When occupation is critically studied under international law, it can be noted that it covers two distinct concepts. Firstly, occupation under international law can be studied on the basis of title acquisition to a territory deemed to be a no man’s land. The second main concept is that of the military occupation. When wholesomely evaluated, it is notable that this law also has a close relation to humanitarian activities and practices. The regulation serves as a protection tool because it prioritizes human interests in times of war and skirmishes. The need to put such interests first during wars is not a new trend. This norm has been in existence since ancient times. From the resources used in this course, it is evident that there are a variety of provisions that ensure that the rights of civilians are protected adequately in times of skirmishes. These provisions are normally placed or categorized concerning international treaties as well as global customary laws. This paper will aim to assess the critical aspects of international law under occupation as well as its merits and shortcomings when studied in the context of Israel. The essay will also give a brief report on the historical development of the law with adequate reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, international laws of occupation have essential features. These aspects are crucial in determining the significance of these laws. One of the most fundamental elements of international laws of rule is the presence of hostile or foreign forces. According toShany, this feature adds up as a criterion for considering ways of exerting control over an unfamiliar territory (102). According to this feature, it can be identified that foreign powers are a necessity for the formation of an occupation that also becomes a link between the notion of effectively taking over a territory and the capacity to ensure that the obligations of the incumbent are fulfilled once he or she gets power. This feature also shows that an occupation can be established or upheld through the exercise of power from within boundaries of the territory. If those exercising power seems to have a weakness, then they are given support by a foreign military or peacekeeping troops. The second feature of international laws of occupation entails the exercise of power over the territory in question. The presence of hostile external forces automatically forces the humanitarian personnel to exert authority. For instance, the Israeli example once depicted the use of a test-based capacity to exercise power. This is significant because it attempted to prevent the occupant from evading the responsibilities and duties assigned. This feature also makes occupation law relevant because it shows that exercising power does not mean occupying power. Instead, it gives provisions that are applicable concerning allowing the authority to be shared by the occupied government and the resident. This provision becomes valid when the former carries on with the responsibility of presiding over the occupied territory. The third significant feature of international laws of occupation is the concept of indirect but effective control over an area. This feature works with the theory that a state may be an occupying power when it enforces total control over all de facto organized groups or local authorities.

When studying international law of occupation, it is essential to evaluate how historical development concerning countries like Israel have been adapted and applied. This is significant because it helps researchers and those interested in international relations learn how these laws were used in occupied territories. In Israel, some historical developments can be noted concerning how the international community makes considerations on the formation of settlements in the occupied territories. This also concerns the legality of the lands under the international law in the context of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This convention provides that “The occupying power shall not transfer or deport parts of its civilians into the territory that it occupies.” In Israel, the leading forces have always maintained that it is not a violation of this convention because the civilians have never been transferred or deported to other territories. Also, they can never be considered to have turned into an ‘Occupied Territory’ because there have never been internationally-recognized legal rulers before. Various international bodies like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the International Court of Justice and other parties to this convention have in the past affirmed that the agreement is not applicable. Several UN resolutions have also stated that the building of Israeli settlements is a violation of international regulations. The UNSC Resolution shows that the Fourth Geneva Agreement is legal and applicable. It also shows that the agreement is a right tool that can be used to call upon the Israeli to cease from extraditing or transferring its populace into the territories or even changing their demographic structure and makeup (Imseis 65). The continued conference of the contracting stakeholders to the Geneva agreement has since then declared the settlements unlawful just like the primary judicial body of the UN, the Red Cross committee, and the International Court of Justice.

The successive Israeli governments have had a single firm position that all legal settlements within the occupied territory are legal and functional as per the international law. Despite Israeli having armistice conventions with high contracting stakeholders, the requirements are deemed applicable and legal. In practice, this territory also does not accept that the Geneva Convention relates to de jure. However, it states that it can govern itself by its provisions on a de facto basis on all matters to do with humanitarian issues. Over the years, a majority of legal practitioners and scholars have held that the settlements infringe international law, while there are also those who believe in dissenting views that tend to support the Israeli position.

