UNGA_ROL

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions | P.O.B 2030 Jerusalem 91020 Israel

Tel. +972-2-6245560 | Fax. +972-2-6221530 | www.icahd.org | [email protected]| 1

SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT TTOO TTHHEE UUNNIITTEEDD NNAATTIIOONNSS

GGEENNEERRAALL AASSSSEEMMBBLLYY,, HHIIGGHH--LLEEVVEELL

MMEEEETTIINNGG OONN TTHHEE RRUULLEE OOFF LLAAWW

PPRROOLLOONNGGEEDD OOCCCCUUPPAATTIIOONN,, AANNDD SSEELLFF--

DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONN:: TTHHEE CCAASSEE OOFF TTHHEE

PPAALLEESSTTIINNIIAANN PPEEOOPPLLEE UUNNDDEERR IISSRRAAEELLII

RRUULLEE

SSEEPPTTEEMMBBEERR 22001122

This project is funded by the United Nations Development Programme



The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) is a human rights and

peace organization established in 1997 to end Israel’s Occupation over the

Palestinians. ICAHD takes as its main focus, as its vehicle for resistance, Israel’s

policy of demolishing Palestinian homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and

within Israel proper. ICAHD was awarded ECOSOC Special Consultative Status in

2010.

Published by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)

PO Box 2030 Jerusalem 91020 Israel

+972 2 624-5560

[email protected] | www.icahd.org

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Israeli Committee

Against House Demolitions and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the

United Nations Development Programme.

Author: Itay Epshtain, LL.M.



II.. EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy

1. ICAHD submits the following information for consideration on the occasion of the

United Nations (UN) General Assembly High-Level Meeting on the Rule of Law. This

submission focuses on Israel’s protracted failure to comply with fundamental

principles of rule of law and human rights obligations in relation to its occupation of

the Palestinian territory, repercussions of the Israeli occupation for the Palestinian

people, and Israel’s responsibility to respect, protect and fulfil Palestinians human

rights, in accordance with international law and standards.

2. In her statement to the meeting, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi

Pillay has urged all States to “fulfill their obligations to promote universal respect

for and the observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental

freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter, the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and other instruments relating to human rights and international

law.”

3. In stark contrast, for as long as they have been subjugated by Israeli occupation,

Palestinians have been denied such fundamental rights and freedoms, while Israel

has negated its inherent responsibility to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of all

those under its effective control. We therefore must remain cognizant of the Charter

of the United Nations (the Charter) Article 6, stipulating that “A Member of the

United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the

present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly

upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

4. Short of expulsion from membership and for the restoration of the rule of law, the

very nature and legality of occupation, as well as the legal principles that outline a

political compact, must be addressed. Primary considerations include: fulfillment of

human rights enshrined in international law; a just solution to the Israeli/Palestinian

conflict that has confounded the region and the world for decades; and the

realization of Palestinian’s inalienable right to national self-determination.

5. ICAHD encourages the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a Resolution

calling for an International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion that establishes a new

normative paradigm of prolonged occupation; reinforces the inalienable human

rights of the Palestinian people to development and self-determination; and depicts

the scope and magnitude of Israel’s illegal policies and practices in the OPT, beyond

what are IHL breaches and referred to in the 2004 Advisory Opinion; and upholds the

legal obligations of all states and international organizations to cooperate to end

Israel’s breaches, and prolonged occupation.



IIII.. AApppplliiccaabbllee LLeeggaall OOrrddeerr

6. At the outset we note that the normative framework applicable to occupation, in

particular the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention were envisaged

to regulate short-term occupation, although nothing under international

humanitarian law (IHL) would prevent the Occupying Power from embarking on long-

term occupation, such as Israel has imposed over the last 45 years. However, IHL

scholars, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 2012 expert

meeting on occupation and other forms of administration of foreign territory, assert

that prolonged occupation raises legal issues requiring reinterpretation and

adjustment, as we set forth in the following statement.

