Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.
Quick navigation
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 49, sixth para.

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 85(4)(a). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(viii).

Back to top
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 22(2)(b) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind considers “the establishment of settlers in an occupied territory and changes to the demographic composition of an occupied territory” as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 22(2)(b).

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Under Article 20(c)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[t]he transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(c)(i).

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(viii), “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(viii).

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides: “The occupying power shall not evacuate or transfer a part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.008.

Under Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), “the transfer by the occupying power of a part of its own civilian population to the territory it occupies” is a grave breach. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.03.

Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonising the area.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1217.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonising the area.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.31.

The manual further states:
G. P. I [1977 Additional Protocol I] extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following … acts, when committed wilfully and in violation of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or the Protocol:

• the transfer by the occupying power of part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.26.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “the Occupying Power has the following obligations: … to refrain from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 107.

The Regulations also states that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population to the occupied territory” constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, pp. 114–115; see also Part I bis, pp. 45 and 67.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “the transfer by the occupying power of part of its own population to the territory that it occupies” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 295, § 661.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory, with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-4, § 33.

The manual further states that “transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 17.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory, with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1220.

In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that the “transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.3.a.

Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) states that it is prohibited “to transfer one’s own civilians into the occupied territory”. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 62.

Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that it is prohibited “to transfer one’s own civilians into the occupied territory”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 98.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that the occupying State is prohibited “to deport or transfer a part of its own population into the occupied territory”. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 48(8).

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands considers that “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-6.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “The Occupying Power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.”  
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1319(1).

The manual considers such practice to be a grave breach. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1703(4).

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “The occupying power must not evacuate or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 62.b.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “The occupying Power can neither evacuate nor transfer a part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 5.5.c.(5).

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “The occupying power must not evacuate or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies with a view to colonizing it.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(3); see also § 5.5.c.(5).

Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
The occupying power may find it in its own interests to move sections of its own civilian population into the occupied area. Such movements of population can have very far-reaching negative consequences for the occupied population. It is important to stress that, according to the [1949 Geneva Convention IV] (Article 49), any movement of the occupying power’s own civilian population is prohibited. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 6.1.3, pp. 122–123.

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I include “the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 193(2).

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include: … transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.5.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “The Occupant is not permitted to deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population to occupied territory.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 560.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Members of the occupying power’s own civilian population may not be transferred to occupied territory … Unlawful deportation or transfer is a grave breach of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.55–11.55.1.

In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual notes:
Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following:

c. the following, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the protocol:
(1) the transfer by the occupying power of part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.25(c)(1).

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 382.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Draft Code of Military Justice (1998) considers the transfer by an occupying power or authority of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory to be an offence. 
Argentina, Draft Code of Military Justice, 1998, Article 291, introducing a new Article 875(5) in the Code of Military Justice as amended, 1951.

Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), the “transfer by the occupying power of part of its own population in the occupied territories”, during an armed conflict, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.4(1).

Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).

The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended in 2007, states in Chapter 8, Subdivision E – Other serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.45 War crime – transfer of population
A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator:
(i) authorises, organises or directs, or participates in the authorisation, organisation or direction of, or participates in, the transfer, directly or indirectly, of parts of the civilian population of the perpetrator’s own country into territory that the country occupies; or
(ii) authorises, organises or directs, or participates in the authorisation, organisation or direction of, or participates in, the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of territory occupied by the perpetrator’s own country within or outside that territory; and
(b) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.45, p. 331.

Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “the transfer, directly or indirectly, of parts of the civilian population of the perpetrator’s own country into territory that the country occupies” in international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.45(a)(1).

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides: “the following actions are prohibited to be carried out against civilian persons … 7) to evacuate its population to the occupied territory”. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 17(7).

Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the “transfer of any part of one’s own civilian population to the occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116.0.14.

Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).

Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the transfer of any part of one’s own civilian population into the occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(14).

Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

31. the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power (in the case of international armed conflicts) or authority (in the case of non-international armed conflicts) of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(31).

Under Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, in the case of an international armed conflict, or of the occupying authority, in the case of a non-international armed conflict,” is criminalized as a grave breach. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols , 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3)(17).

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

17. the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power (in the case of international armed conflicts) or authority (in the case of non-international armed conflicts) of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(17).

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), “whoever in violation of rules of international law applicable in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or carries out as an occupier the resettlement of parts of his/her civilian population into the occupied territory” commits a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(3).

The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 433(3).

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) contains the following provision related to war crimes:
Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law applicable in the time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or carries out as an occupier the resettlement of parts of his civilian population into the occupied territory,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(3).

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

h) the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4B(h).

Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).

Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).

Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).

Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides, under the heading “War crimes against civilian population”:
Whoever, as part of an occupying power, in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or performs the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying force to the occupied territory shall be punished. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(3).

Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes:
any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic, any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, punishes “a person who in war time … settles the occupied territory with the population of his own country”. 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 263(a)(2)(d).

Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 165
Crimes against humanity are grave violations of international humanitarian law committed against any civilian population before or during war.
Crimes against humanity are not necessarily linked to the state of war and can be committed not only between persons of different nationality, but even between subjects of the same State.
Article 166
The grave breaches listed hereafter, affecting, by action or omission, the persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, constitute crimes against humanity, repressed according to the provisions of the present Code, without prejudice to more severe penal provisions provided by the ordinary Penal Code:

15. The transfer into occupied territory of parts of the civilian population of the occupying power in the case of an international armed conflict, or of the occupying authority in the case of a non-international armed conflict;

Article 167
The offences contained in the preceding article are punished with penal servitude for life.
If those contained in points 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 14 of the same article lead to the death or cause grave injury to the physical integrity or health of one or several persons, the perpetrators are liable to the death penalty. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Articles 165–167.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

El Salvador
Under the Draft Amendments to El Salvador’s Penal Code (1998), “repatriation or forced displacement of the civilian population of one’s own territory”, in both internal and international armed conflicts, is punishable. 
El Salvador, Draft Amendments to the Penal Code, 1998, Article entitled “Repatriación o desplazamiento forzado”.

