RE:
Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,
Although most do not realize, but the "Introduction" of the aforementioned paper does imply, there is a difference between between the International Criminal Code (Rome Statutes) anf the International Humanitarian Law (IHL • Geneva Convention) pertaining to this issue. The Rome Statues make it just a bit clearer.
The deeper understanding – based on a systematic survey of all available state practice – of the prohibition on settlements should inform legal discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including potential investigations into such activity by the International Criminal Court. More broadly, the new understanding of Art. 49(6) developed here can also shed significant light on the proper treatment of several ongoing occupations, from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, to the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, whose settlement policies this Article is the first to document.
(full article online)
Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories by Eugene Kontorovich :: SSRN
(COMMENT)
As often as Article 49(6) GCIV - Settlements is raised, it always amazes me how little people understand the legal consequences. Everyone talks about the Geneva Code wording, but very few mention the three times it is mentioned in the Criminal Code:
Article 6 • Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(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;
The Article 6 citation and the Article 7 citation are out - simply because the action has to be "forced." And in these two Articles one can readily see that the use of "force" is written directly into the code. Now, some people argue that Article 8(b)(viii) • War Crime • does not stipulate that it must be "forced;" other argue that the intent s implied. How do we tell who is correct? (Rhetorical) Well we look-up the "Elements of the Offense:"
Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1
War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer
Elements
1. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of
an armed conflict.
Here it is plain... The Article 8 accusation only applies to persons "protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949."
Additionally, there is an argument to be made that on a subordite level concerning the status of Area "C" lots/property and the jurisdiction of the Israelis relative to the agreement signed, as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.
Most Respectfully,
R
