TERRITORY, BOUNDARIES AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT

Abstract

Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip from 27 December 2008 until 18 January 2009 raised a host of legal questions on status and the conduct of hostilities, many of which have been subjected to intense scrutiny. But perhaps the two most troubling questions that remain unresolved concern the appropriate legal regime that governed the conflict and the geographical reach of the law. Was this an international armed conflict? If so, who were the ‘contracting parties’ and what was the territorial scope of the conflict? Alternatively, was the armed conflict one between a state, Israel, and a non-state actor, Hamas, and thus subject to the rules that apply in non-international armed conflict? This latter position jars with our intuition not least because the codified law assumes non-international armed conflict takes place within the territory of a contracting state. The disquiet is apparent in the Israeli Supreme Court judgment of 2009, Physicians for Human Rights v. Prime Minister, in which the Court had to determine the legal regime governing the armed conflict between Israel and ‘the Hamas organization’. Describing the normative ‘arrangements’ as ‘complex’, it noted that ‘the classification of the armed conflict between the state of Israel and the Hamas organization as an international conflict raises several difficulties’.