in The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?




in The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online


Editor's Notes: * The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 was enacted by the U.S. Congress at a time almost contemporaneous with a similar Israeli law (see infra at 224). It was a highly politicized legislation with apparent coordination between the U.S. and Israel in their aggressive drive against the Palestinian people and the PLO. The label of terrorism was attached by them to virtually all matters related to the PLO in spite of the fact that neither was able to produce evidence of PLO involvement in terrorist acts. The official position of the PLO on terrorism is well known. See vol. II of this Yearbook at 153 and 191 (1985). See also Chair- man Arafat Press Conference in Geneva, supra at 330. The judgment of the U.S. District Court is a triumph for the rule of law, which is the only civilized alternative to terrorism. The judgment was not appealed by the U.S. Government within the prescribed period. The PLO Mis- sion was consequently saved and it is functioning normally. ** Counsel for Defendants was assisted by W.T. Mallison & S.V. Mallison for international law aspects of this case. *** The United Nations and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York both requested leave to appear as amid curiae. The court finds that both amici have an adequate interest in the litigation, even at the district court level, and that their participation is desirable. Leave to file is therefore granted. See S. &

1. Title X of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988-89. Pub. L. 100-204, [sees.] 1001-1005, 101 Stat. 1331, 1406-07; 22 U.S.C.A. [sees.] 5201-5203 (West Supp. 1988). Not repro- duced herewith, but see text infra at 222 [Ed.] ] 2. G.A. Res. 169 (II), 11 U.N.T.S. 11, No. 147 (1947). 61 Stat. 756, T.I.A.S. No. 1676, authorized by S. J. Res. 144, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Pub. L. 80-357, set out in 22 U.S.C. [sec.] 287 note (1982). We refer to the Headquarters Agreement as a treaty, since we are not concerned here with mak- ing a distinction between different forms of international agreement. The applicable law implicates all forms, including the Headquarters Agreement. Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 29-30 (1982). 3. H. Con. Res. 75, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 59 Stat. 848 (1945). E.D.N.Y. Gen. R. 8; cf. Fed. R. App. P. 29; S.Ct. R. Prac. 36.3. It should be added that Mr. Carl-August Fleischauer, Under-Secretary-General and Legal Counsel of the United Nations, was permitted to address the court at the outset of the arguments of counsel that took place on June 8, 1988. Excerpts of the said amici are reproduced infra at 231, 239. [Ed.].

4. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Holy See, Monaco, the Republic of Korea, San Marino and Switzerland. Permanent Mis- sions No. 262 at 270-77. 5. The Asian-African Legal Consulta- tive Committee, the Council for Mutual Assistance, the European Economic Community, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, and the Islamic Conference. Permanent Missions No. 262 at 278- 84. 6. The PLO and the South West Afri- can People's Organization (SWAPO). Permanent Missions No. 262 at 285-86. 7. Letter from Sec. of State George P. Shultz to Rep. Jack Kemp (Oc- tober 16, 1986) ("the PLO Observer Mission... is in no sense accredited to the United States."), reprinted in 133 Cong. Rec. E 1,635-36 (daily ed. April 29, 1987); accord 1 Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the United States [sec.] 202, Reporters' Note 6 at 84 (1987). 8. Without accreditation, no dip- lomatic immunity ensues. Cf. United States v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 905, 907, 911-13 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 881 (1985). 9. G.A. Res. 3237, 29 U.N. GAOR Supp. 31 (Agenda Item 108) 4, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974). 10. Ibid.; see also G.A. Res. 3236 and 3210, 29 U.N. GAOR Supp. 31 (Agenda Item 108) 3 & 4, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974).

