Against all the negative rhetoric and criticism of the Israeli Government’s plans to apply its civilian law to parts of the ‘West Bank’ professor Bell puts the benefits for both parties.
It is often argued that the Mandate for Palestine ended with the withdrawl of the British on 15 May 1948. In this article Dr. Matthijs de Blois cogently argues that this is a misconception under international law.
There is much confusion and controversy about the plan of the Israeli government to extend its legal administration and excercise its sovereignty in certain parts of Judea and Samaria per 1 July 2020. This Q&A is intended to assist the reader in understanding what international law says about the plans.
In response to the Open Letter in Opinio Juris about the plans of the Israeli Government to “annex” certain parts of the “West Bank”, the author points at the misrepresentation of the planned act as ‘annexation’; you cannot annex territory where you already possess sovereignty.
The new Israeli government intends to extend Israeli sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank). The media cry out ‘illegal annexation’ but is this a question of annexation? How can one annex what you’re entitled to?
It is widely believed that the State of Israel was born as a result of UN Resolution 181 of 1947. The truth is that the legal rights of the Jewish people and Israel as a nation were founded in international law well before the very existence of the United Nations, dating back to international legal instruments agreed shortly after World War I, at Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, on 25 April 1920.
In this article the author analyses historical and actual objections under international law to the Two-State Solution and the unilateral declaration of the ‘State of Palestine’.
The freedom of religion is being threatened under the pretence of animal welfare.
Rebuttal to the Article: “THE IGNORANCE OF TRUMP ENVOY GREENBLATT” by Col. Res. Shaul Arieli, published on August 9, 2019 by HAARETZ.com
Senior Fellow Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace challenges the many misquotes, misrepresentations and misinterpretations by Israeli author Shaul Arieli critiquing U.S. presidential envoy Jason Greenblatt’s address to the UN Security Council. If untruths (or half truths, which are in fact untruths) are allowed to go unchallenged, and the distortion of international law to continue unchecked, a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks being seriously impeded.
The Israeli Products Labelling Controversy – Imposing Politically-motivated Opinions in the Name of Law
The Opinion of AG Hogan at the ECJ in the Psagot Winery case is scrutinized. Conclusion: the AG’s Opinion seems more an expression of political belief than a correct legal opinion based on a sound interpretation and fair application of international law.
President Trump’s recent proclamation recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights has attracted much criticism. The prohibition on the use of force to acquire territory is an important foundation of modern international law, but it does not mean that wars of aggression cannot have territorial consequences.
President Donald Trump’s decision to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been subject to intense international scrutiny. Amid the debate, what does the law suggest? Read here what Professor Gregory Rose of the School of Law at the University of Wollongong, Australia, wrote about it.
The status of Jerusalem is one of the main legal issues in the debate on Israel and its relationship to the Palestinian Arabs. The speech of the American President, Donald Trump, and the fierce reactions it provoked, as well as the recent resolutions of the UN General Assembly (GA) illustrate this. In order to address…
In this article the author, Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace, demonstrates cogently that the 1967 lines are not “borders” under international law. Therefore, this word should not be used to create and perpetuate the impression that Israel has illegally transgressed the borders of another State.
The British Mandate: Defining the Legality of Jewish Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria under International Law
“Facts are stubborn things” said John Adams, the second President of the United States. This paper debunks pervasive but false narratives that — try as they might — cannot alter the “stubborn” legal facts, history and evidence that lead to an inevitable conclusion: international law supports the legality of Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.…
Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to the relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law…
… this is how Dr. Matthijs de Blois, Senior fellow of thinc., characterises the report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, the Canadian law professor S. Michael Lynk. The Report has the clear objective to heighten the pressure of the “international community” on Israel.
Why it is important to study the position of Israel under international law. Every day, media around the world report on the “illegality” of Israeli settlements, and the obligations of Israel under international law to withdraw from the “occupied Palestinian territories”. Time again, Israeli presence in the “Palestinian territories” is claimed to be an “obstacle…
It is often claimed by media and many UN policy documents that the “Israeli settlements” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are in violation of international law. This report reviews the main legal and factual arguments associated with this claim and concludes that such simplistic characterizations are biased and unfounded under international law. The…