Yaël Ronen analyses the international legal ramifications of illegal territorial regimes, namely the illegal annexation of territory or illegal declarations of independence, by reference to the stage of transition from an illegal territorial regime to a lawful one. Six case studies (Namibia, Zimbabwe, the Baltic States, the South African Bantustans, East Timor and northern Cyprus) are used to explore the tension between the invalidity of the illegal regime's acts and their effectiveness, with respect to the international relations of such territories, their domestic legal systems, the status of settlers and land transfers. Relying heavily on primary and previously unconsidered sources, she focuses on the international legal constraints on the post-transition regime's policy, particularly in the context of international human rights law.
The generally accepted position today is that international human rights treaties to which an occupying state is a party apply to that state’s actions in occupied territory. The Government of Israel rejects this position. This chapter examines the Court’s view on the issue. The Court often refers to provisions in human rights treaties in its decisions relating to Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories, but it has never taken a firm position on the treaties’ formal applicability. The Court’s position on the relationship between international human rights law and other applicable bodies of law is also ambiguous. Thus the Court has left the applicable legal regime indeterminate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.