When the international laws are critically studied rIsraeli and Palestine, it is worth noting the ICJ advisory on the wall. This recommendedview by the ICJ provided that the erection of the wall must egbe looked into in broader context. arThis is through considering the obligation on Palestine and Israel to conform to the international humanitarian legislation as well as having the need for enactment of all Security Council determinations (Orakhelashvili 119). While doing so, it is dimportant that the involved parties draw the attention of bodies like the General Assembly with a view of negotiating for solutions to unresolved problems ion the basis of the formation of a Palestinian state and nwith respect to international law. Even though several aspects of the occupation between these two territories have been vital in coming up with legal writings, a majority of them relate to Israeli’s passivity and defiance with its compulsions as an occupying power. Nevertheless, the concern of legality of the occupation itself is hardly even raised in recent times.

Scholars like Shirley Scott have written gresourceful papers and books on the significance of the International law of occupation. In her book entitled“The International Law in World Politics,” Shirley presents her audience with a balanced and structured exhibition of the mutual relationship between international legislation and politics. She also outlines the practical and theoretical survey of all that entails the fundamental principles and disciplines of International law. In most of her chapters, there is consistency in relation to the title of the book as well as the major themes explored. This shows that this book is an all-encompassing and cohesive work whose main aim is to give the basics of international law. To defend the significance and value of this body of law, it is important to note that Scott built a solid foundation of international law in her work by discussing how the legislation is structured and how it relates with power and politics. After establishing a solid basis of the law, Scott defends its value and significance by examining how various legal arguments are structured. The structure gives a clear transition from one chapter to another. This is important in ensuring that essential aspects and elements of the law are captured by giving the reader an insight into human rights laws, legal fields regardingarms control and, finally, all that pertains to humanitarian legislation. When a proper study and analysis of the text is made, it is evident that Scott has provided a worthy defense of what the international law of occupation entails. Her work begins with a portrayal of what the building blocks of international law are. In protection of international law, Scott has briefly addressed how treaties and customs are essential by distinguishing them from judicial and legislatively driven systems of law (Scott 219). The author also focuses on giving significant establishments on international legislation as an independent entity as well as an integral part of the global political systems. Scott shows the significance of international law by presenting how various actors play essential roles in ensuring the existence of this law. She offers her audience with historical knowledge that leads to the creation and identification of modern states. While doing so, she describes states as the most crucial actors in both the world politics and international law. To show their importance further, Scott analyzes states within aspects of sovereignty and concerning jurisdiction. The value of this work also delves into the fundamental role of intergovernmental organizations. As a result of its significance, a discussion of the United Nations as well as an ensuing analysis of its chief organs and specific agencies is used to show the primary focus of how Scott defends the value and significance of international law. Last but not least, Scott has demonstrated the relevance of this body of law by highlighting the role of ICJ in issuing decisions and advisory opinions as well as creating legislation.

Not all international law scholars are for the negative aspects of this global legislation. Some of them like Gershon Shafir, Hannah Arendt and Glennon have made anti-Imperialistic responses that critique international law. In the book A Half Century of occupation, Shafir speaks from an anti-imperialist point of view by using three major themes. He describes the colonial features of Israeli occupation, its longevity and the impacts it had on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. To show how he was against imperialism, Shafir describes Israel as a colonial settler that uses its dominance and power to extend itself into the Palestinian territories. In his submissions, he describes the methods used by Israeli as those that conform to dominance because of how the Palestinians who lived in these territories were subjugated and assumed not to have any rights (Shafir 157). This saw the Israeli extend all their privileges to the Jewish settlers. In one of his responses, he untangles the several laws formulated to make justifications on the unending occupation as well as the Jewish settlement. He also acknowledges the role of the US government in enabling the invasion. In his final chapter, Shafir gives responses and analyses of how the profession has transformed. For instance, he intensifies the conflict between Israel and Palestine by showing how it led to a series of resistances and oppression. The aftermath of this conflict resulted in an agreement for a two-state resolution.