7. As the Occupying Power, Israel is bound by the provisions of IHL, namely the

Hague Regulations of 1907, and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the

Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, both of which constitute

binding customary international law. Israel’s claim that the Fourth Geneva

Convention does not apply to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) has been

consistently rejected by the international community, including the UN Security

Council and the International Court of Justice.

8. Nevertheless, in July 2012, the Edmond Levy Committee appointed by the Israeli

government to explore the legalization of settlement outposts, published its findings

in converse. Retired Israeli Supreme Court Judge Edmond Levy and other Committee

members (retired District Court Judge Techia Shapiro, and Adv. Alan Baker) upheld

the legal doctrine of the Missing Reversioner, claiming that the provisions of the

Fourth Geneva Convention do not apply in the case of Israeli occupation of

Palestinian land and people. According to the Committee, the Geneva Conventions

apply only to the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party, and therefore do

not apply, since neither Jordan nor Egypt exercised sovereignty over the region in

question. Whereas the Committee’s recommendations have no legally binding

effect, they signal a precarious slide toward the absorption of the occupied territory

into the recognized sovereign territory of Israel, while disenfranchising its Palestinian

inhabitants.

9. Notably, the aforementioned Missing Reversioner doctrine was authoritatively

negated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Wall

(2004): “Under customary international law, the Court observes, these were

therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power.

Subsequent events in these territories have done nothing to alter this situation.

The Court concludes that all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain

occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of Occupying

Power.”



10. It has long been established that Israel’s practices in the OPT violate not only the

provisions of IHL (outlined in detail below), but further violate Palestinians’

economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights enshrined in several bodies of

international human rights law (IHRL). Specifically, these include human rights

contained, inter alia, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966; the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966; the International

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1969; and the

Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1990.

11. From the genesis of Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory some 45 years ago,

UN Bodies have consistently rejected both the Israeli assertion that IHRL does not

apply extraterritorially in the OPT, and Israel’s claim that it can legitimately

differentiate between Israelis and Palestinians in the OPT on the basis of citizenship.

12. ICAHD maintains that IHRL is applicable to all territory over which a state

exercises effective control, including occupied territory, as expressed by numerous

UN Treaty Bodies and, most notably, the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004):

“The Court would observe that, while the jurisdiction of States is primarily

territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national territory.

Considering the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even when such is the case, States

parties to the Covenant should be bound to comply with its provisions.”

13. Likewise, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) General Comment no. 31 (The

Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant),

Article 10, stipulates that: “States Parties are required by article 2, paragraph 1, to

respect and to ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their

territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This means that a State

party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone

within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated

within the territory of the State Party. […] the enjoyment of Covenant rights is not

limited to citizens of States Parties but must also be available to all individuals,

regardless of nationality or statelessness. […] This principle also applies to those

within the power or effective control of the forces of a State Party acting outside

its territory, regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective

control was obtained.”



14. Whereas the prevalent legal regime or lex specialis in belligerent occupation

(pursuant of Hague Conventions of 1907 Article 42,43; and the Fourth Geneva

Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Section III),

is arguably IHL, the HRC further established that: “[…] the Covenant applies also in

situations of armed conflict to which the rules of international humanitarian law

are applicable. […] both spheres of law are complementary, not mutually

exclusive.”

IIIIII.. TThhee NNoorrmmaattiivvee NNaattuurree ooff PPrroolloonnggeedd OOccccuuppaattiioonn

15. The tension between an occupying power’s duty to maintain the status quo in an

occupied territory (presumably in anticipation of a permanent sovereign quickly

assuming control over the territory immediately following the pacification of armed

conflict) and its duty to maintain public order and safety grows ever more significant

in the case of a prolonged occupation, such as Israel’s. It is clear that that calling on

Israel to create conditions under which Palestinians may develop and progress is

potentially at odds with its obligation to refrain from making legal and physical

changes to the territory.