11. E.g. 133 Cong. Rec. E 1,635 (daily ed. April 29, 1987) (letter from Rep. Jack Kemp to Sec. of State George P. Shultz (dated October 16, 1986)). 12. Anti-PLO Terrorism Act of 1987, H.R. 2211, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced in 133 Cong. Rec. E 1,635 daily ed. April 29, 1987). Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, S. 1203 and H.R. 2548, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced in 133 Cong. Rec. S 6,448 (daily ed. May 14, 1987) and H 4,047 (daily ed. May 28, 1987). Terrorist Organization Exclu- sion Act of 1987, H.R. 2587, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced in 133 Cong. Rec. H 4,198 (daily ed. June 3, 1987). * For the official PLO position on terrorism, see 2 Pal. Y.B. Int'l L. at 153 and 191 (1985). Ed. 13. The ATA, known as the Grassley Amendment after its sponsor Senator Grassley of Iowa, was added to the omnibus foreign rela- tions spending bill on the floor of the Senate on October 8, 1987, despite the objections of several Senators. See 133 Cong. Rec. S 13,855 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1987) (statement of Sen. Kassebaum) ("We do have hearings scheduled in the Foreign Relations Commit- tee... [and] it is important for us to have a hearing to explore the ramifications of the issues..."); id, S 13, 852 (Statement of Sen. Binga- man) ("We need to further

explore the issues raised by this amendment. It is an amendment that has not had any hearings, has not been considered in committee, and one that raises very serious issues of constitutional rights....") The House version of the spending bill contained no equivalent provi- sion, and the ATA was only briefly discussed during a joint confer- ence which covered the entire spending bill. The House con- ferees rejected, 8-11, an exemp- tion for the Mission, after which they acceded to the Senate's ver- sion. 133 Cong. Rec. S 18,193, [para.] 14 (daily ed. December 16, 1987). See 133 id. S 18,186, S 18,189 (statements of Sen. Helms); see also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 475, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 170-71 (1987). 14. Pub. L. 100-294, Title X, [para.] 1002(a), 101 Stat. 1331, 1407, set out in 22 U.S.C.A. [sec.] 5201 note (West Supp. 1988). 15. Two of the original six individual defendants were not served, and the action against them has been dismissed on consent without pre- judice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(i). 16. Mansour is also a plaintiff in the related case decided today. Men- delsohn v. Meese, 88 Civ. 2005

(S.D.N.Y. June 29, 1988) (filed herewith). The court there addres- ses his claim that the ATA is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. See also Mendelsohn v. Meese, (S.D.N.Y. April 12, 1988) (denying preliminary injunctive relief) [Ed. ] * See text infra at 170 [Ed.] 17. S.J. Res. 144, 61 Stat. 756 (22 U.S.C. [sec.] 287 note); see n. 2 supra. See also 1 Foreign Relations of the United States 1947 42-46 (1973).

18. The United Nations has explicitly refrained from becoming a party to this litigation. The International Court of Justice makes a persua- sive statement that the proceed- ings before this court "cannot be an 'agreed mode of settlement' within the meaning of section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement. The purpose of these proceedings is to enforce the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987; it is not directed to settling the [alleged] dispute, concerning the application of the Headquar- ters Agreement." U.N. v. U.S., supra, 19881.C.J. No. 77 [para.] 56, slip op. at 23. 19. The Federal Arbitration Act itself, 9 U.S.C. [sees.] 1-14 (1982), is applicable only to "a written agreement evidencing a transac- tion involving commerce." Id, [sec.] 2; Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U.S. 198, 200-01 (1956).

20. The same is true of the suggestion of amicus, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, that this court decline to exercise its equity jurisdiction before an arbit- ral tribunal has been convened. By doing so, the court could thereby place the executive department in an awkward position, leaving the impression that the court, rather than the executive, is making the determination of this issue of foreign policy. The court should not do indirectly what it cannot do directly. 21. It is important to note that we may not inquire into the executive's reasons for refraining from arbit- ration, and in fact those reasons are not before us. See Press Con- ference, Assistant Attorney Gen- eral Charles Cooper, 16 (March 11, 1988) ("I would not describe any of the deliberations that went into that decision."); see also Letter of Assistant Attorney General John R. Bolton to Judge Edmund L. Pal- mieri (May 12, 1988) (docketed at the request of government counsel in 88 Civ. 1962 and 88 Civ. 2005) ("arbitration would not be approp- riate or timely"). 22. The political question doctrine is inapplicable to the court's duty to interpret the Headquarters Agree- ment and the ATA. Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986). We are interpreting the Agree- ment, but are unwilling to expand the reach of its arbitration clause to a point which would be inconsis- tent with the limitations placed upon us by the Constitution.

