Israel Detention of Unlawful Combatants Case Study
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
Qualifications of the conflict and of the persons under discussion
1. (Part A, para. 9) Do you agree with the Court that there is an international armed conflict between the State of Israeland terrorist organizations? How are international armed conflicts defined? What is the law applicable to the
situation? According to the Court? According to you? (GC I-IV, Art. 2)
2. (Part A, para. 11) Do you agree with the Court that the occupation of Gaza ended in September 2005 when Israeli
troops withdrew? Could Israel still be regarded as an occupying power even though its troops are no longer present on
the territory? Which duties does Israel still recognize itself as having towards the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip? What
legal basis do they arise from? (GC IV, Art. 6(1); P I, 3(b))
3. (Part A, paras 11 and 12) Does the definition of unlawful combatant as given in Section 3 of the Unlawful
Combatants Law have any basis under IHL (para. 12)? Is the interpretation of the concept of unlawful combatants given
here by the Court the same as the one it gave in the Targeted Killings case? Why does the Court say that the two
definitions are necessarily different? Do you agree? [See Israel, The Targeted Killings Case, para. 31]
4. (Part A, para. 14) Do you agree with the Court that there is no intermediate status between the categories of
combatants and civilians? What is the status of the Palestinians detained by Israel? According to the Court? According
to you? Are they protected persons? Why? What protection are they afforded? (GC IV, Art. 4)
B. Legal basis for detention
5.
a. (Part A) What was the legal basis, under IHL, for the appellants detention before September 2005? According to the
Court? (GC IV, Arts 27, 78)
b. (Part A) What was the legal basis, under IHL, for the appellants detention after September 2005? According to the
Court? Do Arts 41 and 42 apply here even though the appellants were first arrested outside Israels own territory? (GC
IV, Arts 27, 41-42)
c. (Part A, para. 17) Do you agree with the appellants that their detention is unlawful under IHL because none of the
provisions contained in GC IV apply? What was the status of the Gaza Strip during the Disengagement Plan? What are
the consequences of your answer for the legality of the appellants detention?
d. (Part A, para. 17) According to the Court, in GC IV there is a power of detention for security reasons, whether we are
concerned with the inhabitants of an occupied territory or we are concerned with foreigners who were found in the
territory of one of the states involved in the dispute. Does this mean that protected persons may be arrested in the
territory of a party to a conflict by the enemy forces, without it being occupied by the latter? Would this be in
accordance with GC IVs definition of occupation? Is there a basis in IHL for the detention of civilians arrested neither in
an occupied territory nor in the Detaining Powers own territory?
6. (Part A) Was Israel allowed to transfer the detainees to its own territory at the end of occupation? May civilian
internees arrested in occupied territories be transferred to the Detaining Powers own territory? Does Art. 49 of GC IV
prohibiting [i]ndividual ( ) forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons, apply to civilian internees?
In a situation where internees are transferred to the territory of the Detaining Power, which set of rules should apply to
them after their transfer?
7.
a. (Part A, para. 52) Should the detainees have been released at the end of occupation, in September 2005? Do you
agree with the Court that the obligation to release them at the end of occupation is not an obligation under IHL? (GC IV,
Arts 49 and 132-134)
b. (Part A, paras 46 and 52) How should the requirement of release as soon as possible after the close of hostilitiesbe interpreted (GC IV, Art. 133)? What does the close of hostilities mean in a situation such as the present one, where
sporadic fighting carries on for years?
8.
a. (Part A, paras 20-23) How does the Court interpret the individual threat requirement? Does IHL require an individual
assessment of the threat posed by a person before deciding upon that persons detention? (GC IV, Arts 27(4), 41-43
and 78) According to the Court, when may a person be detained as an unlawful combatant? What elements are required to authorize detention? Does the Court say whether the same elements are required for the continuation of detention? Should they be required?
b. (Part A, paras 15 and 24) Is the presumption of constituting a security threat provided for in Section 7 of the Unlawful
Combatants Law in accordance with IHL? May a person be interned for the mere fact that he or she belongs to a hostile
armed group, independently of that persons individual conduct? Is this in compliance with the requirement for an
individual assessment? (GC IV, Arts 42 and 78)
c. (Part A, para. 23) When can a person be considered to belong to a hostile, illegal organization? How can such a
connection be proved?
9. (Part A, para. 40) Are the provisions of the said Law relating to the judicial review of detention in accordance with
IHL? What are the requirements set by IHL with regard to the judicial review of detention? Must the review be judicial or
may it also be administrative? What is the utility of a judicial review if the detainees concerned have no access to the
evidence against them? Must they have access to such evidence under GC IV? (GC IV, Arts 43 and 78)
C. Participation in hostilities
[See also Israel, The Targeted Killings Case]
10. (Part A, para. 13) Do you agree with the Court that IHL does not grant unlawful combatants the same degree of
protection to which innocent civilians are entitled? Does this assertion have a legal basis in IHL? What restrictions may apply to them? Does it make a difference whether they are themselves in an occupied territory or in the territory of the
party in whose hands they are? What restrictions, if any, may be applied to the detainees in the present case? May the
same restrictions be applied to them before and after September 2005? Were they deprived of any protection under GC
IV? (GC IV, Art. 5)
11.
a. (Part A, para. 21) When does someone become an unlawful combatant? What does the requirement of having made a significant contribution to the hostilities mean? Are the nature and degree of the contribution similar to the definition of participation in hostilities given by the HCJ in the Targeted Killings case? [See Israel, The Targeted Killings
Case, para. 33]
b. (Part B) Could weapon smuggling be considered to constitute a direct participation in hostilities? A security threat justifying internment under GC IV? According to the Court? According to you? If the appellant had been a member of an
organization conducting hostilities against Israel, could he have been considered an unlawful combatant for the purpose of the Unlawful Combatants Law? Even if he were only smuggling weapons?
c. (Part B, para. 13) Why should the appellant be detained under the Administrative Detention Law rather than under the
Unlawful Combatants Law? What is the difference between the two forms of detention? As far as the legal basis in IHL
is concerned? Under Israeli law? Does the requirement that less harmful measures must be used when available have
any basis under IHL?
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Israel Detention of Unlawful Combatants Case Study
Israel Detention of Unlawful Combatants Case Study