•  
  •  
 

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

Abstract

This article considers Israel's controversial capture of wanted Palestinians in the disputed Occupied Palestinian Territories ("OPT') by resort to perfidy while feigning civilian status. That is given that Israel's call of choice for perfidy revolves almost entirely around capture as opposed to injuring or killing which Israel justly rejects as unlawful. While the prohibition of perfidy is accepted as customary international law, its practical definition and application in the OPT remain unsettled.

The article first considers the differences between the conduct of hostilities and law enforcement paradigms governing the disputed OPT. In certain situations that arise in armed conflicts, it may not be entirely clear whether international humanitarian law ("IHL') rules on whether the conduct of hostilities, or on the use of force in law enforcement, should govern. This uncertainty, albeit inclined toward the conduct of hostilities, generally applies given the particularities of perfidious activity during belligerent occupation whereby local civilians and insurgents are often blended.

The article then cautiously considers a plausible constructed claim for persistent Israeli objection to otherwise unlawful perfidy. In such disrupted causation, it then follows by a detailed consideration of the theoretical andpractical application ofthe principles ofmilitary necessity, distinction, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering in the disputed OPT.

The article ultimately suggests that Israel's military perfidious policy (as opposed to police perfidy) for capturing is debatable at best, and its appearances should be watchfully reevaluated in view of international humanitarian law henceforth.

Disciplines

Comparative and Foreign Law | International Law | Law

Download

Share

COinS