23. Section 12 requires that the provi- sions of Section 11 be applicable "irrespective of the relations exist- ing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that Sec- tion and the Government of the United States." 61 Stat. at 761 (22 U.S.C. [sec.] 287 note). Section 13 limits the applicabil- ity of the United States laws and regulations regarding the entry and residence of aliens, when applied to those affiliated with the United Nations by virtue of Sec- tion 11. Id at 761-62 (22 U.S.C. [sec.] 287 note).

24. This letter was reproduced as item 33 of the Compendium submitted by the parties to the court. See also Letter from Sec. of State George P. Shultz to Sens. Robert J. Dole, Charles E. Grassley, and Claiborne Pell and Rep. Jack F. Kemp (July 31, 1987) ("this would be seen as a violation of a U.S. treaty obliga- tion") ; Letter from Sec. Shultz to Sen. Dole (January 29, 1987), reprinted in 133 Cong. Rec. S 6,449 (daily ed. May 14, 1987), ("while we are therefore under an obliga- tion to permit PLO Observer Mis- sion Personnel to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official functions at U.N. headquarters, we retain the right to deny entry to, or expel, any individual PLO representative directly implicated in terrorist acts"); Letter from Sec. Shultz to Rep. Kemp (November 12, 1986), reprinted in 133 Cong. Rec. E 1,635, 1,636 (daily ed. April 29, 1987) (same language).

25. This court has no information con- cerning the nature or content of these consultations, beyond the fact that the Department of Jus- tice and the Department of State both appear to support current efforts to repeal the ATA. See H.R. 4078, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., intro- duced in 134 Cong. Rec. H 696 (daily ed. March 3, 1988) (state- ment of Rep. Crockett); Letter from Acting Assist. Atty. Gen. Thomas M. Boyd to Rep. Dante B. Fascell (May 10, 1988) (expressing reservations about H.R. 4078, but supporting it, with modifications); Letter from Assist. Sec. of State J. Edward Fox to Rep. Fascell (April 29, 1988) (same). 26. See Letter from Vernon A. Wal- ters, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar (October 27, 1987); Letter from Herbert S. Okun to Secretary General Perez de Cuellar (January 5, 1988). 27. In addition, the U.N. General Assembly has, on several occa- sions, reaffirmed its position that the PLO Mission is covered by the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement. G.A. Res. 42/230 (Agenda item 136) (March 23, 1988); G.A. Res. 42/229A (Agenda item 136) (March 2, 1988); see also G.A. Res. 42/232 (Agenda item 136) (May 18, 1988).

28. 133 Cong. Rec. S 18,185-86 (daily ed. December 16, 1987). 29. See pp. 23-25 & nn.24 & 25, supra. See also Transcript of Joint Confer- ence on H.R. 1777, p. 208 (De- cember 3, 1987) (statement of State Department representative Jamie Selby: "it is a legal obliga- tion based on practice in interpret- ing a treaty"); 133 Cong. Rec. H 11,224 (daily ed. December 10, 1987) (statement of Rep. Crockett) (ATA would place United States "in violation of our treaty obliga- tions"). 30. E.g., Pub. L. 100-204 [sec.] 215(a), 101 Stat. 1331, 1343 (adding 22 U.S.C. [sec.] 4315(a), ("A foreign mission may not allow an unaf- filiated alien the use of any pre- mise of that foreign mission which is inviolable under United States law (including any treaty) for any purpose which is incompatible with its status as a foreign mission including use as a residence.")

