“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article
[ PIC 23/05/2013 – 09:50 PM ]
Follow @palinfoen Follow @palinfoar
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)– The Israeli authorities on Tuesday demolished 11 apartments in the occupied city of Jerusalem, displacing more than one hundred Jerusalemite citizens, mostly women and children.
Wadi Al-Helwa Information Center said in a report published on Wednesday that the Jerusalem municipality teams, accompanied by military and police forces, demolished in Tur neighborhood and Jabal Mukaber in eastern Jerusalem 7 Palestinian houses and a residential building of four apartments.
The occupation authorities said the apartments were built without a permit on lands threatened with confiscation, and started the demolition without any prior notice.
The Information Center said the residential building in the Jabal Mukaber, which consisted of four apartments, has been built since 1973, and that some years ago the occupation tried to buy it.
The building’s owner asserted that he had repeatedly tried to obtain building permits from all Israeli competent authorities, but his request was turned down because of the occupation’s plans to confiscate the building for establishing Jewish Gardens in its place.
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).
Comments are closed.