Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.

Geneva Convention IV

Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I

Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute

Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)

Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)

Under Article 20(c)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[t]he transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15

The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(viii), “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

Argentina

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides: “The occupying power shall not evacuate or transfer a part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Argentina

Under Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), “the transfer by the occupying power of a part of its own civilian population to the territory it occupies” is a grave breach.

Australia

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonising the area.”

Australia

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonising the area.”

The manual further states:

G. P. I [1977 Additional Protocol I] extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following … acts, when committed wilfully and in violation of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or the Protocol:

…

• the transfer by the occupying power of part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).

Burundi

Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “the Occupying Power has the following obligations: … to refrain from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory”.

The Regulations also states that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population to the occupied territory” constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL.

Cameroon

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “the transfer by the occupying power of part of its own population to the territory that it occupies” constitutes a grave breach of IHL.

Canada

Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory, with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.”

The manual further states that “transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory” is a war crime.

Canada

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory, with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.”

In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that the “transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.

Croatia

Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) states that it is prohibited “to transfer one’s own civilians into the occupied territory”.

Hungary

Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that it is prohibited “to transfer one’s own civilians into the occupied territory”.

Italy

Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that the occupying State is prohibited “to deport or transfer a part of its own population into the occupied territory”.

Netherlands

The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands considers that “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.

New Zealand

New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “The Occupying Power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.”

The manual considers such practice to be a grave breach.

Peru

Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “The occupying power must not evacuate or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Peru

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “The occupying power must not evacuate or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

South Africa

South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:

5.1 War Crimes and Grave Breaches of the LOAC [law of armed conflict]

…

- Grave Breaches of the LOAC

- [1949] Geneva Convention III article 130 and [1949] Geneva Convention IV article 147 determine that the following acts are grave breaches:

…

- Unlawful deportation or transfer[.]

Spain

Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “The occupying Power can neither evacuate nor transfer a part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Spain

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “The occupying power must not evacuate or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies with a view to colonizing it.”

Sweden

Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:

The occupying power may find it in its own interests to move sections of its own civilian population into the occupied area. Such movements of population can have very far-reaching negative consequences for the occupied population. It is important to stress that, according to the [1949 Geneva Convention IV] (Article 49), any movement of the occupying power’s own civilian population is prohibited.

Switzerland

Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I include “the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory”.

Ukraine

Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include: … transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “The Occupant is not permitted to deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population to occupied territory.”

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:

Members of the occupying power’s own civilian population may not be transferred to occupied territory … Unlawful deportation or transfer is a grave breach of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention.

In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual notes:

Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following:

…

c. the following, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the protocol:

(1) the transfer by the occupying power of part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

United States of America

The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.

Armenia

Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), the “transfer by the occupying power of part of its own population in the occupied territories”, during an armed conflict, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind.

Australia

Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.”

The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Australia

Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states in Chapter 8, Subdivision E – Other serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:

268.45 War crime – transfer of population

A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:

(a) the perpetrator:

(i) authorises, organises or directs, or participates in the authorisation, organisation or direction of, or participates in, the transfer, directly or indirectly, of parts of the civilian population of the perpetrator’s own country into territory that the country occupies; or

(ii) authorises, organises or directs, or participates in the authorisation, organisation or direction of, or participates in, the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of territory occupied by the perpetrator’s own country within or outside that territory; and

(b) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years.

Australia

Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “the transfer, directly or indirectly, of parts of the civilian population of the perpetrator’s own country into territory that the country occupies” in international armed conflicts.

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides: “the following actions are prohibited to be carried out against civilian persons … 7) to evacuate its population to the occupied territory”.

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the “transfer of any part of one’s own civilian population to the occupied territory” is a war crime.

Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime.

Belarus

Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the transfer of any part of one’s own civilian population into the occupied territory” is a war crime.

Belgium

Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:

War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

…

31. the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power (in the case of international armed conflicts) or authority (in the case of non-international armed conflicts) of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Belgium

Under Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, in the case of an international armed conflict, or of the occupying authority, in the case of a non-international armed conflict,” is criminalized as a grave breach.

Belgium

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:

War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

…

17. the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power (in the case of international armed conflicts) or authority (in the case of non-international armed conflicts) of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), “whoever in violation of rules of international law applicable in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or carries out as an occupier the resettlement of parts of his/her civilian population into the occupied territory” commits a war crime.

