|
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply. Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal〔http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FLDPJ Point 12〕 as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice〔 and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law, despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties.〔(Lebanon 1952 Syria 1953 Jordan 1951 Egypt 1951 Israel 1951 ) International Committee of the Red Cross〕 In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies ''de jure'', but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself ''de facto'' by its provisions, without specifying which these are.〔Gerson, Allan. ''Israel, the West Bank, and International law'', Routledge, Sept 28, 1978, ISBN 0-7146-3091-8, p. 82.〕〔Roberts, Adam, "Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years" in ''International Affairs'' (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 64, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 345–359., p. 350〕 The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.〔 ==Background== Shortly after independence, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental principles of international law, accepted as binding by all civilized nations, were to be incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel.〔see the "Place of customary international law" on pages 5–6 of (International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel, by Dr. David Kretzmer ) and Chapter 2 "Application of International Law", in (The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer )〕 In the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel was in control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights. Immediately after the war, the Israeli government authorised the construction of military settlements for security purposes. They were built on the fringes of the territories, along the Jordanian and Syrian frontiers and along the edges of the Sinai Peninsula. At the same time, Israel conveyed that it was willing in principle to return most of the newly captured territory. Levi Eshkol offered to return the territories with only minor border modifications. Nevertheless, with government permission granted, Kfar Etzion was re-established in September 1967, becoming the first civilian settlement to be built in the West Bank. During the 1970s, Israel's Supreme Court regularly ruled that the establishment of civilian settlements by military commanders was legal on the basis that they formed part of the territorial defense network and were considered temporary measures needed for military and security purposes. After Likud came to power in 1977, seizing land on the basis of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which implied a temporary nature of Israeli presence, was not employed anymore as the new government declared land in the West Bank "state land".〔 In 1978 and 1979 the Israeli Supreme court, prompted by the new government policies, ruled on two important cases that set out the requirements for Israeli settlement legality under international law. In Ayauub ''et al.'' vs. Minister of Defence (the Beit-El Toubas case), the Court determined that the Hague Conventions but not the Geneva Conventions could be applied by Israeli courts on land and settlement issues in the occupied territories. The following year the Court ruled on Dwikat ''et al.'' vs. the Government of Israel (the Elon Moreh case), outlining the Hague Conventions' limitations on Israeli land acquisition and settlements. Settlements, whether on private or public land, could not be considered permanent, nor could the land be permanently confiscated, only temporarily requisitioned. Settlements on private land were legal only if determined to be a military necessity; the original owner retained title to the land and must be paid rental fees for its use. Public lands' "possession cannot be alienated, nor its basic character transformed".〔("Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Politics of De Facto Annexation" ) Ian Lustick〕 In 2004, an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel had breached its obligations under international law by establishing settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of imposing a régime, which is contrary to international law. The Court also concluded that the Israeli régime violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians by impeding the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of Israeli citizens) and their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living.〔See the Judgment in "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", para 120, 134, and 142 () and PAUL J. I. M. DE WAART (2005) International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, pp. 467–487, 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』 ■ウィキペディアで「International law and Israeli settlements」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|