France
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to international armed conflict: “Participating in the transfer, directly or indirectly, by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies … is punishable by life imprisonment.” 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-26.

Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone, who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “transfers, as a member of an Occupying Power, parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 8(3)(2).

Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(1)(g).

Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts:
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Government of Iraq or any of its agencies (including, for clarification, any of the agencies of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party), of parts of its own civilian population into any territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(I).

Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).

In addition, any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (2004) states:
Article 5 (Crimes of transferring to occupied territory)
… [F]or the purpose of settlement in the territory that a State occupies (hereinafter, the occupied territory) and as part of measures concerning occupation, a person who transfers to the occupied territory a person who has nationality of the State and resides within the territory of the State, shall be punished by imprisonment with labour for not more than 5 years. 
Japan, Law concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 2004, Article 5.

Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(15).

Lebanon
Under the Draft Amendments to the Code of Military Justice (1997) of Lebanon, “the transfer, by the occupying Power, of a part of the civilian population to the territories occupied by this Power” is a war crime. 
Lebanon, Draft Amendments to the Code of Military Justice, 1997, Article 146(15).

Mali
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) provides that “the transfer, direct or indirect, by the occupying Power, of a part of its own civilian population, into the territories it occupies” constitutes a crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(8).

Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, it is a crime to commit, in an international armed conflict, “the following acts if committed intentionally and in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol (I): … the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(2)(d)(i).

Furthermore, under the Act, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a crime, when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(5)(d).

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:
Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).

Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).

Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Draft Penal Code (1999) provides that “whoever, during an international or internal armed conflict, orders repatriation or forced displacement of the civilian population of its own territory, for reasons related to the armed conflict,” commits a punishable offence. 
Nicaragua, Draft Penal Code, 1999, Article 455.

Niger
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, “the transfer into occupied territories of a part of the civilian population of the occupying power, in the case of an international armed conflict, or of the occupying authority, in the case of a non-international armed conflict,” constitutes a war crime. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(17).

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.

Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states in a section related to “war crimes against persons”: “In the case of an international armed conflict, any person is also liable to punishment who … transfers part of its own civilian population into an occupied territory.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103(a) bis.

Peru
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
Any member of the military or police shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than five and no more than 15 years if he or she in the context of an international armed conflict:

2. As a member of an occupying power transfers part of the latter’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 93(2).

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “transferring, as a member of an Occupying Power, parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory” in an international armed conflict. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 10(3)(5).

Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) punishes “grave breaches of international humanitarian law committed during international and non-international armed conflicts”. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 391.

Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 8
A war crime is one of the following acts, committed during armed conflicts against persons or property protected under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and its Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977:

13° the transfer of the population, or parts of it, by a party to the conflict into the occupied territory, its deportation within or outside the occupied territory, without taking its interests into account;

Article: 9
Shall be punished by one of the following penalties any person having committed one of the war crimes provided for in Article 8 of this law:

3° imprisonment for five (5) to ten (10) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 4°, 5°, 13°, 14° or 15° of Article 8 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–9.

Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitute war crimes:
[O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

7. transferring, directly or indirectly, parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into the territory it occupies. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(7).

Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states:
Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, as an occupying power orders or undertakes relocation of part of its civilian population to occupied territories, shall be punished by imprisonment of a minimum five years. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(4).

Slovakia
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, punishes “a person who in war time … settles the occupied territory with the population of his own country”. 
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Article 263(a)(2)(d).

Slovenia
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides, under the heading “War Crimes against the Civil Population”, that “whoever, in violation of the principles of international law, orders or implements, as occupier in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, deportation of groups of civilians to the occupied territory” shall be punished. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(3).

Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes anyone who transfers and settles in occupied territory any part of the population of the occupying power, in order to remain there permanently. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 611(5).

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Any person who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict is punished with 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to a penalty for the results of such acts:

5. Transferring and settling, directly or indirectly, part of the occupying party’s own population into the occupied territory in order for them to permanently reside in this territory. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 611(5).

South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.  
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(viii).

Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes “the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1).

Trinidad and Tobago
Under Trinidad and Tobago’s Draft ICC Act (1999), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Trinidad and Tobago, Draft ICC Act, 1999, Section 5(1)(a).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes:
any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).

Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:

16. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.16.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, provides, under the heading “War crimes against civilian population:
Whoever in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, … orders the transfer of a part of the civilian population into the occupied territory … shall be punished. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(3).

Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Denmark
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in Parliament regarding Amnesty International’s characterization of Israel’s behaviour as a war crime, Denmark’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: “Denmark and the EU believe that Israel through its settlement policy violates international humanitarian law.” 
Denmark, Parliament, Written reply by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to question No. S 238 (2003–2004), 14 October 2003.

Egypt
The Report on the Practice of Egypt states:
Egypt has a firm position according to which displacement and all measures designed to change the demographic composition of the occupied territories are null and void. Such measures, if occurred, must be rescinded as soon as possible, particularly after the signature of the Treaty of peace … It is worth remembering that the aforementioned position adopted by Egypt had also been put forward with regard to Additional Protocol II. Additionally, Egypt condemned forcible transfers practised by Israel in 1967 vis-à-vis civilians. 
Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 5.5.

France
The Report on the Practice of France states:
France is clearly opposed to the policy of fait accompli of the settlement colonies which modify the demographic structure of the territory. It is also opposed to expulsion measures directed at the inhabitants of the occupied territories which are equally contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention. In relation to these Israeli measures, the French representatives even talk of “banishment” and “exceptional gravity”. 
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 5.7.