The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) contains the following provision related to war crimes:

Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law applicable in the time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or carries out as an occupier the resettlement of parts of his civilian population into the occupied territory,

shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment.

Burundi

Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:

[The following are] considered as war crimes:

…

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

h) the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

Burundi

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:

“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:

…

2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

8°. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Canada

Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.”

Canada

Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.

Congo

The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute.

Cook Islands

The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.

Croatia

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides, under the heading “War crimes against civilian population”:

Whoever, as part of an occupying power, in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or performs the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying force to the occupied territory shall be punished.

Cyprus

Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes:

any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic, any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach.

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, punishes “a person who in war time … settles the occupied territory with the population of his own country”.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:

Article 165

Crimes against humanity are grave violations of international humanitarian law committed against any civilian population before or during war.

Crimes against humanity are not necessarily linked to the state of war and can be committed not only between persons of different nationality, but even between subjects of the same State.

Article 166

The grave breaches listed hereafter, affecting, by action or omission, the persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, constitute crimes against humanity, repressed according to the provisions of the present Code, without prejudice to more severe penal provisions provided by the ordinary Penal Code:

…

15. The transfer into occupied territory of parts of the civilian population of the occupying power in the case of an international armed conflict, or of the occupying authority in the case of a non-international armed conflict;

…

Article 167

The offences contained in the preceding article are punished with penal servitude for life.

If those contained in points 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 14 of the same article lead to the death or cause grave injury to the physical integrity or health of one or several persons, the perpetrators are liable to the death penalty.

Denmark

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:

Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].

France

France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to international armed conflict: “Participating in the transfer, directly or indirectly, by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies … is punishable by life imprisonment.”

Germany

Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone, who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “transfers, as a member of an Occupying Power, parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory”.

Georgia

Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime.

Iraq

Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts:

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Government of Iraq or any of its agencies (including, for clarification, any of the agencies of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party), of parts of its own civilian population into any territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

Ireland

Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences.

In addition, any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence.

Japan

Japan’s Law concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (2004) states:

Article 5 (Crimes of transferring to occupied territory)

… [F]or the purpose of settlement in the territory that a State occupies (hereinafter, the occupied territory) and as part of measures concerning occupation, a person who transfers to the occupied territory a person who has nationality of the State and resides within the territory of the State, shall be punished by imprisonment with labour for not more than 5 years.

Jordan

Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Mali

Mali’s Penal Code (2001) provides that “the transfer, direct or indirect, by the occupying Power, of a part of its own civilian population, into the territories it occupies” constitutes a crime in international armed conflicts.

Netherlands

Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, it is a crime to commit, in an international armed conflict, “the following acts if committed intentionally and in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol (I): … the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Furthermore, under the Act, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a crime, when committed in an international armed conflict.

New Zealand

New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:

Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.

New Zealand

Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.

Niger

According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, “the transfer into occupied territories of a part of the civilian population of the occupying power, in the case of an international armed conflict, or of the occupying authority, in the case of a non-international armed conflict,” constitutes a war crime.

Norway

Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:

Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment.

Norway

Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states in a section related to “war crimes against persons”: “In the case of an international armed conflict, any person is also liable to punishment who … transfers part of its own civilian population into an occupied territory.”

Peru

Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:

Any member of the military or police shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than five and no more than 15 years if he or she in the context of an international armed conflict:

…

2. As a member of an occupying power transfers part of the latter’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Peru

Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter entitled “Crimes against persons protected by international humanitarian law”, states:

A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than five years and not more than ten years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:

…

2. As a member of the occupying power transfers part of the occupying power’s civilian population into the occupied territory.

Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “transferring, as a member of an Occupying Power, parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory” in an international armed conflict.

Republic of Moldova

The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) punishes “grave breaches of international humanitarian law committed during international and non-international armed conflicts”.

Rwanda

Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:

Article: 8

A war crime is one of the following acts, committed during armed conflicts against persons or property protected under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and its Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977:

…

13° the transfer of the population, or parts of it, by a party to the conflict into the occupied territory, its deportation within or outside the occupied territory, without taking its interests into account;

…

Article: 9

Shall be punished by one of the following penalties any person having committed one of the war crimes provided for in Article 8 of this law:

…

3° imprisonment for five (5) to ten (10) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 4°, 5°, 13°, 14° or 15° of Article 8 of this law.

