International Human Rights and Israel as Seen in the Work of the Treaty Bodies: Do They Walk the Talk?

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-276
Author(s):  
Ruth Halperin-Kaddari ◽  
Amichai Danino

The purpose of this article is to review the manner in which the human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) treat Israel, focusing on the system of periodic reporting, with the aim of examining whether Israel is being accorded ‘special treatment’ or, put more simply, whether a bias against Israel can be ascertained in the work of the HRTBs. In analysing the concluding observations (COBs) issued in respect of six of Israel's recent periodic reports, we identified four distinct population groups within Israeli society, and studied the number and nature of the COBs targeting each of these groups. This we termed the ‘output’. We then looked into the amount of the alternative information provided to the Committees by civil society organisations, which we termed the ‘input’. An examination of the two reveals a clear correlation between the relatively greater weight accorded to the Palestinian population in the occupied territories in the input side of the exercise (the alternative reports) and the output side (the COBs). Thus, what might initially be perceived as proved bias in the treatment of Israel by the HRTBs in light of the seemingly disproportional weight they accord to the conflict, turns out to be at least partially influenced by the information and materials provided to the Committees.

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orna Ben-Naftali ◽  
Yuval Shany

AbstractAre human rights norms applicable to occupied territories in general, and to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in particular? The article examines the controversy that had arisen between Israel and the UN treaty monitoring bodies in relation to this question and critically analyzes Israel's three objections to such applicability: 1) the mutual exclusivity of humanitarian regime and human rights regime in occupied territories, the former being thus the only applicable law; 2) a restrictive interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions treaties; and 3) the lack of effective control in some of the territories. The article posits that the universal object and purpose of human rights treaties, which inform the proper interpretation of their jurisdictional clauses, require their applicability in all territories subject to the effective control of the state parties, as well as to other extra-territorial exercises of government power directly affecting individuals. Consequently, international human rights law and international humanitarian law apply in occupied territories in parallel and not to the exclusion of one another. This position is confirmed by extensive practice of the international human rights monitoring bodies, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and by some decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court. In conclusion, the paper posits that Israel's refusal to apply the six principal human rights treaties to which it is party to the Occupied Territories is incompatible with its international law obligations and proceeds to propose modalities for the co-application of both human rights and humanitarian law in occupied territories.


Author(s):  
David Kretzmer ◽  
Yaël Ronen

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document