Page 13

for Namibia.4 The Court held that South Africa’s infringement on the rights and welfare of the Namibian people through apartheid rule destroyed the object and purpose of the “sacred trust” and thus rendered South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia an illegal foreign occupation.5 In the case of occupation, the occupying power bears an obligation to administer the territory in the best interests of the occupied population until its self-determination can be restored through a political settlement. Israel’s policies of dispossession and discrimination against Palestinians in the oPt violates this trust. Israel administers the West Bank, including oEJ, for the benefit of its illegal settler population through a pervasive regime of institutional discrimination between settlers and Palestinians that is widely recognized as apartheid.6 As detailed herein, Israel’s overarching policy aim in oEJ is to expand the Jewish presence and character of the city by increasing the illegal Israeli settler population while marginalizing the Palestinian population and Arab character of the city through acts of individual and collective dispossession. Such an overarching policy of population transfer of the indigenous population clearly violates the trusteeship obligation.

c. Occupation must be temporary Occupation, as the suspension of sovereign equality and selfdetermination, must be temporary. In sanctioning wide-ranging changes to the laws, institutions and physical character of the oPt, including East Jerusalem, the Israeli Supreme Court has taken the position that while

4

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, [1971] ICJ Rep 16 [hereinafter “Namibia (South West Africa)”].

5

Id. at ¶ 53 (“the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was the self-determination and independence of the people’s concerned”) and ¶ 95 (“By stressing that South Africa ‘has, in fact, disavowed the Mandate’, the General Assembly declared in fact that it had repudiated it. The resolution in question is therefore to be viewed as the exercise of the right to terminate a relationship in case of a deliberate and persistent violation of obligations which destroys the very object and purpose of that relationship.”)

6

See, e.g., Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, A/HRC/25/67 (Jan. 13, 2014), ¶¶ 51-77; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard, A/HRC/4/17 (Jan. 29, 2007), ¶¶ 49-50, 58-63; John Dugard and John Reynolds, Apartheid, International Law, and the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, European Journal of International Law 24, 3 (2013); Russell Tribunal on Palestine, Findings of the Final Session (Mar. 16-17, 2013),§ 2; Beyond Occupation Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Virginia Tilley, ed., 2012). 12

Occupied East Jerusalem  

This report to the United Nations explores violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed in occupied East Jerusale...

Occupied East Jerusalem  

This report to the United Nations explores violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed in occupied East Jerusale...

Advertisement