Senegal

Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitute war crimes:

[O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

7. transferring, directly or indirectly, parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into the territory it occupies.

Serbia

Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states:

Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, as an occupying power orders or undertakes relocation of part of its civilian population to occupied territories, shall be punished by imprisonment of a minimum five years.

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:

2. Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977] First [Additional] Protocol.

(1) A person of whatever nationality commits an offence if that person, whether within or outside Sierra Leone[,] commits, aids, abets or procures any other person to commit a grave breach specified in –

…

inter alia, the grave breach of transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies]. (e) paragraph … 4 of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on,, the grave breach of transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies].

Slovakia

Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, punishes “a person who in war time … settles the occupied territory with the population of his own country”.

Slovenia

Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides, under the heading “War Crimes against the Civil Population”, that “whoever, in violation of the principles of international law, orders or implements, as occupier in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, deportation of groups of civilians to the occupied territory” shall be punished.

South Africa

South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

South Africa

South Africa’s Implementation of the Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:

5. Breach of Conventions and penalties

(1) Any person who, whether within or outside the Republic, commits a grave breach of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions, is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “a grave breach” means–

…

(e) a grave breach referred to in Article … 85 of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I.

Spain

Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes anyone who transfers and settles in occupied territory any part of the population of the occupying power, in order to remain there permanently.

Spain

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:

Any person who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict is punished with 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to a penalty for the results of such acts:

…

5. Transferring and settling, directly or indirectly, part of the occupying party’s own population into the occupied territory in order for them to permanently reside in this territory.

Switzerland

Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in a chapter entitled “War crimes”:

Art. 110

Articles 112–114 apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

…

Art. 112c

1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict:

…

h. as a member of an occupying power, transfers part of its own civilian population into the occupied zone[.]

Switzerland

Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states under the title “War crimes”:

Art. 264b

Articles 264d–264j apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

…

Art. 264g

1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict:

…

h. as a member of an occupying power, transfers parts of its own civilian population into the occupied zone[.]

Tajikistan

Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes:

any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I].

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.

Uruguay

Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:

26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.

26.3. The following are war crimes:

…

16. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, provides, under the heading “War crimes against civilian population:

Whoever in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, … orders the transfer of a part of the civilian population into the occupied territory … shall be punished.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”.

Canada

Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” In 2013, in the, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the… is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”

South Africa

In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:

The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.

…

The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.

…

… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …

…

On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …

South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.

After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.

Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.

…

The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …

The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …

South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …

…

… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.

…

To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.

…

Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.

Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …

…

I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.

…

It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …

…

In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.

…

To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …

…

According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.

This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].

…

I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.

For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.

This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.

In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed.

South Africa

In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:

In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.

…

Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:

This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.

Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.

This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.

Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.

The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …

usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. [footnotes in original omitted] Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements ofand/orhave not been met. See[footnotes in original omitted]

The Court also held:

usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement ofhas been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of

Cuba

In 2009, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the representative of Cuba stated:

It is disquieting to see the tragic worsening … [of] the … situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as a result of the incessant illegal policies and practices carried out by the Occupying Power against the Palestinian people. The construction of the separation Wall, in flagrant violation of international law, continues and the settlement policy increases in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

Cuba

In 2009, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the representative of Cuba stated:

Israel … continues its intensive colonization activities, such as the ongoing practice of confiscating large tracts of land, the construction and extension of Israeli settlements.

…

Cuba reaffirms that all the measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the Occupying Power, to alter the legal, physical and demographic status of the occupied Syrian Golan and its institutional structure or to impose its jurisdiction and administration there are null and void and have no legal effect. We reaffirm that all these measures and actions, including the illegal construction and expansion of Israeli settlements in the Syrian Golan since 1967, constitute violations of international law, international agreements, the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations. Cuba demands that Israel abides by resolution 497 (1981) and withdraws completely from occupied Syrian Golan to the borders of 4 June 1967.

