Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:16:47.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legality of Closure on Land and Safe Passage Between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2020

Marco LONGOBARDO
Marco LONGOBARDO*
Affiliation:
Westminster Law School, University of Westminster, London, United [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the legality of the land closure imposed upon the Gaza Strip by Israel. After having considered the area under occupation, the paper argues that the legality of the closure must be determined under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the principle of self-determination of peoples, and the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In the light of these rules, the arbitrary closure of the Gaza Strip should be considered illegal because it breaches the unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and because it violates the freedom of movement of the local population. Moreover, the closure breaches the relevant rules pertaining to the transit of goods in occupied territory. The paper concludes that most of the violations caused by the closure affect peremptory rules which produce obligations erga omnes, so that any state in the international community is entitled to react under the law of state responsibility.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 50 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

*

Lecturer in International Law. Although some of the research for this paper was conducted in the framework of a project supported by the Norwegian Refugee Council, the paper reflects my views only. Thanks to Itay Epshtain for having discussed these issues with me. All internet references last accessed on 31 July 2020, when the manuscript was finalized. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

1. Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of International Law, Including International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, Resulting from the Israeli Attacks on the Flotilla of Ships Carrying Humanitarian Assistance, 27 September 2010, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/21 (2010); The Turkel Commission, “The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010” (23 January 2011), online: Jewish Virtual Library <www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/TurkelCommission.pdf> [Turkel Report]; Turkish National Commission of Inquiry, “Report on the Israeli Attack on the Humanitarian Aid Convoy to Gaza on 31 May 2010” (11 February 2011), online: Turkish Government <www.mfa.gov.tr/data/Turkish%20Report%20Final%20-%20UN%20Copy.pdf>; Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (September 2011), online: UN <https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/GazaFlotillaPanelReport.pdf> [Flotilla Incident Report].

2. On this topic (and with some discussion of the land closure in connection to the blockade), see e.g. SANGER, Andrew, “The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla” (2010) 13 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 397Google Scholar; BUCHAN, Russel, “The International Law of Naval Blockade and Israel's Interception of the Mavi Marmara” (2011) 58 Netherlands International Law Review 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; GUILFOYLE, Douglas, “The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict” (2011) 81 British Yearbook of International Law 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ERAKAT, Noura, “It's Not Wrong, It's Illegal: Situating the Gaza Blockade Between International Law and the UN Response” (2011) 11 UCLA Journal of Islamic & Near Eastern Law 37Google Scholar.

3. For two exceptions, see WEINER, Justus Reid and MORRISON, Diane, “Legal Implications of ‘Safe Passage’: Reconciling a Viable Palestinian State with Israel's Security Requirements” (2007) 22 Connecticut Journal of International Law 233Google Scholar; LUFT, Michal, “Living in a Legal Vacuum: The Case of Israel's Legal Position and Policy towards Gaza Residents” (2018) 51 Israel Law Review 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. “Behind the Headlines: Israel Designates Gaza a ‘Hostile Territory’” (24 September 2007), online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Issues/Pages/Gaza%20designated%20a%20%E2%80%9CHostile%20Territory%E2%80%9D%2024-Sep-2007.aspx>.

5. Turkel Report, supra note 1 at para. 1.

6. Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories [COGAT], “Unclassified Status of Authorizations for the Entry of Palestinians into Israel, their Passage between Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip and their Travel Abroad” (updated as of 27 August 2019) (unofficial English translation), online: Gisha <www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/LegalDocuments/procedures/general/50en.pdf>.

7. For different views on Palestinian statehood, see QUIGLEY, John, The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; SALMON, Jean, “La qualité d'Etat de la Palestine” (2012) 45 Revue belge de droit international 13Google Scholar; LONGOBARDO, Marco, “Lo Stato di Palestina: emersione fattuale e autodeterminazione dei popoli prima e dopo il riconoscimento dello status di Stato non membro delle Nazioni Unite” in DISTEFANO, Marcella, ed., Il principio di autodeterminazione dei popoli alla prova del nuovo millennio (Padua: CEDAM, 2014), 9Google Scholar; GARCIA, Thierry, ed., La Palestine: d'un etat non membre de l'organisation des Nations Unies a un etat souverain? (Paris: Pedone, 2016)Google Scholar; MOMTAZ, Djamchid, “La controverse sur le statut de la Palestine” in WOLFRUM, Rüdiger, SERŠIĆ, Maja, and ŠOŠIĆ, Trpimir, eds., Contemporary Developments in International Law: Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 102Google Scholar; SAKRAN, Shadi, The Legal Consequences of Limited Statehood: Palestine in Multilateral Frameworks (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization, A Study on the Statehood of Palestine under International Law (New Delhi: AALCO, 2013).

8. On the Palestinian accession to these conventions, see LONGOBARDO, Marco, “La recente adesione palestinese alle convenzioni di diritto umanitario e ai principali trattati a tutela dei diritti dell'uomo” (2014) 1 Ordine internazionale e diritti umani 771Google Scholar; SAKRAN, Shadi and Mika, HAYASHI, “Palestine's Accession to Multilateral Treaties: Effective Circumvention of the Statehood Question and its Consequences” (2017) 25 Journal of International Cooperation Studies 81Google Scholar.