(emphasis supplied); see also id. [sec.] 806(d)(1)(B), 101 Stat. at 1398 (adding 19 U.S.C. [sec.] 2492(d)(1)(B)) (abrogating "agree- ments," necessarily international). 31. Transcript of oral argument, p. 18 (June 8, 1988). This concession dis- poses of the suggestion that the United States' Security Reserva- tion to the Headquarters Agree- ment, Annex 2, [sec.] 6, 61 Stat. at 766, 767 - 681 (22 U.S.C. [sec.] 287 note), serves as a justification for the ATA. 32. E.g., 133 Cong. Rec. H 11,684-85 (daily ed. December 18, 1987) (statement of Rep. Burton); 133 Cong. Rec. S 15,621 (daily ed. November 3, 1987) (statement of Sen. Grassley); 133 Cong. Rec. S 9,627 (daily ed. July 10, 1987) (statement of Sen. Grassley); 133 Cong. Rec. E 2,249 (daily ed. June 4, 1987) (statement of Rep. Gal- legly) ; 133 Cong. Rec. H 4,047 (daily ed. May 28, 1987) (state- ment of Rep. Herger); 133 Cong. Rec. S 6,449 (daily ed. May 14, 1987) (statement of Sen. D'Amato); id, S 6448 (statement of Sen. Dole); 133 Cong. Rec. E 1,635 (daily ed. April 29, 1987) (state- ment of Rep. Kemp). 33. 133 Cong. Rec H 12,224 (daily ed. December 10, 1987) (statement of Rep. Crockett); 133 Cong. Rec. S 13,852 (daily ed. October 8, 1987) (statement of Sen. Bingaman); 133 Cong. Rec. E 2,895 (daily ed. July 14, 1987) (statement of Rep. Bonior). 34. Transcript of Joint Conference on H.R. 1777, pp. 210-11 (December 3, 1987) (statements of Reps. Mica and Kostmayer). 35. "As far as the closure of the PLO Observer Mission is concerned, this would be seen as a violation of a United States treaty obligation under the United Nations Head- quarters Agreement." Letter from Sec. of State George P. Shultz to unnamed Senators and Con- gressmen (July 31, 1987), partially reprinted in 133 Cong. Rec. S 16,605 (daily ed. November 20, 1987) (statement of Sen. Grassley).

36. Hon. Abraham Sofaer: "It is our judgment that the Headquarters Agreement as interpreted and applied would be violated." New York Times, January 13, 1988 at A3. 37. Accord 133 Cong. Rec. H 8,790 (daily ed. October 20, 1987) (state- ment of Rep. Burton); 133 Cong. Rec. S 9,627-28 (daily ed. July 10, 1987) (statement of Sen. Grassley); 133 Cong. Rec. S 6,449- 50 (daily ed. May 14, 1987) (state- ment of Sen. D'Amato); id. S 6,449 (statement of Sen. Dole). Indeed, this misapprehension apparently has continued after the passage of the ATA and even dur- ing the pendency of this lawsuit. E.g. 134 Cong. Rec. S 3,113 (daily ed. March 25, 1988) (statement of Sen. D'Amato); 134 Cong. Rec. S 1,997 (daily ed. March 4, 1988) (statement of Sen. Grassley).

* See text infra at 222.

** See the �J.S.' District Court judg- ment, supra at 153.

* Editor's Note: Following is a summary of a rather long judgment rendered by Israel's Sup- reme Court on an important aspect of the international law of belligerent occu- pation. The central issue, in its narrow sense, is whether an occupying power has the authority to impose new taxes in the territory it occupies. As expected, the Court held in the affirmative. The analyses given by the Court of the rele- vant articles in the Hague Regulations were preposterous and the conclusions were necessarily convoluted. Viewed in a broader perspective, and in the context of the declared Israeli objectives in annexing the Occupied Territories, the judgment is lethal. It gives, in effect, "legal licence" to the Israeli authorities to proceed with the government's creeping annexation policy without trammel. The overriding pol- icy objective of international law doctrines with respect to the protection and safeguarding of civilians, their interests and well-being in time of war have been relegated by the Court to a side issue. Professor Gerhard von Glahn, a leading authority on the laws of military occupation, was involved in this case as a legal consultant to the petitioners. He graciously accepted the invitation of the Editor to comment on this judg- ment, and wrote the Obiter Dictum that appears infra at 210. ** Piskei Din (Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel), vol. 37, part 2 at 197-325 (1983). Translation for the Yearbook. All notes are added by the Editor.

