Advertisement

Towards a Counter-Hegemonic Law of Occupation: On the Regulation of Predatory Interstate Acts in Contemporary International Law

  • Valentina Azarova
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 20)

Abstract

This chapter examines the regulation in international law of situations of foreign territorial control that breach peremptory norms on interstate force and self-determination of peoples, which it designates as unlawfully prolonged occupations. In the practice of international lawyers, such situations are regulated by the international humanitarian law rules on belligerent occupation, or conflict management law. This practice apparently derives from the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello and the dichotomy in the application of the two bodies of law. But this seemingly outdated logic of international legal practitioners is under pressure, as it also amounts to a silencing and failure to address the legality of the occupying state’s pursuits and that of the continued denial of the right to self-determination of people to the local population. Applying only the specialized law on occupation, in isolation from other applicable law, overlooks the consequences of unlawfully prolonged occupations on the protection of individual rights and the systemic integrity of international law. This chapter re-situates occupation law within its broader normative environment and proposes a regulatory approach to predatory acts that would better support the unity, systemic integrity, and value system of contemporary international law.

Keywords

Belligerent occupation Jus ad bellum Self-determination of people Territorial acquisition Conflict management law Resolution and prevention law Systemic integrity 

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

  1. Adams R (2005) Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights. In: Schmitt M, Pejic J (eds) International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Brill/Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 439–495Google Scholar
  2. Amerasinghe CF, Brownlie I, Dugard J, Hafner G, Pellet A, Schabas W (2009) International Jurists’ Opinion on the Exhaustion of Local Remedies. http://www.law.gov.cy/Law/lawoffice.nsf/0/0AB851D1B5CE0AD0C225768C003FEC92/$file/INTERNATIONAL%20JURISTS%20OPINION%20ON%20EXHAUSTION%20OF%20LOCAL%20REMEDIES%20-%20Experts’%20Opinion%20on%20Local%20Remedies.doc. Accessed 20 November 2017
  3. Anonymous (1920–1921) The League of Nations and the Laws of War. British Yearbook of International Law 1:109–124Google Scholar
  4. Arai-Takahashi Y (2009) The Law of Occupation: Continuity and Change of International Humanitarian Law, and its Interaction with International Human Rights Law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Arai-Takahashi Y (2012) Preoccupied with Occupation: Critical Examinations of the Historical Development of the Law of Occupation. International Review of the Red Cross 94:51–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azarova V (2017a) Israel’s Unlawfully Prolonged Occupation: Consequences Under an Integrated Legal Framework. European Council on Foreign Relations, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Azarova V (2017b) Symposium on Occupation Law: Rethinking the Regulation of Occupation in International Law: A Review of Gross’ “The Writing on the Wall”. Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2017/08/29/rethinking-the-regulation-of-occupation-in-international-law-a-review-of-gross-the-writing-on-the-wall/. Accessed 20 November 2017
  8. Azarova V (2018) Illegal Territorial Regimes: On the Operation of International Law in Crimea. In: Sayapin S, Tybulenko E (eds) The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law: Jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum. Springer, The Hague, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  9. Azarova V, Blum I (2015) Belligerency, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e249. Accessed 20 November 2017
  10. B’Tselem (2012a) Arrested Development: The Long Term Impact of the Separation Barrier. http://www.btselem.org/download/201210_arrested_development_eng.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  11. B’Tselem (2012b) Under the Guise of Security: Routing the Separation Barrier to Enable the Expansion of Israeli Settlements in the West Bank. https://www.btselem.org/download/200512_under_the_guise_of_security_eng.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  12. Ben-Naftali O (2005) A la Recherche Du Temps Perdu: Rethinking Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Light of the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion. Israel Law Review 38:211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ben-Naftali O (2011) PathoLAWgical Occupation: Normalizing the Exceptional Case of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Other Legal Pathologies. In: Ben-Naftali O (ed) International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: Pas de Deux. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ben-Naftali O, Gross A, Michaeli K (2005) Illegal Occupation: The Framing of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Berkley Journal of International Law 23:551–614Google Scholar
  15. Benvenisti E (2003) Agora (continued): Future implication of the Iraq conflict: Water Conflicts During the Occupation of Iraq. American Journal of International Law 97:860–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Benvenisti E (2009) Rethinking the Divide between Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in Warfare Against Nonstate Actors. Yale Journal of International Law 34:541–548Google Scholar
  17. Benvenisti E (2012) The International Law of Occupation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Berkes A (2014) “Remote Areas” in International Human Rights Law, Revue belge de droit international 47:528–548Google Scholar
  19. Bhuta N (2005) The Antinomies of the Law of Occupation. European Journal of International Law 16:721–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Borgen CJ (2007) Imagining Sovereignty, Managing Secession: The Legal Geography of Eurasia’s “Frozen Conflicts”. Oregon Review of International Law 9:477–535Google Scholar
