Articles for tag: Besatzung, Israel-Gaza-Krieg, Occupied Territory

“Occupation” as Euphemism

On 10 August, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gathered a press conference to explain an earlier cabinet decision “to occupy” Gaza. What he introduced, to the dismay of allied governments in Europe, was a military incursion on Gaza City and “the central camps and Mawasi.” Netanyahu promised a “non-Israeli civilian administration” and, in English, adjusted the earlier framing of the operation, which had by then been embraced and echoed in Israeli media: that plan is “not to occupy Gaza, but to free it.” Such rhetoric invites scrutiny – not only for the legal ramifications of the acts announced, but it also calls into attention the shifting uses of the word occupation in Israeli political discourse.

13. August 2025

, ,

The ICJ Advisory Opinion and Israeli Law

This post examines the relationship between the Advisory Opintion and Israeli law with respect to the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT. While the Opinion requires States to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in their dealings with Israel, and to omit acts that may strengthen Israel’s hold of the Territories, calls for such distinction are a civil tort under Israeli law, and those making them can be denied entry to Israel. As a result, Israelis are unlikely to support the Opinion. This will contribute to the growing gap between the international discourse and the domestic discourse in Israel with respect to the OPT.

17. Oktober 2024

, , , , , , ,

Unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024

This post analyses the possibility of unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The Advisory Opinion provides a particularly strong legal basis – grounded primarily in the right to self-determination – to unseat Israel’s government from the General Assembly until it complies with the Opinion – as the Assembly did with South Africa fifty years ago.

15. Oktober 2024

, , ,

The Obligation of Non-recognition, Occupation and the OPT Advisory Opinion

In the OPT Advisory Opinion, the ICJ considered that Israel’s abuse of its position as an Occupying Power, through de jure and de facto annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, renders Israel’s presence in the OPT unlawful. In determining the legal consequences of this illegal presence, the Court held by a vote of 12:3, that all States are under an obligation “not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This holding was not accompanied by any concretization in either the Advisory Opinion or any of the many declarations and separate opinions attached to it.

14. Oktober 2024

, , ,

Security Considerations, the Duty to End Belligerent Occupations and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israeli practices and policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

This contribution discusses three possible rationales for the Court’s rejection of the relevance of Israel’s security concerns: Lack of proof of serious and legitimate security concerns by Israel, the insufficiency of broad security concerns to justify the continued use of force, and the insufficiency of broad security concerns to deny realization of Palestinian self-determination. As long as international law doctrine on the duty to end a belligerent occupation despite the prevalence of serious security concerns remains contested, and as long as security conditions in the region remain extremely unstable, it is unlikely that a withdrawal will be deemed practicable

13. Oktober 2024

, , ,

The ICJ’s Treatment of Questions of Occupation in Gaza

The ICJ’s treatment of the state of occupation in Gaza is questionable. While it rightly accepted the functional approach to occupation, I doubt whether Israel was indeed capable of exercising its authority in Gaza sufficiently for its occupation to be found as having continued post-2005. The Court should have relied on Israel’s continued exercise of administrative authority vis-a-vis Gaza residents to find the existence of a state of occupation.

12. Oktober 2024

, ,

The Functional Approach as Lex Lata

The ICJ has de facto adopted the functional approach to occupation with regard to Gaza. The Opinion is thus a critical point in the development of the law of occupation, in that it transcends a binary approach to the question of the existence of occupation, in favour of a more nuanced approach that enables holding that a territory is occupied, but not in an “all or nothing” way. More generally, the Opinion as rejects a more restrictive approach to the question of whether occupation exists in a territory or not in favour of a more flexible approach.

12. Oktober 2024

, , ,

The Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

This post analyses the separation between jus ad bellum / in bello as arising from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. This separation was challenged by many States appearing before the Court, some of which implied that Israel’s policies and practices, as violations of jus in bello, rendered the occupation unlawful under jus ad bellum. The Court ultimately reaffirmed the separation with a twofold argument, namely qualifying the ‘legality of the occupation’ as a jus ad bellum question, and framing Israel’s policies and practices (prolonged occupation, annexation, and settlement policy) as violations of jus ad bellum.

11. Oktober 2024

, , ,

Wrong to the Core

On May 4, 2022, close to midnight, the Supreme Court of Israel released its judgment in HCJ 413/13 Abu Aram v. Minister of Defense, holding that the Israeli army is permitted to evict eight Palestinian communities in Masafer Yatta, a rural area in the South Hebron Hills in the West Bank, for the stated purpose of establishing a “firing zone” for the IDF. The judgment sealed over two decades of litigation, in which the Court pushed the parties to settle and “compromise.” Unfortunately, the decision in this case is wrong to the core.

8. Mai 2022

, ,

Contesting Consent

On 29 September 2021, the EU General Court (GC) annulled Council decisions approving trade and fisheries agreements concluded between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. An earlier post by Eva Kassoti gave an overview of the factual and legal background to the judgments and offered insightful critical analysis. This post will focus on how the GC approaches the issue of how the EU authorities could receive the ‘consent’ from the people of Western Sahara.

7. Oktober 2021

, ,