"Settlements" Are Not Illegal

[Shusha]

New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.

First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.

...

It isn't just double standards. It is that the international community has created an artificial international law to apply only to Israel, even though that law simply doesn't exist in other contexts. Not that it exists and is ignored - it doesn't exist. When legal critics give their laundry lists of violations of international law by belligerent occupiers, they simply do not consider settlement activity to be illegal.

This is an extraordinarily important paper that not only reveals much about international law, but also about how much of what people call international law in context of Israel is simply a lie.

 

[MJB12741]

New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.

First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.

...

It isn't just double standards. It is that the international community has created an artificial international law to apply only to Israel, even though that law simply doesn't exist in other contexts. Not that it exists and is ignored - it doesn't exist. When legal critics give their laundry lists of violations of international law by belligerent occupiers, they simply do not consider settlement activity to be illegal.

This is an extraordinarily important paper that not only reveals much about international law, but also about how much of what people call international law in context of Israel is simply a lie.

Yes, but what about those Zionists stealing "Palestinian land" by building their wailing wall around the Al Aqsa Mosque?

 

[Boston1]

Well that sure was an interesting read.

And I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. Its another fine example of how people just invent nonsense in order to heap blame on Israel.

The Mandate for palestine clearly left ALL LAND west of the Jordan to the sea as available for the creation of the Jewish homeland. Which is exactly what Israel is doing. The idea that ANY of the land was to remain in Arab hands is simply silly. 80% or so of the mandate was immediately designated for Arab settlement with the remaining 20% or so being intended for Judaic settlement.

Yet there are actually people who will insist Israeli settlement is somehow illegal. Its not illegal, its nation building exactly as specified within the Mandate.

 

[Shusha]

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.
​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

That's the problem as pointed out in paper in the OP. "Settlements" are not illegal. Not anywhere in the world. Even in places where an occupying government (a real occupation -- not a fake one like Israel is made out to be) actively encourages settlements through incentives, payments, land ownership and other goodies. Its an interpretation which simply does not exist elsewhere, even in similar circumstances.

I see that this thread isn't getting much activity. I'll assume its because our regulars are quite aware of the truth of this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel plans and approves settlements. Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities. That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.

That said, other things become involved like the destruction and expropriation of Palestinian property. Both illegal.

The settlers do not move to Palestine. When they go they take Israel with them which is an illegal annexation of occupied territory.

 

[Shusha]

Israel plans and approves settlements.

Not illegal

Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities.

Not illegal.

That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.

Not illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

This is right on the button.

Israel plans and approves settlements.

Not illegal

Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities.

Not illegal.

That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.

Not illegal.

(COMMENT)

I often here this word "illegal" batted about; without any substantiation. This is one of those cases.

You can critique the Israeli Administration all you want, but there is very little you can say about the legality of this complaint. This is a frivolous allegation, made by a unproductive people, representing the virtual and continuous victim, that can't seem to manage Area "A."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel plans and approves settlements. Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities. That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.

That said, other things become involved like the destruction and expropriation of Palestinian property. Both illegal.

The settlers do not move to Palestine. When they go they take Israel with them which is an illegal annexation of occupied territory.

WRONG AGAIN as you have been shown many hundreds of times, the destruction of buildings used for any military purpose is allowed under the Geneva conventions.


Are you once again denying the Jews the right to have International law support their actions, and denying that international laws exist that that separated palestine into two sections 78% for the arab muslims and 22% for the Jews.

 

[Tehon]

The ICJ gave an advisory opinion in 2004 and its opinion was that settlements in the occupied territory were a breach of international law.


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:
"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979)i.

The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territor;! (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law

 

[Tehon]

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

Sir, it appears as though you forgot about paragraph 6.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

ICRC service

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

ICRC service

 

[Tehon]

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Would not the "violation of a criminal statute" be defined as a crime? I would think that the definition of "illegal" would constitute the violation of a law, international or otherwise, which I believe the Geneva Convention is an example of.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

No, I have not forgot about Paragraph 49(6) GCIV. Not at all. In fact I mentioned Article 49 in my commentary in Posting #5.

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

Sir, it appears as though you forgot about paragraph 6.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

ICRC service

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

ICRC service

(COMMENT)

Because so many people, like yourself, were misinterpreting Article 49(6), the that the ICRC made a plain text interpretation in 1958. In that commentary, which you will find ti the right if the ISRC Page covering Article 49. Just for your ease, I copied the applicable part here., with the important part in BOLD.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

You cannot simply read the language in a directive, law, ordinance, treaty, convention or other obligation and not read the interpretation (if any) that goes with it.

I know that the pro-Palestinians have often used Article 49(6) as a basis for saying the settlements are "illegal;" but that is crafty propaganda. They are truthful, but not telling the whole truth. The ICRC Conference made it clear, it only applies to "forcible transfers."

The Paragraph that you ARE CITING 49(6) refers to "PROTECTED PERSONS." The Israelis are "Civilians" -- BUT not "protected persons" for the purpose of the Geneva Convention as defined in Article 4 of the GCIV..

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
​

Please Read Footnote #13, above, found on Page #6, of the International Criminal Code "Elements of the Offense:" "13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND what the intent of the prohibition was: The entire purpose of this particular code is to prevent a reoccurrence of the actions by the NAZIs where the Jews were rounded up in Germany and Occupied Europe THEN sent to Extermination Camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, ,and Bełżec Poland, Janowska Ukraine, Jasenovac Croatia, Maly Trostenets Belaruis, Natzweiler-Struthof France, etc, etc, etc...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

No, I have not forgot about Paragraph 49(6) GCIV. Not at all. In fact I mentioned Article 49 in my commentary in Posting #5.

