nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/2e5468f295000f53 DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 241011s2024||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/2e5468f295000f53 doi eng 342 23 Moussa, Jasmine Author aut The Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - Revisiting the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello Moussa, Jasmine Verfassungsblog 2024-10-11 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This post analyses the separation between jus ad bellum / in bello as arising from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. This separation was challenged by many States appearing before the Court, some of which implied that Israel’s policies and practices, as violations of jus in bello, rendered the occupation unlawful under jus ad bellum. The Court ultimately reaffirmed the separation with a twofold argument, namely qualifying the ‘legality of the occupation’ as a jus ad bellum question, and framing Israel’s policies and practices (prolonged occupation, annexation, and settlement policy) as violations of jus ad bellum. CC BY-SA 4.0 International Court of Justice International Humanitarian Law Israel-Hamas War Völkerrecht occupation (DE-588)4063693-8 gnd Völkerrecht Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/the-advisory-opinion-on-israels-policies-and-practices-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/ raw object