9. On these agreements, see infra Part III.

10. See Question of Palestine, 15 December 1988, GA Res. 43/177, UN Doc. A/RES/43/177 (1988) at para. 3.

11. For a variety of opinions on this issue, see e.g. Alain BOCKEL, “Le retrait israélien de Gaza et ses conséquences sur le droit international” (2005) 51 Annuaire Français de Droit International 16; Yuval SHANY, “Faraway, So Close: The Legal Status of Gaza after Israel's Disengagement” (2005) 8 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 369; SCOBBIE, Iain, “An Intimate Disengagement: Israel's Withdrawal from Gaza, the Law of Occupation and of Self-Determination” in COTRAN, Eugene and LAU, Martin, eds., Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, Vol. 11 (2004–2005) (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 3Google Scholar; HUPKES, S.D. DIKKER, What Constitutes Occupation? Israel as the Occupying Power in the Gaza Strip after the Disengagement (Leiden: EM Meijers Instituut, 2008)Google Scholar; Shane DARCY and John REYNOLDS, “An Enduring Occupation: The Status of the Gaza Strip from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law” (2010) 15 Journal of Conflict & Security Law 211; Konstantinos MASTORODIMOS, “How and When Do Military Occupations End?” (2009) 21 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law 109; Solon SOLOMON, “Occupied or Not: The Question of Gaza's Legal Status after the Israeli Disengagement” (2011) 19 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 59; BENVENISTI, Eyal, The International Law of Occupation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 211–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanne CUYCKENS, “Is Israel Still an Occupying Power in Gaza?” (2016) 63 Netherlands International Law Review 275.

12. See generally MALANCZUK, Peter, “Israel: Status, Territory and Occupied Territories” in BERNHARDT, Rudolf, ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Instalment 12 (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1990), 149Google Scholar; DINSTEIN, Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019) at 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, 13 September 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1525.

14. Agreement on Gaza Strip and Jericho Area, 4 May 1994, 33 I.L.M. 622.

15. Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 28 September 1995, 37 I.L.M. 557.

16. “Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process” (20 April 2005), online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/israels%20disengagement%20plan-%20renewing%20the%20peace%20process%20apr%202005.aspx>.

17. Supra note 4.

18. Civil Wrongs Order (State Liability) (Declaration on Enemy Territory–Gaza Strip), 7 October 2014, online: Hamoked <www.hamoked.org/files/2015/1159680_eng.pdf> (unofficial English translation).

19. Operation Cast Lead (December 2008–January 2009); Operation Pillar of Clouds (November 2012); Operation Protective Edge (June–July 2014).

20. See Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 18 March 2019, UN Doc. A/HRC/40/CRP.2 (2019).

21. See e.g. UN Doc. A/60/PV.5 (2005) at 46.

22. HCJ 9132/07 Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. Prime Minister (27 January 2008) at para. 12, online: Cardozo University <https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/upload/opinions/Ahmed%20v.%20Prime%20Minister.pdf> (unofficial English translation) [Al-Bassiouni].

23. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, 8 January 2009, UN Doc. S/RES/1860 (2009), preamble; Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, 19 January 2010, GA Res. 64/94, UN Doc. A/RES/64/94 (2010), at para. 4; Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 25 September 2009, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48 (2009), at paras. 273–9; UN Doc. A/HRC/15/21 (2010), supra note 1 at paras. 63–6; Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Established Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution S-21/1, 24 June 2015, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/CRP.4 (2015), at paras. 26–31; UN Doc. A/HRC/40/CRP.2 (2019), supra note 20 at paras. 61–7; Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, “Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia: Article 53(1) Report” (6 November 2014), at paras. 27–9; Prosecution Request Pursuant to Article 19(3) for a Ruling on the Court's Territorial Jurisdiction in Palestine, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/18-12 (22 January 2020), at para. 80; Peter MAURER (as President of the International Committee of the Red Cross), “Challenges to International Humanitarian Law: Israel's Occupation Policy” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 1504 at 1506.

24. See e.g. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] I.C.J. Rep. 136 at para. 79 [Wall Opinion]; Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), [2005] I.C.J. Rep. 168 at para. 172 [DRC v. Uganda].

25. See FERRARO, Tristan, “Determining the Beginning and End of an Occupation under International Humanitarian Law” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 133 at 134–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Department of Defense Law of War Manual (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2016), s. 11.2.1.

27. Prosecutor v. Naletilić, Trial Chamber, IT-98-34-T (31 March 2003) at para. 217 [Naletilić]; Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Appeals Chamber, IT-04-74-A (29 November 2017) at para. 320 [Prlić].

28. Tristan FERRARO, “Expert Meeting: Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory” (International Committee of the Red Cross, March 2012) at 17; GRIGNON, Julia, “The Geneva Conventions and the End of Occupation” in CLAPHAM, Andrew, GAETA, Paola, and SASSÒLI, Marco, eds., The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1575 at 1594–5Google Scholar; FERRARO, Tristan and CAMERON, Lindsey, “Article 2: Application of the Convention” in International Committee of the Red Cross, Updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), at paras. 307–9Google Scholar.

29. For the opposite view, which unfortunately cannot be explored here in detail, see Solomon, supra note 11; Benvenisti, supra note 11 at 211–12; Cuyckens, supra note 11.

30. On the interpretation of the notion of territory under the law of occupation, see generally LONGOBARDO, Marco, “The Occupation of Maritime Territory under International Humanitarian Law” (2019) 95 International Law Studies 322Google Scholar.

31. See e.g. Bockel, supra note 11 at 23; Carey JAMES, “Mere Words: The Enemy Entity Designation of the Gaza Strip” (2009) 32 Hastings International & Comparative Law Review 643; Darcy and Reynolds, supra note 11 at 235; Grignon, supra note 28 at 1593–6; Eric DAVID, Principes de Droit des Conflits Armés, 6th ed. (Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2019) at 699; Dinstein, supra note 12 at 297.

