In a remarkable ceremony in the White House on 4th September 2020, presided over by US President Trump, Serbia and Kosovo signed agreements to normalize their economic relations. The US-brokered agreements were hailed by the US President as “historic”. In reality they do not constitute a comprehensive “normalization” agreement, but resemble little more than an agreement to carry out a list of previously-agreed projects.
A Layperson’s Guide to Some Basic Concepts in International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
International law can be confusing even for lawyers and law students who are trying to grasp its basic concepts. What do terms like “conquest”, “belligerent occupation”, “annexation”, “statehood”, “non-self-governing territory” and “the right to self-determination” mean? To the average non-lawyer, these terms might sound like a completely foreign language. In this article, we hope to provide a simple layperson’s guide to some basic concepts in international law, and their relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The EU is conditioning the minds of European consumers to fit the world-view of the bureaucrats in Brussels. This is morally wrong and breaches international law. George Orwell saw it coming in 1984.
The EU claims that labels on products made by Jews in Judea or Samaria are “misleading” if they do not specify the product is made in a “settlement” in the “West Bank”. But actually it is the EU that is misleading consumers.
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.
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 author compares the San Remo Resolution of 1920 with the Oslo Accords of the 1990’s and draws a striking conclusion.
By Andrew Tucker, Director at thinc. On the 10th of June, over 100 international lawyers issued an Open Letter to the Israeli government, stating that Israel’s policy proposal is “clearly unlawful, and will most likely have adverse consequences, including … consequences of an internationally wrongful act … [and] a high likelihood of violent…
On 5th June 2020 the “State of Palestine” submitted its response to the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Order requesting them to provide additional information about recent statements by the Palestinian organizations concerning the Oslo Accords (“Palestine’s Response on Oslo”).