Abstract
While the focus in transitional justice literature is most often on functional or quasi-functional processes, this Article turns to the rather less explored path of dysfunctional transitions through the lens of the Israeli/Palestinian case. The stop and start nature of the "transition" from a conflict to the post-conflict process has reverted to a situation that the Israeli government has recently described as an 'armed conflict short of war." Against this backdrop, this Article provides insight into the role of law or its absence in transitioning conflict. As there are conflicting Israeli and Palestinian arguments regarding the legitimacy of Israeli occupation (i.e., as a belligerent-occupant or administrator), Part I provides a brief historical overview to clarify and contextualize the current debate. Part II provides an overview of the administrative and legal frameworks that govern the Occupied Territories. I then turn to look specifically at the applicability of international law, with specific reference to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War ("Geneva Convention"), and evaluate some of the Israeli Supreme Court rulings with regard to the Occupied Territories. Part III provides a content analysis of the Oslo Accords and the accompanying agreements. Part IV addresses the question of where we go from here.
Recommended Citation
Kathleen A. Cavanaugh,
Selective Justice: The Case of Israel and the Occupied Territories,
26 Fordham Int'l L.J. 934
(2002).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol26/iss4/4