  21. Bothe M, Partsch KJ, Waldemar SA (1982) New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Boutruche T, Sassoli M (2017) Expert Opinion on the Occupier’s Legislative Power over an Occupied Territory Under IHL in Light of Israel’s On-going Occupation. Norwegian Refugee Council. https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/legal-opinions/sassoli.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018
  23. Bugnion F (2003) Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello and Non-International Armed Conflicts. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 4:167–198Google Scholar
  24. Carcano A (2015) The Transformation of Occupied Territory in International Law. Brill/Nijhoff Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  25. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1920) Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference: Translation of the Official Texts. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Chen T (1951) The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Chinkin C, Kaldor M (2017) International Law and New Wars. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Clagett BM, Johnson TO (1978) May Israel as a belligerent occupant exploit previously unexploited oil resources of the Gulf of Suez? American Journal of International Law 73:558–585Google Scholar
  29. Costelloe D (2017) Treaty Succession in Annexed Territory. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65:343–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Council of the European Union (2012) Guidelines on the implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, 11205/1Google Scholar
  31. Council of the European Union (2014) Council Regulation (EU) No. 692/2014 of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, OJ 2014R0692Google Scholar
  32. Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Cullen A, Wheatley S (2013) The Human Rights of Individuals in De Facto Regimes under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 13(4):691–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2006) Illegal Demographic Changes. http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2016.nsf/mfa15_en/mfa15_en?OpenDocument&print. Accessed 7 March 2018
  35. d’Aspremont J (2012) The Collective Security System and the Enforcement of International Law. In: Weller M (ed) The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 129–156Google Scholar
  36. d’Aspremont J (2018) International Law as a Belief System. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Darcy S, Reynolds J (2010) An Enduring Occupation: The Status of the Gaza Strip from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 15:211–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Décret n° 2-97-246 du 12 rabii II 1418 (17 août 1997) fixant le nombre des régions, leur nom, leur chef-lieu, leur ressort territorial et le nombre de conseillers à élire dans chaque région [unofficial translation: Decree 2-97-246 of 17 August 1997 establishing the number of regions, their name, their chief-locale, their territorial contours, and the number of counsellors to be elected in each region]. http://adala.justice.gov.ma/production/html/Fr/liens/..%5C82111.htm. Accessed 12 September 2016
  39. Del Mar M, Twining W (2017) Legal Fictions in Theory and Practice. Springer, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  40. Dinstein Y (2009) The International Law of Belligerent Occupation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Dinstein Y (2011) War, Aggression and Self-Defence. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Dinstein Y (2015) Aggression. Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e236?prd=EPIL. Accessed 20 November 2017
  43. Doswald-Beck L (2006) The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers? International Review of the Red Cross 88:881–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Drew C (2001) The East Timor Story: International Law on Trial. European Journal of International Law 12:651–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. European Commission (2015) Information Note to EU business operating and/or investing in Crimea/Sevastopol, SWD(2014) 300 final/3Google Scholar
  46. European University Institute (date unknown) The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law and Politics of Armed Conflict. https://iow.eui.eu/welcome/. Accessed 7 March 2018
  47. Eyffinger A (2012) Friedrich Martens: A Founding Father of the Hague Tradition. ENDC Proceedings 15:13–43Google Scholar
  48. Ferraro T (2009) Occupation and other forms of administration of foreign territory. International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018
  49. Fox G (2008) Humanitarian Occupation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Fraleigh A (1949) The Validity of Acts of Enemy Occupation Authorities Affecting Property Rights. Cornell Law Quarterly 35:89–117Google Scholar
  51. Frowein JA (2013) De Facto Regimes. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Geiss R (2015) Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: The Mills of International Law Grind Slowly but They Do Grind. International Legal Studies 91:425–449Google Scholar
  53. Gerson A (1976–1977) War, Conquered Territory and Military Occupation in the Contemporary International Legal System. Harvard International Law Journal 18:539–544Google Scholar
  54. Giladi R (2008) The Jus ad Bellum/Jus in Bello Distinction and the Law of Occupation. Israel Law Review 41:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Giladi R (2012) Reflections on Military Necessity, Proportionality and the Clausewitzian War. Israel Law Review 45:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gowlland-Debbas V (1990) Collective Responses to Illegal Acts in International Law: United Nations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Leiden/BostonGoogle Scholar
  57. Graber D (1949) The development of the law of belligerent occupation, 1863–1914. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Greenwood C (1983) The Relationship Between Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello. Review of International Studies 9:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Greenwood C (1999) Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion. In: Boisson De Chazournes J, Sands P (eds) International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 247–266Google Scholar
