n
President Trump’s proposal for the United States to take control of Gaza and to withdraw some two million Palestinians who live there would undoubtedly be a serious violation of international law, according to experts. As more details on his emerging proposal, the list of potential violations becomes even clearer.
In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Mr. Trump said that by virtue of his plan, the Palestinians of Gaza would not be authorized to return to the territory, a violation of his right of an important principle of international law, as than component of other international crimes.
His last comments undermine the attempts of his aid to resume his initial proposal by affirming that he in fact suggested a temporary and voluntary evacuation of the population of Gaza – a scenario which could have been legally defendable.
“Trump simply makes major international crimes with political proposals,” said Janina Dill, co -director of the Institute of Ethics, Law and Armed Conflicts. “It simply normalizes the violation or the proposal to violate the absolute principles of the foundation of international law.”
Forced expulsion
The expulsion or forced transfer of a civilian population constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, a crime of war and a crime against humanity.
THE prohibition has been part of the law of war since the Lieber code, a set of rules on the conduct of hostilities dating back to the American civil war. Forced deportation is also prohibited by several provisions of the Geneva conventions, which the United States has ratified, and the Nuremberg court after the Second World War defined it as a war crime.
The status of Rome which established the International Criminal Court lists the transfers of forced population as a war crime and a crime against humanity. And if the trip targets a particular group according to their ethnic, religious or national identity, then it is also a persecution – an additional crime.
(Because the International Criminal Court recognizes a state of Palestine as a party to the Court, it has jurisdiction over these crimes if they take place in Gaza. It is true even if they are committed by citizens of the States- United, which has never adopted the law of Rome and is therefore not a member of the Court.)
When Mr. Trump was questioned at a press conference on February 4, how many of the Gaza population he wanted to move, he said: “All”, adding: “I think they would be delighted”. When he was registered if he would force them to go if they did not want, he said: “I don’t think they will tell me no.”
The American allies and enemies around the world, including France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Turkey, Russia and China, immediately condemned Mr. Trump’s proposal. “In the search for solutions, we must not worsen the problem,” said António Guterres, UN secretary general. “It is essential to remain faithful to the foundation of international law. It is essential to avoid any form of ethnic cleaning. »»
The right to come back
Mr. Trump’s response to Fox News, saying that he had not planned to authorize the Gaza population to return, cancels what otherwise could have been the strongest legal defense of his plan: he is legal in Virtue of the laws of war to temporarily evacuate civilians for their security.
Even with a ceasefire in place, Gaza remains extremely dangerous for civilians due to unplodced bombs, many of them hidden under rubble or underground, as well as catastrophic damage to civil necessities like shelter , water and power.
However, Trump clearly said on Tuesday that he did not intend to allow the Gazan population to return, even after these dangers have been authorized and that the territory is sure again, which means that His plan could not be legally justified as temporary safety measure.
The “right of return”, the principle according to which everyone has the right to enter their own country, is devoted to several treaties, including the international alliance on civil and political rights, that the United States have signed and ratified.
This principle was also one of the most controversial questions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel refused to authorize the return of the 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were forced to go out during the 1948 war which followed the creation of an independent Jewish state – a mass displacement that the Palestinians call the “Nakba” or disaster.
The question of whether these refugees and their descendants, now in number by millions, will be authorized to return to the territory which is now that Israel has been one of the most thorny negotiation points in the decades of peace which have sought to resolve the conflict.
In addition, right -wing Israelis have led an effort of several decades to build colonies in the West Bank and Gaza in order to claim this land in the context of Israel rather than in a future Palestinian state.
Territory seizure
Trump reiterated his proposal for the United States on Sunday to take over Gaza, telling the journalists of the Air Force One that the earth band was “a large real estate site” that the United States “were going to own”.
It would be a serious violation of international law for the United States to permanently take the territory of Gaza. The prohibition against an annexation nation The territory is one of the most Important and fundamental principles international law.
“There is a clear rule,” said Marko Milanovic, professor of international law at the University of Reading in England. “You cannot conquer someone else’s territory.”
It is rare that states violate this rule. When they did, as in the case of Ukraine’s invasion by Russia, they tended to claim at least a claim for legality. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the invasion was necessary to protect the Russian population in eastern Ukraine against genocide by the Ukrainian government. Although this statement is false, he paid the lip service to the deeper principle that the annexation for itself would be illegal.
In the case of Gaza, the details of this violation would partly depend on the question of whether Palestine is considered a state, said Marko Milanovic, professor of international law at the University of Reading in England. The United Nations recognize Palestine as a permanent state of observer, and 146 UN member states recognize the Palestinian state, but the United States and Israel do not.
But even if Gaza is not considered to be part of a state, the American annexation of the territory would always violate the right of the civilian population to self -determination. The International Court of Justice tried twice that the Palestinian people were entitled to this right in Gaza.
“If you take it without their consent, you violate their right to self -determination,” said Professor Milanovic. “There is really no doubt about it.”
The role of international law
Trump did not seem concerned about the way in which his proposal could be considered by the institutions underlying the international legal system, and he has been disdaining for these institutions.
Last week, he announced sanctions against the International Criminal Court. On Tuesday, he signed an executive decree calling for a general examination of American financing and participation in the United Nations, which raises questions on the American commitment to this global body. He also withdrew the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Even if Mr. Trump’s Gaza’s Gaza does not finally progress, his attitude towards international law could have serious consequences for American interests in the world.
By seeming to ignore the value of these rules, Trump could send a message that he is not strongly determined to defend them in other contexts, such as a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, said Professor Dill.
“If we live in a world where conquest is standardized and the legal rule is simply reserved, we live in a completely different world, in an incredibly dangerous world also for Americans,” she said.
n
n
