The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently declined to pursue a case against Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. She did, however, issue a lengthy nonbinding statement arguing that it is “reasonable” to believe that Israel occupies Gaza, although it has no troops or officials there. Since the opinion makes a mockery of legal reasoning and relevant precedent, what is its basis? Eugene Kontorovich writes:
[T]he prosecutor astonishingly relies on the view of “the international community” that Gaza is occupied. This view is derived from two UN General Assembly (GA) resolutions that call Gaza part of “Occupied Palestinian Territories” without explaining how this comports with customary international-law definitions of occupation. This is perhaps the most surprising part of the prosecutor’s memo. The GA is an explicitly political body. Occupation is a legal status with a legal definition established by treaty and custom. Deferring to a political body to determine a legal question effectively turns the ICC into an adjunct of world opinion—a political popularity contest rather than an arbiter of impartial and general norms.
Read more on Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/why-gaza-is-not-remotely-occupied-i/