32. This is also the position of those who consider that the Gaza Strip is no longer occupied under the traditional test embodied in art. 42 of the HR, but the law of occupation should apply following a functional approach (see e.g. GROSS, Aeyal, The Writing on the Wall: Rethinking the International Law of Occupation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) at 213–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

33. Ibid., at 298.

34. This view has been suggested by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims–Eritrea's Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–13, 14, 21, 25 & 26, Decision of 19 December 2005, [2009] XXVI Reports of International Arbitral Awards 291 at para 27. See also Luft, supra note 3 at 201.

35. See Al-Bassiouni, supra note 22 at para. 12. In support of this view, see Solomon, supra note 11.

36. Al-Bassiouni, supra note 22.

37. See e.g. Yuval SHANY, “The Law Applicable to Non-Occupied Gaza: A Comment on Bassiouni v. The Prime Minister of Israel” (2009) 42 Israel Law Review 101 at 108; Dinstein, supra note 12 at 300–1.

38. See Marco LONGOBARDO, The Use of Armed Force in Occupied Territory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) at 20–1. Indeed, the very Section III of the HR 1907, which embodies rules applicable during an occupation, is labelled “Military authority over the territory of the hostile state” (Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907, 205 CTS 277).

39. See e.g. Shany, supra note 37; Gabriella VENTURINI, “L'operazione militare di Israele contro Gaza e il diritto internazionale umanitario” (2009) 3 Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale 309 at 313.

40. “Behind the Headlines: The Myth of an Israeli Siege on Gaza” (17 August 2014), online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Issues/Pages/The-myth-of-an-Israeli-siege-on-Gaza-17-Aug-2014.aspx>.

41. Françoise HAMPSON, “A Terminological Issue: What Is a Siege?” (2016) 46 Collegium 90 at 93.

42. See generally Emanuela-Chiara GILLARD, “Sieges, the Law and Protecting Civilians” (27 June 2019), online: Chatham House <www.chathamhouse.org/publication/sieges-law-and-PROTECTING-civilians>.

43. See e.g. Hampson, supra note 41 at 93; Marco SASSòLI, International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2019) at 306.

44. The United States of America v. Willelm List et al., 19 February 1948, Nuremberg Military Tribunal, (1948) 9 L.R.T.W.C. 34 at 56; Naletilić, supra note 27 at para. 217; Prlić, supra note 27 at para. 320.

45. For more on this, see Longobardo, supra note 38 at 198–204.

46. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [GCIV].

47. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.

48. See the authoritative collection of customary rules in Jean-Marie HENCKAERTS and Louise DOSWALD-BECK, eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

49. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 124 (discussing the application of art. 23(g) of the HR).

50. UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48 (2009), supra note 23 at para. 77; UN Doc. A/HRC/15/21 (2010), supra note 1 at paras. 62–6; Flotilla Incident Report, supra note 1 at para. 73.

51. HCJ 769/02 Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Israel (14 December 2006), at para. 18, unofficial translation in (2007) 46 I.L.M. 375; Al-Bassiouni, supra note 22 at paras. 12–15; HCJ 201/09 Physicians for Human Rights v. Prime Minister (19 January 2009), at para. 14, online: International Crimes Database <https://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/Israel/Physicians_v_PM_SC_Judgment_19-1-09_EN.pdf> (unofficial English translation); Turkel Report, supra note 1 at paras. 41, 44.

52. CASSESE, Antonio, International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) at 420Google Scholar; Dapo AKANDE, “Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts” in Elizabeth WILMSHURST, ed., International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 32 at 47–8; Robert KOLB and Sylvain VITÉ, Le droit de l'occupation militaire (Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2009) at 352; Kenneth WATKIN, “Use of Force during Occupation: Law Enforcement and Conduct of Hostilities” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 267 at 293; Noam ZAMIR, Classification of Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Impact of Foreign Intervention in Civil Wars (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017) at 166; Longobardo, supra note 38 at 226–9.

53. See Ford v. Surget, US Supreme Court, (1878) 97 U.S. 594 at 614; Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., SCSL, Judgment of 2 March 2009, at paras. 982–8. See also Law of War Manual, supra note 26 at s. 11.1.3.3.

54. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered into force 23 March 1976) [ICCPR].

55. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 6 I.L.M. 360 (entered into force 3 January 1976) [ICESCR].

56. See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 226 at para. 25 [Nuclear Weapons Opinion]; Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 106; DRC v. Uganda, supra note 24 at para. 216.

57. On this topic, see e.g. Eyal BENVENISTI, “The Applicability of Human Rights Conventions to Israel and to the Occupied Territories” (1992) 26 Israel Law Review 24; Orna BEN-NAFTALI and Yuval SHANY, “Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories” (2004) 37 Israel Law Review 17; Yutaka ARAI-TAKAHASHI, The Law of Occupation: Continuity and Change of International Humanitarian Law, and Its Interaction with International Human Rights Law (Leiden: Brill, 2009) at 401–607; Noam LUBELL, “Human Rights Obligations in Military Occupation” (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 317; Víctor Luis GUTIéRREZ CASTILLO, “La aplicación extraterritorial del Derecho internacional de los derechos humanos en casos de ocupación beligerante” (2018) 36 Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales 1.

58. For more details, see the case-law analyzed by Longobardo, supra note 38 at 71–80.

59. Nuclear Weapons Opinion, supra note 56 at para. 25.

60. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) [VCLT].

61. See also Hassan v. the United Kingdom, ECHR Grand Chamber, Judgment of 16 September 2014, at para. 100. For more on this interpretive criterion, see Richard GARDINER, Treaty Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) at 298–333.

62. Lubell, supra note 57 at 323; Gross, supra note 32 at 214.

63. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 112.

