Berkes: International Law and De-Occupation Legislation

Antal Berkes (Univ. of Liverpool - Law) has posted International Law and De-Occupation Legislation (Rutgers International Law and Human Rights Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Recently, various States elaborated constitutional laws on the status and reintegration of parts of their territory under military occupation. “De-occupation” is understood as the (purported or actual) takeover of effective control over a temporarily occupied territory by the territorial State having the sovereign title over the area. After de-occupation, the classical concept of postliminium holds that it is a matter for domestic law to determine what legal status, rights, and duties shall attach to inhabitants, territory, and personal property restored to the jurisdiction of a State. As a main rule, contemporary international law still maintains this view: any measure carried out by the occupying power does not survive unless the territorial State so wishes. However, due to its expansion, international law restricts postliminium by requiring the territorial State to allow certain legal effects of the occupant’s acts and policies, and to enhance local ownership in the de-occupied territory. By analysing the international obligations and domestic law of Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, selected as case studies on actual or prospective de-occupation, the paper identifies certain rules of international law that require the territorial State to enact its domestic law with a view to humanize and democratize transition.

Longobardo: The Applicability of Apartheid to Situations of Occupation: At the Crossroads between International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law, and International Human Rights Law

Marco Longobardo (Univ. of Westminster - Law) has posted The Applicability of Apartheid to Situations of Occupation: At the Crossroads between International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law, and International Human Rights Law (Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The article deals with the applicability of apartheid in occupied territory. Rather than assessing whether in specific situation of an occupation an occupying power has established an apartheid regime, the article discusses whether there is anything in the law of occupation or in the international regulation of apartheid that makes them mutually exclusive. On the basis of international human rights law, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law considerations, it is argued that apartheid can be applied to occupied territory following the ordinary rules for the application of international human rights law and international criminal law in occupied territory. Accordingly, international law does not bar the application of apartheid in occupied territory, but rather, the law of occupation and apartheid coincide to strengthen the protection of civilians in occupied territories.

Lieblich & Benvenisti: Occupation in International Law

Eliav Lieblich (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) & Eyal Benvenisti (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) have published Occupation in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2022). Here's the abstract:

The international law of occupation is the body of law, under international humanitarian law, that regulates the actions of states that gain effective control over territory during armed conflict. This body of law seeks to balance between several interests, which are often in tension with one another. Its most fundamental principle is that occupation does not confer sovereignty, and that the powers of the occupant are limited to that of a temporary trustee. What empowers the occupant to maintain public order and safety, including that of its own forces? How are the rights of the absent sovereign protected, as well as the right to self-determination, and the individual rights of the local population?

In this new volume of the Elements of International Law series, Eyal Benvenisti and Eliav Lieblich seek to provide an entry point to the topic by elaborating on general principles and key rules. The book explores the tensions and dilemmas which characterize the modern law of occupation, while highlighting, when needed, interpretations which best conform with the law's object and purpose. All in all, this book aims to guide relevant actors - whether states, academics, NGOs, or individuals under occupation - when seeking to assess or to challenge state actions in occupied territories.

Benvenisti: The International Law of Prolonged Sieges and Blockades: Gaza as a Case Study

Eyal Benvenisti (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) has posted The International Law of Prolonged Sieges and Blockades: Gaza as a Case Study (International Law Studies, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

In 2007, after Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip, the area was subjected to an Israeli land siege, complemented in 2009 by a sea blockade. Since then, the already-dire living conditions in the Strip have declined consistently and the area’s dependence on external aid has grown. This essay examines the duties of a military power in imposing what is effectively a years-long confinement of people and outlines a general argument for expanding the obligations of a party that imposes a prolonged siege or blockade. I consider these obligations in light of three potentially relevant legal frameworks: the law of occupation; international humanitarian law; and human rights law. In this essay, I argue that, although Gaza is no longer occupied, Israel, in exercising prolonged siege and blockade, must respect a set of obligations that encompass much more than simply not starving the besieged population or not cutting off their water supply. Paying attention only to the basic, biological needs of the besieged population ignores their human dignity because it reduces – in the eyes of the blockader – human existence to the intake of food and water. The essay concludes that the law should be interpreted as demanding that the besieger respect a wider scope of rights – including, among others, the right to enter and exit the besieged area – and, while it may limit such rights, such limitations must be compatible with the requirements of proportionality, taking into account the human toll caused by the extraordinary yet long-term situation.

