligerent occupation and was not subject to the customary and conventional rules of International Law relating to occupation of enemy territory.” Oppenheim, International Law, vol II, 436-37, H. Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed. (1952), 602; and see text infra at nn. 11-13.

5. “Talabani says time not ripe to seek US pullout from Iraq,” Agence France Presse [Fr.] (May 9, 2005),
http://ww2.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1006

6. Daniel Thürer, Current Challenges to the Law of Occupation, speech delivered by Professor Daniel Thürer, Member, International Committee of the Red Cross, 6th Bruges Colloquium, 20-21 October 2005,
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/occupation-statement-211105?opendocument

7. Indeed, as Robbie Sabel pointed out, “neither the US nor the UK has formally stated that they will be applying the IVth Geneva Convention to their administration of Iraq. In their joint letter to the UN Security Council of 8 May 2003, the two States affirmed that they ‘will strictly abide by their obligations under international law including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq.’ The Security Council, in the preamble to its subsequent Resolution of 22 May, designated the US and the UK as ‘occupying powers,’ but refrained from using the phrase ‘occupying powers’ in the operative part of the Resolution, which calls upon ‘all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.’] Explicit mention of the relevant IVth Convention was lacking.” (Robbie Sabel, The Problematic Fourth Geneva Convention: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation,
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php

8. Oppenheim, International Law vol. II, 341-42, H Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed. (1952), 432.

9. For a review of the historical development of international law, and specifically the law of occupation, see Doris Appel Graber, The Development of the Law of Belligerent Occupation 1863-1914 (1949).

10. Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annex to the Convention (II) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1899. The definition of occupation adopted by the regulations is that of the Brussels Code of 1874, see Graber, ibid., 59-61.

11. Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annex to the Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907. Although the English versions of Articles 42 and 43 appear slightly different in the English translations of Hague 1899 and Hague 1907, the French versions are identical:

On the differences between Hague 1899 and Hague 1907, see Gerhard von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory, 296 (1957). For a comparison of the texts of Hague 1899, Hague 1907, and the Oxford, Brussels and Lieber Codes; see also the Appendix in Graber, ibid. 293ff.

12. Oppenheim, International Law vol. II, H Lauterpacht ed., 6th ed. (1944), 341-42; Oppenheim, International Law vol II, H. Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed. (1952), 436-37. In this article, I refer to these editions of Oppenheim as they reflect the understanding of international law in the period leading up to and immediately following the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

13. Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation 5-6, (1993).

14. Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law 75-76 (1952).

15. Gerhard von Glahn, THE Occupation of Enemy Territory 273 (1957).

16. Yehuda Z. Blum, The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria, 3 Is.L.Rev. 279, 293 (1968).

17. Benvenisti, supra note 13, 59.

18. For a discussion of this shift in emphasis, see Benvenisti, supra note 13, chapter four.

19. Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument

20. Glahn (1957), supra note 15, 27.

21. Op. cit., 273.

22. This jump from 1949 to 1967 reflects an apparent lack of developments in the area of occupation during this period. This lack of development does not mean that there were no situations that might have warranted being termed “occupation.” In the context of this study, it is interesting in light of the Egyptian presence in Gaza and the Jordanian presence in the West Bank during this entire period. Indeed, these situations tend to receive little notice, if mentioned at all, in discussions of the subject of occupation, even in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, for example, in his discussion of Occupation after Armistice, Michel Bothe states: “Examples are the German occupation of parts of France after the armistices of 1871 and 1940, the Allied occupation of Italy after the armistice of 1943 and the occupation of Syrian (Golan Heights), Egyptian (Sinai Peninsula) and Jordanian/Palestinian (West Bank) territories by Israel after the ceasefire in 1967 and after the disengagement agreements following the Yom Kippur War in 1973.” Michael Bothe, Occupation after Armistice, in III Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 761 (1992). Indeed, although the Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem are mentioned (e.g., at p. 1483 and 1489) in Peter Malanczuk’s comprehensive article Israel: Status, Territory and Occupied Territories, we find statements like “The Gaza Strip, which had been administered by Egypt from 1948 to 1967 without raising any claim to title to the territory, has since remained under Israeli military occupation” (p. 1484) (emphasis added), and that the Al-Hammeh region was “then under Syrian administration and now under Israeli occupation” (p. 1485) (emphasis added). Peter Malanczuk, Israel: Status, Territory and Occupied Territories, in II Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 1468 (1992). While it would not seem that the author intends any legal implication by this choice of words, it does appear to reflect the legal community’s lack of interest in examining the legal nature of those “administrations.” The then nine-year-old Egyptian occupation of Gaza and Jordanian occupation of the West Bank also receive no mention in Glahn (1957).

23. I refer to “pre-war borders” bearing in mind that the borders between Israel and the adjacent Arab states did not have the status of recognized international borders, but rather constituted ceasefire lines established between Israel and her neighbors under the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon.

24. Farhy, Current Trends in the Areas Administered by Israel, 113 Mil.L.Rev. 47, 50 (1986).

25. The questions related to the legal status of the extension of Israeli law to the Golan under the Golan Heights Law, 1981, and to the transfer of sovereignty over the Golan to Syria as a result of the Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia, 1920, go beyond the limited scope of this article. For a discussion of the historical background, see Y. Meron, The Golan Heights, in Meir Shamgar, ed., Military Government in the Territories Administered by Israel 1967-1980 (1982) 85.