Cuba

In 2010, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the representative of Cuba stated:

It is disquieting to see the tragic worsening … [of] the … situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as a result of the incessant illegal policies and practices carried out by Israel, the Occupying Power, against the Palestinian people. The construction of the separation Wall, in flagrant violation of international law, continues and the settlement policy increases in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

Cuba

In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba stated:

The Occupying Power continues its intensive colonization activities, such as the … construction and extension of Israeli settlements …

…

Despite the moratorium decreed by the government of Israel, settlement activities continue, in particular in the West Bank. These activities are aimed at modifying the demographic composition, character and nature of the Palestinian lands, annexing them de facto by means of confiscating large areas [of territory].

The construction and expansion of illegal settlements calls into question the seriousness of Israel in the peace negotiations and jeopardises the results of the … [peace] process. These policies prevent, in practical terms, the existence of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders and the possibility of a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Cuba condemns those policies and practices, which violate international law, including the [1949] Fourth Geneva Convention [and] United Nations resolutions … and we insist that Israel immediately end all of these illegal practices.

Cuba

In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the situation in the Middle East, the deputy permanent representative of Cuba stated:

We demand the immediate cessation by Israel of its illegal settlement activities, as well as so-called “natural growth”, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The cessation of these practices is an indispensable requirement for the achievement of a peace agreement.

Cuba reaffirms that all the measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the Occupying Power, to alter the legal, physical and demographic status of the occupied Syrian Golan and its institutional structure or to impose its jurisdiction and administration there are null and void and have no legal effect.

We also reaffirm that all these measures and actions, including the illegal construction and expansion of Israeli settlements in the Syrian Golan since 1967, constitute violations of international law, international agreements, the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations.

Cuba demands that Israel abides by resolution 497 (1981) and withdraws completely from occupied Syrian Golan to the borders of 4 June 1967.

Denmark

In 2003, in a written reply to a question in Parliament regarding Amnesty International’s characterization of Israel’s behaviour as a war crime, Denmark’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: “Denmark and the EU believe that Israel through its settlement policy violates international humanitarian law.”

Egypt

The Report on the Practice of Egypt states:

Egypt has a firm position according to which displacement and all measures designed to change the demographic composition of the occupied territories are null and void. Such measures, if occurred, must be rescinded as soon as possible, particularly after the signature of the Treaty of peace … It is worth remembering that the aforementioned position adopted by Egypt had also been put forward with regard to Additional Protocol II. Additionally, Egypt condemned forcible transfers practised by Israel in 1967 vis-à-vis civilians.

France

The Report on the Practice of France states:

fait accompli of the settlement colonies which modify the demographic structure of the territory. It is also opposed to expulsion measures directed at the inhabitants of the occupied territories which are equally contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention. In relation to these Israeli measures, the French representatives even talk of “banishment” and “exceptional gravity”. France is clearly opposed to the policy ofof the settlement colonies which modify the demographic structure of the territory. It is also opposed to expulsion measures directed at the inhabitants of the occupied territories which are equally contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention. In relation to these Israeli measures, the French representatives even talk of “banishment” and “exceptional gravity”.

India

Lok Sabha), India’s Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs stated: “India had … called for an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories”. In 2009, in answer to a written question in the Lower House of Parliament (), India’s Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs stated: “India had … called for an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories”.

India

In 2012, in a statement during a UN Security Council open debate on the Middle East, the permanent representative of India stated:

3. … [T]he complete cessation of settlement activities is of utmost importance. …

…

4. … [I]f there is one issue that has become the major hindrance to the peace process, it is Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. … Settlement activities have also exacerbated the humanitarian problems of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They have led to violence and aggravation of tension between the Israeli settlers and the Palestinian population. We, therefore, reiterate our call for Israel to stop all settlement activities.

Ireland

In 2008, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a written response to a question on the Middle East peace process, stated:

We have also called for decisive action by the Israeli Government to demonstrate a genuine commitment to a freeze on all settlement construction on occupied land. We and our EU partners are deeply concerned about a series of decisions in recent months authorising the construction of large numbers of new housing units in settlements in and around Jerusalem. Ireland has worked with other Member States to ensure that the EU has conveyed its concerns about settlement expansion directly to the Israeli Government at every opportunity, including at the most recent meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council in Luxembourg on 16 June [2008]. The EU position is very clear. Settlement expansion anywhere in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law.

