Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:54:20.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Article that Changed the Course of History?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2017

Eyal Benvenisti
Eyal Benvenisti*
Affiliation:
Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge; C.C. Ng Fellow, Jesus College; Law Professor, Tel Aviv University; Global Professor, NYU School of Law.
Get access

Abstract

Yehuda Blum's article, ostensibly devoted to an examination of the lawfulness of a military order under the law of occupation, actually explored a preliminary question – whether Jordan had valid title to the West Bank (referred to as ‘Judea and Samaria’). Concluding that Jordan had no title, Blum concluded that the law of occupation did not apply. This reflection revisits Blum's thesis. It suggests that Blum's argument failed to elucidate the relevant legal questions and therefore his conclusion was hasty. It would be distressing to think that it was Blum's article that convinced Israeli decision-makers to deny the formal applicability of the law of occupation to the West Bank and Gaza.

Keywords

international lawlaw of occupationIsraeli–Palestinian Conflict
Type
Celebrating 50 Years of Scholarship: Reflections on Key Articles from the First Five Decades
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 269 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Shamgar, Meir, ‘Legal Concepts and Problems of the Israeli Military Government – The Initial Stage’, in Shamgar, Meir (ed), Military Government in the Territories Administered by Israel, 1967–1980: The Legal Aspects (1st edn, Harry Sacher Institute for Legislative Research and Comparative Law 1982) 13, 13Google Scholar; Kretzmer, David, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (SUNY Press 2002) 32 Google Scholar.

2 Rosenne, Shabtai, Israel's Armistice Agreements with the Arab States: A Juridical Interpretation (Blumstein 1951)Google Scholar.

3 Shabtai Rosenne, ‘The Legal Status of the New Territories Recently Occupied by the IDF’, Opinion No. 43/56, 6 November 1956 (trans), http://akevot.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CRDR13595e.pdf.

4 ibid para 11.

5 Transcript No 126 of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Session, 5 July 1967, http://akevot.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MAG-Briefing-Eng.pdf.

6 Proclamation No 3 regarding Entry into Force of the Provisions of Security Order, 7 June 1967, Compilation of Proclamations, Orders and Appointments of the IDF Command in the West Bank Area No 1 (11 August 1967).

7 Blum, Yehuda Z, ‘The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria’ (1968) 3 Israel Law Review 279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Benjamin Rubin, ‘Israel, Occupied Territories’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, October 2009, http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1301; Kretzmer ((n 1) 33) also attributes the change of heart to Blum's article.

9 Shamgar, Meir, ‘The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories’ (1971) 1 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 262 Google Scholar.

10 ibid 266.

11 ibid.

12 Blum (n 7) 294.

13 ibid 293.

14 ibid 294 fn 60.

15 ibid 294.

16 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287

17 Blum (n 7) 294 fn 59.

18 Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog, before the General Assembly of the UN on 26 October 1979, cited in Bar-Yaacov, Nissim, ‘The Applicability of the Laws of War to Judea and Samaria (The West Bank) and to the Gaza Strip’ (1990) 24 Israel Law Review 485, 488Google Scholar.

19 Provisional Verbatim Record of the 2125th Meeting of the United Nations Security Council (13 March 1979), UN Doc S/PV.2125, 36, http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/68795/S_PV.2125-EN.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.

20 UN Security Council Official Records, Thirty Fourth Year, 2131st Meeting (19 March 1979), UN Doc S/PV.2131, 11 para 122, http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/68298/S_PV.2131-EN.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y.

21 von Glahn, Gerhard, The Occupation of Enemy Territory (University of Minnesota Press 1957)Google Scholar.

22 Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (entered into force 26 January 1910) Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser 3) 461, art 43 (‘The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country’).

23 von Glahn (n 21) 27, where he discusses various types of occupation.

24 ibid 276.

25 Benvenisti, Eyal, The Law of Occupation (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 ibid 163.

27 von Glahn (n 21) 20.

28 Shamgar (n 1) 34.

29 Benvenisti (n 25) 71.

30 ibid 161–64.

31 On the relevance of the self-determination principle and right in this context see Rubin (n 8) paras 48–52.

32 Shamgar (n 9).