26. See Carol Farhi, On the Legal Status of the Gaza Strip, in Shamgar, ibid., 61, 74 ff.

27. See, Malanczuk, supra n. 22, 1490; Blum, supra n. 16, 289-290.

28. Meir Shamgar, Legal Concepts and Problems of the Israeli Military Government – The Initial Stage, in Shamgar, supra note 25, 13, 31 ff.; Blum, supra note 15, 289 ff.

29. Shamgar, supra note 25, 32; Farhy, supra n. 23, 50; Yoram Dinstein, The International Legal Dimensions of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, in Kellerman, Siehr, Einhorn, eds., Israel Among the Nations, 137, 150-51(1998). For a review of the official Israeli position on the application of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention and the position of the Israeli Supreme Court, see Nissim Bar-Yaakov, The Application of the Law of War to the Administered Territories, 18 Mishpatim 831 (1990) (the article is in Hebrew, however the statements of Israel’s official position are quoted in English).

30. Blum, supra n. 16, 294.

31. Shamgar, supra note 28, 37.

32. David Yahav, ed., Israel, the Intifada and the Rule of Law, (1993) 21.

33. Shamgar, supra note 28, 38.

34. See ICRC Commentary to Geneva Convention IV, 21-22
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600005?OpenDocument
and see, Gerhad von Glahn, Law Among Nations, 7th ed. (1996) 667.

35. ICRC Commentary, 22.

36. Bothe, supra note 22, 764.

37. E.g., Blum, supra note 16, 294.

38. E.g., Malanczuk, supra note 22, 1493.

39. ICRC Note to the Government of Israel of May, 24, 1968, cited in Malanczuk, supra note 22, 1495.

40. The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement
_________________
He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful
- Kohelet Rabba 7:16

Nannette · Joined: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 47813

Why is HMG misrepresenting international law against Israel?

by Melanie Phillips

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5186051/why-is-hmg-misrepresenting-international-law-against-israel.thtml

When it was revealed that the British government had revoked five export licences for the sale to Israel of warships' gun parts on account of its 'disproportionate' behaviour in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, which I wrote about below, one aspect of what the Foreign Office was saying jumped out at me. It appeared that Israel's crime was to fall foul of Criterion Two in the Consolidated Criteria for Licence Decision Making. Criterion Two invites consideration of whether the proposed item for export would be

used for internal repression.But Gaza is not 'internal' to Israel. It is not part of Israel. Not does Israel even occupy Gaza any more. So how could this be 'internal repression'? I called the Foreign Office and asked them. Yes, they said, the decision was definitely taken under Criterion Two: there was a 'clear risk' that the parts might be used for 'internal repression'. But how could this be 'internal' when Israel no longer occupied Gaza? I asked. This is what they replied:

'For the purposes of Criterion Two, we consider the Occupied Palestinian Territories as 'internal'. This is a reflection of the effective control Israel displays in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which we continue to consider occupied territory. Although there is no permanent physical Israeli presence in Gaza, given the significant control that Israel has over Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters, Israel retains obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as an occupying power in relation to Gaza.'The wording here is ambiguous, in that it isn't clear whether the Foreign Office is claiming that Israel is still occupying Gaza under terms set out by the Fourth Geneva Convention or whether, having separately decided that Israel is still an occupying power, it is merely saying it therefore has certain obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Either way, the argument is bogus. Israel does not still occupy Gaza, either in common-sense observational terms or under international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention does not define an 'occupation' or an 'occupying power'. It merely sets out the obligations of such a power. It is the Hague Convention which defines 'occupation', and it is quite clear that therefore Israel does not occupy Gaza.

As Avinoam Sharon writes:

Article 42

Article 43

None of these conditions applies in Gaza. It was never sovereign territory; before 1967 it was illegally occupied by Egypt. And it is not under the authority or actual control of Israel's military, which isn't even there; Gaza, as we all know, is run by Hamas. Legal scholars have always emphasised the need to show the practical, everyday reality of military occupation in governing the territory in question:

The Modern Law of Warfare

Oppenheim's International Law: A Treatise

The idea that Israel still occupies Gaza is absurd. Israel could not therefore have been engaged in 'internal repression'. Indeed, how can anyone think it was? Operation Cast Lead was a military operation designed to stop rocket attacks from Gaza upon Israel. It was not repression; it was a defensive war, a measure which like any other country Israel is entitled to take to defend its citizens.

But it would seem that the real sting of this partial arms embargo is that the British government does not think Israel has that fundamental right. The government says it took this action because Israeli gunships were used to fire on Gaza during Cast Lead. But as others have observed, it has offered no evidence that anyone was hit or killed by these ships.

It follows therefore that the mere fact that Israel used British equipment to fire on Gaza is enough to trigger an embargo. That implies that for the British government, this is not a matter of Israel having done anything that contravenes any laws of war. It means that Israel's fighting at all in Gaza violates the agreement under which weapons were sold. In other words, it means that Israel has no right to fight in Gaza at all; that any such self-defence against a hostile outsider is actually 'internal repression'; and so, in the British government's view Israel alone has no right to military self-defence against the Palestinians.

That is the inescapable conclusion from its decision to withdraw those licences; and any other country that follows suit will be saying the same malicious and wholly discriminatory thing.
_________________
He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful
- Kohelet Rabba 7:16

Levi · Joined: Aug 29, 2003 Posts: 61973

Nannette · Joined: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 47813

It's all about discrimination, see Melanie's article above...
_________________
He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful
- Kohelet Rabba 7:16

Levi · Joined: Aug 29, 2003 Posts: 61973

Israel is not occupying Gaza...! And it gave up Samaria and Judea...! It gave up Sinai...! Why are they called occupier then? Again, beats me. Confused