Row 56148

Row ID: 56148 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 56148 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

So it seems to me that international law, while unquestionably prohibiting an occupying army from settling an occupied area with its own nation’s civilians (i.e., setting up settlements) nonetheless allows for temporary military occupation for genuine security purposes (itself subject to its own set of international law provisions). At the same time, it seems that international law also allows for the occupied to resist (whether typical aggression as in Ukraine against Russia — see Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizing the “inherent” right of a nation to collective self-defense — or the decolonization period of the ‘60s where the international order seemed to recognize an extension of this concept to illegitimate territorial control).

The context in which I ask this is regarding Palestinian militancy. It goes without saying this overly broad “right to resist” concept would not apply to the well-documented Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians (whether the suicide bombings of busses during the Second Intifada, random stabbings/shootings of civilians in the time since then, and October 7). However, to the extent that Palestinians have targeted soldiers at checkpoints or military positions within Israel on Oct 7 (even if within Israel Proper’s borders, seeing as the targetability of soldiers doesn’t seem to be limited to occupied territories), there seems to be a legitimate argument of such attacks not per se violating any international laws. I don’t really see any evidence of the Palestinian armed resistance movement making a highlighted effort to distinguish the two anyways (and the fact that the Second Intifada and October 7 had smatterings of both seems to showcase that), but in any case, to the extent that soldiers are targeted, I think it’s fair game to discuss.

With that said, it would be hard to deny that imposing an occupation/siege in contexts like Hamas’ takeover of Gaza in 2007 or the current instability of the West Bank’s self-governance is not per se unlawful(to the extent that it is, the discussion seems to be more about the “collective punishment” materialization of the siege in the case of Gaza, and settlements in the case of the West Bank — but not Israel maintaining military controls in and of itself). So does international law, perhaps paradoxixally, maintain that even when a country facially has the right to impose a security-based military occupation, the occupied have the simultaneous right to armed resistance?

FieldValue
text So it seems to me that international law, while unquestionably prohibiting an occupying army from settling an occupied area with its own nation’s civilians (i.e., setting up settlements) nonetheless allows for temporary military occupation for genuine security purposes (itself subject to its own set of international law provisions). At the same time, it seems that international law also allows for the occupied to resist (whether typical aggression as in Ukraine against Russia — see Article 51 of…
label r/internationallaw
dataType post
communityName r/internationallaw
datetime 2024-05-23
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1XcnNNS0ZJLUpUdTVJT1pjTmhxVDhpTnZLM2ViZHEwRUl2QlpCRkJ1c3UxbTRLNm00NEpkM1BVTlJJRE5WNURtYkZwS1ZIeVVkaHBCV0VCcGs5eWhjYUE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9tS1NtTHBXUTg3WHRuMm04aS12UVpQTzExYjloX0x6bXRqZ1N3TVlyaUhNeVNqOHRQVjVYOWpmTTJ4Ulk3RUh4LUlaSENtc0pyZmNSUExxNjdlWEJTZ3czRnlwc0hrcThFYlhfQXp0b0ljbEJyZHNmLVJzdlFQNkpRQ0gwQVU5eHFHZWFEQUgxa01ua1l6SDJpYTRPc0toVTBhRERnajJCcDRqWnRXVnRMSTBwMFJrUEI4M3NJS2hoSk1IWnpUcG9IMmU3OV9fMnZUM0ZqQWNoUGdXS1BFdz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "So it seems to me that international law, while unquestionably prohibiting an occupying army from settling an occupied area with its own nation’s civilians (i.e., setting up settlements) nonetheless allows for temporary military occupation for genuine security purposes (itself subject to its own set of international law provisions). At the same time, it seems that international law also allows for the occupied to resist (whether typical aggression as in Ukraine against Russia — see Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizing the “inherent” right of a nation to collective self-defense — or the decolonization period of the ‘60s where the international order seemed to recognize an extension of this concept to illegitimate territorial control). \n\nThe context in which I ask this is regarding Palestinian militancy. It goes without saying this overly broad “right to resist” concept would not apply to the well-documented Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians (whether the suicide bombings of busses during the Second Intifada, random stabbings/shootings of civilians in the time since then, and October 7). However, to the extent that Palestinians have targeted soldiers at checkpoints or military positions within Israel on Oct 7 (even if within Israel Proper’s borders, seeing as the targetability of soldiers doesn’t seem to be limited to occupied territories), there seems to be a legitimate argument of such attacks not per se violating any international laws. I don’t really see any evidence of the Palestinian armed resistance movement making a highlighted effort to distinguish the two anyways (and the fact that the Second Intifada and October 7 had smatterings of both seems to showcase that), but in any case, to the extent that soldiers are targeted, I think it’s fair game to discuss. \n\nWith that said, it would be hard to deny that imposing an occupation/siege in contexts like Hamas’ takeover of Gaza in 2007 or the current instability of the West Bank’s self-governance is not per se unlawful(to the extent that it is, the discussion seems to be more about the “collective punishment” materialization of the siege in the case of Gaza, and settlements in the case of the West Bank — but not Israel maintaining military controls in and of itself). So does international law, perhaps paradoxixally, maintain that even when a country facially has the right to impose a security-based military occupation, the occupied have the simultaneous right to armed resistance? ",
  "label": "r/internationallaw",
  "dataType": "post",
  "communityName": "r/internationallaw",
  "datetime": "2024-05-23",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1XcnNNS0ZJLUpUdTVJT1pjTmhxVDhpTnZLM2ViZHEwRUl2QlpCRkJ1c3UxbTRLNm00NEpkM1BVTlJJRE5WNURtYkZwS1ZIeVVkaHBCV0VCcGs5eWhjYUE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9tS1NtTHBXUTg3WHRuMm04aS12UVpQTzExYjloX0x6bXRqZ1N3TVlyaUhNeVNqOHRQVjVYOWpmTTJ4Ulk3RUh4LUlaSENtc0pyZmNSUExxNjdlWEJTZ3czRnlwc0hrcThFYlhfQXp0b0ljbEJyZHNmLVJzdlFQNkpRQ0gwQVU5eHFHZWFEQUgxa01ua1l6SDJpYTRPc0toVTBhRERnajJCcDRqWnRXVnRMSTBwMFJrUEI4M3NJS2hoSk1IWnpUcG9IMmU3OV9fMnZUM0ZqQWNoUGdXS1BFdz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information