Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:11:07.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International humanitarian law, ICRC and Israel's status in the Territories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2013

Alan Baker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses contentions voiced by ICRC President Maurer in a speech on ‘Challenges to humanitarian action in contemporary conflicts: Israel, the Middle East and beyond’, developed in the form of the article in this issue of the International Review of the Red Cross.

It discusses challenges to international humanitarian law in situations where one party violates humanitarian norms, and questions some ICRC contentions and assumptions regarding the status of the West Bank territories, the status of Israel-Palestinian agreements, the status of the Gaza Strip, the concept of ‘occupation’, Israel's settlement policy, Israel's separation barrier, East Jerusalem, and concludes with a discussion of ICRC policies of confidentiality, as opposed to public engagement.

Type
The ICRC today
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 94 , Issue 888: ICRC: 150 years of Humanitarian Action , December 2012 , pp. 1511 - 1521
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Peter Maurer, ‘Challenges to international humanitarian law: Israel's occupation policy’, in this issue. President Maurer's article is based on a speech delivered at the Minerva Center for Human Rights, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, on 3 July 2013, entitled ‘Challenges to humanitarian action in contemporary conflicts: Israel, the Middle East and beyond’.

2 Ibid.

3 See Baker, Alan, ‘Legal and Tactical Dilemmas Inherent in Fighting Terror: Experience of the Israeli Army in Jenin and Bethlehem (April–May 2002)’, in Jacques, Richard B. (ed.), International Law Studies Vol. 80: Issues in International Law and Military Operations, US Naval War College, pp. 273–285Google Scholar.

4 See P. Maurer, above note 1.

5 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Preamble, in Handbook of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, 13th ed., ICRC/International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 1994, p. 417: ‘in order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature’.

6 See ibid., p. 449, Art. 4 (1)(a), Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross as revised, which defines the role of the ICRC as ‘to maintain and disseminate the Fundamental Principles of the Movement, namely, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality’.

7 See P. Maurer, above note 1.

8 See UNGA Res. 181, 29 November 1947, section II, available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement. All internet references were last accessed in October 2013.

9 On this issue see Robbie Sabel ‘The ICJ opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as “Palestinian Territory”’, in Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 535, 2 October 2005, available at: http://jcpa.org/jl/vp535.htm

10 See P. Maurer, above note 1.

11 Ibid.

12 See Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II), Washington, D.C., 28 September 1995, available at: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/THE%20ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN%20INTERIM%20AGREEMENT.aspx.

13 See Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, 13 September 1993; Exchange of Letters between Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat of 9–10 September 1993; Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, 4 May 1994; Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, 28 September 1995; Agreement on Temporary International Presence in Hebron, 9 May 1996; The Wye River Memorandum, 23 October 1998; The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timeline of Outstanding Commitments of Agreements Signed and the Resumption of Permanent Status Negotiations, 4 September 1999; Protocol Concerning Safe Passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 5 October 1999. All these documents are referenced in: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/reference%20documents/.

14 See P. Maurer, above note 1.

15 Ibid.

16 See Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident , September 2011, para. 82, available at: http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf.

17 See High Court of Justice (HCJ), Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04, Judgement, available at: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/04/560/020/A28/04020560.A28.pdf; Mariabe v Prime Minister of Israel, HCJ 7957/04, Judgement, available at: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/04/570/079/A14/04079570.A14.pdf.

18 For an extensive summary of the reasoning behind the drafting of the convention, see Pictet, Jean (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 4, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, pp. 3–9Google Scholar.

19 See International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004.

20 For a detailed study of this issue see Baker, Alan, ‘The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords’, in Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Vol. 10, No. 20, 5 January 2011Google Scholar, available at : http://jcpa.org/article/the-settlements-issue-distorting-the-geneva-convention-and-the-oslo-accords/.

21 P. Maurer, above note 1.

22 See Beit Sourik case, above note 17. See also Hawaja v. Prime Minister of Israel, No 2577/04 at http://uri.mitkadem.co.il/wall/bagatz-257704.html; Salim and others v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria, available at: http://www.psakdin.co.il/fileprint.asp?filename=/minhali/private/ver_dzhe.htm; and Head of the Azoun Local Council v Government of Israel No. 2732/05, available at: http://www.azriel.co.il/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518 (these 3 internet references are in Hebrew).

23 See ICJ, Advisory Opinion, above note 19, separate opinions of Judge Higgins Higgins, paras 15–20, 22, 23, 28, 30, Judge Kooijimans , paras 13, 26, 30, 32 and declaration of Judge Buergenthal, paras 3, 7.

24 See above note 8. Jerusalem's unique status and character was acknowledged in the 1947 UN General Assembly ‘partition’ resolution 181, recommending that Jerusalem and its environs become a ‘corpus separatum’ under a special international regime for the City of Jerusalem, to be administered by the United Nations. Additional attempts in the UN to internationalize Jerusalem never gained support. See also attempts by the UN General Assembly to internationalize Jerusalem in UNGA Res. 185 (S2), 26 April 1948; UNGA Res. 187 (S2), 6 May 1948; UNGA Res. 303 (lV), 9 December 1949.

25 Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11) 5727-1967, 21 L.S.I. 75 (1967). There is no reference in this legislation to annexation.

26 See Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, above note 12. For an in-depth study of the Jerusalem issue, see Alan Baker, ‘Is Jerusalem Really Negotiable – An Analysis of Jerusalem's Place in the Peace Process’, in JCPA, No. 11, May 2013, available at: http://jcpa.org/article/is-jerusalem-really-negotiable-an-analysis-of-jerusalems-place-in-the-peace-process-2/.

27 See Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, above note 12, and specifically Annex II concerning elections, available at: http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/heskemb3_eng.htm.

28 P. Maurer, above note 1.

29 See above note 6.