16. However, ICAHD firmly holds that Israel’s occupation can no longer be

considered temporary, and that other obligations should be invoked, such as the

right to self-determination. Hence, when occupation persists to a degree it is

protracted, and with no end in sight, the principle of conservation of occupied

territory must be reconsidered. A freeze on development, for instance, would

inevitably lead to stagnation and be detrimental to the population. Moreover,

decisions related to economic, social and political rights should be decided with a

view towards the welfare of the local population.

17. It is widely agreed that IHRL must be referenced in order to flesh out the notion

of population welfare, and to delineate and set restraints on the occupying power’s

actions. In particular IHL experts refer to the rights to health, education, food and

housing, codified, inter alia, in the aforementioned conventions and covenants that

comprise the human rights treaty system.

18. Consequently, the longer an occupation lasts, the more the local population

should be consulted on decisions pertaining to the administration of occupied

territory, land and people. Moreover, the consent of the local population should be

used to determine the validity and legality of intentions behind the occupying

power’s actions.

19. However, inclusion in the decision-making process would rely solely on the good

faith and willingness of the occupying power, a willingness that Israel has

consistently failed to demonstrate in the course of nearly five decades of occupation.



Therefore, another means of achieving self-determination and upholding IHRL must

be considered. ICAHD firmly holds that only the transfer of authority from occupying

power to local communities would entitle the Palestinians to administer their lives

according to their own political will.

20. In this context, we are mindful of the ICJ convergence doctrine which holds that a

state’s obligations under IHRL are not suspended when the state enters into an

armed conflict. In numerous cases, including the 2004 Advisory Opinion, the ICJ held

that an occupying power had obligations not only as the occupying power under the

Fourth Geneva Convention, but also under any treaty obligations taken by the

occupying power in relation to its sovereign territory extraterritorially in occupied

territory under its effective control. “In conclusion, the Court considers that the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in respect of acts

done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory. Having

determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to reply to the

question posed by the General Assembly, and having ruled in particular on the

applicability within the Occupied Palestinian Territory of international

humanitarian law and human rights law.”

21. In any case, measures taken by the occupying power should not further its own

interests, such as using the assets of occupied territory to benefit its own population

or economy. Yet, in December 2011 the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a

controversial ruling on the legality of Israeli-owned quarries in the West Bank,

holding that the unique characteristics of Israel’s belligerent occupation of the OPT

granted additional powers and rights to the occupying power under international

humanitarian law: “As has been held in many occasions under our rulings, the

belligerent occupation of Israel in the Area has some unique characteristics,

primarily the duration of the occupation period that requires the adjustment of the

law to the reality on the ground, which imposes a duty upon Israel to ensure

normal life for a period, which even if deemed temporary from a legal perspective,

is certainly long-term. Therefore, the traditional occupation laws require

adjustment to the prolonged duration of the occupation, to the continuity of

normal life in the Area and to the sustainability of economic relations between the

two authorities – the occupier and the occupied.”

22. The Court’s misguided interpretation of IHL seeks to modify its provisions on the

pretext of prolonged occupation to allow for economic exploitation of occupied

territory. This precarious approach is reflected in the long-term, entrenched

relationship of occupied and occupier in the OPT, starkly contradicting the

Palestinian aspiration for national self-determination.



23. We recall the statement made in November 2010 by Prof. Richard Falk, the UN

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories

occupied since 1967: “The Palestinian experience suggests the need for a new

protocol of international humanitarian law, some outer time limit after which

further occupation becomes a distinct violation of international law, and if not

promptly corrected, constitutes a new type of crime against humanity.”

24. A crime against humanity is understood to mean any of the following acts,

designated by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: deportation or

forcible transfer of population; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical

liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; persecution against any

identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural,

religious, and gender grounds in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of

the Court; and the crime of apartheid.

25. The mere fact that international law does not prohibit occupation raises serious

questions. However, if occupation is not rendered illegal, then international law

must respond to the metastasized nature of the occupation, and clearly distinguish

temporary and legal occupation from prolonged and illegal occupation.