Online Discussion: The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories

On May 20, 2021, the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem will hold an online discussion on the occasion of the publication of The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (2nd ed., David Kretzmer and Yaël Ronen, Oxford University Press, 2021). Details are here.

Kretzmer & Ronen: The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (2d ed.)

David Kretzmer (Hebrew Univ. - Law) & Yaël Ronen (Sha'arei Mishpat Academic Center for Science and Law) have published The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (2d ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2021). Here's the abstract:

Judicial review by Israel's Supreme Court over actions of Israeli authorities in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is an important element in Israel's legal and political control of these territories. The Occupation of Justice presents a comprehensive discussion of the Court's decisions in exercising this review. This revised and expanded edition includes updated material and analysis, as well as new chapters. Inter alia, it addresses the Court's approach to its jurisdiction to consider petitions from residents of the Occupied Territories; justiciability of sensitive political issues; application and interpretation of the international law of belligerent occupation in general, and the Fourth Geneva Convention in particular; the relevance of international human rights law and Israeli constitutional law; the rights of Gaza residents after the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlements from the area; Israeli settlements and settlers; construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank; security measures, including internment, interrogation practices, and punitive house demolitions; and judicial review of hostilities.

The study examines the inherent tension involved in judicial review over the actions of authorities in a territory in which the inhabitants are not part of the political community the Court belongs to. It argues that this tension is aggravated in the context of the West Bank by the glaring disparity between the norms of belligerent occupation and the Israeli government's policies. The study shows that while the Court's review has enabled many individuals to receive a remedy, it has largely served to legitimise government policies and practices in the Occupied Territories.

Longobardo: The Legality of Closure on Land and Safe Passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank

Marco Longobardo (Univ. of Westminster - Law) has posted The Legality of Closure on Land and Safe Passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Asian Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article explores the legality of the land closure imposed upon the Gaza Strip by Israel. After having considered the area under occupation, the article argues that the legality of the closure must be determined under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the principle of self-determination of peoples, and the Israeli- Palestinian agreements. In light of these rules, the arbitrary closure of the Gaza Strip should be considered illegal because it breaches the unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and because it violates the freedom of movement of the local population. Moreover, the closure breaches the relevant rules pertaining to the transit of goods in occupied territory. This article concludes that most of the violations caused by the closure affect peremptory rules which produce obligations erga omnes, so that any state in the international community is entitled to react under the law of state responsibility.

Duval & Kassoti: The Legality of Economic Activities in Occupied Territories: International, EU Law and Business and Human Rights Perspectives

Antoine Duval (Asser Institute) & Eva Kassoti (Asser Institute) have published The Legality of Economic Activities in Occupied Territories: International, EU Law and Business and Human Rights Perspectives (Routledge 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This edited volume explores the question of the lawfulness under international law of economic activities in occupied territories from the perspectives of international law, EU law, and business and human rights.

Providing a multi-level overview of relevant practices, policies and cases, the book is divided in three parts, each dealing with how different legal fields have come to grips with the challenges brought about by the question of the lawfulness under international law of economic activities in occupied territories. The first part includes contributions pertaining to the international law dimension of the question. It contains chapters on the conjunction between jus in bello, jus ad bellum and international human rights law in the context of exploitation of natural resources in territories under belligerent occupation; on third party obligations flowing from the application of occupation law in relation to natural resources exploitation; and on State practice with regards to trading with occupied territories. The second part focuses on EU law and contains contributions that assess the EU’s approach to occupied territories and the extent to which this approach comports with the EU’s obligations under international law; contributions providing an in-depth assessment of the case-law of the CJEU on occupied territories; as well as contributions pertaining to the political considerations that may influence the legal framing of questions pertaining to occupied territories. The final part focuses on the business and human rights perspective, with chapters on investment arbitration as a means for holding the occupant accountable for its conduct towards foreign investments and investors; on the role and impact of the soft law framework governing corporate activity (such as the UN Guiding Principles) on business involvement with occupied territories; as well as a final case study on the dispute involving Israeli football activity in settlements located in the OPT and the legal responsibility of FIFA in this regard.