1. From June 7, 1967, the date Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, until 1988, there have been about fifty-five Military Orders dealing directly with various types of taxation. The effect of these Orders has been to reduce the minimum level of taxable income, to increase the tax rates, and to reduce the amount of income in taxable brackets. For a detailed analysis of the impact of these taxes on the Palestinians as indi- viduals and as a community, see UNCTAD Secretariat, Recent Economic Developments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with Special Reference to the Finan- cial Sector, 16-19, TD/B/1142 (12 Aug. 1987) [hereinafter "TD Report"]; see also the study pre- pared by the UNCTAD Secretariat in collaboration with the Sec- retariat of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, The Palesrinian Financial Sec- tor Under Israeli Occupation 91-120, UNCTAD/ST/SEU/3 (July 8, 1987) [hereinafter "UNCTAD-1987"]; Sabri, The Tax Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, The Arab Certified Accountant (London) 65, no. 10 (Nov. 1986) [hereinafter "Sabri"]. Dr. Sabri is Chairman of the Accounting Department, Birzeit University. The U.N. General Assembly "strongly condemned]... [i]llegal imposition and levy of heavy and disproportionate taxes and dues;" Res. D, 41/63 (Dec. 3, 1986). 2. Text in 38 Proclamations, Orders and Appointments of the Israeli Defence Forces in the West Bank Area, 183 (Feb. 1, 1977) [hereinaf- ter "POA-WB"]. A similar publica- tion is issued in the Gaza Strip and will be cited hereinafter as "POA- GS" According to Article 6 thereof, the Order would become effective as of July 1, 1976. It is curious that the Order in Article 1 was amending Jordanian Law No. 16 of 1963 which deals with taxa- tion on local produce, while the Order deals with taxation on con- sumption rather than production.

The possible rationale behind this is that the Military Governor intended to give the Order "legal" grounds and hence he based it on the Jordanian legislation of 1963. 3. See the text of Israel's Value- added Tax Law -1975 in 30 Laws of the State of Israel 46 (1975/76) [hereinafter "LSI"]. 4. Emphasis added. The Court, how- ever, stopped short of concluding that the removal of barriers was intended to integrate the Occupied Territories into Israel proper. The Court further failed, on purely technical grounds, to perceive that the Order under review was in no way related to the security requirements of Israeli forces in the Occupied Ter- ritories.

5. Emphasis added. The U.N. Con- ference on Trade and Develop- ment concluded that the value- added tax was imposed with a three-fold purpose: "not to create a tax haven for Israelis in the ter- ritories ; to raise Israeli Govern- ment revenues; and to further integrate into the Israeli economy the economic activities of Israelis living in the territories." TD Report, at 18. See also UNCTAD- 1987, at 117-18. Both reports con- cluded : "On the whole, VAT has evolved over the past few years to become one of the most serious fiscal constraints to the develop- ment of Palestinian industry and trade." Id. at 19; see also UNCTAD-1987, at 118. 6. 39 POA-GS at 3377 (Sept. 15, 1977). According to Article 7 thereof, the Order would become effective as of June 1, 1976. The Income Tax Law of Gaza is still Law No. 13 of 1947, published in the Official Gazette (Palestine) no. 1568, Supp. 1 (Mar. 29, 1947). It was amended ten times by the Egyptian authorities between 1948 and 1967.

7. See the English translation of this judgment in 1 Pal. Y.B. Int'l L. at 134 (1984).

8. See the English translation of this judgment in 2 Pal. Y.B. Int'l L. at 134 (1985). However, see the same court holding in the Ansar Camp case in 1 Pal. Y.B. Int'l L. at 164 (1984).

9. Emphasis added by the Court. 10. Footnote deleted. 11. Emphasis added by the Court.

12. United States, Department of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10) (July 1956). 13. Id. 14. Id.

15. Emphases in original.

16. Emphasis in original.

17. According to an official Israeli publication, the VAT was increased in 1982 both in Israel and in the Occupied Territories to help finance the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. See Bank of Israel, Economic Review, 56 (Apr. 1985) at 77, quoted in TD Report, at 18. The war against Lebanon was cited also as being the main reason for an increase in taxation rates. See Jerusalem Post Int'l, Apr. 13, 1983, at 1, cols. 1-2. Furthermore, the Court could not have been oblivi- ous to the fact that Israel amended its Income Tax Ordinance (Amend- ment No. 32) Law of 1978, adding Article 3A(b), which reads: "The income of an Israeli national accrued, produced or received in a zone shall be regarded as accrued, produced or received in Israel." See text in 32 LSI, at 277, 278 (1977/78) (emphasis added). The term "zone" was defined in the Law to mean "Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], the Gaza Region, the Golan Heights [before it was officially annexed in 1981], Sinai and Southern Sinai [before their evacuation in 1982]." See also para. (c) of the same article. UNCTAD-1987, at 112, argued that while the objective of this amend- ment was to prevent the Occupied Territories from becoming tax havens for Israelis, "in practice, it has prevented the territories from collecting the taxes due to them notwithstanding the illegality of the presence of Israeli citizens and juridical entities in the ter- ritories." " 18. Military Government in the Ter- ritories Administered by Israel 1967- 1980 (ed. Shamgar, 1982).