Shusha, et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points. But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times. Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal. No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers." The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control. Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

Elements of Crimes
The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

• Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population

Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly (FN#12) transferred,(FN#13) without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

Footnote #12 -13:
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

​

• Article 8 War crimes

Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory

Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,(FN#44) directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
​

2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​

Footnote #44:
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R

Sir, it appears as though you forgot about paragraph 6.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

ICRC service

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

ICRC service

(COMMENT)

Because so many people, like yourself, were misinterpreting Article 49(6), the that the ICRC made a plain text interpretation in 1958. In that commentary, which you will find ti the right if the ISRC Page covering Article 49. Just for your ease, I copied the applicable part here., with the important part in BOLD.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
COMMENTARY OF 1958

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers (4).

Footnote #4:
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;
​

You cannot simply read the language in a directive, law, ordinance, treaty, convention or other obligation and not read the interpretation (if any) that goes with it.

I know that the pro-Palestinians have often used Article 49(6) as a basis for saying the settlements are "illegal;" but that is crafty propaganda. They are truthful, but not telling the whole truth. The ICRC Conference made it clear, it only applies to "forcible transfers."

The Paragraph that you ARE CITING 49(6) refers to "PROTECTED PERSONS." The Israelis are "Civilians" -- BUT not "protected persons" for the purpose of the Geneva Convention as defined in Article 4 of the GCIV..

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
​

Please Read Footnote #13, above, found on Page #6, of the International Criminal Code "Elements of the Offense:" "13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND what the intent of the prohibition was: The entire purpose of this particular code is to prevent a reoccurrence of the actions by the NAZIs where the Jews were rounded up in Germany and Occupied Europe THEN sent to Extermination Camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, ,and Bełżec Poland, Janowska Ukraine, Jasenovac Croatia, Maly Trostenets Belaruis, Natzweiler-Struthof France, etc, etc, etc...

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel plans and approves settlements.

Not illegal

Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities.

Not illegal.

That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.

Not illegal.

What about the rest of my post?

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

I think you have this twisted-up.

Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Would not the "violation of a criminal statute" be defined as a crime?

(COMMENT)

In think that is what I said. We are talking about the International Criminal Statutes for the 2002 International Criminal Court.

I would think that the definition of "illegal" would constitute the violation of a law, international or otherwise, which I believe the Geneva Convention is an example of.

(COMMENT)

Well, the GCIV is an example of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It is not criminal law. However, some of the prohibitions that are articulated within the GCIV, are also articulated within the Rome Statutes, (International Criminal Law).

There is not just one system that completely describes the entire system of Laws. There is Customary and IHL and Criminal. And then there are non-binding pronouncements.

I'll use something you might be familiar with to illustrate the difference:

The creators attempted to dovetail them together. For instance, General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) spells out the criteria for "Aggression." However, the General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which originally defined the Act of Aggression was non-binding in 1974 when it was created. However, in 2010 (Inserted by resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010), when the Rome Statute Article 8 - Crime of Aggression went into force, Article 8 gave legal importance to the non-binding resolution; incorporated by reference:

Excerpt Article 8 (ICC)​

For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
​

Prior to 2010, the Act of Aggression was actually a violation of Treaty Law, The UN Charter, Article 2(4).

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I hope this explains it a little better.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

I just say your posting. We are both looking at the very same commentary.

Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

We disagree with its application. Luckily, the Criminal Code clarifies it.

Israel, as the Occupying Power, cannot police up a segment of its population and transfer (or compel them forcibly) to the West Bank.

Israel may not arrest, detail and deport (forcefully) any segment of its population to the West Bank.

The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

I just say your posting. We are both looking at the very same commentary.

Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

We disagree with its application. Luckily, the Criminal Code clarifies it.

Israel, as the Occupying Power, cannot police up a segment of its population and transfer (or compel them forcibly) to the West Bank.

Israel may not arrest, detail and deport (forcefully) any segment of its population to the West Bank.

The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority.​

Most Respectfully,
R

We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
ICRC service

You appear to be attempting to obfuscate by conflating two separate and independent paragraphs.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

I think you have this twisted-up.

Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute. However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.

Would not the "violation of a criminal statute" be defined as a crime?

(COMMENT)

In think that is what I said. We are talking about the International Criminal Statutes for the 2002 International Criminal Court.

I would think that the definition of "illegal" would constitute the violation of a law, international or otherwise, which I believe the Geneva Convention is an example of.

(COMMENT)

Well, the GCIV is an example of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It is not criminal law. However, some of the prohibitions that are articulated within the GCIV, are also articulated within the Rome Statutes, (International Criminal Law).

There is not just one system that completely describes the entire system of Laws. There is Customary and IHL and Criminal. And then there are non-binding pronouncements.

I'll use something you might be familiar with to illustrate the difference:
View attachment 90489 ​

The creators attempted to dovetail them together. For instance, General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) spells out the criteria for "Aggression." However, the General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which originally defined the Act of Aggression was non-binding in 1974 when it was created. However, in 2010 (Inserted by resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010), when the Rome Statute Article 8 - Crime of Aggression went into force, Article 8 gave legal importance to the non-binding resolution; incorporated by reference:

Excerpt Article 8 (ICC)
For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
​

Prior to 2010, the Act of Aggression was actually a violation of Treaty Law, The UN Charter, Article 2(4).

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I hope this explains it a little better.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I agree, but is anything contrary to law illegal?