  60. Gross A (2016) The Righting of the Law of Occupation. In: Bhuta N (ed) The Frontiers of Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gross A (2017) The Writing on the Wall: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Guilfoyle D (2011) The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict. British Yearbook of International Law 81:171–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hammarberg T (2013) Report on Human Rights in the Transnistrian Region of the Republic of Moldova. United Nations. http://md.one.un.org/content/dam/unct/moldova/docs/pub/Senior_Expert_Hammarberg_Report_TN_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2017
  64. Hammarberg T, Grono M (2017) Human Rights in Abkhazia Today, July. https://www.palmecenter.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Human-Rights-in-Abkhazia-Today-report-by-Thomas-Hammarberg-and-Magdalena-Grono.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  65. Haque AA (2017) Aggression, Armed Conflict, and the Right to Life: Does UN Human Rights Committee Get it Right? Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/44040/aggression-armed-conflict-life-human-rights-committee-right/. Accessed 20 November 2017
  66. Hart HLA (1961) The Concept of Law. Clarendon Law Series, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Hathaway O, Shapiro S (2017) The Internationalists: How A Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Hayashi N (2010) Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. Boston University International Law Journal 28:39–140Google Scholar
  69. Horkheimer M (1972) Critical Theory: Selected Essays, Continuum Publishing Company, New York, pp 188–243Google Scholar
  70. Human Rights Watch (2010) Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt1210webwcover_0.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018
  71. Human Rights Watch (2012) Forget About Him, He’s Not Here. https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/02/05/forget-about-him-hes-not-here/israels-control-palestinian-residency-west-bank-and. Accessed 12 March 2018
  72. Human Rights Watch (2015) Rights in Retreat: Abuses in Crimea. https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/11/17/rights-retreat/abuses-crimea. Accessed 12 March 2018
  73. Hurka T (2005) Proportionality in the Morality of War. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33:34–66Google Scholar
  74. International Law Commission (2001) ILC Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/56/10Google Scholar
  75. Ivanel B (2015) Puppet States: A Growing Trend of Covert Occupation. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 18:43–65Google Scholar
  76. Jennings RY (1963) The Acquisition of Territory in International Law. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  77. KLP (2015) Decision to Exclude from Investments: Heidelberg and Cemex. http://english.klp.no/polopoly_fs/1.31195.1434009511!/menu/standard/file/Heidelberg%20og%20CEMEX%20beslutning%20om%20utelukkelse%20ENG.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018
  78. Koh HH (1996) Transnational Legal Process. Nebraska Law Review 75:181–207Google Scholar
  79. Kohelet Policy Forum (2017) Who Else Profits: The Scope of European and Multinational Business in the Occupied Territories. http://www.ngo-monitor.org/nm/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/WhoElseProfits_final.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  80. Kolb R (2013) The main epochs of modern IHL since 1864. In: Mujezinovic Larsen K, Guldahl Cooper C, Nystuen G (eds) Searching for a “Principle of Humanity” in International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–71Google Scholar
  81. Korman S (1996) The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  82. Koskenniemi M (1995) The Police in the Temple: Order, Justice and the UN: A Dialectical View. European Journal of International Law 6:325–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Koskenniemi M (2008) Occupied Zone – A “Zone of Reasonableness”? Israel Law Review 41:13–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Koury S (2010) Legal Strategies at the United Nations: A Comparative Look at Namibia, Western Sahara, and Palestine. In: Akram SM, Dumper M, Lynk M, Scobbie I (eds) International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 147–183Google Scholar
  85. Koutroulis V (2012) The application of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in situations of prolonged occupation: only a matter of time? International Review of the Red Cross 885:165–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kretzmer D (2012) The Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel. International Review of the Red Cross 94:207–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kretzmer D (2017) Settlements in the Supreme Court of Israel. American Journal of International Law: Unbound 111:41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  89. Lagerwall A (2016) Le Principe Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur en Droit Internationale. Bruylant, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  90. Lauterpacht H (1948) Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  91. Lauterpacht H (1952) Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. II, 7th edn. Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  92. Lynk M (2017) Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (Advanced Unedited Version), UN Doc. A/72/43106Google Scholar
  93. McMahan J (2011) Individual Responsibility and the Law of Jus ad Bellum. In: Benaji Y, Sussman N (eds) Reading Walzer. Routledge, London, Chapter 11Google Scholar
  94. Megret F (2006) From “Savages” to “Unlawful Combatants”: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s “Other”. In: Orford A (ed) International Law and Its “Others”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 265–317Google Scholar
  95. Megret F (2015) Thinking About What International Humanitarian Lawyers “Do”: An Examination of the Laws of War as a Field of Professional Practice. In: Werner W, de Hoon M, Galán A (eds) The Law of International Lawyers. Cambridge University Press, pp 265–296Google Scholar