Ireland

In 2008, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a written response to a question on foreign conflicts, stated:

Ireland and its EU partners have consistently urged the Israeli Government to cease all activities in the Occupied Territories, including settlement building … which [is] contrary to international law and which threaten[s] to make any solution based on the co-existence of two viable States physically impossible.

Israel

Following the adoption by the UN Diplomatic Conference of the 1998 ICC Statute, Israel gave the following explanation of its vote:

Israel has reluctantly cast a negative vote. It fails to comprehend why it has been considered necessary to insert into the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes the action of transferring population into occupied territory. The exigencies of lack of time and intense political and public pressure have obliged the Conference to by-pass very basic sovereign prerogatives to which we are entitled in drafting international conventions, in favour of finishing the work and achieving a Statute on a come-what-may basis. We continue to hope that the Court will indeed serve the lofty objectives for the attainment of which it is being established.

Jordan

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Jordan stated:

5.120 The wall being constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around east Jerusalem divides the West bank into six sections not linked except by or through Israeli checkpoints and controls. As indicated … it has the clear effect, and also the intention, of consolidating and protecting the civilian Jewish settlements constructed on the West Bank and in the East Jerusalem area with the active assistance of the Government of Israel …

5.121 Those settlements involve an unlawful alteration of the population balance in the West bank. Consequently, the construction of the wall in such a way as to support that unlawful alteration of the population balance is itself unlawful.

5.122 The population balance of an occupied territory may be affected by the operation of two processes, either separately or taken together. On the one hand, the indigenous inhabitants may be removed from or compelled to leave the territory; on the other hand, persons from outside the territory, and particularly from the Occupying Power’s own country, may be transferred into the occupied territory. In respect of the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem, both processes have been at work; both are contrary to applicable international rules.

…

5.132 To take first the prohibition against the Occupying Power transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territory, there is no doubt that Israel, the Occupying Power, has engaged in practices which involve the “transfer [of] parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. The movement of settlers into the occupied territories has been a publicly proclaimed policy of the Government of Israel since the occupation began, and has taken place with the active support and encouragement of that Government.

…

5.202 The policy and practice of displacement resulting from the construction of the wall, considered in its historical context and in the light of consistent patterns of expropriation, destruction of agricultural land, orchards and olive groves, designate [sic] of Palestinian land as “state land”, refusal of return of refugees, promotion of and assistance to non-indigenous settlers, allow an inference of permanent forcible transfers attributable to Israel. Such transfers are contrary to any exception permitted under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

5.203 Moreover, deportation and transfer incur individual criminal responsibility in international law.

Kuwait

In a series of letters to the UN Secretary-General between August and October 1990, Kuwait complained about the following actions carried out by Iraqi authorities in occupied Kuwait:

–Iraqi forces arrested Kuwaiti nationals and others, and transferred them to Bagdad.

–Transportation to Kuwait of large numbers or Iraqi families for the purposes of settlement and alteration of the country’s demographic structure.

–In its efforts to change the demographic structure of Kuwait and erase the very identity of the country, Iraqi occupation forces have embarked on the application and execution of a novel practice of: depopulating Kuwait from its own inhabitants, confiscating identification documents, and settling Iraqi families in Kuwaiti homes.

–The invading Iraqi authorities have stepped up their campaign to change the demographic character of Kuwait by expanding their operation to expel Kuwaiti nationals from their homes in various areas of Kuwait and to replace them by Iraqi families brought to Kuwait from Iraq.

Kuwait qualified these acts as crimes.

Malaysia

In 2012, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:

[The delegate of Malaysia] said that … Israel, as the [O]ccupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, had failed to ensure that the people of Palestine lived a life free of misery, by blatantly disregarding international law, including the [1949] Geneva Conventions … Its list of violations included continued expansion of illegal settlements.

South Africa

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, South Africa stated:

The Separation Wall incorporates most of the illegal Israel settlements, which still form the subject matter of negotiations between Israel and Palestine, into the Israel side. These Israeli settlements are illegal not only because they represent an attempt to acquire territory by force, but also because it contravenes Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states clearly that the “Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

South Africa

In 2012, in a speech at the South African Institute of International Affairs entitled “South Africa and the United Nations Security Council: Promoting Peace in the Middle East and North Africa”, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation stated: “We believe, with the overwhelming majority of the international community, that the continued illegal settlement expansion by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories undermines the possibility of a negotiated settlement.”

