Businesses have increasingly recognized their responsibility to respect human rights in their operations. This has been in part guided by international initiatives, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as guidance and regulations from states. Although these measures recognize risks associated with conflict-affected areas, contexts of occupation present unique concerns. These issues become even more complex when states send mixed messages to businesses. This is most evident when examining the discourse on and regulation of business operations linked to Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory, especially those with operations and relationships related to ‘security’. This article seeks to highlight the frequent disregard of human rights responsibilities and obligations by states and businesses related to the occupied Palestinian territory and population, which has created a gap in accountability that civil society has attempted to address.

Concerns about lying and sincerity in politics are common in most societies, as are concerns about conspiracy theories. But in the occupied Palestinian territory, these concerns give rise to particular kinds of effects because of the conditions of Israeli occupation. Political theorists often interpret opacity claims and conspiracy theories as responses to social disorder. In occupied Palestine, disorder and instability are standard. Opacity claims and conspiracy theories therefore require a different kind of analysis. Through an examination of the semiotic ideology of sincerity, especially as it has emerged in the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, this article argues that opacity claims act as a form of nationalist pedagogy, at once reinforcing the basic principles of sincerity of action and word, and encouraging a wariness of political spin.

While international humanitarian law envisages the possibility of holding formal thematic discussions, only United Nations General Assembly resolutions prompted the depositary of the Geneva Conventions to consult the High Contracting Parties on the opportuneness of conflict-specific conferences. Recalling the precedents of 1999 and 2001 – convened on the basis of the support expressed by the States Parties during related consultations – this article focuses on the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 17 December 2014, which is likewise related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The result of the conference consists of a declaration reflecting the willingness of the States Parties to further implement Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions.

The latest developments in the Middle East region are of great concern to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The current level of violence, displacement and destruction in and around Syria is unprecedented in a region that has already suffered conflict and instability for most of its modern history. According to recent figures released by the United Nations (UN), over 100,000 people have died from the fighting in Syria; more than six million have been forced to flee their homes, including two million who have found refuge in neighbouring countries. This is putting an immense strain on host communities and governments.

This article appraises the impact of the Advisory Opinion of 7 July 2004 on the development of self-determination as a legal principle. The plight of the Palestinians being widely understood as a textbook self-determination struggle, the Court had to address the issue in its examination of the case at hand. Self-determination left an indelible mark upon the Opinion, from the decision to allow Palestine to participate, through the use of the principle as applicable law, to the elucidation of the violations and the erga omnes character of the obligations breached. The article examines the Court's positions, which, however sparsely elaborated, may have serious repercussions on the understanding of the principle and on its handling in future judicial proceedings.