Israel
Following the adoption by the UN Diplomatic Conference of the 1998 ICC Statute, Israel gave the following explanation of its vote:
Israel has reluctantly cast a negative vote. It fails to comprehend why it has been considered necessary to insert into the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes the action of transferring population into occupied territory. The exigencies of lack of time and intense political and public pressure have obliged the Conference to by-pass very basic sovereign prerogatives to which we are entitled in drafting international conventions, in favour of finishing the work and achieving a Statute on a come-what-may basis. We continue to hope that the Court will indeed serve the lofty objectives for the attainment of which it is being established. 
Israel, Explanation of vote, UN Press Release L/2889, 20 July 1998, § 4.

Jordan
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Jordan stated:
5.120 The wall being constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around east Jerusalem divides the West bank into six sections not linked except by or through Israeli checkpoints and controls. As indicated … it has the clear effect, and also the intention, of consolidating and protecting the civilian Jewish settlements constructed on the West Bank and in the East Jerusalem area with the active assistance of the Government of Israel …
5.121 Those settlements involve an unlawful alteration of the population balance in the West bank. Consequently, the construction of the wall in such a way as to support that unlawful alteration of the population balance is itself unlawful.
5.122 The population balance of an occupied territory may be affected by the operation of two processes, either separately or taken together. On the one hand, the indigenous inhabitants may be removed from or compelled to leave the territory; on the other hand, persons from outside the territory, and particularly from the Occupying Power’s own country, may be transferred into the occupied territory. In respect of the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem, both processes have been at work; both are contrary to applicable international rules.

5.132 To take first the prohibition against the Occupying Power transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territory, there is no doubt that Israel, the Occupying Power, has engaged in practices which involve the “transfer [of] parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. The movement of settlers into the occupied territories has been a publicly proclaimed policy of the Government of Israel since the occupation began, and has taken place with the active support and encouragement of that Government.

5.202 The policy and practice of displacement resulting from the construction of the wall, considered in its historical context and in the light of consistent patterns of expropriation, destruction of agricultural land, orchards and olive groves, designate [sic] of Palestinian land as “state land”, refusal of return of refugees, promotion of and assistance to non-indigenous settlers, allow an inference of permanent forcible transfers attributable to Israel. Such transfers are contrary to any exception permitted under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
5.203 Moreover, deportation and transfer incur individual criminal responsibility in international law. 
Jordan, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 5.120–5.122, 5.132 and 5.202–5.203.

Kuwait
In a series of letters to the UN Secretary-General between August and October 1990, Kuwait complained about the following actions carried out by Iraqi authorities in occupied Kuwait:
– Iraqi forces arrested Kuwaiti nationals and others, and transferred them to Bagdad. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 7 August 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21452, 7 August 1990.

– Transportation to Kuwait of large numbers or Iraqi families for the purposes of settlement and alteration of the country’s demographic structure. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 2 September 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21694, 3 September 1990.

– In its efforts to change the demographic structure of Kuwait and erase the very identity of the country, Iraqi occupation forces have embarked on the application and execution of a novel practice of: depopulating Kuwait from its own inhabitants, confiscating identification documents, and settling Iraqi families in Kuwaiti homes. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 15 September 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21772, 15 September 1990.

– The invading Iraqi authorities have stepped up their campaign to change the demographic character of Kuwait by expanding their operation to expel Kuwaiti nationals from their homes in various areas of Kuwait and to replace them by Iraqi families brought to Kuwait from Iraq. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 4 October 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21843, 4 October 1990.

Kuwait qualified these acts as crimes. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 4 October 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21843, 4 October 1990.

South Africa
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, South Africa stated:
The Separation Wall incorporates most of the illegal Israel settlements, which still form the subject matter of negotiations between Israel and Palestine, into the Israel side. These Israeli settlements are illegal not only because they represent an attempt to acquire territory by force, but also because it contravenes Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states clearly that the “Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. 
South Africa, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, p. 20.

Sweden
In 2007, in a Statement of Government Policy in the Parliamentary Debate on Foreign Affairs, the Government of Sweden stated with regard to Israel: “Settlements in the occupied territories are in clear violation of international law.”  
Sweden, Statement of Government Policy in the Parliamentary Debate on Foreign Affairs, 14 February 2007, p. 12.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the UK Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Israeli settlements in the territories it occupied in June 1967 are illegal under international law.” 
United Kingdom, Letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee from the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 28 January 2003, published in House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism: Second Report of Session 2003–2004, 15 January 2004, Evidence, Ev 42.

In 2003, in a briefing paper on Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:
HMG [Her Majesty’s Government], together with the rest of the international community, regard Israeli settlements in the territories which Israel occupied in June 1967 as illegal under international law (including under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). 
United Kingdom, Letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee from the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 28 January 2003, published in House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism: Second Report of Session 2003–2004, 15 January 2004, Evidence, Ev 42.

In 2003, during a debate in the House of Lords, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his welcome remarks. I heard what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said about illegal settlements. They are illegal under international law. We believe that they are an obstacle to peace and that Israel should freeze all settlement activity.

My Lords, settlement activity and the security fence are causes of great concern to Her Majesty’s Government. Settlement activity has increased during the past year; it is important to keep that issue in the forefront of our minds. We are concerned about the 360 kilometre-long fence, to which the noble Lord referred, which takes up so much Palestinian land and separates families. Our embassy in Tel Aviv has raised with the Israeli Government our concern about the location and the impact of the security fence. We fully understand Israel’s need to take steps within the law to protect itself from terrorist attack, but that must be achieved through a negotiated peace, not by measures such as the security fence. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statements by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 February 2003, Vol. 645, Debates, cols. 120–121.

In 2004, in a written ministerial statement, the UK Minister for the Middle East stated that “settlement building cannot be defended on security grounds. It undermines trust in the region and is illegal under international law”. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written ministerial statement by the Minister for the Middle East, Hansard, 12 October 2004, Vol. 425, Written Ministerial Statements, col. 13WS.

