Abstract
The war on terror narrative has wedged a legal lacuna between a rights-based and terrorism discourse. Within this rights-free zone, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was signed into law by US President George W. Bush in October 2006. Whilst the act is consistent with current US policy (and narrative), opponents argue that it places the US outside of existing liberal democratic state practice, and challenge both the efficacy, as well as legality of placing the war on terror within an IHL framework (with the use of Military Commissions). Yet a review of the case of Israel and the Occupied Territories suggests that, even within an ostensibly liberal, democratic framework, the practice (and the accompanying discourse) is hardly new. Against this backdrop, this article will explore the operation of the Military Court system in the Occupied Territories, examining its legal basis and the impact of the military administration on the criminal justice process. When interrogating the operation the Israeli Military Court system through the lens of international legal norms, this article argues that a lacuna exists between Court practices and international legal requirements.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.