64. Lubell, supra note 57 at 323–4.

65. See infra, sections V.B and V.C.

66. Division for Palestinian Rights, “Developments Related to the Middle East Peace Process” (31 December 1999), online: UN <unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EEAF13D53D3503B285256F9B005B49E1>.

67. Invitation to the Palestine Liberation Organization, 14 October 1974, GA Res. 3210 (XXIX), UN Doc. A/RES/3210 (XXIX) (1974). For more on this, see Anis F. KASSIM, “The Palestine Liberation Organization's Claim to Status: A Juridical Analysis under International Law” (1980) 9 Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 1; Quigley, supra note 7 at 133–48.

68. Claude LAZARUS, “Le Statut International des Mouvements de Libération Nationale à l'Organisation des Nations Unies” (1974) 20 Annuaire Français de Droit International 173 at 198–9; Julio A. BARBERIS, “Nouvelles questions concernant la personnalité juridique international” (1983) 179 Recueil des Cours 145 at 259–64; Antonio CASSESE, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) at 169; M. Angeles RUIZ COLOMÉ, Guerras civiles y guerras coloniales (Madrid: Eurolex, 1996) at 41–86.

69. This view is common in legal scholarship. See e.g. Fabio MARCELLI, “Gli accordi fra Israele e OLP nel diritto internazionale” (1994) 77 Rivista di diritto internationale 430 at 464; Eyal BENVENISTI, “The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles: A Framework for Future Settlement” (1993) 4 European Journal of International Law 542 at 544–5; Peter MALANCZUK, “Some Basic Aspects of the Agreements between Israel and the PLO from the Perspective of International Law” (1996) 7 European Journal of International Law 485 at 488–92; Geoffrey R. WATSON, The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) at 55–102; James CRAWFORD, “Israel (1948–1949) and Palestine (1998–1999): Two Studies in the Creation of States” in Guy S. GOODWIN-GILL and Stefan TALMON, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 95 at 120–1. For an isolated contrary view, see Christine CHINKIN, “Normative Developments in the International Legal System” in Dinah SHELTON, ed., Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 21 at 26.

70. Note that art. 3 of the VCLT clarifies that “[t]he fact that the present Convention does not apply to international agreements concluded between States […] shall not affect […] the legal force of such agreements”.

71. See e.g. the Israeli communication to the depositary of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Depository notification C.N.63.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.10 (Israel: Communication) (23 January 2015): “‘Palestine’ […] lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid Statute under general international law, as well as under the terms of the Rome Statute and of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements” (emphasis added); Office of the Attorney General, “The International Criminal Court's Lack of Jurisdiction over the So-Called ‘Situation in Palestine’” (20 December 2019), at paras. 55–60, online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2019/Documents/ICCs%20lack%20of%20jurisdiction%20over%20so-called%20%E2%80%9Csituation%20in%20Palestine%E2%80%9D%20-%20AG.pdf>.

72. See e.g. Julian BORGER, “Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas Ends Security Agreement with Israel and US”, The Guardian (20 May 2020), online: The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/20/palestinian-leader-mahmoud-abbas-ends-security-agreement-with-israel-and-us>. Palestine acknowledged that this was only a threat in its submission to the International Criminal Court (The State of Palestine's Response to the Pre-Trial Chamber's Order Requesting Additional Information, 4 June 2020, ICC-01/18-135, at para. 13).

73. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, 23 December 2016, SC Res. 2334, UN Doc. S/RES/2334 (2016), preamble.

74. Ibid., at para. 7.

75. Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, 26 December 2019, GA Res. 74/89, UN Doc. A/RES/74/89 (2019), preamble.

76. See arts. 7, 47, GCIV.

77. Antonio CASSESE, “The Israel-PLO Agreement and Self-Determination” (1993) 4 European Journal of International Law 564 at 568–9.

78. See extensively John QUIGLEY, “The PLO-Israeli Interim Agreements and the Geneva Civilians Convention” in Stephen BOWEN, ed., Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Palestinian Occupied Territories (Leiden: Kluwer Law, 1997), 25; Robert KOLB, “Etude sur l'occupation et sur l'article 47 de la IVeme Convention de Genève du 12 août 1949 relative à la protection des personnes civiles en temps de guerre: le degré d'intangibilité des droits en territoire occupé” (2002) 10 African Yearbook of International Law 267.

79. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 118. See in general Paul J.I.M. De WAART, Dynamics of Self-Determination in Palestine: Protection of Peoples as a Human Right (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Victor KATTAN, From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891–1949 (London: Pluto Press, 2009) at 117–45; Antonello TANCREDI, “Le droit a l'autodétermination du peuple Palestinien” in Thierry GARCIA, ed., La Palestine: d'un etat non membre de l'organisation des Nations Unies a un etat souverain? (Paris: Pedone, 2016), 33.

80. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States, 24 October 1970, GA Res. 2626 (XXV), UN Doc. A/RES/2626 (1970).

81. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, [2019] I.C.J. Rep. 95, at para. 155 [Chagos Opinion].

82. See in particular the case-law analyzed by Luft, supra note 3. More generally, on the contribution of the Supreme Court of Israel, see David KRETZMER, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (New York: State University of New York Press, 2002); Rouba AL-SALEM, Security, Rights and Law: The Israeli High Court of Justice and Israeli Settlements in the Occupied West Bank (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018).

83. See on domestic decisions, Alain PELLET and Daniel MÜLLER, “Article 38” in Andreas ZIMMERMANN, Christian J. TAMS, Karin OELLERS-FRAHM, and Christian TOMUSCHAT, eds., The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 819 at 953; see on domestic legislation, Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland) (Merits), 25 May 1925, [1926] P.C.I.J. Rep. Series A – No. 7, 3 at 19.

84. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 12 December 2001, GA Res. A/RES/56/83, corrected by UN Doc. A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4 (2001).

85. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), [2012] I.C.J. Rep. 99 at para. 55 [Jurisdictional Immunities]; International Law Commission [ILC], Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, UN Doc. A/73/10 (2018), Conclusion 6.2.

86. Art. 31(3)(b) of the VCLT.

87. See HCJ 69/81 Abu Aita et al. v. Regional Commander of the Judea and Samaria Area et al. (5 April 1983), at para. 50(c), online: Hamoked <www.hamoked.org/files/2011/290_eng.pdf> (unofficial English translation); Marco SASSòLI, “Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers” (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 661 at 664–5.

88. UN Compensation Commission, Governing Council Decision no. 9 (6 March 1992), 109 I.L.R. 593, at paras. 12–15; DRC v. Uganda, supra note 24 at para. 250.

89. Grahame v. Director of Prosecutions, Germany, British Zone of Control, Control Commission, Court of Criminal Appeal, [1947] AD Case No. 103, 14 I.L.R. 228 at 232.

90. HCJ 393/82 Jam'iat Iscan Al-Ma'almoun v. IDF Commander (25 July 1982), at para. 18, online: Hamoked <www.hamoked.org/Document.aspx?dID=160> (unofficial English translation) [Jam'iat Iscan Al-Ma'almoun].

91. World Bank, “Economic Monitoring Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee” (27 September 2018), at para. 33, online: World Bank <documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/413851537281565349/pdf/129986-REVISED-World-Bank-Sept-2018-AHLC-Report-final.pdf>.

92. See Luft, supra note 3 at 201.

93. See Marco LONGOBARDO, “The Relevance of the Concept of Due Diligence for International Humanitarian Law” (2019) 37 Wisconsin International Law Journal 44 at 54–5.

94. The same argument is applicable to the role of Hamas in relation to the implementation of Israel's negative and positive obligations under international human rights law, as mentioned supra, Part II and infra, section V.C.

95. See infra, Part V.

96. Jean PICTET, ed., Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. IV: Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958), at 225.

97. International Committee of the Red Cross News Release No. 10/103, “Gaza Closure: Not Another Year!” (14 June 2010), online: ICRC <www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/update/palestine-update-140610.htm>; UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48 (2009), supra note 23 at 24; Shany, supra note 37 at 102; Shane DARCY, “The Prohibition of Collective Punishment” in Andrew CLAPHAM, Paola GAETA, and Marco SASSÒLI, eds., The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1155 at 1162–3.

98. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967, 15 July 2020, UN Doc. A/HRC/44/60 (2020), at paras. 53–71.

99. See “The Unsafe Road” (8 December 1999), online: Palestinian Centre for Human Rights <www.pchrgaza.org/en/?p=4755>; Ilene PRUSHER, “Palestinians Queue to Use Safe Route to West Bank” The Guardian (26 October 1999), online: The Guardian <www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/26/israel>; Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine, 20 January 2000, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/NGO/5 (2000), at para. 9.

100. See “Closures”, online: Palestinian Centre for Human Rights <www.pchrgaza.org/Themes/intro.closure.htm>; Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine, 21 November 2000, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/112 (2001).

101. U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2001, Vol. II (Washington, DC: Department of State, 2002) at 2126.

102. See HCJ 7015/02, 7019/02 Ajuri et al. v. IDF Commander in the West Bank et al. (3 September 2002), at para. 22, online: Hamoked <http://www.hamoked.org/files/2010/110_eng.pdf> (unofficial English translation). See also HCJ 11120/05 Hamdan et al. v. Commander of Southern Region et al. (25 July 2007), at para. 14, online: ICRC <ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl-nat.nsf/caseLaw.xsp?documentId=125BF9776A200883C12575BC002B942B&action=openDocument&xp_countrySelected=IL&xp_topicSelected=GVAL-992BUG&from=topic&SessionID=DUJCM3QC81> (unofficial English translation), according to which “the view of unity of Gaza and the Judea and Samaria area, in the comprehensive Palestinian context, still stands in principle” (references omitted).

103. See James CRAWFORD, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 448, note 286.

104. See Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 16 at para. 52; David RAIČ, Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International, 2002), at 206–20; Ralph WILDE, International Territorial Administration: How Trusteeship and the Civilizing Mission Never Went Away (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 167; Kattan, supra note 79 at 128–40. For a critique of the mandate system in relation to the attainment of self-determination, see Antony ANGHIE, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 115–95.

105. See Chagos Opinion, supra nota 81 at para. 160. See more generally Victor KATTAN, “Partition” in Rüdiger WOLFRUM, ed., Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

106. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 14 December 1960, GA Res. 1514 (XV), UN Doc. A/RES/1514 (XV) (1960).

107. See e.g. The Right of The Palestinian People to Self-Determination, 21 January 2020, GA Res. 74/139, UN Doc. A/RES/74/139 (2019), preamble, which stressed “the need for respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.

108. UN Doc. S/RES/1860 (2009), supra note 23.

109. See e.g. AAA 4620/11 Qishawi et al. v. Minister of Interior et al. (4 July 2012), at para. 5, online: Gisha <gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/10_years_10_judgments/Qishawi%207.pdf> (unofficial English translation); HCJ 495/12 Azza Izzat et al. v. Minister of Defense (24 September 2012), at para. 17, online: Gisha <gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/10_years_10_judgments/Izzat%208.pdf> (unofficial English translation) [Azza Izzat]; COGAT, supra note 6 at Section General.F.

110. Benedetto CONFORTI, Diritto internazionale, 10th ed. (Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 2015) at 249.