26. The protracted nature of Israel’s occupation of the OPT demonstrates that the

drafters of the Hague and Geneva Conventions did not envisage prolonged

occupation, and suggests that belligerent occupation may be inappropriate and

irrelevant in practice in the case of the OPT, and perhaps in other cases of

occupation. In an international system based on equal sovereignty of states and the

indelible right to self-determination, prolonged occupation deviates substantially

from fundamental principles. Thus, ICAHD firmly holds that the international legal

system should define prolonged occupation as prohibited activity under

international law, an activity that breaches Jus cogens of international law, and

consequently should be criminalized.

IIVV.. EErrggaa oommnneess RRiigghhtt ttoo SSeellff--DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonn

27. The right of all peoples to self-determination is irrefutably a norm of Jus cogens,

a peremptory norm or fundamental principle of international law which is accepted

by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.

Indeed, the ICJ case law supports the view that the principle of self-determination

also has the legal status of erga omnes, or “owed to all”, as demonstrated below.

Consequently, erga omnes obligations of a State are owed to the international

community as a whole. When a principle achieves the status of erga omnes, the

international community is under a mandatory duty to respect it in all circumstances

in their relations with others.



28. The right of all peoples to self-determination is enshrined in several international

instruments, notably the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning

Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of

the United Nation adopted in 1970 by General Assembly Resolution 2625 : “Bearing

in mind also the paramount importance of the Charter of the United Nations in the

promotion of the rule of law among nations, Considering that the faithful

observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and

co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations

assumed by States […] Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action

which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal

rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and

independence. […] By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination

of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the

right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and

to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the

duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. […] To

bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of

the peoples concerned; and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien

subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle,

as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.”

29. It is worth noting that self-determination may have varying political

manifestations, as stated in the above-mentioned Resolution: “The establishment of

a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an

independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely

determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-

determination by that people.”

30. The right to self-determination is further elaborated in the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In accordance with the purposes and

principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 of the ICCPR recognizes that

all peoples have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is of

particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the

effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the

promotion and strengthening of those rights. It is for that reason that States set

forth the right of self-determination in a provision of positive law in the Covenant

and placed this provision as Article 1, apart from and before all of the other rights in

the Covenant.

31. ICCPR Article 1 enshrines an inalienable right of all peoples to freely “determine

their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural

development”. The article imposes on all States parties corresponding obligations.

This right and the corresponding obligations concerning its implementation are



interrelated with other provisions of the Covenant and rules of international law. In

its General Comment No. 12, ‘The right to self-determination of peoples’, the Human

Rights Committee (HRC) stated clearly that it is “particularly important in that it

imposes specific obligations on States parties, not only in relation to their own

peoples but vis-à-vis all peoples which have not been able to exercise or have been

deprived of the possibility of exercising their right to self-determination.” The

general nature of this paragraph is confirmed by its drafting history. It stipulates that

“The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility

for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote

the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in

conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”

32. The obligations exist irrespective of whether a people entitled to self-

determination depend upon a specific State party to the Covenant or not for its

realization. It follows that all States parties to the Covenant should take positive

action to facilitate realization of and respect for the right of peoples to self-

determination.

33. For that reason, Israel is obligated to create and maintain conditions that will

ensure Palestinians’ realization of their rights to self-determination, participation

without discrimination in public affairs, and their right, as individuals and collectively,

to develop and advance their respective communities economically, socially,

culturally, and politically, according to their needs. That assertion has been

authoritatively upheld by the ICJ in its 2004 Advisory Opinion: “The Court also notes

that the principle of self-determination of peoples has been enshrined in the

United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625

cited above, pursuant to which “Every State has the duty to refrain from any

forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] […] of their

right to self-determination.” Article 1 common to the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights reaffirms the right of all peoples to self-determination, and lays

upon the States parties the obligation to promote the realization of that right and

to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. […]

Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian

people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian

law and international human rights law. The Court would observe that the

obligations violated by Israel include certain obligations erga omnes. […] The

obligations erga omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of

the Palestinian people to self-determination, and certain of its obligations under

international humanitarian law.”



