Skip to main content
×
Home

Understanding the Settlements Debate

  • Pnina Sharvit Baruch (a1)
Abstract

Theodor Meron's editorial comment revisits the question of the legality of settlements. I will try to offer an additional perspective which looks at the underlying values of the laws of occupation and how these impact the legal analysis of settlement activity in the Israeli context.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Understanding the Settlements Debate
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Understanding the Settlements Debate
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Understanding the Settlements Debate
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All

2 For the official Israel position, see: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel, the Conflict and Peace: Answers to frequently asked questions (Dec. 30, 2009); for the official Palestinian position, see: Saeb Erekat, Palestine Liberation Organization Legal Brief in Support of Recognition of the State of Palestine, in Palestine Membership in the United Nations: Legal and Practical Implications (Mutaz Qafisheh ed., 2013).

3 Jordan-Israel General Armistice Agreement, art. 2, Apr. 3, 1949, 42 UNTS 243.

4 Only the United Kingdom and Pakistan recognized the Jordanian annexation.

5 SC Res. 242 (Nov. 22, 1967).

6 Id. at para 1.

7 Notably, in 1988 Jordan renounced any claims to the West Bank and acknowledged the Palestine Liberation Organization as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” See King Hussein of Jordan, Address to the Nation (July 31, 1988).

9 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, art. XVII(1), Sep. 28, 1995, 36 I.L.M. 557 (1997).

10 Id., art. XXXI (6).

11 The International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion was heavily criticized on different aspects. As for the analysis of settlements, see for example: Ruth Lapidoth, The Advisory Opinion and the Jewish Settlements, 38 Isr. L. Rev. 292 (2005).

12 The Quartet on the Middle East, Report (July 1, 2016).

13 HCJ 390/79 Duweikat v. Government of Israel, IsrSc 34(1) (1979) (Isr.).

14 HCJ 9949/08 Hamad v. Minister of Defense (2017) (Isr., in Hebrew).

16 Pnina Sharvit Baruch, The Regularization Law and the Role of the Legal System, INSS Insight No. 894 (Feb. 10, 2017).

17 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, 10 Eur. J. Int'l L. 144, 151 (1999); Gennady M. Danilenko, ICC Statute and Third States, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary 1895 (Cassese et al. eds., 2002).

18 During the drafting of the elements of the crime there was controversy whether the economic situation of the local population must be worsened and whether their separate identity must be endangered by the transfer, but it was eventually decided to leave the interpretation to the Court. Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary 210–211 (2003).

19 William Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute 272–273 (2d ed., 2016); Otto Triffterer & Kai Ambos, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary 405 (3d ed., 2016).

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

AJIL Unbound
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2398-7723
  • URL: /core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 62
Total number of PDF views: 280 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 457 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th May 2017 - 20th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.