Kalandarishvili-Mueller: Occupation and Control in International Humanitarian Law

Natia Kalandarishvili-Mueller (Tbilisi Open Univ. - Law) has published Occupation and Control in International Humanitarian Law (Routledge 2020). Here's the abstract:

This book presents a systematic analysis of the notion of control in the law of military occupation. The work demonstrates that in present-day occupations, control as such occurs in different forms and variations. The polymorphic features of occupation can be seen in the way states establish control over territory either directly or indirectly, and in the manner in which they retain, relinquish or regain it. The question as to what level and type of control is needed to determine the existence and ending of military occupation is explored in great detail in light of various international humanitarian law instruments. The book provides an anatomy of the required tests of control in determining the existence of military occupation based on the law. It also discusses control in relation to occupation by proxy and when and how the end of control over territory occurs so that military occupation is considered terminated. The study is informed by relevant international jurisprudence. It draws on numerous pertinent case studies from all over the world, various reports by different UN entities and other international organisations, as well as legal doctrine.

Ní Aoláin: The Gender of Occupation

Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin (Univ. of Minnesota - Law; Queen's Univ. of Belfast - Law) has posted The Gender of Occupation (Yale Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

International law scholars and policy makers have paid little attention to the gendered dimensions of living under occupation. Gender considerations have generally been at the margins of doctrinal and policy analysis. Feminist legal scholars have also largely ignored the legal effects of occupation law and practice on the regulation of women and girl’s lives including the gendered consequences of experiencing long-term, exceptional and transformative occupations. This article sets out how the rules governing occupation were not constructed with needs and experiences of women and girls at the forefront. It documents the effects of transformative occupations on women’s lives with a particular emphasis on how the lacunae in protection under the Hague and Geneva Conventions results in profound and sustained human rights and humanitarian law violations for women and girls, across a range of fundamental rights and protections. The historical and doctrinal analysis is complimented by a case study focused on Israel-Palestine, and particularly pertinent in the context of ongoing concerns about annexation of this occupied territory. The context specific analysis illustrates the gendered dimensions of occupation in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular demonstrating that the needs of, and harms experienced by, women living under sustained occupation have been underreported and underrepresented. The documentation of legal gaps underscores the need for revision and reinterpretation of occupation law through a gendered lens, underscoring the obligations of belligerent occupiers to ensure the protection of women in the context of armed conflict.

Ní Aoláin: The Gender of Occupation

Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin (Univ. of Minnesota - Law) has posted The Gender of Occupation (Yale Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

International law scholars and policy makers have paid little attention to the gendered dimensions of living under occupation. Gender considerations have generally been at the margins of doctrinal and policy analysis. Feminist legal scholars have also largely ignored the legal effects of occupation law and practice on the regulation of women and girl’s lives including the gendered consequences of experiencing long-term, exceptional and transformative occupations. This article sets out how the rules governing occupation were not constructed with needs and experiences of women and girls at the forefront. It documents the effects of transformative occupations on women’s lives with a particular emphasis on how the lacunae in protection under the Hague and Geneva Conventions results in profound and sustained human rights and humanitarian law violations for women and girls, across a range of fundamental rights and protections. The historical and doctrinal analysis is complimented by a case study focused on Israel-Palestine, and particularly pertinent in the context of ongoing concerns about annexation of this occupied territory. The context specific analysis illustrates the gendered dimensions of occupation in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular demonstrating that the needs of, and harms experienced by, women living under sustained occupation have been underreported and underrepresented. The documentation of legal gaps underscores the need for revision and reinterpretation of occupation law through a gendered lens, underscoring the obligations of belligerent occupiers to ensure the protection of women in the context of armed conflict.

Imseis: Negotiating the Illegal: On the United Nations and the Illegal Occupation of Palestine, 1967-2020

Ardi Imseis (Queen’s Univ. - of Law) has posted Negotiating the Illegal: On the United Nations and the Illegal Occupation of Palestine, 1967-2020 (European Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article critically examines the UN’s commitment to the international rule of law through an examination of its position on occupied Palestine post-1967. Occupation of enemy territory is meant to be temporary and the occupying power may not rightfully claim sovereignty over such territory. Since 1967, Israel has systematically and forcibly altered the status of occupied Palestine, with the aim of annexing, de jure or de facto, most or all of it. While the UN has focused on the legality of Israel's discrete violations of humanitarian and human rights law, scant attention has been paid by the Organization to the legality of its occupation regime as a whole. By what rationale can it be said that Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestine remains legal? This paper argues that the occupation has become illegal for its systematic violation of at least three jus cogens norms. Although an increasing number of commentators have subscribed to this view, little attention has been paid to its relevant international legal consequences which dictate a paradigm shift away from negotiations as the condition precedent for ending the occupation, as unanimously affirmed by the international community through the UN.

