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

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 Author aut Text xx# 2024 Verfassungsblog 2024-10-11 eng 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 Moussa, Jasmine International Court of Justice International Humanitarian Law Israel-Hamas War Völkerrecht occupation Völkerrecht 342 https://verfassungsblog.de/the-advisory-opinion-on-israels-policies-and-practices-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/ Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH 10.59704/2e5468f295000f53 241011 10.59704/2e5468f295000f53 Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl (Revision 1.140 20200717)