Abstract
AbstractThe EU's consistent policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been that Israel's presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip (prior to the 2005 disengagement) and the Golan Heights is subject to the laws of belligerent occupation, that any purported Israeli annexation is illegal and null and void, that Israel's settlements in the Territories are in breach of public international law and constitute a serious obstacle to peace, and that Israel and Palestine should settle their conflict on the basis of public international law and through the two-state solution. In recent years the EU attempted to concretize this policy through its trade and trade-related agreements with Israel, withholding the benefits of EU-Israeli co-operation from companies and research institutions based in the Territories or operating therein, as well as from products produced therein (the New Approach). Thus, from the EU perception, the New Approach towards the long-standing conflict and its reliance on international law may be seen as an instrument to reinforce internal and external legitimacy, buttress identity cohesiveness and as a manifestation of its more robust effectiveness. But this article seeks to conduct a more careful and balanced analysis of the New Approach and in doing so to reveal that the EU's (almost) exclusive focus on non-governmental entities, such as corporations situated in the Territories, and on Territories’ products, is misplaced in terms of public international law and effectiveness. The New Approach's deficiencies, in abstracto and in concreto, as evaluated in this article, are likely to prevent it from serving as a paradigm shift in EU-Israel relations.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations
Reference36 articles.
1. The Israeli Supreme Court and the Incremental Expansion of the Scope of Discretion under Belligerent Occupation Law
2. ‘This is my EUtopia ...’: Narrative as Power
3. The Interface between Trade, Law and Politics and the Erosion of Normative Power Europe: Comment on Brita (C-386/08);Harpaz;European L. Rev.,2010
4. The Dispute over the Sovereignty of Jerusalem: EU Policies and the Search for Internal Legal Coherence and Consistency with International Law;Harpaz;European Foreign Affairs Review,2012
5. The Third Intifada;Friedman;New York Times,2014
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献