34. As stated above, the right of self-determination is owed to all peoples, but the

right of indigenous people, such as the Palestinians, to self-determination in a

colonial and/or post-colonial context, deserves further consideration. Palestinians

are no exception to this rule. They have long maintained, and rightly so, their right to

self-determination. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples of 2007 Article 3 states that Indigenous peoples have the right to self-

determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and

freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

35. Thus, the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples may be interpreted as

their right to form new States, or alternatively negotiate arrangements to strengthen

States and make them truly representative, democratic, and inclusive.

36. It is worth noting that while Palestinians irrefutably retain that prerogative, they

may choose, given the caveat of fulfillment of substantive and procedural

guarantees, to freely exercise their right to self-determination through integration

on an equal constitutional and administrative basis, with no prejudice to the non-

indigenous or “colonial people”, with which they integrate. Such was the case of the

1953 integration of Greenland with Denmark. UN General Assembly Resolution 849

recognized that: “When deciding on their new constitutional status, through their

duly elected representatives, the people of Greenland have freely exercised their

right to self-determination. […] Greenland freely decided on its integration within

the Kingdom of Denmark on an equal constitutional and administrative basis with

the other parts of Denmark. […] Provisions established under it in Chapter XI of the

Charter can no longer be applied to Greenland.”

VV.. IIssrraaeellii PPoolliicciieess aanndd PPrraaccttiicceess aanndd IImmpplliiccaattiioonnss iinn IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall CCrriimmiinnaall LLaaww

37. The Palestinian population in the OPT, including occupied and illegally annexed

East Jerusalem, endures violence, displacement, dispossession and deprivation as a

result of prolonged Israeli occupation, in most cases in violation of their rights under

IHL and IHRL. In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, administrative demolitions

are a major cause of the destruction of property, including residential and livelihood-

related structures, and displacement. In 2011, a record year of displacement, a total

of 622 Palestinian structures were demolished by Israeli authorities, of which 36%

(or 222) were family homes; the remainder were livelihood-related (including water-

storage and agricultural structures), resulting in 1,094 people displaced, almost

double the number in 2010. As of September 1 2012, 467 structures have been

demolished since the beginning of the year, including 140 family homes. As a result,

702 people were displaced and offered neither alternative housing nor

compensation. All recorded demolitions raise suspicions of having been carried out

in defiance of international law, and together likely constitute a grave breach of the



Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, and which constitutes

customary international law.

38. Illegal Israeli practices, such as the widespread demolition of homes, basic

infrastructure and the sources of livelihood, continue to shatter Palestinian

communities in the OPT. Demolitions are almost invariably in contravention of

international law, and lead to a substantial deterioration in living conditions for

entire communities. As a result, large numbers of Palestinians face increased poverty

and long-term instability, as well as limited access to basic services such as

education, health care, water and sanitation. The destruction must be discontinued

and the damage repaired if Israel is to meet its obligations under international law to

guarantee the human rights of Palestinians.

39. Moreover, Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines grave breaches

of the Convention as those involving, among others, any of the following acts, if

committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: inhuman

treatment, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by

military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, and deportation or

transfer of a protected person. According to the Rome Statute of the International

Criminal Court (ICC) Article 8, grave breaches constitute war crimes and give rise to

individual criminal responsibility. Even states, such as Israel, that have not acceded

to the Rome Statute might still be subject to an obligation to co-operate with the ICC

in certain cases. Consequently, Israel’s policies and practices, prevalent in the OPT,

may very well constitute ‘war crimes’ under Article 8(2)(a)(iv), and Article 8 (2)(a)(vii)

of the Statute of the ICC.

40. Furthermore, Israeli policies and practices in the OPT may constitute ‘crimes

against humanity’ under Article 7(1)(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of

population; Article 7(1)(h) Persecution of any identifiable group or collectivity on

political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender grounds; and Article

7(1)(j) The crime of apartheid; as well as a violation of the UN Convention on the

Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1973.