Benvenisti: The Applicability of the Law of Occupation to UN Administration of Foreign Territory

Eyal Benvenisti (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) has posted The Applicability of the Law of Occupation to UN Administration of Foreign Territory. Here's the abstract:

This contribution seeks to critically examine the UN position with respect to the legal status of the administration of territory by UN-authorised actors. The essay first explores whether the law of occupation applies to direct administration of foreign territory by the UN or its authorized organs. It then examines as a case study the practice of the UN administration of Kosovo. The essay argues that unfettered discretion for civil servants, even international civil servants, undermines the functionality of any administration. Embracing the discipline of accountability embedded in the law of occupation to UN-led administration of territories is therefore required. This discussion provides the grounding for the argument that as a matter of both lex lata and lex ferenda any administration of territories without a valid sovereign consent, even when exercised by the UN, qualifies as an occupation, and is hence subject to the requirements of law of occupation.

Megiddo & Benvenisti: Inclusion and Representation in the Settlement of Property Claims in the Aftermath of Armed Conflict

Tamar Megiddo (Univ. of Haifa) & Eyal Benvenisti (Univ. of Cambridge) have posted Inclusion and Representation in the Settlement of Property Claims in the Aftermath of Armed Conflict (Theoretical Inquiries in Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post-conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post-conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusiveness and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.

Hughes: Moving from Management to Termination: A Case Study of Prolonged Occupation

David Hughes (Univ. of Michigan - Law) has posted Moving from Management to Termination: A Case Study of Prolonged Occupation (Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 44, no. 1, 2018). Here's the abstract:

In 2017, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories reached a half-century in duration. This reignited a conversation amongst legal scholars. In articles and books, lawyers questioned the efficacy of occupation law. They asked whether it had become an anachronism. Across Israel and the Palestinian territories, those that directly invoke the law of occupation sought a more effective means of adapting the law to meet the exigencies of a fifty-year-old occupation. The accompanying debates recalled questions concerning the legal treatment of prolonged occupation. This article seeks to fundamentally alter this recurring discourse.

Built around a detailed case study of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, I argue that as commonly interpreted, international law does not regulate – but instead – facilitates prolonged occupation. Referencing various historical moments, I describe when and how international law has been employed to entrench an occupying power’s control. These legal engagements are justified as responses to the exigencies of prolonged occupation. Such uses of international law, the article argues, are based on a common interpretative approach. This understands occupation as a fact or non-normative phenomenon. As a result, international law is unable to alter occupation. Instead, it may only manage it.

Identifying the motive of management as a causal factor, I argue that common responses to prolonged occupation may be necessary but when taken within the occupation framework’s traditional, non-normative confines they risk perpetuating occupation. They entrench a legal framework that is understood to neglect duration and curtail the inherent requirement of temporality. This interpretation of the occupation framework becomes susceptible to manipulation. In response, the article proposes a novel interpretative approach. This shifts the focus of the occupation framework. It emphasizes a conception of occupation as temporary and facilitates efforts to end the occupation. By recognizing that prolonged occupation constitutes an altered form of control, and grounding responses to this means of control in established legal principles, this amended normative approach identifies a legal basis under which an occupying power will be required to enable the conclusion of prolonged occupation. This reasserts the law of occupation’s relevancy and efficacy. It better aligns the purpose and function of occupation law with diplomatic objectives and international norms. And it shifts the discourse that accompanies prolonged occupation from management to termination.