In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the planned construction and expansion of various Israeli settlements, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We have made frequent representations to the Israeli Government expressing our concern over continued settlement activity … We have also made clear our view that settlements are illegal under international law. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 7 March 2005, Vol. 431, Written Answers, col. 1573W.

In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the expansion of settlements, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The UK Government’s consistent view is that, while Israel has the right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings, which we condemn absolutely, Israel must act within international law. Settlement construction and the building of the barrier on occupied land are contrary to international law. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 5 July 2005, Vol. 436, Written Answers, col. 330W.

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “representations the Government has made to the Israeli Government on Israel taking more Palestinian land for settlements”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We will continue to raise our concerns over the settlements and the barrier with the Israeli Government at all levels.
Our ambassador in Tel Aviv last raised our concerns about settlements and impact of the barrier in East Jerusalem with the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 December 2005. He also raised Palestinian access to the Jordan Valley on 2 March with the Israeli Prime Minister’s Special Adviser.
Settlements are illegal under international law and settlement construction is an obstacle to peace. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 13 March 2006, Vol. 443, Written Answers, cols. 1905W.

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “whether it is Government policy to regard the Green Line as the border of Israel”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
Settlement building on Palestinian land is illegal under international law and settlement construction is an obstacle to peace. The barrier’s route should be on or behind the Green Line, and not on occupied territory. Construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is also illegal. We continue to raise both of these issues with the Israeli Government at all levels. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 15 March 2006, Vol. 443, Written Answers, cols. 2379W–2380W.

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning the situation in Palestine, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We also call on Israel to route the barrier on or behind the Green Line and freeze all settlement activity and dismantle all outposts built since 2001. The routing of the barrier and the construction of settlements on occupied land is illegal. We continue to raise these issues with the Israeli Government. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 8 January 2007, Vol. 688, Debates, col. WA29.

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Settlements are illegal under international law.” 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 31 January 2007, Vol. 689, Debates, col. WA53.

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the marketing and purchasing of property for sale in the occupied Palestinian Territories, the UK Minister of State for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We regard all settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal under international law and have repeatedly raised our concerns about settlement activity with the Israeli Government. The Government do not advise or encourage companies and organisations to market or sell property in the settlements, however it is not unlawful to do so under UK law. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Minister of State for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 16 April 2007, Vol. 459, Written Answers, col. 39W.

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, the UK Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Settlements are illegal under international law.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 June 2007, Vol. 462, Written Answers, col. 209W.

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning Israeli settlement activity, the UK Minister of State for Africa, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “Settlements are illegal under international law.” 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Minister of State for Africa, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 12 December 2007, Vol. 697, Written Answers, col. WA69.

United States of America
In 1980, the US Secretary of State stated:
US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process. 
United States, Statement of the Secretary of State on behalf of the Carter Administration, 21 March 1980.

In 1991, the Secretary of State stated that Israeli settlement activity “does violate the United States policy”. 
United States, Testimony of the Secretary of State before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, 102nd Congress, 22 May 1991.

In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense declared that it regarded the transfer of the Iraqi population into occupied Kuwait in violation of Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV as a war crime. 
United States, Department of Defense, Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 635.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In several resolutions adopted in 1979 and 1980, the UN Security Council stated that the measures taken by Israel to alter the demographic composition of the occupied territories, and in particular the establishment of settlers, were contrary to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and constituted an obstacle to peace. 
UN Security Council, Res. 446, 22 March 1979, § 4; Res. 452, 20 July 1979, §§ 8–9; Res. 476, 30 June 1980, § 13, voting record: 12-0-3.

In a resolution adopted in 1980 on Israeli settlement policies in the occupied territories, the UN Security Council:
Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Gene va Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.  
UN Security Council, Res. 465, 1 March 1980, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution on Iraq and Kuwait adopted in 1990, the UN Security Council condemned “the destruction of Kuwaiti demographic records, the forced departure of Kuwaitis, the relocation of population in Kuwait”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 674, 29 October 1990, preamble, voting record: 13-0-2.

In another resolution a month later, the Security Council condemned “the attempts by Iraq to alter the demographic composition of the population of Kuwait”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 677, 28 November 1990, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN Security Council called upon all parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia “to ensure that forcible expulsions of persons from the areas where they live and any attempt to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, cease immediately”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 752, 15 May 1992, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.

UN General Assembly
In 1968, the UN General Assembly established a Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2443 (XXIII), 19 December 1968, § 1, voting record: 60-22-37-7.

Following reports submitted by this Committee, the General Assembly adopted numerous resolutions expressing concern at the Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories. For example, in a resolution adopted in 1981, the General Assembly strongly condemned the “establishment of new Israeli settlements and expansion of the existing settlements on private and public Arab lands, and transfer of an alien population thereto”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 C, 16 December 1981, § 7(b), voting record: 111-2-31-13.

This condemnation was reiterated in subsequent resolutions adopted in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 37/88 C, 9 December 1982, § 7(c), voting record: 112-2-21-22. UN General Assembly, Res. 38/79 D, 15 December 1983, § 7(c), voting record: 115-2-27-14. UN General Assembly, Res. 39/95 D, 14 December 1984, § 7(d), voting record: 115-2-28-14. UN General Assembly, Res. 40/161 D, 16 December 1985, § 8(d), voting record: 109-2-34-14 (as regards the resolution as a whole); 136-1-7 (as regards operative paragraph 21).

