 | ||||
           | ||||
ArticlesThe Use and Abuse of Self-Defence in International Law: The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict as a Case StudyYearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern LawThis article argues that Israel's bombardment and invasion of Lebanon in July 2006 would more accurately be described as an act of aggression contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and customary international law rather than an act of self-defence. Even if Israel had invoked the needle-prick or cumulative events theory of self-defence, which it has done in the past and which has been considered on occasion by the ICJ, the actions of Israel's Armed Forces would still not be justified. Nor, for that matter, would Israel's actions in the Lebanon meet the Caroline test on the question of necessity, immanency and proportionality. In this respect, the customary international law principles of necessity and proportionality are a useful yardstick by which to assess whether a State's recourse to armed force is defensive or not. It is further argued that the ICJ's dicta in the Nicaragua case that a frontier incident does not amount to an armed attack triggering the applicability of Article 51 of the UN Charter is both logical and reasonable. Israel, Hezbollah and the Conflict in Lebanon: An Act of Aggression or Self-Defense?Human Rights BriefThe legal issues surrounding the use of force, known to international lawyers as jus ad bellum, have once again been thrust into the legal limelight as a result of recent Israeli military action in Lebanon. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and committing war crimes during the month-long conflict. Amnesty said that Israel's strikes on civilian buildings and structures went beyond "collateral damage," amounting to indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks contrary to the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. The Nationality of Denationalized PalestiniansNordic Journal of International LawOne in three refugees in the world today is Palestinian. The majority of these refugees have no nationality because they were denationalised by Israel's Nationality Law in 1952 after they had fled or been expelled from their homeland in 1948. Israel has refused to allow the majority Palestinian refugees, being displaced in 1948, the right to return to their homes despite the passage of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III). Israel has also refused to allow the majority of Palestinians displaced in 1967 the right to return to their homes despite appeals from the International Committee of the Red Cross and despite calls from the UN Security Council. Since then Israel has manipulated the laws of occupation by transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies whilst subjecting the indigenous Palestinian population to military law. In 2003, Israel enacted racially discriminatory legislation in the form of the Nationality and Entrance into Israel Law which the U.N. Human Rights Committee has specifically requested Israel revoke. This legislation restricts nationality and residency rights for Arabs resident in the Occupied Palestinian Territories whilst specifically excluding Jewish settlers from its application. Find this useful? Send & Share |
| |||
         | ||||
 | ||||