  96. Meron T (2017) The West Bank and International Humanitarian Law on the Eve of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Six-Day War. American Journal of International Law 111:357–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Milano E (2006) Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/BostonGoogle Scholar
  98. Milano E (2014) The Non-recognition of Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: Three Different Legal Approaches and One Unanswered Question. Questions of International Law 1:35–55Google Scholar
  99. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan (2016) Illegal Economic and Other Activities in the Occupied Territories of the Territories of Azerbaijan. http://mfa.gov.az/files/file/MFA_Report_on_the_occupied_territories_March_2016_1.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  100. Morgenstern F (1951) Validity of the Acts of the Belligerent Occupant. British Yearbook of International Law 28:233–237Google Scholar
  101. Müller P, Slominski P (2016) The Role of Law in EU Foreign Policy-making: Legal Integrity, Legal Spillover, and the EU Policy of Differentiation towards Israel. Journal of Common Market Studies 55:1–18Google Scholar
  102. Nicolosi S (2011) The Law of Military Occupation and the Role of De Jure and De Facto Sovereignty. Polish Yearbook of International Law 31:165–187Google Scholar
  103. OCHA (2016) At Risk of Forcible Transfer. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/risk-forcible-transfer. Accessed 6 November 2018
  104. OHCHR (2012) International Fact-Finding Mission on Settlements and their Impact on the Civil, Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of Occupied Palestinian Territory. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/IsraeliSettlementsInTheOPT.aspx. Accessed 20 November 2017
  105. Okimoto K (2012) The Cumulative Requirements of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Context of Self-Defense. Chinese Journal of International Law 11:47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Orakhelashvili A (2003) Peremptory Norms and Reparations for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Baltic Yearbook of International Law 3:19–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Orakhelashvili A (2008) Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  109. Pictet J (1958) The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War. International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  110. Prost M (2012) The Concept of Unity in International Law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  111. Pulkowski D (2011) Universal International Law’s Grammar. In: Simma B (ed) From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 138–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Quigley J (2013) The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  113. Ratner S (2005) Foreign Occupation and International Territorial Administration. European Journal of International Law 16(4):695–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Ratner S (2015) The Thin Justice of International Law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  115. Roberts A (1985) What Is A Military Occupation? British Yearbook of International Law 55:239–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Roberts A (2005) Transformative Military Occupation. In: Schmitt M, Pejic J (eds) International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Brill, The Hague, pp 439–495Google Scholar
  117. Roberts A (2006) Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights. American Journal of International Law 100:580–662Google Scholar
  118. Ronen Y (2008) Illegal Occupation and Its Consequences. Israel Law Review 41:201–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ronen Y (2011) Transition from Illegal Regimes in International Law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  120. Ronen Y (2013) Human Rights Obligations of Territorial Non-State Actors. Cornell International Law Journal 46:21–50Google Scholar
  121. Roussellier J (2013) Morocco’s Two-Track Approach to the Western Sahara Conflict. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/53092. Accessed 20 November 2017
  122. Rozakis CL (1974) The Law on Invalidity of Treaties. Archiv des Völkerrechts 16:150–193Google Scholar
  123. Rozakis CL (1976) The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  124. Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmermann B (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  125. Sassòli M (2005) Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers. European Journal of International Law 16:661–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Satkauskas R (2003) A Bill for the Occupants or an Issue to Negotiate? The Claims of Reparations for Soviet Occupation. Baltic Yearbook of International Law 3:77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Saul B (2015) The status of Western Sahara as occupied territory under international humanitarian law and the exploitation of natural resources. Global Change, Peace & Security 27(3):301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Sayed H (2013) The Fictions of the Illegal Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Oregon Review of International Law 16:79–126Google Scholar
  129. Schoiswohl M (2001) De Facto Regimes and Human Rights Obligations. Austrian Review of International and European Law 6:45–90Google Scholar
  130. Scobbie I (2002) The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of Obligations Under Peremptory Norms of General International Law. European Journal of International Law 13:1201–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Scobbie I (2005) Words My Mother Never Taught Me – “In Defense of the International Court”. American Journal of International Law 99(1):76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Scobbie I (2015) International Law and the Prolonged Occupation of Palestine. Unpublished. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611130. Accessed 20 November 2017
  133. Shany Y (2017) Sources and the Enforcement of International Law. In: d’Aspremont J, Besson B (eds) Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 789–811Google Scholar
  134. Shapovalova N (2016) The Situation of National Minorities in Crimea following its Annexation by Russia. European Parliament. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578003/EXPO_STU(2016)578003_EN.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2017