In a resolution adopted in 2000 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
1. Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the Occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;
2. Calls upon Israel … to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the [fourth Geneva] Convention, in particular article 49;
3. Demands complete cessation of the construction of the new settlement at Jebel Abu-Ghneim and all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 54/78, 22 February 2000, §§ 1–3, voting record: 149-3-3-33.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN General Assembly reiterated “its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/13, 21 October 2003, preamble, voting record: 144-4-12-31.
(emphasis in original)
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/21, 3 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 160-6-5-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967,

3. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/23, 3 December 2003, preamble and § 3, voting record: 104-5-61-21.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Recalls the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,

Recalls in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities,
Recalls relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are null and void. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/14, 8 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 90-8-74-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Aware that Israeli settlement activities have involved, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel of settlement activities in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, including the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem,

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,1 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;
3 Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/98, 9 December 2003, preamble and §§ 1–3, voting record: 156-6-13-16.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/100, 9 December 2003, §§ 2 and 3, voting record: 163-1-11-16.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2004 on the Advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,
Recalling also the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
Recalling further the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Recalling also the resolutions of its tenth emergency special session on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Recalling its resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, in which it demanded that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,
Recalling also its resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003, in which it requested the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question:
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”,
Having received with respect the advisory opinion of the Court on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, rendered on 9 July 2004,
Noting in particular that the Court replied to the question put forth by the General Assembly in resolution ES-10/14 as follows:
“A. The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law;
“B. Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;
“C. Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
“D. All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;
“E. The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”,
Noting that the Court concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,
Noting also the statement made by the Court that “Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect civilian life” …

1. Acknowledges the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;
3. Calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;

6. … emphasizes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law;
7. Calls upon all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure respect by Israel for the Convention, and invites Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, to conduct consultations and to report to the General Assembly on the matter, including with regard to the possibility of resuming the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/15, 20 July 2004, preamble and §§ 1–3 and 6–7, voting record: 150-6-10-25.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 concerning the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 …

9. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/31, 1 December 2004, preamble and § 9, voting record: 161-7-10-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan” and stressed “the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/33, 1 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 111-6-60-14.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,
Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,
Noting that the Court concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

Aware that Israeli settlement activities have involved, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement activities, in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, including the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem,

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,1 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;
3. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions;
4. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/123, 10 December 2004, preamble and §§ 1–4, voting record: 155-8-15-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Concerned about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 149-7-22-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/125, 10 December 2004, §§ 2–3, voting record: 160-2-15-14.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem,

6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power … to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;

13. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/39, 1 December 2005, preamble and §§ 6 and 13, voting record: 156-6-9-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/40, 1 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 106-6-62-17.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities and its construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem, and the further isolation of the city from the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, …

1. Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/41, 1 December 2005, preamble and § 1, voting record: 153-7-12-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,
Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,
Noting that the International Court of Justice concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

Aware that Israeli settlement activities have involved, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement activities, in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, including the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem and the so-called E-1 plan, aimed at connecting its illegal settlements around and further isolating Occupied East Jerusalem,

Reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, the disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land,

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;

6. Reiterates its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/106, 8 December 2005, preamble and §§ 1–2, 4 and 6, voting record: 153-7-10-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,

6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble and §§ 2 and 6, voting record: 148-7-17-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from “changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/108, 8 December 2005, §§ 2–3, voting record: 156-1-15-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, …

6. Calls upon Israel to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, preamble and § 6, voting record: 156-6-8-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/25, 1 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 157-7-10-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Expressing its grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, and its construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/26, 1 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 157-6-10-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967,

3. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/27, 1 December 2006, preamble and § 3, voting record: 107-6-60-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly:
Expresses grave concern about the critical situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000, as a result of unlawful Israeli practices and measures, and especially condemns all Israeli settlement activities and the construction of the wall. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/116, 14 December 2006, § 4, voting record: 90-9-81-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,
Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Noting that the International Court of Justice concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

Aware that Israeli settlement activities involve, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement activities, including in and around East Jerusalem, in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, and concerned in particular about the construction and expansion of the settlements in Jabal Abu-Ghneim and Ras Al-Amud in and around Occupied East Jerusalem and Israel’s intentions to proceed with the so-called E-1 plan, aimed at connecting its illegal settlements around and further isolating Occupied East Jerusalem,

Reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, the disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land,

1. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;

6. Reiterates its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;
7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice;
8. Stresses the need for full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions regarding the Israeli settlements. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/118, 14 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–2, 4 and 6–8, voting record: 162-8-10-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as well as the extrajudicial executions;

6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, preamble, §§ 2 and 6, voting record: 157-9-14-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/120, 14 December 2006, §§ 2–3, voting record: 163-2-16-11.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
Reaffirming also the illegality of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem, including measures such as the so-called E-l plan and all other unilateral measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the city and the territory as a whole,

9. Stresses the need for a speedy end to the reoccupation of Palestinian population centres, inter alia, by easing movement and access, including by the removal of checkpoints within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;

13. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and to cease all of its measures that are contrary to international law and unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that are aimed at altering the character and status of the Territory, including via the de facto annexation of land, and thus at prejudging the final outcome of peace negotiations;

15. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/83, 10 December 2007, preamble and §§ 9, 13 and 15, voting record: 161-7-5-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalls resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Expressing its grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, its construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/84, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 160-6-7-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967,

3. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/85, 10 December 2007, preamble and § 3, voting record: 111-6-56-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly:
Expresses grave concern about the critical situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000, as a result of unlawful Israeli practices and measures, and especially condemns all Israeli settlement activities and the construction of the wall. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/106, 17 December 2007, § 4, voting record: 93-8-74-17.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,
Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also General Assembly resolutions ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004 and ES-10/17 of 15 December 2006,
Noting that the International Court of Justice concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,

Aware that Israeli settlement activities involve, inter alia, the transfer of nationals of the occupying Power into the occupied territories, the confiscation of land, the exploitation of natural resources and other illegal actions against the Palestinian civilian population,

Expressing grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law, relevant United Nations resolutions and the agreements reached between the parties, and concerned particularly about Israel’s construction and expansion of settlements in and around Occupied East Jerusalem, including its so-called E-1 plan, aimed at connecting its illegal settlements around and further isolating Occupied East Jerusalem, and in the Jordan Valley,

Reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, the disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land,

1. Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development;
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;

4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
5. Reiterates its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, including resolution 465 (1980);
6. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice;
7. Stresses the need for full implementation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council regarding the Israeli settlements. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/108, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–2 and 4–7, voting record: 165-7-5-15.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the establishment and expansion of settlements … and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

6. Calls upon Israel … to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 2 and 6, voting record: 156-7-11-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and have no legal effect. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/110, 17 December 2007, §§ 2 and 3, voting record: 164-1-10-17.

UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women, ECOSOC expressed concern about “the severe consequences of continuous illegal Israeli settlements activities”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/42, 22 July 2003, preamble, voting record: 42-2-4.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

6. Also reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to economic and social development.  
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/54, 23 July 2004, preamble and § 6, voting record: 51-1-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women, ECOSOC expressed concern “about the severe consequences of continuous illegal Israeli settlements activities”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/56, 23 July 2004, preamble, voting record: 49-1-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

6. Also reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, are illegal and an obstacle to economic and social development, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2005/51, 27 July 2005, preamble and § 6, voting record: 49-2-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women, ECOSOC expressed concern “about the grave situation of Palestinian women in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, resulting from severe impact of ongoing illegal Israeli settlement activities”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2005/43, 26 July 2005, preamble, voting record: 46-2-4.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women, ECOSOC expressed concern “about the grave situation of Palestinian women in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, resulting from the severe impact of ongoing illegal Israeli settlement activities”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/8, 25 July 2006, preamble, voting record: 38-2-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, are illegal and an obstacle to economic and social development, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/43, 27 July 2006, § 9, voting record: 45-3-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women, ECOSOC expressed concern “about the grave situation of Palestinian women in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, resulting from the severe impact of ongoing illegal Israeli settlement activities”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/7, 24 July 2007, preamble, voting record: 38-2-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

6. Calls upon all parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law and to refrain from violence against the civilian population in accordance with the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

9. Reaffirms that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, are illegal and an obstacle to economic and social development, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/26, 26 July 2007, preamble and §§ 6 and 9, voting record: 29-2-18.

UN Commission on Human Rights
The UN Commission on Human Rights has adopted numerous resolutions expressing concern at the Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories. For instance, in 2001, the Commission:
Expresses its grave concern at the Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, such as the construction of new settlements and the expansion of existing ones, the expropriation of land, the biased administration of water resources, the construction of roads and house demolitions, all of which violate human rights and international humanitarian law, besides being major obstacles to peace, urges the Government of Israel to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions as well as the recommendation of the Commission regarding the Israeli settlements. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/7, 18 April 2001, § 6, voting record: 28-2-22.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Gravely concerned at the continued deterioration of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory and at the gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular … the persistence in establishing settlements,

6. Also strongly condemns once again the establishment of Israeli settlements and other related activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, such as the construction of new settlements and the expansion of the already existing ones, the expropriation of lands, the biased administration of water resources and the construction of bypass roads, all of which are not only violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, especially article 49 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the Fourth Geneva Convention) and Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, according to which such violations constitute war crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/6, 15 April 2003, preamble and § 6, voting record: 33-5-15.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Expresses its grave concern:

(b) At the continuing Israeli settlement activities, including the illegal installation of settlers in the occupied territories and related activities, such as the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; settlements are a major obstacle to peace and to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State in accordance with Security Council resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/7, 15 April 2003, § 2(b), voting record: 50-1-2.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking note with deep concern of the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (see A/58/311) and, in this connection, deploring the Israeli settlement in the occupied Arab territories …
Guided by the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and the relevant provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 to the occupied Syrian Golan,

2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasizes that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their properties. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/8, 15 April 2004, preamble and § 2, voting record: 31-1-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,
Recalling its previous resolutions, most recently resolution 2003/7 of 15 April 2003, and taking note of General Assembly resolution 58/98 of 9 December 2003, in which, inter alia, the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories was reaffirmed,

2. Expresses its grave concern at:

(b) The continuing illegal Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories and related activities, such as the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, settlements are a major obstacle to peace and to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State in accordance with Security Council resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002;

3. Urges the Government of Israel:

(b) To reverse its settlement policy in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and, as a first step towards their dismantlement, to stop immediately the expansion of existing settlements, including “natural growth” and related activities;
(c) To prevent any new installation of settlers in the occupied territories;
(d) To implement the recommendations regarding the settlements made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report to the Commission at its fiftyseventh session on her visit to the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel, Egypt and Jordan (E/CN.4/2001/114). 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/9, 15 April 2004, preamble and §§ 2(b) and 3(b)–(d), voting record: 27-2-24.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention), the provisions of Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977 and the Hague Convention IV, of 18 October 1907, and Annexed Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
Recalling resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights relating to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since the 5 June 1967 war,
Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Palestinian territories occupied since the June 1967 war, including East Jerusalem,

Gravely concerned at the continued deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and at the gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular … the persistence in establishing settlements …

6. Strongly condemns once again the establishment of Israeli settlements and other related activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, such as the construction of new settlements and the expansion of the existing ones, land confiscation, biased administration of water resources and the construction of bypass roads, which not only constitute grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, especially article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I thereto, according to which such violations are categorized as war crimes, but are also major obstacles to peace, urges the Government of Israel to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions as well as the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights relative to the Israeli settlements, and affirms that the dismantling of Israeli settlements constitutes an essential factor for achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/10, 15 April 2004, preamble and § 6, voting record: 31-7-15.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling relevant resolutions of the Commission, the Security Council and the General Assembly, most recently General Assembly resolution 59/123 of 10 December 2004 in which it reaffirmed, inter alia, the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories,
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,
Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and its conclusion that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law,

Expressing its concern at the failure of the Government of Israel to cooperate fully with the relevant United Nations mechanisms, in particular the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,

3. Expresses its grave concern at:
(a) The continuing Israeli settlement and related activities, in violation of international law, including the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and in particular article 49 of that Convention; settlements are a major obstacle to the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace and to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State;
(b) The new construction plan by the Government of Israel announced on 21 March 2005 for a project of 3,500 additional housing units in Maale Adumim and the planned expansion of two other settlement blocks in the West Bank, and deplores the negative impact of these plans on the confidence between the two parties at a time when a genuine window of opportunity exists to relaunch the peace process, as the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, would be a violation of international humanitarian law, the relevant United Nations resolutions and Israeli commitments in the context of the road map;

5. Demands that Israel implement the recommendations regarding the settlements made by the then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report to the Commission at its fifty-seventh session on her visit to the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel, Egypt and Jordan (E/CN.4/2001/114).

