1 Other terms used are “Prior Warning Procedure” or “Advance Warning Procedure”, see Military Order (Israel), “Advance Warning Procedure”, 26 November 2002, translation by B'Tselem <http://www.btselem.org/english/legal_documents/advanced_warning_procedure.doc> (last visited 10 November 2004).

2 Military Order (Israel), “Advance Warning Procedure”, 26 November 2002, op. cit. (note 1).

3 See e.g. testimony of Ahmad Abd al-Qader Ahmad, in “Soldiers use Ahmad Asaf as a human shield in Tulkarem refugee camp”, B'Tselem, 12 January 2004, <http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/040112_Ahmad_Assaf_Human_Shield.asp> (last visited 10 November 2004).

4 E.g. the case of Nidal Abu Mukhsan, who was killed by the person he was supposed to convince to surrender. See “The IDF continues to force Palestinians to serve as ‘human shields’ for soldiers in contempt of High Court of Justice injunction”, B'Tselem, <http://www.btselem.org/english/testimonies/021226_human_shields_update.asp> (last visited 10 November 2004).

5 ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, para. 78, available at <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm> (last visited 10 November 2004); see also Supreme Court of Israel, Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel et al., HCJ 2056/04, Judgment of 30 June 2004, para. 23, available at <http://62.90.71.124/Files_ENG/04/560/020/a28/04020560.a28.pdf> (last visited 10 November 2004); Ajuri v. IDF Commander, HCJ 7015/02, Judgment of 3 September 2002 (“Assigned Residence”), in Israel Law Reports, 2002, pp. 2 and 12 ff.

6 Kretzmer, David, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories, State University of New York Press, New York, 2002, pp. 3234Google Scholar; Falk, Richard A.; Weston, Burns H., “The relevance of international law to Israeli and Palestinian rights in the West Bank and Gaza”, in Playfair, Emma (ed.), International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992, p. 131Google Scholar.

7 Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, entry into force on 21 October 1950, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Federal Political Department, Berne, Vol. 1, pp. 297–330; reprinted in UNTS, Vol. 75, 1950, pp. 287–417; Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention on 8 December 1949 and ratified it on 6 July 1951. The only reservation Israel made refers to the use of the Red Shield of David as the emblem and distinctive sign of its medical services, see “Reservations and declarations concerning the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949”, reprinted in Schindler, Dietrich; Toman, Jirí (eds), The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, 2nd ed., Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1981, p. 506Google Scholar.

8 Blum, Yehuda Zvi, “The missing revisioner: Reflections on the status of Judea and Samaria”, in Israel Law Review, Vol. 3, 1968, pp. 279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shamgar, Meir, “The observance of international law in the administered territories”, in: Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 1, 1971, pp. 265 ffGoogle Scholar.

9 Imseis, Ardi, “On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the occupied Palestinian territory”, in Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2003, p. 97Google Scholar.

10 See e.g. Security Council Resolution 1435 (24 September 2002), UN Doc. S/RES/1435 (2002), on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question; ICJ, op. cit. (note 5), paras. 89–101; “Declaration on the Convention's applicability to the occupied Palestinian territories”, High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Geneva, 5 December 2001, reprinted in journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2002, pp. 148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Supreme Court of Israel, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 12 ff.

12 Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, entry into force on 26 January 1910, in Scott, J.B. (ed.), The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, 3rd ed., New York 1918, pp. 100–127Google Scholar (English translation by US Department of State, with minor corrections by J. B. Scott); reprinted in American journal of International Law, Vol. 2, Suppl., 1908, pp. 97–117Google Scholar (hereinafter 1907 Hague Regulations).

13 Supreme Court of Israel, Ayyoub v. Minister of Defence (Beth-El case), H.C. 606/78, H.C. 610/78, in Piskei Din [Decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court], Vol. 33, No. 2, p. 133; English summary in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 9, 1979, pp. 337 ff.; see also Kuttner, Thomas S., “Israel and the West Bank: Aspects of the law of belligerent occupation”, in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 7, 1977, p. 171Google Scholar; Benvenisti, Eyal, The International Law of Occupation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1993, pp. 109 and 112Google Scholar.

14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 19 December 1966, entry into force on 23 March 1976, in UNTS, Vol. 999, 1976, pp. 171–346; entry into force for Israel on 3 January 1992. The only reservation Israel made concerns matters of personal status which are to be governed in Israel by religious law (Art. 23 of the Covenant), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty5_asp.htm (last visited 10 November 2004).

15 ICJ, op. cit. (note 5), paras. 110 f.; see also Frowein, Jochen Abr., “The relationship between human rights regimes and regimes of belligerent occupation”, in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 6 and 11Google Scholar; Nowak, Manfred, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Commentary, Engel, Kehl am Rhein, 1993, Art. 2, para. 28Google Scholar.

16 The common English translation differs from the authentic French version at this point and reads “public order and safety”; compare e.g. Roberts, Adam; Guelff, Richard (eds.), Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, p. 81Google Scholar. This seems to be based on the semi-official English translation by the US Department of State as given in Scott, James Brown (ed.), The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1918, p. 123Google Scholar. A more adequate translation is contained in American journal of International Law, Vol. 2, Suppl., 1908, pp. 112 f.Google Scholar, which refers to “public order and life”. The correct translation is most likely the one proposed by Schwenk, Edmund H., “Legislative power of the military occupant under Article 43, Hague Regulations”, in Yale Law journal, Vol. 54, 1945, pp. 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar (footnote 1) and 398: “As the French term ‘la vie publique’ encompasses ‘social functions [and] ordinary transactions which constitute daily life’ the term ‘public order and civil life’ seems to come closest to the meaning of ‘l'ordre et la vie publics’, whereas the term ‘l'ordre’ means ‘security or general safety’”. See also Benvenisti, op. cit. (note 13), p. 7; Kretzmer, op. cit. (note 6), p. 58.