19. Strupp & Schlochauer, 2 Woerter- buch des Voelkerrechts (1961); Stone, Legal Controls of Interna- tional Conflict (1959).

20. Great Britain, War Office, The Law of War on Land, Being Part 111 of the Manual of Military Law (1958).

21. This emphasis was added to point out that the VAT Regulations were introduced into the Occupied Ter- ritories in 1975, at or about the same time as the Israeli VAT Law was enacted. However, the 152- article Regulations were not offi- cially published. It was only on April 1, 1985, that the Regulations became known to the public as published in 72 POA-WB (Apr. 1, 1985).

* Professor Emeritus, Political Science, University of Minnesota, Duluth, U.S.A. 1. Piskei Din (Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel), vol. 37, part 2, at 197- 325. See supra at 186 for a summarized text of this judgment. Citations herein to "VAT" are to this summarized text. Editor.

2. Fourth Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 12 Aug. 1949); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Con- flicts (Protocol I) (Geneva, 12 Dec. 1977), and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non- international Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (Geneva, 12 Dec. 1977).

3. VAT, at 191. 4. Id, at 193, 202. 5. Id. at 187 - 88.

6. Id. at 191. See also below, for comment on the last point. 7. See also id. at 203.

8. Id. at 190 - 92. 9. On this matter see Mallison & Mallison, The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order 253-57 (1986). 10. Von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Terntory 273 (1957) [hereinafter "von Glahn - Occupation"]. 11. The lawful imposition of a new tax has been stated in Great Britain, War Office, 3 Manual of Military Law - The Law of War on Land, Being Part III of the Manual of Military Law (1958) [hereinafter "British Manual"], para. 529; United States, Department of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare (Fm 27-10) (July 1956) [hereinafter "Land Warfare"], para. 426(b); and von Glahn, Law Among Nations 701 (5th ed. 1986) [hereinafter "von Glahn - Law"]. 12. See British Manual, para. 529 and Land Warfare, para. 426(b), supra, note 11.

13. VAT, at 201. 14. Id. at 204. 15. Id. 16. British Manual, para. 523 at 145. 17. VAT, at 203.

18. See, inter alia, von Glahn - Occupation, supra n. 10, at 151; Feilchenfeld, The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation 6 (1942); and Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict 712 (2nd imp. rev. 1959). 19. VAT, at 188. 20. Id. at 188 -190. 21. Id. at 193 - 94. 22. Id. at 193. Emphasis in original. 23. Id. at 195. 24. Feilchenfeld, supra note 18, at 49. Emphasis added.

25. Oppenheim, 2 International Law 436-37 (7th ed. by Lauterpacht 1952). 26. VAT, at 194. Emphasis added. 27. Id. at 195. 28. Id. at 203, 205 - 207. 29. Id. at 205.

30. Such as in id. at 203, 205 - 207. 31. Id. at 195 - 96. 32. Feilchenfeld, supra note 18, at 49. 33. See Article 6 of the Convention. 34. Feilchenfeld, supra note 18, at 111. 35. VAT, at 205. Emphasis added. 36. Id. at 206. Emphasis in original.

37. Id. at 191 - 193. 38. The Court cited at 191 Dinstein, International Law and the State, 146, (1971). 39. VAT, at 203.

40. Id. at 206 - 208. 41. Id. at 207. 42. Id. 43. Israeli National Section of the International Commission of Jurists, The Rule of Law in the Areas Administered by Israel 94-95 (1981). 44. Id. at ix.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 16 16 6
Full Text Views 13 13 10
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0