de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean

Post

 
 Vis
  Den israelske højesteret og besættelsen
Item is

Ophav

 Ophav:
Nielsen, Anne-Kathrine1, Forfatter
Søby Kristensen, Kristian2, Vejleder
Tilknytninger:
1Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet, København, Danmark, diskurs:7001              
2Institut for Statskundskab, Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet, København, Danmark, diskurs:7003              
skjul Ophav
Vis Ophav

Indhold

Ukontrollerede emneord: oPt, Israel, Højesteret, besættelsen
 Abstract: When Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war, the Palestinians living there came under
military occupation. A unique feature of this regime is that the inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian
territories (oPt) have the possibility of petitioning the Supreme Court of the occupation power itself,
thereby challenging the military authorities who govern oPt. Shortly after the 1967 war, the Court took on
the role of reviewing the legality of the actions of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), thereby defending the
rights of the Palestinians against IDF if necessary, even in times of conflict. Much has been written about
the Israeli Supreme Court and about the challenges facing courts in general when reviewing the legality of
government actions in times of emergencies. The judicial review of IDF in oPt remains controversial,
however: some find that the Court intervenes too often in IDFs actions and thus undermines security;
others argue that judicial review mainly serve to legitimize Israeli actions in oPt. Israeli law professor David
Kretzmer argues: “The main function of the Court has been to legitimize government actions in the
territories.” (Kretzmer, 2002, s. 2)

This thesis looks into this argument made by Kretzmer by examining the case law of the Supreme Court. I
analyze the role of the Supreme Court in relation to oPt within the framework of what I refer to as
exceptionalism. This term signifies that emergencies affect the way a democratic state and its institutions
function; specifically, it predicts that Courts will defer to the authorities when the security of the state is
threatened. This framework is thus in line with the argument of Kretzmer and is suitable for an analysis of
the Israeli Court since Israel has been in a continual state of emergency since it was founded in 1948.
Through an analysis of Supreme Court judgments, I test the argument of Kretzmer; by analyzing ten
judgments related to IDF combat operations in oPt from 2002 to 2009, I examine the Court’s role in relation
to oPt.

This analysis concludes firstly that although the Supreme Court indeed does legitimize Israel’s actions in
oPt, it fulfills an important regulating function as well. Secondly, the study indicates that there has been a
shift in the role of the Court in relation to oPt. The Supreme Court appears to be gradually less deferring to
the military authorities: it subjects IDF to increasingly intense judicial review and is more willing to
intervene in IDF actions.
skjul Indhold
Vis Indhold

Filer

Navn:
Speciale-3.pdf (Hovedtekst)
Bemærkninger:
-
Tilgængelighed:
Offentlig
Mime-type / størrelse:
application/pdf / 2MB
Copyright dato:
2014-07-22
Copyright information:
De fulde rettigheder til dette materiale tilhører forfatteren.
skjul Filer
Vis Filer

Basal

Bogmærk denne post: https://diskurs.kb.dk/item/diskurs:59865:2
 Type: Speciale
Alternativ titel: Højesterets praksis i relation til de besatte palæstinensiske områder
Alternativ titel: The Israeli Supreme Court and the occupation
Alternativ titel: Case law of the High Court of Justice and the occupied Palestinian territories
skjul Basal
Vis Basal

Links

Vis Links

Detaljer

Sprog: Danish - dan
 Datoer: 2014-03-28
 Sider: -
 Publiceringsinfo: København : Københavns Universitet
 Indholdsfortegnelse: Indledning 3
Juridisk baggrund . 11
Regimet i oPt - et unikt retssystem . 11
Relevante regelsæt 12
Teori og centrale begreber 16
En demokratisk retsstat . 16
Exceptionalisme - staten under pres . 20
Metodiske overvejelser . 23
Problemstilling . 23
Teoretisk analyseramme: Exceptionalisme . 23
Metode 24
Fremgangsmåde 25
Analyse af israelske højesteretsdomme 31
Dom 1 (april 2002): Den humanitære situation i oPt under den anden intifada 32
Dom 2(april 2002): Lokalisering, identificering, evakuering og begravelse af døde . 35
Dom 3 (april 2002): Lægeligt personel og ambulancer beskudt . 39
Dom 4 (maj 2002): Civile fanget i kampoperationer . 43
Dom 5 (april 2003): IDFs anvendelse af flechette-projektiler . 47
Dom 6 (maj 2004): Sikring af humanitære behov under kampoperationer . 50
Dom 7 (oktober 2005): Early warning-proceduren . 55
Dom 8 (december 2006): Erstatningsansvar i forbindelse med kamphandlinger. 61
Dom 9 (december 2006): Forebyggende angreb 66
Dom 10 (januar 2009): Den humanitære situation under operation ”Cast Lead” 74
Har Højesterets primære funktion ift. oPt været at legitimere Israels handlinger? . 80
Konklusion og perspektivering 82
Litteraturliste . 84
 Note: -
 Type: Speciale
skjul Detaljer
Vis Detaljer

Kilde

Vis Kilde