Ní Aoláin: Gendering the Law of Occupation: The Case of Cyprus

Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin (Univ. of Minnesota - Law) has posted Gendering the Law of Occupation: The Case of Cyprus (Minnesota Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The law of occupation can rightly be considered a highly specialized sub-division of the law of armed conflict. Its genealogy is long, and its content, like much of the law that regulates the conduct of hostilities between states, and between state and non-state actors is routine, pedantic and highly ritualized. Despite its long history, the law of occupation has received much less scholarly and policy attention than other parts of the law regulating war. While the law of armed conflict has historically ignored the experiences and challenges faced by women in situations of armed conflict whether as civilians or combatants, the law of occupation has been distinctly bereft of scholarly and policy interest. Thus, there is little sustained legal analysis of women’s rights, obligations and challenges under occupation as well as no lasting analysis of the structural limits and gender capture of the law of occupation. This article addresses that gap with a focus on the long-term occupation of Northern Cyrus by Turkish forces, emphasizing the experiences of women during hostilities and the ongoing occupation. Based on fieldwork conducted in Cyprus in the autumn of 2016, the article draws on interview data, field observations, and secondary sources. In particular, the article addresses issues of sexual violence, the regulation of family life, as well as marriage and divorce in situations of transformative occupation. This focus is on private and family life, demonstrates how the law of occupation fails to regulate the private sphere, thereby creating significant regulatory gaps for women, with consequent and measurable effect on women' status and participation in public life as well as in peace and negotiation processes. The lack of regulation is compounded by the transformative and sustained nature of the occupation impinging on every aspect of public and private life. In exposing the centrality of the public/private divide to the structure of occupation law, the article underscores the exclusion and marginalization experienced by women living under occupation as well as opening up a discussion around necessary revisions and reinterpretations to fully and equally protect women living under occupation.

Conference: 50 Years after 1967: Evaluating the Past, Present and Future of the Law of Belligerent Occupation

On May 22-23, 2017, the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and the Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights at the College of Management Academic Studies will hold a conference on "50 Years after 1967: Evaluating the Past, Present and Future of the Law of Belligerent Occupation," in Tel Aviv. The program is here.

Gross: The Writing on the Wall: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation

Aeyal Gross (Tel-Aviv Univ. - Law) has published The Writing on the Wall: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation (Cambridge Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:

As Israel's control of the Occupied Palestinian Territory nears its fiftieth anniversary, The Writing on the Wall offers a critical perspective on the international law of occupation. Advocating a normative and functional approach to occupation and to the question of when it exists, it analyzes the application of humanitarian and human rights law, pointing to the risk of using the law of occupation in its current version to legitimize new variations of conquest and colonialism. The book points to the need for reconsidering the law of occupation in light of changing forms of control, such as those evident in Gaza. Although the Israeli occupation is a main focal point, the book broadens its compass to look at other cases, such as Iraq, Northern Cyprus, and Western Sahara, highlighting the role that international law plays in all of these cases.

Call for Papers: 50 Years after 1967: Evaluating the Past, Present and Future of the Law of Belligerent Occupation

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and the Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights at the College of Management Academic Studies have issued a call for papers for a conference on "50 Years after 1967: Evaluating the Past, Present and Future of the Law of Belligerent Occupation," to take place May 22-23, 2017, in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Here's the call:

Conference Call for Papers

"50 Years after 1967: Evaluating the Past, Present and Future of the Law of Belligerent Occupation"

The 12th Annual Minerva-ICRC International Conference on International Humanitarian Law

22-23 May 2017, Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories and the Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights at the College of Management Academic Studies are organizing an international conference that seeks to evaluate - 50 years after 1967 - the past, present and future of the law of belligerent occupation, using the Israel-Palestine context, as well as other relevant situations of occupation and domination, as case studies.

The conference, the twelfth in the series of Minerva/ICRC annual international conferences on IHL, is scheduled for 22-23 May 2017 in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Prof. Theodor Meron, will deliver the keynote address of the Conference.

Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of selected proposals will be offered full or partial flight and accommodation expenses.

Submission deadline: 15 January 2017

BACKGROUND: The 1967 Middle East conflict, the assumption of control by Israel over territories formerly controlled by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and the application of the laws of belligerent occupation by the Israeli authorities to most of these territories for most of the following fifty years, render the situation in those territories subject to what is probably the longest-running situation of belligerent occupation in modern history. The longevity of the situation poses in itself a significant challenge for the application of the laws of belligerent occupation, which were drafted envisioning relatively short-term situations of occupation pending a peace agreement. To this temporal challenge, one may add the significant legal, political and military developments that have occurred in the region throughout the last 50 years, which further complicate the legal situation in the territories seized by Israel in 1967, as well as the legacies of the particular measures taken by the Israeli authorities in the said territories over this 50-year period.