41. The crime of apartheid should be understood to mean inhumane acts committed

in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and

domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed

with the intention of maintaining that regime. The Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination (CERD) called on Israel in its 2012 concluding observation

(CERD/C/ISR/CO/14-16) to take immediate measures to eradicate apartheid policies

or practices which severely affect the Palestinian population in the OPT, and which

violate the provisions of the Convention on the prevention of racial segregation and

apartheid: “The Committee draws the State Party’s attention to its General

Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication



of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State

party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any such policies or

practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population

in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

42. In Resolution 177(II) the UN General Assembly directed the International Law

Commission to formulate the principles of the International Military Tribunal (IMT)

Judgment as principles of international law; (since then known as the “Nuremberg

Principles”) as follows: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime

under international law is responsible and liable to punishment for that act; The

fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under

international law acted as a Head of State or responsible government official does

not relieve him from responsibility under international law; The fact that a person

acted pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him

from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact

possible to him.”

43. In recent years, Israeli delegates appearing in international fora (UN Treaty

Bodies, the Human Rights Council, etc.) have repeatedly eluded to mens rea (“Guilty

Mind”), when addressing matters related to Israeli policies and practices in the OPT,

most likely with a view towards defences in international criminal law, notably ICC

Statute Article 30: “Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally

responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the

Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge.”

Other defences in international criminal law (duress, self-defence, mental incapacity)

do not look as if appropriate, and invoking military necessity would be extremely

difficult given the nature and scope of Israeli practices, which are overwhelmingly

and pronouncedly administrative.

44. However futile the defence may be, its mainstreaming into IHRL signifies a

precarious approach towards the responsibility and accountability of Israeli duty-

bearers, and should be understood in the context of a legal strategy designed to

deflect individual criminal responsibility and allow the State and its agents to operate

with impunity while perpetrating the would-be crime of prolonged occupation.



VVII.. CCoonncclluussiioonn

45. ICAHD encourages the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the following

conclusions and recommendations, and reflect them in an appropriate Resolution:

46. To express deep concern that Israel refuses to apply obligations contained in

human rights treaties to the Palestinian population in the OPT, or to report on the

situation of Palestinians in the occupied territory, and reiterate the position of UN

Treaty Bodies that Israel must respect, protect and fulfill Palestinians’ rights codified

in the human rights treaty system, and report accordingly.

47. To register grave concern with Israel’s continuing deplorable practices of house

demolitions, land expropriation, and its adoption of policies resulting in inadequate

housing and living conditions for Palestinians living under prolonged occupation.

48. To insert the issue of the legality of a prolonged Israeli occupation, which has

outlived the armed conflict that spawned it by 45 years and with no time limit in

sight, into the General Assembly agenda that explores the legal implications of a

prolonged and indefinite occupation that has morphed into a new type of crime

against humanity; and to commission a study on the adequacy of international

humanitarian law to cover situations of prolonged occupation, and provide Israel and

the international community with appropriate recommendations.

49. To adopt a resolution calling for an ICJ Advisory Opinion that establishes a new

normative paradigm of prolonged occupation; reinforces the inalienable human

rights of the Palestinian people to development and self-determination; and depicts

the scope and magnitude of Israel’s illegal policies and practices in the OPT, beyond

what are IHL breaches and referred to in the 2004 Advisory Opinion; and upholds the

legal obligations of all states and international organizations to cooperate to end

Israel’s breaches, and prolonged occupation.

ICAHD calls for the cooperation of all states and international organizations in

bringing an end to the prolonged Israeli occupation and the illegal practices and

policies arising from it. All states and international organizations must consider

appropriate measures to exert pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Such

measures include: an ICJ Advisory Opinion on the legality of Israeli practices arising

from prolonged occupation, appropriate sanctions, and the severing of diplomatic

relations. Further, ICAHD calls for the suspension of the EU–Israel Association

Agreement and the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement, until Israel complies with

international law and ends its illegal policies and practices and prolonged

occupation.

Documents

UNGA_ROL