7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/6, 14 April 2005, preamble and §§ 3(a)–(b), 5 and 7, voting record: 39-2-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights,

Condemning the continued systematic violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, arising from the settlements, the construction of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949, the destruction of property and all other actions designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

1. Reiterates that all actions and punitive measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity, and thereby demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its provisions and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including extrajudicial executions. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble and § 1, voting record: 29-10-14.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking note with deep concern of the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (A/59/381) and, in this connection, deploring the Israeli settlement in the occupied Arab territories, including in the occupied Syrian Golan …
Guided by the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and the relevant provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 to the occupied Syrian Golan,

2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasizes that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their properties. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/8, 14 April 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 32-2-19.

UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Human Rights Council:
Taking note with deep concern of the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (A/60/380) of 26 August 2005 and, in this connection, deploring the Israeli settlement in the occupied Arab territories …
Guided by the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and the relevant provisions of the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 to the occupied Syrian Golan,

2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasizes that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their property. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 2/3, 27 November 2006, preamble and § 2, voting record: 32-1-14.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Human Rights Council:
Recalling relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, the Security Council and the General Assembly, most recently General Assembly resolution 60/106 of 18 January 2006 in which it reaffirmed, inter alia, the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories,
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,
Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and its conclusion that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law,
Recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Expressing its grave concern about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement building and expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including plans to expand and connect Israeli settlements around Occupied East Jerusalem, thus threatening the creation of a contiguous Palestinian State,

2. Expresses its grave concern at:
(a) The continuing Israeli settlement and related activities, in violation of international law, including the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and in particular article 49 of that Convention …
(b) The Israeli so-called E1 plan aimed at expanding the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim and building the wall around it, thereby further disconnecting occupied East Jerusalem from the northern and southern parts of the West Bank and isolating its Palestinian population;
(c) The new Israeli plans to construct more than 900 additional housing units in different Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank;

(e) The expansion of Israeli settlements and the construction of new ones on the occupied Palestinian territory rendered inaccessible behind the wall, which create a fait accompli on the ground that could well be permanent, in which case, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation;
(f) The Israeli decision to establish and operate a tramway between West Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Pisgat Zeev in violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions;

3. Urges Israel, the occupying Power:
(a) To reverse the settlement policy in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and, as a first step towards their dismantlement, to stop immediately the expansion of the existing settlements, including “natural growth” and related activities;
(b) To prevent any new installation of settlers in the occupied territories;

5. Demands that Israel implement the recommendations regarding the settlements made by the then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-seventh session on her visit to the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel, Egypt and Jordan (E/CN.4/2001/114);
6. Calls upon Israel to take and implement serious measures, including confiscation of arms and enforcement of criminal sanctions, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers, and other measures to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians and Palestinian properties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the Advisory Opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 2/4, 27 November 2006, preamble and §§ 2(a)–(c), (e)–(f), 3(a)–(b) and 5–7, voting record: 45-1-1.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In his final report submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in 1997, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements stated: “The range of human rights violated by population transfer and the implantation of settlers place this phenomenon in the category of systematic or mass violations of human rights.” He further stated:
64. As affirmed in the Special Rapporteur’s progress report, international law prohibits the transfer of persons, including the implantation of settlers, as a general principle, and the governing principle is that any displacement of populations must have the consent of the population involved. Accordingly, the criteria governing forcible transfer rest on the absence of consent and also include the use of force, coercive measures, and inducement to flee.
65. Acts such as ethnic cleansing, dispersal of minorities or ethnic populations from their homeland within or outside the State, and the implantation of settlers are unlawful, and engage State responsibility and the criminal responsibility of individuals. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, §§ 16, 64–65.

The Special Rapporteur recommended that:
Consideration must be given by the Sub-Commission to the possibility of preparing an international instrument to set or codify international standards which are applicable to the situation of population transfer and the implantation of settlers. Such an instrument should: provide for an express reaffirmation of the unlawfulness of population transfer and the implantation of settlers; define State responsibility in the matter of unlawful population transfer, including the implantation of settlers; [and] provide for the criminal responsibility of individuals involved in population transfer, whether such individuals be private or officials of the State. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, § 70.

The Special Rapporteur proposed a draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers for adoption by the UN Commission on Human Rights which provided:
Article 5
The settlement, by transfer or inducement, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies or by the Power exercising de facto control over a disputed territory is unlawful.
Article 6
Practices and policies having the purpose or effect of changing the demographic composition of the region in which a national, ethnic, linguistic, or other minority or an indigenous population is residing, whether by deportation, displacement, and/or the implantation of settlers, or a combination thereof, are unlawful.

Article 9
The above practices of population transfer constitute internationally wrongful acts giving rise to State responsibility and to individual criminal liability. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, Annex II, Draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers, Articles 5, 6 and 9.

Back to top
GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 12th Session in 1991, the GCC Supreme Council expressed “its deep concern and indignation at the fact that the Israeli occupation authorities are persisting in their policies aimed at establishing illegal settlements in the occupied Arab territories”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 12th Session, Kuwait, 23–25 December 1991, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 30 December 1992 from Kuwait to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/46/833-S/23336, 30 December 1991, p. 5.