Sweden

In 2007, in a Statement of Government Policy in the Parliamentary Debate on Foreign Affairs, the Government of Sweden stated with regard to Israel: “Settlements in the occupied territories are in clear violation of international law.”

Israeli illegal settlement expansion is accelerating. Violence by extremist settlers is increasing. And evictions and house demolitions in East Jerusalem are continuing. These developments threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. And they severely limit the ability of the Palestinian Authority to promote better living conditions for the Palestinian population, most notably in Area C.

…

In the coming years, I … think we will see a greater effort to strengthen the coherence between international law and concrete actions. Settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace. The debate about economic activity in the settlements and guidelines for the labelling of products from settlements should be seen in this light.

Switzerland

In 2013, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council during a debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, the representative of Switzerland stated:

… Switzerland condemns the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. In particular, the recent decision of Israel to authorize the construction of new units in the zone E1 and in the south of Jerusalem is regrettable.

We share the opinion of the Independent international fact-finding mission on the effects of the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, according to which the settlements in the West Bank are contrary to international humanitarian law … We therefore call on Israel to put an end to the construction of settlements, which, according to the report, lead to a progressive annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2003, in a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the UK Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Israeli settlements in the territories it occupied in June 1967 are illegal under international law.”

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2003, in a briefing paper on Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:

HMG [Her Majesty’s Government], together with the rest of the international community, regard Israeli settlements in the territories which Israel occupied in June 1967 as illegal under international law (including under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2003, during a debate in the House of Lords, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his welcome remarks. I heard what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said about illegal settlements. They are illegal under international law. We believe that they are an obstacle to peace and that Israel should freeze all settlement activity.

…

My Lords, settlement activity and the security fence are causes of great concern to Her Majesty’s Government. Settlement activity has increased during the past year; it is important to keep that issue in the forefront of our minds. We are concerned about the 360 kilometre-long fence, to which the noble Lord referred, which takes up so much Palestinian land and separates families. Our embassy in Tel Aviv has raised with the Israeli Government our concern about the location and the impact of the security fence. We fully understand Israel’s need to take steps within the law to protect itself from terrorist attack, but that must be achieved through a negotiated peace, not by measures such as the security fence.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2004, in a written ministerial statement, the UK Minister for the Middle East stated that “settlement building cannot be defended on security grounds. It undermines trust in the region and is illegal under international law”.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the planned construction and expansion of various Israeli settlements, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

We have made frequent representations to the Israeli Government expressing our concern over continued settlement activity … We have also made clear our view that settlements are illegal under international law.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the expansion of settlements, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

The UK Government’s consistent view is that, while Israel has the right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings, which we condemn absolutely, Israel must act within international law. Settlement construction and the building of the barrier on occupied land are contrary to international law.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “representations the Government has made to the Israeli Government on Israel taking more Palestinian land for settlements”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

We will continue to raise our concerns over the settlements and the barrier with the Israeli Government at all levels.

Our ambassador in Tel Aviv last raised our concerns about settlements and impact of the barrier in East Jerusalem with the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 December 2005. He also raised Palestinian access to the Jordan Valley on 2 March with the Israeli Prime Minister’s Special Adviser.

Settlements are illegal under international law and settlement construction is an obstacle to peace.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “whether it is Government policy to regard the Green Line as the border of Israel”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

Settlement building on Palestinian land is illegal under international law and settlement construction is an obstacle to peace. The barrier’s route should be on or behind the Green Line, and not on occupied territory. Construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is also illegal. We continue to raise both of these issues with the Israeli Government at all levels.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning the situation in Palestine, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

We also call on Israel to route the barrier on or behind the Green Line and freeze all settlement activity and dismantle all outposts built since 2001. The routing of the barrier and the construction of settlements on occupied land is illegal. We continue to raise these issues with the Israeli Government.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Settlements are illegal under international law.”

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the marketing and purchasing of property for sale in the occupied Palestinian Territories, the UK Minister of State for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

We regard all settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal under international law and have repeatedly raised our concerns about settlement activity with the Israeli Government. The Government do not advise or encourage companies and organisations to market or sell property in the settlements, however it is not unlawful to do so under UK law.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, the UK Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Settlements are illegal under international law.”

