Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Creators: Rothenberg, Daniel
- Creators: School of Sustainability
Description
On December 27, 2008, Israel began a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead with an aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip. On January 3, 2009, Israel expanded its aerial assault with a ground invasion. Military operations continued until January 18, 2009, when Israel implemented a unilateral cease fire and withdrew its forces. When the hostilities had ended, between 1,166 and 1,440 Palestinians had been killed as a result of Israeli attacks, two-thirds of whom are estimated to be civilians. Ensuing allegations of international human rights (IHR) and international humanitarian law (IHL) violations were widespread. Amidst these claims, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) commissioned a fact-finding team, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, to investigate whether the laws of war were infringed upon. Their findings, published in a document known colloquially as the Goldstone Report, allege a number of breaches of the laws of occupation, yet give a cursory treatment to the preliminary question of the applicability of this legal regime. This paper seeks to more comprehensively assess whether Gaza could be considered occupied territory for the purposes of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead. In doing so, this paper focuses on exactly what triggers and terminates the laws of occupation`s application, rather than the rights and duties derived from the laws of occupation. This paper proceeds with a brief discussion of the history of the Gaza occupation, including Israel`s unilateral evacuation of ground troops and settlements from within Gaza in 2005, a historic event that sparked renewed debate over Israel`s status as an Occupying Power vis-à-vis Gaza. The following section traces the development of the laws of occupation in instruments of IHL. The next section considers the relevant international case law on occupation. The following section synthesizes the various criteria from the IHL treaty and case law for determining the existence of a situation of occupation, and considers their application to the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead. The concluding section argues that Israel maintained the status of Occupying Power during Operation Cast Lead, and discusses the legal implications of such a determination.
ContributorsNaser, Sam (Author) / Simmons, William (Thesis advisor) / Sylvester, Douglas (Committee member) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
In 2021, Palestine will have been under official Israeli occupation for 54 years. As conflict persists between the two populations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful resolution. As international legal bodies have failed to bring an end to the occupation, the Israeli government continues to carry out extensive violations of human rights against the Palestinians. One significant consequence of the occupation has been the Palestinians’ lack of access to safe and reliable water, a problem that is continuing to worsen as a result of climate change and years of over-utilization of shared, regional water resources. Since the occupation started, international organizations have not only affirmed the general human right to water but have overseen several peace agreements between Israel and Palestine that have included stipulations on water. Despite these measures, neither water access nor quality has improved and, over time, has worsened. This paper will look at why international law has failed to improve conditions for Palestinians and will outline the implications of the water crisis on a potential solution between Israel and Palestine.
ContributorsTimpany, Grace Louise (Author) / Haglund, LaDawn (Thesis director) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
Turkish Safe Zones, as areas to push migrants into for protection, have always been contentious but the recent push to expel Syrians into The Northern Syria Buffer Zone (also known as the Safe Zone, Peace Corridor, or Security Mechanism) has added to the concern of international human rights violations in Turkey. In addition this paper considers the arguments made for the geographical limitation, of the The 1951 Refugee Convention, for refugees in Turkey as it pertains to the welfare of Syrian migrants. As justified under the geographic limitation in Turkey, sending Syrian migrants to Safe Zones is extremely dangerous because it not only puts peoples lives at risk, but it also sets the stage to accept that international law is not truly international and can be broken to avoid the responsibility of migrants. International law quite clearly shows how the forcible return of any migrant to an area where they are put in harm’s way is a direct violation of international law regardless of geographical limitations.Because the development of Turkish Safe Zones in Northern Syria is a recent development, much of the current political science literature fails to see the problem with the Turkish StateFs deportation. Instead, current literature (Abdelaaty, 2019, p. 1) (United Nations, 2011) (Blake, 2020) (Mann, 2021) focuses on how Syrian migrants are termed guests instead of refugees. The guest status makes it so migrants with refugee level concerns do not receive refugee level benefits. This paper argues that the Turkish state deportation of Syrian migrants to Safe Zones is morally wrong, but not surprising. Based on historical events, the expulsion of Syrians to Turkish safe zones in Syria is the logical next step for the Turkish state to legally displace the responsibility of taking care of minorities and migrants.
ContributorsRosenthal, Emily (Author) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Thesis director) / Niebuhr, Robert (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Watts College of Public Service & Community Solut (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2022-05
Immunity of International Organizations and Access to Justice: An International Comparative Analysis
Description
International organizations customarily receive immunities from national jurisdictions so that they may execute their specified mandates and functions without undue interference. However, this immunity results in inherent limitations on access to justice for victims of wrongdoing perpetrated by international organizations. The case of Rodriguez et al. v Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) in the United States exemplifies such limitations, as the claimants who were allegedly trafficked by the PAHO only received limited justice under the American system of immunities. However, other national jurisdictions provide for exceptions to immunities based on a concern for claimants' human rights and access to justice, with the possibility that cases like Rodriguez et al. v PAHO would have starkly different outcomes for legal recourse available to victims. This possibility is especially promising in jurisdictions with strong human rights regimes, with Europe being a prime example of such a jurisdiction. This paper examines the predicted outcomes for the case model provided by Rodriguez et al. v PAHO under two different European national jurisdictions - Belgium and the Netherlands - and their respective systems of exceptions to international organizations' immunities. The outcomes are analyzed with particular attention paid to their implications for the human rights of the claimants and the insights gained into the legal mechanisms and structures that are most crucial for and most harmful towards the human rights of claimants.
ContributorsRoDee, Diana (Author) / Vogel, Kathleen (Thesis director) / Smith-Cannoy, Heather (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor)
Created2024-05