From an in-depth understanding of the book, Shafir seems to place much emphasis on settler colonialism as the trigger of conflict between 1948 and 1967. What he disregards by default is the Zionist ideology and how it is embedded in the institutions and the Israeli culture. From the inception of this ideology, Zionism provided for the territorial transformation of Palestine into a Jewish state. According to Shafir, the doctrine has remained the driving force towards the completion of that mission. Therefore, it is worth believing that the anti-imperialistic responses of Shafir are rightfully placed in the context of Zionism. Also, the war between Israeli and Palestinians was a battle of choice with the ultimate goal that Palestine will be a territory without Palestinians.

Other scholars who have critiqued the imperialism with regard to international law include Hannah Arendt, Carr, and Glennon. In the book entitled ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem,’ Hanna makes submissions opposing imperialism that almost jeopardizes her reputation as a scholar. While responding antagonistically to the Jewish events in Jerusalem, she exposes a controversy that describes a variety of evil deeds that characterize one of the worst genocides in history; the Holocaust. In her response captured by the expression “the banality of evil,” she speculates that sadists do not commit immoral deeds but ordinary personalities like Adolf Eichmann do because people like them value self-interests and conformity over others welfare (Arendt 219). The idea behind her response as captured in the banality of evil seems instinctive. However, it resulted in a huge controversy because critics viewed it as a vindication of Adolf Eichmann and laying accuses on victims of the Holocaust genocide (Arendt 290). From the response, a reader may be left wondering whether Hanna was trying to put the victims and the criminals in the same position or whether her idea was a form of blame game to the victims. I would address these concerns by critically studying her concluding arguments that present two leading explanations of the concept of the banality of evil. The first explanation describes the idea as people who lack empathy and thrive in dictatorial regimes. The second explanation can be assumed to be evil actions that personalities who do have morality are capable of when subjected to extreme circumstances.

Another significant response is that of Edward Carr who believed in realism. His text is dubbed to be one of the first modern realist writings after the Thucydides and the Machiavelli’s. In his book entitled“The Twenty Years’ Crisis,” he is seen to have strong advocacy for the role of decency in international politics and how laws are practiced (Carr 170). He also, responds to imperialism by demonstrating how rational ideas of peace and cooperation were undermined by chaos in the international realm. Michael Glennon has also made responses that argue for a realist approach to international law and opposes imperialism. In his arguments and responses, his main aim is to show that international law is practical when it is honored adequately by nations (Glennon 539). This shows that most scholars who have specialized in this field would rather argue against imperialism than giving submissions which are anti-realism.

In conclusion, the international law of occupation has two major facets. The first one is that of title acquisition of a territory deemed to be no a man’s land. The second facet is that where there is the occupation with military action. This essay has explored the two aspects basing its submissions, responses, and arguments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first concept has been studied by looking at how Israel aimed at occupying the Palestinian territory without the Palestinians. There are also instances of military action regarding the practice of international law through bodies such as the ICJ. From the two facets, it is worth noting that this law serves as a protection tool because of how it puts human interests as a priority.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in jerusalem. Penguin, 2006.

Carr, Edward Hallett. The twenty years’ crisis. Macmillan, 1940.

Glennon, Michael J. “The fog of law: Self-defense, inherence, and incoherence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y 25 (2001): 539.

Imseis, Ardi. “On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the occupied Palestinian territory.” Harv. Int’l LJ 44 (2003): 65.

Orakhelashvili, Alexander. “Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: opinion and reaction.” Journal of Conflict and Security Law11.1 (2006): 119-139.

Scott, Shirley V., and Shirley V. Scott. International law in world politics: An introduction. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004.

Shafir, Gershon. A Half Century of Occupation: Israel, Palestine, and the World’s Most Intractable Conflict. Univ of California Press, 2017.

Shany, Yuval. “The law applicable to non-occupied Gaza: a comment on Bassiouni v. The Prime Minister of Israel.” Israel Law Review 42.1 (2009): 101-116.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?