This paper discusses the legal consequences following the transfer of settlers into occupied territories more precisely the dichotomy between the rights of settlers the rights of protected persons victims. At the heart of the matter are the questions: What to do with settlers transferred into occupied territories in the post-conflict period? Should settlers be removed from the territory where they were transferred to allow victims to access restitution? In the alternative, should settlers be considered to have acquired a de facto ‘right to stay’ or a right not to be expelled under international human rights law the principle of humanity? Do settlers have rights? Do all settlers have the same rights? There is no consensual answer to these sensitive questions where proposed solutions vary on a spectrum from collective expulsion to the unconditional integration of settlers. Emerging from a case analysis is an international response to settler transfer that is complaisant of fait accompli resulting in a balance tilting in favor of the status quo to the not infrequent detriment of protected victims’ rights. This article attempts to reconcile conflicting rights by proposing a response framework cognizant of all relevant branches of international law.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Art. 8(1)(2)(b) Rome Statute, supra note 5 (emphasis added).
Cottier, supra note 17, at 365–366, 369.
See A. De Zayas, ‘Forced Population Transfers’, Max Planck Encyclopedia (2013), at para. 14.
Al-Khasawneh and Hatano, supra note 24, at introduction.
Al-Khasawneh, supra note 26, at Annex II, 141, Arts. 3 and 10.
See Ronen, supra note 2, at 197; E. Kolodner, ‘Population Transfer: The Effects of Settler Infusion Policies on a Host Population’s Right to Self-Determination’, 27 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (1994–1995), at 231.
Kolodner, supra note 30, at 202.
See Ronen, supra note 2, at 239–242.
See Ronen, supra note 2, at 248.
Palley, supra note 3, at 247.
Trindade, supra note 32, at 472–476.
Benvenisti, supra note 38, at 314.
Palley, supra note 3, at 247.
Kolodner, supra note 30, at 202; Palley, supra note 3, at 246; Benvenisti, supra note 37, at 314.
Ronen, supra note 2, at 232–234.
Drew, supra note 4, at 239.
By 2001, here was more settlers than indigenous Turkish Cypriot. Palley, ibid., at 70–71, 173; See also Meindersma and Arakelian, supra note 53, at 62.
Palley, supra note 53, at 71–72, 165.
See Ronen, supra note 2, at 253.
Palley, supra note 53, at 68, 227.
See Gross, supra note 31, at 17.
Cançado Trindade, supra note 33, at 380.
Al-Khasawneh, supra note 26, at para. 60.
Ronen, supra note 3, at 236.
Palley, supra note 3, at 249.
See Crawford, supra note 75, at 216.
De Greiff, supra note 113, at 42–43.
Teitel, supra note 118, at 120.
Palley, supra note 3, at 248 (emphasis in original).
Palley, supra note 4, at 253.
Teitel, supra note 117, at 122.
Palley, supra note 3, at 248.
Teitel, supra note 117, at 137.
Amnesty International, supra note 148, at 6; see Special Rapporteur Lars-Anders Baer, Study on the Status of Implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997, unecosoc, Doc. E/C19/2011/6, 18 February 2011.
Amnesty International, supra note 148, at 7; Baer, ibid., para, 51.
Drew, supra note 4, at 229–231, 234.
Drew, supra note 4, at 235.
Ronen, supra note 2, at 229.
Ronen, supra note 2, at 210.
Barrington, supra note 175, at 179.
Yiftachel and Ghanem, supra note 174, at 662.
Country Report: Estonia, supra note 179, at 3.
Yiftachel and Ghanem, supra note 174, at 661.
Yiftachel and Ghanem, supra note 174, at 663.
Barrington, supra note 174, at 191; Country Report: Latvia, supra note 171, at 6.
Ronen, supra note 2, at 216; Barrington, supra note 174, at 164.
Country Report: Latvia, supra note 171, at 21.
Barrington, supra note 174, at 167, 188.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 667 | 100 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 227 | 4 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 29 | 13 | 0 |
This paper discusses the legal consequences following the transfer of settlers into occupied territories more precisely the dichotomy between the rights of settlers the rights of protected persons victims. At the heart of the matter are the questions: What to do with settlers transferred into occupied territories in the post-conflict period? Should settlers be removed from the territory where they were transferred to allow victims to access restitution? In the alternative, should settlers be considered to have acquired a de facto ‘right to stay’ or a right not to be expelled under international human rights law the principle of humanity? Do settlers have rights? Do all settlers have the same rights? There is no consensual answer to these sensitive questions where proposed solutions vary on a spectrum from collective expulsion to the unconditional integration of settlers. Emerging from a case analysis is an international response to settler transfer that is complaisant of fait accompli resulting in a balance tilting in favor of the status quo to the not infrequent detriment of protected victims’ rights. This article attempts to reconcile conflicting rights by proposing a response framework cognizant of all relevant branches of international law.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 667 | 100 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 227 | 4 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 29 | 13 | 0 |