  135. Sharm El Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (2000) First Statement of the Government of Israel. www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/12/Sharm%20el-Sheikh%20FactFinding%20Committee%20-%20First%20Sta. Accessed 20 November 2017
  136. Singh S (2011) The Potential of International Law: Fragmentation and Ethics. Leiden Journal of International Law 24:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Sivakumaran S (2009) Courts of Armed Opposition Groups: Fair Trials or Summary Justice? Journal of International Criminal Justice 7:489–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Sloane RD (2009) The Cost of Conflation: Preserving the Dualism of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Contemporary Law of War. Yale Journal of International Law 34:47–112Google Scholar
  139. Smith J (2015) The taking of the Sahara: The role of natural resources in the continuing occupation of Western Sahara. Global Change, Peace & Security 3:263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Smith JJ (2017) Ocean of Occupation: The Status of Western Sahara’s Maritime Area (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  141. Solomou A (2010) Demopoulos and others v Turkey (Admissibility). American Journal of International Law 104:628–636Google Scholar
  142. Steele J (2017) The Abkhazia human rights report the EU doesn’t want you to read. Middle East Eye. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/human-rights-report-abkhazia-eu-doesnt-want-you-see-1897625442. Accessed 20 November 2017
  143. Steward J (2011) Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources. Open Society Justice Initiative. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/corporate-war-crimes-prosecuting-pillage-natural-resources. Accessed 20 November 2017
  144. Talmon S (2005) The Duty Not to “Recognize as Lawful” a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation: An Obligation without Real Substance? In: Tomuschat C, Thouvenin J (eds) The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 99–125Google Scholar
  145. Tammelo I (1959) On the Logical Openness of Legal Orders. American Journal of Comparative Law 8:187Google Scholar
  146. Tancredi A (2014) The Russian Annexation of Crimea: Questions Relating to the Use of Force. Questions of International Law 1:5–34Google Scholar
  147. Teitel R (2011) Humanity’s Law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  148. UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2012) Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16Google Scholar
  149. UN General Assembly (1952) Resolution 637 (VII), The Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-DeterminationGoogle Scholar
  150. UN General Assembly (1960) Resolution 1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and PeoplesGoogle Scholar
  151. UN General Assembly (1962) Resolution 1803 (XVII), Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, UN Doc. A/5344/Add.1Google Scholar
  152. UN General Assembly (1966) Resolution 2145 (XXI), Question of Namibia, UN Doc. A/RES/32/9Google Scholar
  153. UN General Assembly (1970) Resolution 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  154. UN General Assembly (1974) Resolution 3314 Definition of Aggression, UN Doc. A/RES/36/103Google Scholar
  155. UN General Assembly (1986) Question of Namibia, UN Doc. A/RES/S-14/1Google Scholar
  156. UN General Assembly (1996) Resolution 1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and PeoplesGoogle Scholar
  157. UN General Assembly (2005) Resolution 60/147 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147Google Scholar
  158. UN General Assembly (2007) Resolution 61/295, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295Google Scholar
  159. UN Human Rights Committee (2014) Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4Google Scholar
  160. UN Human Rights Committee (2015) Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco, UN Doc. A/72/40Google Scholar
  161. UN Human Rights Council (2016) Resolution 31/36, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/31/36Google Scholar
  162. UN Security Council (1967) Resolution 242, UN Doc. S/RES/242Google Scholar
  163. UN Security Council (1975) Resolution 380, UN Doc. S/RES/379Google Scholar
  164. UN Security Council (1991) Resolution 686 on the end of hostilities in the Gulf region, UN Doc. S/RES/686Google Scholar
  165. UN Security Council (2016) Resolution 2334, UN Doc. S/RES/2334Google Scholar
  166. Weller M (2015) Introduction. In: Weller M (ed) The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–34Google Scholar
  167. Western Sahara Resource Watch (2016) P for Plunder: Morocco’s exports of phosphates from occupied Western Sahara. http://www.wsrw.org/files/dated/2017-04-24/p_for_plunder_2016_web.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  168. Wilde R (2005) Legitimacy and Accountability of International Administrations: A Commentary on Four Papers. European Society of International Law. http://www.esil-sedi.eu/fichiers/en/WildeComment_206.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2017
  169. Wilde R (2008) International Territorial Administration. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  170. Wood G (2009) Limbo World. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/12/18/limbo-world/. Accessed 10 April 2017
  171. World Bank (2013) Area C and the Future of the Palestinian Economy. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/137111468329419171/West-Bank-and-Gaza-Area-C-and-the-future-of-the-Palestinian-economy. Accessed 20 November 2017
  172. Wrange P (2015) Occupation/Annexation of a Territory: Respect for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and Consistent EU Policy. Directorate General for External Policies. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/534995/EXPO_STU(2015)534995_EN.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2017
  173. Wright Q (1961) The Role of International Law in the Elimination of War. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  174. Zacher M (2001) The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force. International Organization 55:215–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case Law