While the 1967 conflict produced what is perhaps the most frequently cited example of a post-World War Two belligerent occupation - it is also a fundamentally atypical example of a belligerent occupation, as the conduct and positions of the parties to the conflict appear to have run contrary to some of the basic assumptions underlying the laws of belligerent occupation: no transfer of sovereignty, temporariness, maintenance of the status quo ex ante and reliance by the occupied in law enforcement powers. However, given the atypical features of other situations of foreign military control or involvement in places as diverse as Iraq, Afghanistan, Western Sahara, East Timor, East Congo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus and Crimea, it is arguable that the "classic" occupation is now the exception and not the rule.

The factual complexities posed by the aforementioned situations of actual or potential belligerent occupation or domination are further exacerbated by normative developments outside the field of the laws of belligerent occupation, which introduce new elements of legal uncertainty into the normative debate. These developments include the extension of international human rights law to occupied territories, the emergence of the right to self-determination in the era of decolonization (and the possible interplay between this right with both jus ad bellum and jus in bello), the development of laws governing non-international armed conflicts, and the re-invigoration of international criminal law. Arguably, such developments put the traditional equilibrium between the rights and obligations of occupying and occupied entities under considerable legal pressure, questioning the adequacy and legitimacy of the law of belligerent occupation, and inviting reconsideration of its core principles.

TOPICS: Against this backdrop, the conference academic committee invites recipients to submit proposals to present a paper dealing with one or more of the following issues:

• The tension between stability and change in the law and practice of belligerent occupation;
• New forms of occupation and domination and their regulation under international law;
• The effects of occupation on internationally protected human rights and the cultural, social and national identities of the communities involved, and on their natural resources;
• The law governing conduct of hostilities in occupied territories;
• The debate over the very legality of occupation - revisiting the jus ad bellum v jus in bello dichotomy;
• Critical Reflections on the legitimacy and effectiveness of the law in belligerent occupation: is it legitimizing the exercise of power? What lessons can be drawn from its mis/dis-application?
• The role of national and international institutions in advancing or inhibiting the implementation and reform of the laws of belligerent occupation.

The committee also welcomes additional proposals on other relevant and contemporary issues relating to the topic of the conference.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Researchers interested in addressing these and other issues are invited to respond to this call for papers with a 1-2 page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted by email to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (mchr@savion.huji.ac.il) no later than 15 January 2017.

Applicants should expect notification of the committee's decision by 15 February 2017. Written contributions (of approx. 10-25 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 May 2017 at the latest. The Israel Law Review (a Cambridge University Press publication) has expressed interest in publishing selected full length papers based on conference presentations, subject to its standard review and editing procedures.

CONFERENCE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE:

Orna Ben-Naftali, College of Management Academic Studies
Tomer Broude, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Danny Evron, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Aeyal Gross, Tel Aviv University
Karen Loehner, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Eliav Lieblich, Tel Aviv University
Doreen Lustig, Tel Aviv University
Alon Margalit, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Yael Ronen, Israel Law Review, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Charles Shamas, The Mattin Group
Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Chair)

Benvenisti: Occupation and Territorial Administration

Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) has posted Occupation and Territorial Administration (in Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict, Rain Liivoja & Timothy McCormack eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The exercise of effective control by one state in a territory of another state without the other state’s consent is subject to the law of occupation. In a global legal system that allocates public authority among sovereigns on a territorial basis and protects their respective entitlements, the law of occupation fills a “governance gap” that extends until the ousted government returns. The law must set limits to the exercise of public authority of the occupying state. Such an exercise of authority is inherently suspect due to the three-dimensional conflicts of interest that typically occur in occupations, between the occupier, the ousted government, and the occupied population. The literature has referred to the occupier as a “trustee,” most likely to underscore the occupier’s sensitive other-regarding duties in managing these conflicts. The law of occupation has evolved over time, reflecting changing perceptions concerning the source of sovereign authority (whether the prince or the people) and the constraints on the exercise of public authority (e.g., does the sovereign have unfettered discretion vis-à-vis its citizens or is it constrained by human rights obligations?). As a consequence, a study of the law of occupation offers a sort of “laboratory test” for examining the complexity – and the very viability – of a legal regime that expects one sovereign to act as a trustee of strangers. This chapter seeks to provide a general overview of the law of occupation.