17 Gasser, Hans-Peter, “Protection of the civilian population”, in Fleck, Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, pp. 214, 242 and 246Google Scholar; see also Kretzmer, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 131 and 155.

18 Statement by Emil Darwazeh, quoted in Aryeh Dayan, “Refuse to be a human shield? No such thing – mocking High Court rules, the IDF still put Palestinians in the way of danger”, on Haaretz.com, 7 July 2003 available at <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=315128&contrasslD=1> (last visited 10 November 2004).

19 “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”; see Shany, Yuval, “Israeli counter-terrorism measures: Are they ‘kosher’ under international law?”, in Schmitt, Michael N., Beruto, Gian Luca (eds.), Terrorism and International Law: Challenges and Responses, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2003, p. 96 <http://www.michaelschmitt.org/images/4996terr.pdf> (last visited 10 November 2004)Google Scholar.

20 Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), p. 212.

21 Pictet, Jean S., Uhler, Oscar M., Coursier, Henri (eds), The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary, Vol. 4: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, p. 74Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., pp. 74 ff.

23 Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), p. 252.

24 Pictet, op. cit. (note 21), p. 292; Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), p. 263.

25 Pictet, Ibid., p. 293; Gasser, Ibid., p. 263.

26 Article 8.2 (a) (v) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute), 17 July 1998, entry into force on 1 July 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9; reprinted in UNTS, Vol. 2187, 2002, pp. 90–158; ILM, Vol. 37, No. 5, 1998, pp. 1002–1069.

27 Pictet, op. cit. (note 21), p. 293; Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), p. 263.

28 Pictet, Ibid., p. 293.

29 Bothe, Michael, “War crimes”, in Cassese, Antonio, Gaeta, Paola, Jones, John R.W.D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 394Google Scholar.

30 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95–14-A (Appeals Chamber, Judgment of 29 July 2004), para. 597.

31 Dayan, op. cit. (note 18).

32 Article 8, para. 2, lit. b (xv) ICC Statute.

33 ICTY, op. cit. (note 30).

34 Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), p. 264.

35 Ibid.

36 E.g. the case of Nidal Abu Mukhsan, op. cit. (note 4).

37 McCoubrey, Hilaire, International Humanitarian Law: Modern Developments in the Limitation of Warfare, 2nd ed., Ashgate, Aldershot, 1998, p. 200Google Scholar.

38 Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, entry into force on 21 October 1950, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Federal Political Department, Berne, Vol. 1, pp. 243–276; reprinted in UNTS, Vol. 75, 1950, pp. 135–285.

39 Pictet, op. cit. (note 21), p. 209.

40 Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 218 and 265.

41 Article 6, para. 1, of the ICCPR reads “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

42 Report of the Secretary-General on “Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts”, UN Doc. A/8052 (18 September 1970), p. 104; see also Frowein, Jochen Abr., “Article 15”, in Frowein, Jochen Abr.; Peukert, Wolfgang (eds.), Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention – EMRK-Kommentar, 2nd ed., N. P. Engel, Kehl am Rhein, 1996, para. 12Google Scholar.

43 Kabaalioǧlu, Halûk A., “The obligation to ‘respect’ and to ‘ensure’ the right to life”, in Ramcharan, Bertrand. G. (ed.), The Right to Life in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1985, pp. 164 fGoogle Scholar.

44 See Nowak, op. cit. (note 15), Art. 6, paras. 3 ff. and 17; Klein, Eckart, “The duty to protect and to ensure human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, in: Klein, Eckart (ed.), The Duty to Protect and Ensure Human Rights, Berlin Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp. 306–310Google Scholar.

45 See ICJ, op. cit. (note 5), para. 106; Frowein, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 9 and 11; Nowak, op. cit. (note 15), Art. 4, para. 27; Heintze, Hans-Joachim, “The European Court of Human Rights and the implementation of human rights standards during armed conflict”, in German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 45, 2002, p. 64Google Scholar.

46 Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), p. 212.

47 Ibid.

48 von Glahn, Gerhard, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1957, p. 83Google Scholar.

49 Michael Bothe; Karl Josef Partsch; Solf, Waldemar A. (eds.), New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 299Google Scholar.

50 Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon, Oxford, 1994, p. 230Google Scholar; Gardam, Judith Gail, “Proportionality and force in international law”, in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 87, 1993, pp. 391 and 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Supreme Court of Israel, Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel et al., op. cit. (note 5), para. 39; Supreme Court of Israel, Ajuri et al. v. IDF Commander, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 21 f.; Kretzmer, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 131 and 155; Gasser, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 214, 242 and 246.

52 Supreme Court of Israel, Ajuri v. IDF Commander, op. cit. (note 5), p. 13.

53 Ibid., pp. 21ff.

54 Military Order (Israel), “Advance Warning Procedure”, op. cit. (note 1).

55 See the case of Nidal Abu Mukhsan, op. cit. (note 4).

56 Military Order (Israel), “Advance Warning Procedure”, op. cit. (note 1).

57 Supreme Court of Israel, Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel et al., op. cit. (note 5).

58 Ibid., para. 41; see also United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, UK Ministry of Defence, Oxford 2004, para. 2.7.1.Google Scholar