The traditional effective control test for determining the existence of a belligerent occupation requires boots on the ground. However, the evolution of the international law of occupation and the emergence of complex situations, particularly of a technological nature, necessitate a functional approach that protects the rights of occupied populations. The political, historical and geographical conditions of Gaza allow Israel to exert effective remote control. Despite the disengagement of Israel from Gaza in 2005 and the assumption of military and political authority by Hamas, this article argues that Israel nonetheless continues to be in effective occupation of the Gaza Strip on the basis of the following grounds: (1) the relatively small size of Gaza in connection with the technological superiority of the Israeli air force allows Israeli boots to be present in Gaza within a reasonable response time; (2) Hamas's authority and armed resistance do not impede the status of occupation; (3) the long pre-disengagement occupation and close proximity between Israel and Gaza (geography) allow for the remote exercise of effective control; and (4) all imports, exports in and out of Gaza, and any movement of persons are fully controlled and regulated by Israel.

This article invites the reader on a journey through the legal arguments that would confirm the application of the United Nations (UN) climate change regime to belligerent occupations. Although the regime is silent on this issue, its application should not be limited to peacetime due to the seriousness of global climate change and its adverse effects on the environment and living entities. A harmonious interpretation and application of the UN climate change regime and the law of occupation would allow Occupying Powers to ensure the safety and well-being of the civilian population and contribute to the protection of the Earth's climate system.

International humanitarian law (IHL) categorically prohibits all types of collective punishment. However, neither treaty nor customary sources provide a clear definition of what should be deemed a collective punishment. Given this lack of clarity, it is no surprise that little attention has been paid to the way in which resorting to different forms of collective punishment during a belligerent occupation might lead to additional violations of international law, including IHL and international human rights law (IHRL). This article explores the notion of collective punishment under the law of occupation and connects it with other relevant rules of international law. Based on this analysis, and using the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a case study, the article argues that violating the prohibition of collective punishment in a situation of belligerent occupation in all likelihood will trigger the breach of other concomitant rules of IHL and IHRL, thus shedding light on the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The law and practice concerning the responsibilities of businesses and the obligations of their home states in relation to private dealings in occupied territory are under-developed. The establishment of a database by the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the activities of corporate actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is an opportunity to provide much-needed guidance on the scope of application of existing international law in this paradigmatic case of a high-risk business environment. This article engages with the contribution of this initiative to the regulation of transnational corporate dealings through two normative issues: the structural characteristics and effects of the violations taking place in certain business environments maintained in the OPT on the responsibilities of business and home states; and the various modes through which businesses become directly linked with and contribute to the illicit property rights regime underpinning the existence of settlements and the serious human rights abuses perpetuated by their maintenance.

This essay examines the similarities, but even more the dissimilarities, between (nonrevisionist) just war theory and the laws of war. The similarities are obvious: both just war theory and the laws of war distinguish jus ad bellum from jus in bello, and incorporate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. The dissimilarities derive from the special character of law. Law needs binary, yes-no standards for drawing lines, for example between armed conflict and lesser forms of violence. Laws come in packages (regimes), so that changing only one law is not always practicable. And legal propositions, unlike philosophical propositions, are often detachable from their reasons and applied in unexpected and unwelcome ways. This is especially important in the stresses of battle, when rules of warfare must be usable “off the shelf” by middle- or lower-ranked personnel with no opportunity for bespoke deliberation. The essay provides contemporary illustrations of these differences.

In contrast with most other municipal courts in the world, the Israeli Supreme Court routinely decides cases based on international humanitarian law (IHL). Since the Six Day War in 1967, both the state and the Supreme Court have agreed that the Court has jurisdiction to decide humanitarian issues that come before it from territory held under belligerent occupation. The Court has indeed done so in issues ranging from land seizures to targeted killings, ruling on the basis of the relevant IHL. The Court has been criticised for its judgments, both from the right wing of the political spectrum, who see it as interfering with military matters, and from the left, who see it as granting legitimacy to occupation. In this article, I briefly describe the development, both historical and legal, of IHL in the Israeli Supreme Court, the criticism of the way the law is applied by the Court, and finally the importance of the fundamental concepts of human dignity and proportionality to IHL decisions.

Belligerent occupation — Legislative and administrative functions of Occupant — Power to appoint officers to discharge these functions — Whether acceptance by officer of payment of mortgage debt in currency of Occupant constitutes effective discharge of debt — Article 46 of Hague Regulations — The law of Burma.

Belligerent occupation — Respect for private property — Effect of seizure of private property — Transfer of rights arising under a contract — Law of occupied State annulling such transfer — The law of Belgium.

Belligerent occupation — Appointment of local judges by Occupant — Whether lawful — Article 43 of Hague Regulations of 1907 — Validity of decisions handed down by such Judges — Attitude of legitimate Government towards such appointments after liberation of country.

State responsibility — Responsibility for damage done by belligerent Occupant — Non-responsibility of Municipality for acts done by occupying authorities in its name

War — Effects of treaties of peace — Postliminium — Application to unlawful disposition of property by belligerent Occupant.

Belligerent occupation — Hague Convention No. IV of 1907 — Changes in local government in occupied country brought about by Occupant — Ineffectiveness of unlawful changes — Postliminium — Restoration of money unlawfully paid by Occupant from municipal Treasury.