111. Wye River Memorandum, 23 October 1998, 37 I.L.M. 1251.

112. “Agreed Documents on Movement and Access from and to Gaza” (15 November 2005), online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/mfadocuments/pages/agreed%20documents%20on%20movement%20and%20access%20from%20and%20to%20gaza%2015-nov-2005.aspx>.

113. Case Concerning the Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) (Merits), Judgment of 12 April 1960, [1961] I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 25 [Right of Passage].

114. Ibid., Application Instituting Proceedings, at 6.

115. Right of Passage, supra note 113 at 43.

116. Ibid., at 39–40.

117. Sergio MARCHISIO, “Servitudes” in Rüdiger WOLFRUM, ed., Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), para. 17; Andrew CLAPHAM, Brierly's Law of Nations, 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 186–7; Alexander ORAKHELASHVILI, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 8th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019) at 150–1.

118. See generally Cassese, supra note 52 at 71–89.

119. See Azza Izzat, supra note 109 at para. 17 (per Judge E. Rubinstein).

120. COGAT, supra note 6 at s. C.1.

121. The opposite and incorrect claim is advanced by e.g. Elizabeth SAMSON, “Is Gaza Occupied? Redefining the Status of Gaza under International Law” (2010) 25 American University International Law Review 915 at 944–6.

122. Kolb and Vité, supra note 52 at 344; Darragh MURRAY, Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) at 244.

123. Pictet, supra note 96 at 367.

124. Ibid., at 256 (emphasis added). The Commentary goes on to affirm that “[i]n that respect [assigned residence] differs from “being placed under surveillance” which was the idea referred to in the International Committee's draft and is a form of supervision which allows the person concerned to remain in his usual place of residence”. Consequently, the British view that considers “being placed under surveillance” as a form of assigned residence is inaccurate (UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) s. 9.32).

125. Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II(A) (Berne: Federal Political Department, 1978) at 826.

126. Prosecutor v. Delalić, Judgement of 16 November 1998, Case No. IT-96-21-T, at para. 578 (emphasis added) [Delalić]. See also Kolb and Vité, supra note 52 at 377.

127. Arai-Takahashi, supra note 57 at 489–90 (referring to measures affecting “individual persons”).

128. For the measures adopted by Israel, see OCHA, “COVID-19 Emergency Situation Report 1 (as of 1200 hrs, 24 March 2020)” (24 March 2020), online: OCHA <www.ochaopt.org/content/covid-19-emergency-situation-report-1>.

129. For more on this provision, see Marco LONGOBARDO, “The Duties of Occupying Powers in Relation to the Fight against Covid-19” EJIL:Talk! (8 April 2020), online: EJIL:Talk! <www.ejiltalk.org/the-duties-of-occupying-powers-in-relation-to-the-fight-against-covid-19/>. Compare to Solon SOLOMON, “Israel and its International Law COVID-19 Obligations Towards Gaza” Opinio Juris (4 April 2020), online: Opinio Juris <opiniojuris.org/2020/04/04/covid-19-symposium-israel-and-its-international-law-covid-19-obligations-towards-gaza/> (from the perspective that the Gaza Strip is no longer under occupation).

130. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 111; Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Israel, 21 November 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4 (2014), at para. 5.

131. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement), 2 November 1999, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), at para. 7. See also art. 13(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, GA Res. 217 A (III), UN Doc. A/217/A (1948) [UDHR] (“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”).

132. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 111. On the duty to interpret treaties in a way that gives them effective meaning, see generally Céline BRAUMANN and August REINISCH, “Effet Utile” in Joseph KLINGLER, Yuri PARKHOMENKO, and Constantinos SALONIDIS, eds., Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2018), 47.

133. See also art. 13(2) of the UDHR (“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”).

134. Kolb and Vité, supra note 52 at 344.

135. UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), supra note 131 at para. 13.

136. Ibid., at para. 14.

137. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 136.

138. COGAT, supra note 6 at s. B.1.b.

139. UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), supra note 131 at para. 14, see also para. 16; Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 136.

140. COGAT, supra note 6 at s. B.5.f.5.

141. Valentina AZAROV, “From Discretion to Necessity: Third State Responsibility for Israel's Control of Stay and Entry into Palestinian Territory” (2014) 6 Journal of Human Rights Practice 327 at 334.

142. UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), supra note 131 at para. 21.

143. William A. SCHABAS, Nowak's Commentary on the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 3rd revised ed. (Kehl: NP Engel, 2019) at 326.

144. UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4 (2014), supra note 130 at para. 12.

145. Ibid.

146. Ibid., at para. 18.

147. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Israel, 12 November 2019, UN Doc. E/C.12/ISR/CO/4 (2019), at para. 11(c).

148. Concluding Observations on the Combined Seventeenth to Nineteenth Reports of Israel, 27 January 2020, UN Doc. CERD/C/ISR/CO/17-19 (2019), at para. 44.

149. Ibid., at para. 45.

150. See arts. 1, 3, VCLT.

151. See art. 67(1), VCLT, according to which the “notice” of termination under art. 65(1) must be in writing.

152. Mutatis mutandis, see what happened with the “Agreement on a Temporary International Presence in Hebron” (9 May 1996), online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/agreement%20on%20temporary%20international%20presence%20in%20h.aspx>, according to which an international observer mission was deployed in Hebron. In 2019, Israel decided to terminate the agreement, withdrawing its consent to the presence of the mission (Jacob MAGID, “Israel to Boot International Observers out of Hebron, Netanyahu Says” The Times of Israel (28 January 2019), online: The Times of Israel <www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-boot-international-observers-out-of-hebron-netanyahu-says/>).