In the Final Communiqué of its 13th Session in 1992, the GCC Supreme Council reaffirmed its conviction that “the construction of settlements … represent a total contravention of all the Charters, Laws and Conventions of the International Community of Nations”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 13th Session, Abu Dhabi, 21–23 December 1992, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 24 December 1992 from the United Arab Emirates to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/47/845-S/25020, 30 December 1992, p. 6.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the occupied Arab Syrian Golan Heights, the Council of the League of Arab States decided:
to adhere to resolutions of international legitimacy which prohibit the recognition or acceptance of any situation induced by any activities related to the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories as an illegal measure that does not give any right or create any obligation, and to consider the establishment of settlements and the arrival of their settlers a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Madrid framework, and an obstacle to the Peace Process which requires the end of all Israeli colonizing activities in the occupied Syrian Golan and Arab territories. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5633, 31 March 1997, § 6.

League of Arab States
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, the League of Arab States stated:
9.16. The construction of the wall also violates art. 49 para. 6 of the Fourth Convention which prohibits the occupying power from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. In many instances the United Nations bodies have held the creation of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory to constitute a violation of this provision. The establishment of those settlements, which imply moving parts of the civilian population to those settlements, constitutes a consistent policy of transferring population, adopted by Israeli governments. It is not at least a design to create population structures which enhance, according to the view of significant parts of the Israeli population, the chances of Israel living in “secure boundaries”. Thus, the establishment of those settlements is a considered means of a security policy to the detriment of the original population of the occupied territory. This is exactly the type of measure art. 49 para. 6 of the Fourth Convention is designed to prevent.

11.18. The transfer of the civilian population of the occupying power and, thus, the creation and consolidation of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories also constitutes a grave breach, although that transfer is not mentioned in the list of grave breaches contained in article 147 of the Fourth Convention. It has been declared, however, to constitute a grave breach by article 85 para. 4 (a) of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions. Israel, however, is not a Party to the Protocol. In this respect, it must be noted, however, that article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Statute of the ICC lists as a war crime
“The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies …”
The list of war crimes found in article 8 has to be considered to be an expression of customary international law. The texts are taken from many different treaties, such as Hague Convention No. 3, the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property. It seems impossible that all these treaties apply in a given conflict as a matter of treaty law. The list, thus, can only be explained if the rules referred to in it constitute customary international law. Thus, there is a customary law addition to the list of grave breaches contained in the Fourth Convention, namely the transfer of the occupying power’s population into the occupied territory. The settlement policy and the construction of the Wall in order to consolidate this policy are part and parcel of this grave breach. 
League of Arab States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, pp. 87–88 and 109.

Back to top
International Conference of the Red Cross (1981)
The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 adopted a resolution in which it reaffirmed that “the settlements in the occupied territories are incompatible with articles 27 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. 
24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 7–14 November 1981, Res. III, § 5.

Back to top
International Military Tribunal for Germany
Count 3(J) (War Crimes) of the indictment in the case of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal for Germany in 1945 provided, under the heading “Germanization of Occupied Territories”:
In certain territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists.
This plan included economic domination, physical conquest, installation of puppet Governments, purported de jure annexation and enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces.
This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including: Norway, France … Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.

These acts violated Articles 43, 46, 55, and 56 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed and Article 6(b) of the Charter [jurisdiction over war crimes]. 
International Military Tribunal for Germany, Case of the Major War Criminals, Indictment, 20 November 1945, Count 3(J), pp. 63–65.

In its judgment in the case of the Major War Criminals in 1946, the International Military Tribunal for Germany stated:
Hitler discussed with Rosenberg, Göring, Keitel, and others his plan for the exploitation of the Soviet population and territory, which included among other things the evacuation of the inhabitants of the Crimea and its settlement by Germans.
A somewhat similar fate was planned for Czechoslovakia by the Defendant Von Neurath, in August 1940; the intellegentsia were to be “expelled”, but the rest of the population was to be Germanized rather than expelled or exterminated, since there was a shortage of Germans to replace them.
The Tribunal concluded that “the Leadership Corps [of the Nazi Party] was used for purposes which were criminal under the Charter and involved the Germanization of incorporated territory”. The Tribunal held the accused Rosenberg and Von Neurath responsible for their role in the policies of “Germanization”. 
International Military Tribunal for Germany, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgment, 1 October 1946, pp. 238, 261, 295 and 335.

Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee
In its report in 2001, the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee stated, with respect to the Israeli settlements in occupied territories:
During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the US has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some differences. Prominent among those differences is the US Government’s long-standing opposition to the [Government of Israel’s] policies and practices regarding settlements … [This] policy … has been, in essence, the policy of every American administration over the past quarter century.
Most other countries, including Turkey, Norway, and those of the European Union, have also been critical of Israeli settlement activity, in accordance with their views that such settlements are illegal under international law and not in compliance with previous agreements. 
Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee created pursuant to the Sharm el-Sheikh summit of 16–17 October 2000, Report, 30 April 2001, pp. 15–16.

International Court of Justice
In its Advisory Opinion in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, the ICJ stated the following on the status of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
As regards these settlements, the Courts notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers or parts of its own population into the occupied territory.
In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.
The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity”. It has also called upon “Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously” by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:
“to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories” (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979).”
The Council reaffirmed its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described “Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in [the occupied] territories” as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law. 
ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, § 120.

Back to top
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “the occupying power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies” and that such a transfer would constitute a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 831 and 776(g).

In 1997, in a working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC, emphasizing the customary law nature of most grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, listed “the transfer by an occupying power of part of its own population into the territory it occupies” as a war crime to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. 
ICRC, Working paper submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, § 1(I).

Back to top
Permanent Representation of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia
In 2000, the Official Gazette of the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia reported that following the memorandum between the governments of Armenia and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, it was decided to increase the number of inhabitants in the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh to 300,000. 
Nagorno-Karabakh, Permanent Representation in Armenia, Official Gazette, No. 16, 27 September 2000.