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning Israeli settlement activity, the UK Minister of State for Africa, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Settlements are illegal under international law.”

United States of America

In 1980, the US Secretary of State stated:

US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process.

In 1991, the Secretary of State stated that Israeli settlement activity “does violate the United States policy”.

United States of America

In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense declared that it regarded the transfer of the Iraqi population into occupied Kuwait in violation of Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV as a war crime.

UN Security Council

In several resolutions adopted in 1979 and 1980, the UN Security Council stated that the measures taken by Israel to alter the demographic composition of the occupied territories, and in particular the establishment of settlers, were contrary to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and constituted an obstacle to peace.

UN Security Council

In a resolution adopted in 1980 on Israeli settlement policies in the occupied territories, the UN Security Council:

Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

UN Security Council

In a resolution on Iraq and Kuwait adopted in 1990, the UN Security Council condemned “the destruction of Kuwaiti demographic records, the forced departure of Kuwaitis, the relocation of population in Kuwait”.

In another resolution a month later, the Security Council condemned “the attempts by Iraq to alter the demographic composition of the population of Kuwait”.

UN Security Council

In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN Security Council called upon all parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia “to ensure that forcible expulsions of persons from the areas where they live and any attempt to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, cease immediately”.

UN General Assembly

In 1968, the UN General Assembly established a Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.

Following reports submitted by this Committee, the General Assembly adopted numerous resolutions expressing concern at the Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories. For example, in a resolution adopted in 1981, the General Assembly strongly condemned the “establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of the existing settlements on private and public Arab lands, and transfer of an alien population thereto”.

This condemnation was reiterated in subsequent resolutions adopted in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2000 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

1. Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the Occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;

2. Calls upon Israel … to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the [fourth Geneva] Convention, in particular article 49;

Demands complete cessation of the construction of the new settlement at Jebel Abu-Ghneim and all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan. 3.complete cessation of the construction of the new settlement at Jebel Abu-Ghneim and all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan.

UN General Assembly

its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land”. (emphasis in original) In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN General Assembly reiterated “to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land”.(emphasis in original)

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967”.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

…

Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967,

…

Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. 3.that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Recalls the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,

…

Recalls in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities,

Recalls relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are null and void. relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are null and void.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

Aware that Israeli settlement activities have involved, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

…

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel of settlement activities in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, including the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem,

…

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;

2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,1 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;

Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 3.that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2004 on the Advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:

Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,

Recalling also the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,

Recalling further the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

…

Recalling also the resolutions of its tenth emergency special session on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

…

Recalling its resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, in which it demanded that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,

Recalling also its resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003, in which it requested the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question:

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”,

Having received with respect the advisory opinion of the Court on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, rendered on 9 July 2004,

Noting in particular that the Court replied to the question put forth by the General Assembly in resolution ES-10/14 as follows:

“A. The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law;

“B. Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;

“C. Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

“D. All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;

“E. The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”,

Noting that the Court concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

Noting also the statement made by the Court that “Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect civilian life” …

…

1. Acknowledges the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;

3. Calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;

…

6. … emphasizes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law;

Calls upon all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure respect by Israel for the Convention, and invites Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, to conduct consultations and to report to the General Assembly on the matter, including with regard to the possibility of resuming the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. 7.all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure respect by Israel for the Convention, and invites Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, to conduct consultations and to report to the General Assembly on the matter, including with regard to the possibility of resuming the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2004 concerning the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 …

…

Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 9.for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan” and stressed “the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967”.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,

Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Noting that the Court concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

…

Aware that Israeli settlement activities have involved, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

…

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement activities, in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, including the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem,

…

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;

2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,1 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

3. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions;

Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 4.that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:

Concerned about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;

Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 3.that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem,

…

6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power … to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;

…

Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 13.for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

…

Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967. the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:

Expressing grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities and its construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem, and the further isolation of the city from the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, …

…

Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever. 1.that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,

Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Noting that the International Court of Justice concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

…

Aware that Israeli settlement activities have involved, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

…

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement activities, in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, including the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem and the so-called E-1 plan, aimed at connecting its illegal settlements around and further isolating Occupied East Jerusalem,

…

Reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, the disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land,

…

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;

2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

…

4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;

…

. Reiterates its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.

UN General Assembly

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:

Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

…

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the