153. See e.g. UN Doc. S/RES/1860 (2009), supra note 23 at para. 6; UN Doc. A/RES/74/89 (2019), supra note 75 at para. 14.

154. Art. 2(i) of the 1999 Protocol, supra note 66.

155. Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, 10 October 2018, UN Doc. A/73/420 (2018), at paras. 16–17.

156. See, mutatis mutandis, art. 60(5), VCLT. One author noted that the safe passage provisions of these agreements “really require more concessions by Israel than the Palestinians” (Watson, supra note 69 at 143).

157. See COGAT, supra note 6 at s. B.2, B.5.f.1 (for treatment abroad).

158. WHO, Right to Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: 2018 (Cairo: WHO, 2018) at 39.

159. Ibid.

160. Gilles GIACCA and Ellen NOHLE, “Positive Obligations of the Occupying Power: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories” (2019) 19 Human Rights Law Review 491 at 512.

161. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), 11 August 2000, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000), at para. 12(b).

162. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, 16 December 2011, UN Doc. E/C.12/ISR/CO/3 (2011), at para. 32; Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Israel, 12 November 2019, UN Doc. E/C.12/ISR/CO/4 (2014), at para. 58.

163. Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Israel, supra note 162 at para. 59.

164. See e.g. the positions of Australia (Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review–Israel, 19 December 2013, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/15 (2013), at para. 136.67; Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review–Israel, 20 April 2018, UN Doc. A/HRC/38/15 (2018), at para. 118.101); Maldives (UN Doc. A/HRC/25/15 (2013), at para. 118.174); Canada (UN Doc. A/HRC/25/15 (2013), at para. 118.176).

165. WHO, supra note 158 at 35.

166. UN Doc. A/73/420 (2018), supra note 155 at para. 18.

167. “Inhuman treatment” in international human rights law refers to a treatment that causes either actual bodily injury or intense mental or physical suffering (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (Art. 7) (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), 10 March 1992, UN Doc. A/44/40 (1992), at para. 5; Labita v. Italy, ECHR Grand Chamber, Judgment of 6 April 2000, at para. 120; Kudka v. Poland, ECHR Grand Chamber, Judgment of 26 October 2000, at para. 92). Under international humanitarian law, “inhuman treatment” is defined as “an intentional act or omission … which is deliberate and not accidental, which causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity” (Delalić, supra note 126 at para. 543).

168. COGAT, supra note 6 at s. A.3.

169. Ibid., at s. B.5.f.3, B.5.f.4.

170. Ibid., at s. B.2.d.

171. UN Doc. A/73/420 (2018), supra note 155 at para. 26.

172. See e.g. Azza Izzat, supra note 109 at para. 4 (per Vice President M. Naor).

173. Jam'iat Iscan Al-Ma'almoun, supra note 90 at para. 18.

174. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13), 8 December 1999, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10 (1999), at para. 6(b).

175. UN Doc. E/C.12/ISR/CO/4 (2019), supra note 147 at para. 66.

176. Ibid.

177. Ibid., at para. 67.

178. World Food Programme, “Palestine”, online: UN World Food Programme <www.wfp.org/countries/palestine>.

179. Ibid.

180. SANDOZ, Yves, SWINARSKI, Charles, and ZIMMERMANN, Bruno, eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987) at para. 2089Google Scholar.

181. Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 48 at 189.

182. Louise DOSWALD-BECK, ed., San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), art. 102(a) (emphasis added). Other grounds of illegality of a blockade cannot be explored here.

183. Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 48 at 188; Sean WATTS, “Under Siege: International Humanitarian Law and Security Council Practice Concerning Urban Warfare” (May 2014) Harvard Law School Project on Law and Security 1 at 10–11.

184. See Aeyal GROSS and Tamar FELDMAN, “We Didn't Want to Hear the Word ‘Calories’: Rethinking Food Security, Food Power, and Food Sovereignty—Lessons from the Gaza Closure” (2015) 33 Berkeley Journal of International Law 379; BEN-NAFTALI, Orna, SFARD, Michael, and VITERBO, Hedi, The ABC of the OPT: A Legal Lexicon of the Israeli Control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) at 343–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

185. See Al-Bassiouni, supra note 22 at para. 15, where the position of the government of Israel on the ban on starvation is succinctly summarized. As usual, without any independent inquiry, the Supreme Court of Israel deferred to the government in relation to the assessment of the security situations and in relation to the assurances that the basic needs of the local population were met (at para. 20).

186. Pictet, supra note 96 at 310.

187. LATTANZI, Flavia, “Humanitarian Assistance” in CLAPHAM, Andrew, GAETA, Paola, and SASSÒLI, Marco, eds., The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 231 at 247Google Scholar.

188. Bowirrat ABDALLA, Mohammed MANSOUR, Mustafa GHANIM, Bowirrat AIA, and Mustafa YASSIN, “The Growing Burden of Cancer in the Gaza Strip” (2019) 20 The Lancet Oncology 1054.

189. “Briefing for Foreign Ambassadors on Coronavirus Management and Cooperation with the Palestinians” (31 March 2020), online: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: <mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2020/Pages/Briefing-for-foreign-ambassadors-on-Coronavirus-management-and-cooperation-with-the-Palestinians-31-March-2020.aspx>.

190. OCHA, supra note 128.

191. Lattanzi, supra note 187 at 247.

192. Pictet, supra note 96 at 320; Lattanzi supra note 187 at 242; Dapo AKANDE and Emanuela-Chiara GILLARD, “Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict” (2016), at para. 32, online: UN OCHA, <www.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Oxford%20Guidance%20pdf.pdf>; Dinstein, supra note 12 at 206–7.

