“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article
[ PIC 13/02/2013 – 02:51 PM ]
Follow @palinfoen Follow @palinfoar
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)– The Islamic Christian commission for patronizing Jerusalem and holy sites revealed an Israeli plan to annex 120 dunums of land in Shuafat and Beit Hanina town north of occupied Jerusalem in order to build roads connecting settlements.
In a press release on Wednesday, the commission said that Israel’s settlement expansion and its appropriation of Palestinian lands violate its obligations under the roadmap plan and the Annapolis agreement.
It added that Israel’s transfer of its settlers to live in the Palestinian territories under its occupation is also a violation of the fourth Geneva convention and the relevant provisions of the international customary law.
“The unilateral actions that are practiced by Israel have caused fundamental changes in the geography of Jerusalem city and its demographical nature, in violation of the UN resolutions, 181, 194 and 303, and the subsequent decisions which prohibits making changes to the population and the occupied land, including Jerusalem, and illegalizes all settlements and its expansion,” the commission underlined.
LAW
“States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.”
Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international armed conflicts.
International armed conflicts
The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1]
It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2]
Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[3]
Many military manuals prohibit the deportation or transfer by a party to the conflict of parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.[4]
This rule is included in the legislation of numerous States.[5]
Official statements and reported practice also support the prohibition on transferring one’s own civilian population into occupied territory.[6]
Attempts to alter the demographic composition of an occupied territory have been condemned by the UN Security Council.[7]
In 1992, it called for the cessation of attempts to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.[8]
Similarly, the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned settlement practices.[9]
According to the final report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, “the implantation of settlers” is unlawful and engages State responsibility and the criminal responsibility of individuals.[10]
In 1981, the 24th International Conference of the Red Cross reaffirmed that “settlements in occupied territory are incompatible with article 27 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.[11]
In the Case of the Major War Criminals in 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found two of the accused guilty of attempting the “Germanization” of occupied territories.[12]
References
[1] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, sixth paragraph (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 334).
[2] Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 335).
[3] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 336).
[4] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 346–347), Australia (ibid., § 348), Canada (ibid., § 349), Croatia (ibid., § 350), Hungary (ibid., § 351), Italy (ibid., § 352), Netherlands (ibid., § 353), New Zealand (ibid., § 354), Spain (ibid., § 355), Sweden (ibid., § 357), Switzerland (ibid., § 357), United Kingdom (ibid., § 358) and United States (ibid., § 359).
[5] See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 361), Australia (ibid., §§ 362–363), Azerbaijan (ibid., §§ 364–365), Bangladesh (ibid., § 366), Belarus (ibid., § 367), Belgium (ibid., § 368), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 369), Canada (ibid., §§ 371–372), Congo (ibid., § 373), Cook Islands (ibid., § 374), Croatia (ibid., § 375), Cyprus (ibid., § 376), Czech Republic (ibid., § 377), Germany (ibid., § 379), Georgia (ibid., § 380), Ireland (ibid., § 381), Mali (ibid., § 384), Republic of Moldova (ibid., § 385), Netherlands (ibid., § 386), New Zealand (ibid., §§ 387–388), Niger (ibid., § 390), Norway (ibid., § 391), Slovakia (ibid., § 392), Slovenia (ibid., § 393), Spain (ibid., § 394), Tajikistan (ibid., § 395), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 397–398), Yugoslavia (ibid., § 399) and Zimbabwe (ibid., § 400); see also the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 360), Burundi (ibid., § 370), Jordan (ibid., § 382), Lebanon (ibid., § 383) and Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 396).
[6] See, e.g., the statements of Kuwait (ibid., § 405) and United States (ibid., §§ 406–407) and the reported practice of Egypt (ibid., § 402) and France (ibid., § 403).
[7] See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 446 , 452 and 476 (ibid., § 408), Res. 465 (ibid., § 409) and Res. 677 (ibid., § 410).
[8] UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 411).
[9] See, e.g., UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D, 39/95 D and 40/161 D (ibid., § 412) and Res. 54/78 (ibid., § 405); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/7 (ibid., § 413).
[10] UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements (ibid., § 415).
[11] 24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. III (ibid., § 419).
[12] International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgement (ibid., § 421).