The Israeli Law in Judea and Samaria: Areas B and C

In September 1995 the State of Israel signed the Oslo II Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, in which Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip were divided into three areas: A, B, and C. Each of these areas has different administrative and security arrangements. These areas are typically separated, to a large extent, according to the degree of responsibility given to the Palestinian Authority, which was established by this agreement for the territories in question. Even today, after more than half a century in which the Israeli Supreme Court hears Judea and Samaria cases, it has not yet found a strong normative source on which to base its authority and continues to indicate the two shaky sources of authority that did not satisfy it back in the 1970s: the consent of the parties and the definition of military rule as ostensibly acting according to Israeli law. The Supreme Court is aware of the cloud hanging over its authority to hear Yesha cases, but in its view, “the humanitarian consideration must prevail in this case over the legal-technical consideration,” and therefore it hears those cases.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2024-12-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.e-conf.10.15127b
Primary Topic
Archaeology and Historical Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Israeli Law in Judea and Samaria: Areas B and C

Gal Simcha Biton
Archaeology and Historical Studies
article

The Israeli Law in Judea and Samaria: Areas B and C

Gal Simcha Biton
article en

Abstract

In September 1995 the State of Israel signed the Oslo II Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, in which Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip were divided into three areas: A, B, and C. Each of these areas has different administrative and security arrangements. These areas are typically separated, to a large extent, according to the degree of responsibility given to the Palestinian Authority, which was established by this agreement for the territories in question. Even today, after more than half a century in which the Israeli Supreme Court hears Judea and Samaria cases, it has not yet found a strong normative source on which to base its authority and continues to indicate the two shaky sources of authority that did not satisfy it back in the 1970s: the consent of the parties and the definition of military rule as ostensibly acting according to Israeli law. The Supreme Court is aware of the cloud hanging over its authority to hear Yesha cases, but in its view, “the humanitarian consideration must prevail in this case over the legal-technical consideration,” and therefore it hears those cases.

Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Archaeology and Historical Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.