This is an extract of our Occupation document, which we sell as part of our International Humanitarian Law Outlines collection written by the top tier of U.C. Berkeley School Of Law (Boalt Hall) students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our International Humanitarian Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Occupation (IAC) 1) Source a) GC articles 47-48?
b) CA 2 c) GC4:27 - the occupying power must provide humane treatment with no discrimination, but the occupying power can take necessary security measures d) Hague regulataions: define it 2) Example a) Israeli Wall case a) Advisory Opinion from ICJ (GA asked for advisory opinion) i. Applies IHL. Article 2.4 of UN Charter (mandates refraining from the threat or use of force - you can't gain territory by force). ii. Applies GC4 (a) CA 2 (IAC and 2 contracting parties) (i) It was the intent of the drafters to protect civilians (see art. 47) (ii) Travaux - occupation even without combat (iii) Subsequent practice - court takes pragmatic approach: there were 2/more high contracting parties in the 60s war, and now there is an occupation, so Israel is held to GC4 (iv) Takeaway: occupation is supposed to be temporary, and the occupying party can't make permanent changes because you can't acquire property. (v) Applies HR conventions re: deprivation of property. Says that these conventions are not lifted during the war. Israel must make restitution. iii. Applies Hague iv. Applies Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (a) Article 31: pacta sunt servanda - treaties must be entered into in good faith (b)Article 32: travauxi - legislative/drafting history - in cases of ambiguous terms, look to historical circumstances of creation. You can also look at subsequent state practice of the parties to the treaty. v. Can the military build the wall?
(a) No. The wall's construction violates the rules and principles that Israel relied upon. The route of the wall proves that the motivation behind the wall is political, and is not security based, and therefore its presence is untenable under IHL. (i) GC4:49: the occupying power can't transfer its own population to the occupied territories
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Humanitarian Law Outlines.