It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law. As explained by Ian Scobbie:
To equate the two is simply to confuse the legal with the linguistic denotation of the term ”defense.“ Just as ”negligence,“ in law, does not mean ”carelessness” but, rather, refers to an elaborate doctrinal structure, so ”self-defense” refers to a complex doctrine that has a much more restricted scope than ordinary notions of ”defense.“
Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state.Source
originally posted by: MrCynic
I have a question? I know I'm new and I hope I don't get pounded for asking this, but it stands out to be asked?
If Israel cannot meet the tools and means of military force with military force, what are they expected to do? They built a wall along the West Bank side of Palestine and it's ended much of that issue. The West Bank, this morning, is not at war and is not sustaining Israeli strikes. Gaza is, and after the Hamas leadership of Gaza authorized or ordered the firing of countless rockets/missiles across Israel. Are they supposed to go in and arrest those firing military weapons systems against civilian cities?
I'm just assuming here, but I don't believe those police officers would find success in their mission. I believe they'd find death if lucky and capture if not.
So when you have a militarized force, using military weapons systems against your cities, and all of this is based in and coming from an area with no police presence or ability by those being fired upon, what is a nation to do?
It is generally considered that, for a resort to force to constitute a lawful exercise of the right of self-defence, it must meet the following conditions:
1. i) it must be a response to an armed attack;
2. ii) the use of force, and the degree of force used, must be necessary and proportionate; and
3. iii) it must be reported to the Security Council and must cease when the Security Council has taken ‘measures necessary to maintain international peace and security’.
2. ii) the use of force, and the degree of force used, must be necessary and proportionate;