International law — Relation to municipal law — Restitution Law in Germany — Overriding effect of international law.

Treaties — Special kinds of — Peace treaties — Peace Treaty with Japan, 1951, Articles 14 and 16 — Exemption of property used for diplomatic or consular purposes from seizure in respect of reparations or indemnity — Exemption of such property “ owned ” by Japan — Effect of restitution claim in respect of such property in Germany — Validity of ownership put in issue.

War — In general — Termination of war — Obligation of defeated State to terminate diplomatic relations with other States — Effect of intention to restore such relations — Immunity of diplomatic premises — Whether such intention effective to prevent termination of immunity — Japanese Surrender, 1945 — Termination of diplomatic relations with Germany.

Belligerent occupation — Legislative functions of Occupant — Legislation promulgated by Occupant — Special nature of — Extension of application by analogy — Allied Kommandatura Law No. 7 — Immunity from jurisdiction of German courts of persons accredited to Allied Control Council — Whether applicable by analogy to foreign States.

Permanent diplomatic envoys — Privileges and immunities of — Diplomatic premises — Requirement of actual use and possession of property for diplomatic purposes — Cessation of such use on obligatory termination of diplomatic relations after war — Effect of Intention to restore such relations — Termination of relations between Japan and Germany in 1945 — Legal basis of diplomatic immunity — Comity and reciprocity as origin of immunity — Rejection of theory of absolute exterritoriality — Theory of functional necessity — Relation to maxim ne impediatur legatio — Relation of immunity of premises to personal immunity of envoy — Relevance of distance of premises from capital — Property in Berlin — Relevance of intention to use property for diplomatic purposes before Berlin again the capital of Germany.

States — Continuity of — German Reich and Federal Republic of Germany.

State succession — Succession to obligations towards individuals arising under alleged violations of rules of land warfare — German Reich and Federal Republic of Germany.

State responsibility — Claims — In general — Non — satisfication of claim — Whether constituting discriminatory treatment.

Arbitration — Evidence — Allegations of one party — Whether prima facie evidence.

Belligerent occupation — Deportations from occupied enemy territory — Forced labour — Responsibility for-Legal relationship between deportee and deporting State — Claims.

Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Arbitral Commission on Property, Rights and Interests in Germany — Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and Occupation, 1952–1954 — Competence under Chapter Five and Article 1, Chapter Ten, of said Convention — Meaning of said Article — Territorial scope of — Compensation claims under.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Exemptions from — Property of foreign States — Real property — Whether subject to jurisdiction of local State — Distinction between imperium and dominium — Relevance of use of premises for diplomatic purposes — The law of Germany.

Diplomatic and consular intercourse — Miscellaneous — Diplomatic premises — Immunity of — Relevance of number and location of embassy buildings — Relevance of distance of premises from capital.

Belligerent occupation — Legislative functions of Occupant — Legislation promulgated by Occupant — Whether binding on other enemy States in relation to property and transactions in occupied territory — Restitution Law promulgated by Three Western Powers in Germany — Whether applicable to property of Hungarian State in Germany.

Permanent diplomatic envoys — Privileges and immunities of — Diplomatic premises — Immunity from jurisdiction — Theory of imperium of local sovereign — Principle of exterritoriality — Extent to which valid in contemporary international law — Extent to which derived from person of envoy — Theory of functional necessity — Relevance of distance of diplomatic premises from capital — Effect of termination of diplomatic use of premises — Relevance of involuntary nature of termination — Distinction between temporary cessation of use through suspension of diplomatic relations and permanent termination of use — Immunity of premises from jurisdiction of special courts — Restitution courts — Nature of restitution proceedings — Relevance of fact that restitution claims are claims in rem — Competence of restitution court to determine ancillary claims in personam — Waiver of immunity — Whether purchase of real property for embassy premises by contract subject to local law amounts to implied waiver.

Belligerent occupation — Issue of new currency by occupying authorities — Whether lawful — Article 43 of Hague Regulations — Validity of payments in occupation currency.

Belligerent occupation — Article 46 of Hague Regulations of 1907 — Ejectment of private person from his property by belligerent Occupant — Acquisition of certain rights with respect to such property by a private party — Whether lawful.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Over territory in general — Territory under de facto authority of a State — Gaza Strip — Nature of authority exercised by State of Israel — Applicability of Palestine Police Ordinance to offence committed by policeman on duty in Gaza Strip — The law of Israel.

Jurisdiction — Limits of — Intention to legislate with exterritorial effect — Palestine Police Ordinance — Applicability to offence committed by policeman on duty in Gaza Strip — The law of Israel.

Belligerent occupation — Administrative functions of Occupant — Detachment of home civil police force sent to occupied territory at request of military commander — Power of police Disciplinary Tribunal to try members of detachment after termination of occupation in respect of disciplinary offences committed during occupation — The Law of Israel

Jurisdiction — Personal — Over nationals in respect of crimes committed abroad — Jurisdiction of disciplinary tribunal of police force in respect of offences committed by policemen on duty abroad — Basis of exterritorial jurisdiction — Whether personal or territorial — Disciplinary jurisdiction compared with criminal jurisdiction-Jurisdiction over offences in the Gaza Strip — The law of Israel.