193. Arai-Takahashi, supra note 57 at 360.

194. Akande and Gillard, supra note 192 at paras. 33, 67.

195. Ibid., at para. 71.

196. Ibid., at para. 33.

197. UN Doc. S/RES/1860 (2009), supra note 23 at para. 2.

198. See art. 2, DARS, supra note 84.

199. These are listed by arts. 20–26, DARS, supra note 84. It is impossible to address their role in relation to the Gaza Closure. Suffice it to say that some of them are inapplicable or apply differently to international humanitarian law: e.g. the state of necessity cannot be applied to violations of jus in bello because the impact of necessity in this field has already been taken into account in the codification of the relevant primary rules (under the label of “military necessity”). See Commentary to art. 25, DARS, at para. 21. See generally and for further references, Marco LONGOBARDO, “Rapporti fra strumenti di codificazione: il progetto di articoli sulla responsabilità degli Stati e le convenzioni di diritto internazionale umanitario” (2018) 101 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 1136 at 1155–61.

200. “States Not Parties to the Statute to Which the Court May Be Open”, online: ICJ <www.icj-cij.org/en/states-not-parties>.

201. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, [1995] I.C.J. Rep. 90 at para. 26 [East Timor].

202. See e.g. Luigi CONDORELLI and Laurence BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES, “Quelques remarques à propos de l'obligation des États de ‘respecter et faire respecter’ le droit international humanitaire ‘en toutes circonstances’” in Christophe SWINARSKI, ed., Études et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et les principes de la Croix-Rouge en l'honneur de Jean Pictet (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984), 17; GEISS, Robin, “The Obligation to Respect and to Ensure Respect for the Conventions” in CLAPHAM, Andrew, GAETA, Paola, and SASSÒLI, Marco, eds., The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 111 at 123Google Scholar.

203. Jean-Marie HENCKAERTS, “Article 1: Respect for the Convention” in International Committee of the Red Cross, Updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), at paras. 153–91.

204. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 158.

205. Geiss, supra note 202 at 127–30; Henckaerts, supra note 203 at para. 150.

206. Some of these are listed in Henckaerts, supra note 203 at para. 181.

207. Ibid., at para. 174.

208. See, in addition to the remarks referred to supra note 164, the views expressed in UN Doc. A/HRC/25/15 (2013), supra note 164 by Thailand (at para. 47), Ecuador (at para. 136.107), Malaysia (at paras. 136.109, 136.217), France (at para. 136.144), Switzerland (at para. 136.214), Chile (at para. 136.215), Spain (at para. 136.220), and Saudi Arabia (at para. 137.3), and in UN Doc. A/HRC/38/15 (2018), supra note 164 by Germany (at para. 118.73), Ecuador (at para. 118.152), Iceland (at para. 118.172), Turkey (at para. 118.173), Maldives (at para. 118.174), Malaysia (at para. 118.175), Canada (at para. 118.176), and Switzerland (at para. 118.186).

209. ILC, Fourth Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens) by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur, 31 January 2019, UN Doc. A/CN.4/727 (2019), at paras. 108–15.

210. See Nuclear Weapons Opinion, supra note 56 at para. 79; Jurisdictional Immunities, supra note 85 at para. 93; ILC, supra note 209 at paras. 116–21; David, supra note 31 at 105–14.

211. Although the question is left open by art. 54, DARS, supra note 84, there is consensus that customary international law evolved so that other states may adopt counter-measures (Institut de Droit International, “Obligations and Rights Erga Omnes in International Law”, Krakow session, Resolution of 27 August 2005, art. 5(c); DAWIDOWICZ, Martin, Third-Party Countermeasures in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

212. East Timor, supra note 201 at para. 29; Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 155; Chagos Opinion, supra note 81 at para. 180.

213. Wall Opinion, supra note 24 at para. 155.

214. General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (2004), at para. 2.

215. Henckaerts, supra note 203 at para. 119. See also extensively, LONGOBARDO, Marco, “The Contribution of International Humanitarian Law to the Development of the Law of International Responsibility Regarding Obligations Erga Omnes and Erga Omnes Partes” (2018) 23 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 383CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

216. See generally Longobardo, supra note 93 at 56–63.

217. Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, [2012] I.C.J. Rep. 422 at paras. 68–70; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020, at para. 41, online: ICJ <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/178/178-20200123-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf>.

218. East Timor, supra note 201 at para. 29; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (DRC v. Rwanda), Judgment of 3 February 2006, [2006] I.C.J. Rep. 6 at para. 64.

219. Akande and Gillard, supra note 192 at paras. 152–7.

220. Ibid., at para. 156.

221. On this topic, see generally QAFISHEH, Mutaz M., “The Ability of the Palestinian Legal System to Secure Adequate Standards of Living: Reform or the Failure of State Duty” (2013) 3 Asian Journal of International Law 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

222. For one of the few comprehensive works on this topic, see Ralph WILDE, “Expert Opinion on the Applicability of Human Rights Law to the Palestinian Territories with a Specific Focus on the Respective Responsibilities of Israel, as the Extraterritorial State, and Palestine, as the Territorial State” (Diakonia 2018), online: Diakonia <www.diakonia.se/globalassets/blocks-ihl-site/ihl-file-list/ihl--expert-opionions/the-applicability-of-human-rights-law-to-the-palestinian-territories-with-a-specific-focus-on>.

223. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, State of Palestine, 24 May 2017, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/PSE/1 (2017), at para. 104. Other allegations pertain to areas temporarily under Israeli jurisdiction, such as the settlements (“There is also insufficient oversight by the occupation authorities of working conditions at facilities and workplaces that hire Palestinian workers—men and women—inside the Green Line and in the illegal settlements”).