<%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="1252"%>
Balance between Security & Human Rights
This Law has opened in a separate window
so that you can study it simultaneously with other documents.
To search for a word, use the "find" function in the Edit Menu at the top of your browser.
To close or minimalize this page, click in the appropriate box in the upper right corner.
Relevant Major Principles of International Law - (6)
The Occupant must Strike a Balance Between Securing its own Military Safety
and Public Order vs. Doing Only That Which Benefits the Native People, but the
Latter is the More Important:
RELEVANT PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
On the one hand, international law demands that military and occupying
forces respect the human rights and right of self-determination of civilians
it encounters (please see points #7 & #8), but on the other hand it
recognizes the right of a military force to keep itself safe, and to defend
itself (point #1). Thus international law sees that military forces must
work at a balancing act between these two priorities, which often conflict
with each other. But international law also says that the respect of human
rights and the right self-determination must come first - must be the
higher priority.
Thus, acknowledging this balancing act while making human rights the
higher priority is thus reflected throughout the laws in all the different
declarations - for example not altering local laws except where it is
necessary for restoring public safety, and respecting local political
and court officials except where it might jeopardize public safety (see
quotes listed below).
RELEVANT LAWS & RESPONSES
As per International Law -
Hague Regulations IV (1907) articles 43 (full
text) (specific article - see below)
Geneva Conventions IV (1949), articles 54 & 64 (full
text) (specific articles - see below)
Israeli Violations -
Examples of imbalance against human rights and right of self-determination
are the Israeli settlements and network of Israel-use only highways
Israel is building throughout the occupied Palestinian territories,
and radical modification of local laws all clearly benefit only
Israel and the Israeli settlements themselves, and are often at
the expense of the local Palestinian economy and society. Israel's
claim that these measures are only for self-defense and that they
will benefit the Palestinians by leading to modernization of local
facilities and systems is clearly not true because of how these
measures are actually implemented (more details on settlements here,
and on inappropriate modification of local laws here
and here).
Article 43. The authority of the legitimate
power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore,
and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while
respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force
in the country.
Article 54. The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.
This prohibition does not prejudice the application of the second paragraph of Article 51. It does not affect the right of the Occupying Power to remove public officials from their posts.
Article 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.
REFERENCES
Any comments, suggestions, or questons are most welcomed. Please contact us at [email protected]
