The West Bank and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli occupation in 1967. Both territories had been under constant Israeli control since then, until Israel decided to withdraw its land forces and settlements from the Strip in 2005. Whereas the occupied status of the West Bank still remains uncontested, the status of Gaza after the disengagement is less clear. This article addresses the question whether the Gaza Strip can still be considered to be occupied after the 2005 disengagement. In order to formulate an answer to this question, the article will first outline the different elements needed to trigger occupation. It will then show that, even though the majority argues that the Gaza Strip is still occupied, the effective control test at the core of the law of occupation is no longer met and hence Gaza is no longer occupied. Given that Israel nevertheless continues to exercise some degree of control over Gaza and its population, the absence of occupation does not mean the absence of accountability. This responsibility is however not founded on the law of occupation but on general international humanitarian law, potentially complemented by international human rights law.

The collapse of the Caliphate, including the resulting surrender of hundreds of fighters to the Syrian Democratic Forces, as well as the tweets from President Trump threatening his allies to release 800 Islamic State fighters if they would not take back their own citizens, has led to an intense debate on what to do with these so-called foreign fighters. Many counter-terrorism experts and international lawyers have argued that these fighters should be brought home and brought to justice before national courts, for moral, legal and long-term security reasons. In the context of national prosecutions, the aim should be to not have a one-size fits all, but rather a tailored approach, ensuring that perpetrators are prosecuted, as much as possible, for the actual crimes they have committed. If we consider foreign fighters to be individuals joining a non-state armed group in an armed conflict, there is by definition an important nexus between foreign fighters and armed conflict. Hence due regard should also be paid to international humanitarian law in the framework of their prosecution. This article will analyse and assess the first cases where the relationship between counter-terrorism and international humanitarian law played a role and aims to provide, based on the direction this discussion is heading, the necessary guidance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract