“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article
KawtherSalam | Oct 10, 2013
Follow @KawtherSalam
بشهادة الجميع إبن فلسطين أوصل مؤتمر الأطباء العرب في أوروبا إلى قمة النجاح
Al-Haq for Human Rights is gravely concerned by the Israeli authorities plans to build a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Wadi al-Nar, what so-called “Kidron Valley”, in occupied East Jerusalem. This wastewater treatment plant will treat wastewater originating from households in East Jerusalem, including settlements. The wastewater will undergo initial, partial treatment in a facility run by the settlement organisation the Jordan Valley Water Association. The partially treated wastewater will subsequently be used for irrigation in settlements in the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea area.
As the Occupying Power, Israel has the obligation to protect the occupied population and ensure public order and safety. However, it must carry out its responsibilities for the benefit of the occupied population and may under no circumstances administer the territory to further its own interests. The proposed wastewater treatment plant will serve the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, thereby solidifying their existence and perpetuating violations of international law.
Furthermore, the wastewater treatment plant will primarily benefit the settlement enterprise – a project that has received the unconditional financial and political support of successive Israeli governments. The flourishing agricultural environment in the West Bank, particularly in the Jordan Valley area, coupled with the exploitation of water and other natural resources found in occupied territory, has turned Israeli settlements into profitable enterprises.
The construction of infrastructure, provision of water resources by the Israeli government, and the establishment of export companies that trade with the European Union, including the Netherlands, have driven the success of such enterprises. These steps have proven essential in reinforcing and consolidating the settlement enterprise at the expense of the occupied Palestinian population and its economy.
Commenting on the issue, Al-Haq Director Shawan Jabarin stated: “The planned wastewater treatment plant will contribute to maintaining and supporting illegal settlements in the OPT and towards making Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem irreversible.” Shawan Jabarin further cautions “all actors, including potential donors and international corporations, involved in the designing, development and construction of the plant against playing a role in undermining the chances of a just peace for the Palestinian people.”
Considering that this project may receive support from Dutch actors, including Dutch legal entities, Al-Haq highlights the Dutch Prosecutor’s recent recognition in the Riwal-case that Dutch nationals, including legal entities, can be held criminally responsible for violations of IHL under Dutch criminal law. Al-Haq therefore strongly urges all actors to terminate any involvement in the wastewater treatment plant.
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.