Eugene Kontorovich: Unsettled: A Global Study Of Settlements In Occupied Territories
Legal discussions of Article 49(6), however, are almost invariably centered on the Israeli case,1 and do not examine its potential applicability elsewhere.2 For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) (2016, VI–VII) influential Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law lists 107 instances of national and UN practice applying or interpreting the prohibition, and all but two relate to Israel.3
As a result, our understanding of Article 49(6) remains thin and lacking; the interpretation of it comes from a single case, rather than from systematic evidence of state practice. One can draw an infinite number of lines through a point. Studying all the available data however—i.e., all settlement practices elsewhere—can provide greater meaning and definition to the rule, or at least address some of the many questions about its meaning.
This article examines every occupation since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions that involve the movement of civilian population into belligerently occupied territory. Eight such situations were identified. No previous work has examined them together. Indeed, for several of the situations, there has been no prior academic work on the relevant settlement policy. Thus, one of the additional contributions of this article is the first scholarly examination of Russian and Armenian occupation practices in light of international law.
The state practice of the occupying powers in these other situations, as well as the international reaction to them, forms a remarkably consistent pattern. This pattern is contrary to, or at least in substantial tension with, hypotheses about Article 49(6) generated solely based on the Arab–Israeli situation. Thus, since the conventional understanding of Article 49(6) has been based almost entirely on the Israeli example,4 this article shows that it requires a fundamental reexamination.
While the study of state practice cannot precisely define the scope of Article 49(6) liability, it does show that standard discussions of the norm define the prohibited conduct far too broadly. In particular, there is no support in state practice for the notion that mere facilitation or accommodation of settlement activity violates the norm, or that there is any duty to prevent, obstruct, or discourage settlement activity.
Douglas Murray: Are racist chants now acceptable on the British left?
On Friday the Guardian columnist and Corbyn-supporter Owen Jones sent out this Tweet to his followers:
Owen Jones @OwenJones84As a video of the resulting demonstration shows, the crowd outside the embassy loudly chanted (among other things) ‘Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad, sa yahud’. This is a famous Islamic battle-cry which might be translated, ‘Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning.’
Palestinians urgently need our solidarity. Join me protesting Trump’s Jerusalem speech outside London’s US Embassy *tonight* >> 12:22 AM - Dec 9, 2017
Tonight outside the US embassy in London; "Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad, sa yahud" or "Jews, remember Khaybar the army of Muhammad is returning". They mean Zionists tho...@PSCupdates are they your banners they're holding? @mishtal pic.twitter.com/PuMaZEomEk
— Hurryupharry (@hurryupharry) December 8, 2017
The battle of Khaybar relates to a 7th century attack on a Jewish community by the armies of Mohammed.
Now two obvious questions arise. Why might this battle cry have been used on Friday night outside the American embassy in London? And are racist chants of this kind now acceptable on the British left?