TY - JOUR
T1 - The advisory opinion and the jewish settlements
AU - Lapidoth, Ruth
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - This paper argues that the ICJ did not need to discuss the legality of the settlements in order to examine the legality of the fence. Following this argument, until the settlement issue is resolved, Israel has an obligation to protect the settlers. Thus, even those parts of the fence that are intended to protect settlements, legality does not depend on the legality of the settlements. Moreover, this article argues that the Court's analysis of the settlements' legality is unsatisfactory: its interpretation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, deviates to a certain extent, from the meaning of the same terms used in other paragraphs of Article 49, and as such a more in depth analysis by the Court was required.
AB - This paper argues that the ICJ did not need to discuss the legality of the settlements in order to examine the legality of the fence. Following this argument, until the settlement issue is resolved, Israel has an obligation to protect the settlers. Thus, even those parts of the fence that are intended to protect settlements, legality does not depend on the legality of the settlements. Moreover, this article argues that the Court's analysis of the settlements' legality is unsatisfactory: its interpretation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, deviates to a certain extent, from the meaning of the same terms used in other paragraphs of Article 49, and as such a more in depth analysis by the Court was required.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975152971&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0021223700012711
DO - 10.1017/S0021223700012711
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:84975152971
SN - 0021-2237
VL - 38
SP - 292
EP - 297
JO - Israel Law Review
JF - Israel Law Review
IS - 1-2
ER -