  1. CJEU, Council v Front Polisario, Judgment of the European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber Judgment, 21 December 2016, C-104/16 PGoogle Scholar
  2. ECtHR, Al-Skeini and others v United Kingdom, Judgment, 7 July 2011, Case No. 55721/07Google Scholar
  3. ECtHR, Chiragov v Armenia, Judgment, 16 June 2015, Application No. 13216/05Google Scholar
  4. ECtHR, Cyprus v Turkey, Award Judgment, 14 May 2014, Application No. 25781/94Google Scholar
  5. ECtHR, Cyprus v Turkey, Award Judgment, Concurring Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, 14 May 2014, Application No. 25781/94Google Scholar
  6. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Judgment, 8 July 2004, Application No. 48787/99Google Scholar
  7. ECtHR, Khlebik v Ukraine, Judgment, 25 July 2017, Application No. 2945/16Google Scholar
  8. ECtHR, Loizidou v Turkey, Judgment, 23 February 1995, Application No. 15318/89Google Scholar
  9. ECtHR, Loizidou v Turkey, Preliminary Objections, 23 March 1995, Application No. 15318/89Google Scholar
  10. ECtHR, Mozer v Moldova and Russia, Judgment, 23 February 2016, Application No. 11138/10Google Scholar
  11. ECtHR, Ukraine v Russia II, Inter-state Complaint, 13 June 2014, Application No. 43800/14Google Scholar
  12. ECtHR, Ukraine v Russia, Inter-state Complaint, 13 March 2014, Application No. 20958/14Google Scholar
  13. ICJ, Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 22 July 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep 403Google Scholar
  14. ICJ, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order, 19 April 2017Google Scholar
  15. ICJ, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States), Merits, 27 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep 14Google Scholar
  16. ICJ, Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971, [1971] ICJ Rep 16Google Scholar
  17. ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep 136Google Scholar
  18. Israeli High Court of Justice, Gaza Coast Regional Council v Knesset, Judgment, 9 June 2005, PD 59(2) 481Google Scholar
  19. Israeli High Court of Justice, Head of Beit Iksa Village Council v Minister of Defense et al., Judgment, 6 September 2011, 281/11Google Scholar
  20. Israeli High Court of Justice, Yesh Din v The Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgement, 26 December 2011, 2164/09Google Scholar
  21. UK High Court, Western Sahara Campaign v HMRC & SSEFRA, Judgment, 19 October 2015Google Scholar
  22. US District Court of Utah, Aboitiz v Price, Judgment 16 June 1951, 99 F Supp 602Google Scholar
  23. US Tribunal of Nuremberg, Hostages trial (List et al.), 1948, 8 Law Reports of Trial of War Criminals 34Google Scholar

Treaties

  1. Charter of the United Nations, opened for signature 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945)Google Scholar
  2. Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, opened for signature 18 October 1907, 187 CTS 227 (entered into force 26 January 1910)Google Scholar
  3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)Google Scholar
  4. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976)Google Scholar
  5. International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969)Google Scholar
  6. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1979)Google Scholar
  7. The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar
  8. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester International Law Centre (MILC), The University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations