Source: https://casebook.icrc.org/print/20766
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:58:40+00:00

Document:
These three petitions, which we have heard together, concern deportation orders under Regulation 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 [...].
On March 13, 1988 we decided to dismiss the petitions [...]. The following are the reasons for the Judgment.
The petitioners raised, as a central reason for their petitions, the argument that Article 49 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (hereinafter: the Fourth Geneva Convention) forbids the deportation of any of the petitioners from Judea, Samaria or the Gaza Strip, as the case may be. According to the argument, an absolute prohibition exists, with regard to a resident of one of the territories occupied by the I.D.F. [Israel Defence Force], against the application of Article 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 or of any other legal provision (if such exists) whose subject is deportation. This is due to the provisions of the above-mentioned international convention which, according to the contention, should be seen as a rule of public international law, binding upon the State of Israel and the Military Government bodies acting on its behalf and granting those injured the right of access to this Court.
The legal premise underlying this argument has been raised time and again before this Court and has been discussed either directly or partially and indirectly in a number of cases; [...].
Interpretation of the above-mentioned Article 49.
In a nutshell, what has been said until now may be summarized thus: We have referred to the guidelines used in establishing the relation between the literal meaning of the written word and the correct legal interpretation, as far as this applies to our legal system. Interpretation in this sector seeks, as was said, to pave the way to a revelation of the legislative purpose. Setting the purpose in this form is directed to the sources which one may turn to in order to ascertain the purpose. It is customary in this matter to examine more than the text and, inter alia, also the legislative history; the legal and substantive context, and the meanings stemming from the structure of the legislation [...].
Interpretation in Public International Law: Now the second question arises, which is: What are the rules of interpretation relevant to our matter that are used in public international law.
[...] Nonetheless, there is value, even if only for the sake of comparison, in an examination of the provisions of the Convention regarding interpretation.
It seems that from the first part of Article 31 (1) one could conclude that the Convention sought to support that school of interpretation which emphasizes the text, as opposed to the alternative school of interpretation, no less accepted, which focuses on the intentions of the draftsmen of the Convention [...]. Yet, the second part of Article 31(1) and Article 32 form the bridge to the other theories of interpretation, also familiar to us from the earlier examination of our municipal law.
That is, the provisions of the Convention leave ample space to enable examination of the purpose which led to its making. It is even possible to reflect upon the preparatory work describing the background to the making of the Convention, as material which can complement the plain understanding of the text, its purpose and scope of application.
[...] Beyond that: When for the purpose of the issue before us we adopt the interpretive approach as expressed in the specific area of law that we are presently discussing, namely public international law, we should recall Professor Yasseen’s interpretive guidelines [...] from which emerges, inter alia, a stand rejecting the constriction of state authority and rejecting formalism, or an approach which ignores the special qualities of the field of law that we are discussing.
We shall now proceed to the application of the rules of interpretation to the issue before us.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: What is the dispute regarding the interpretation of the above-mentioned Article 49.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
“...I have not found substance in the argument that the use of the above-mentioned Regulation 112 stands in contradiction to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [...]. It is intended, as Dr. Pictet in his commentary on the Convention (p. 10) writes, to protect the civilian from arbitrary action by the occupying army, and the purpose of the above-mentioned Article 49 is to prevent acts such as the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans in World War II, during which millions of civilians were deported from their homes for various purposes, generally to Germany in order to enslave them in forced labour for the enemy, as well as Jews and others who were deported to concentration camps for torture and extermination.
It is clear that the above-mentioned Convention does not detract from the obligation of the Occupying Power to preserve public order in the occupied territory, an obligation imposed by Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, nor does it detract from its right to employ the necessary means to ensure its own security, see Pictet, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, at p. 115.
Article 49, which prohibited deportations was connected therefore with such provisions. As Pictet describes [...] [i]n his words: When one thinks about the millions of people who were forcibly transferred from place to place during the last conflict (i.e. World War II – m.s.), and about their suffering, both physical and moral, one cannot but thankfully bless the text (of the Convention – m.s.) which put an end to these inhuman practices.
One is not speaking in this regard, not even by inference, about the removal from the territory of a terrorist, infiltrator or enemy agent, but rather about the protection of the entire civilian population as such from deportation, since the civilian population has more and more frequently become direct victim of war [...].
The conclusion, stemming from all of the above, is that the purpose which the draftsmen of the Convention had in mind was the protection of the civilian population, which had become a principal victim of modern-day wars, and the adoption of rules which would ensure that civilians would not serve as a target for arbitrary acts and inhuman exploitation. What guided the draftsmen of the Convention were the mass deportations for purposes of extermination, mass population transfers for political or ethnic reasons or for forced labour. This is the “legislative purpose” and this is the material context.
It is reasonable to conclude that the reference to mass and individual deportations in the text of the Article was inserted in reaction also to the Nazi methods of operation used in World War II, in which mass transfers were conducted, sometimes on the basis of common ethnic identity, or by rounding up people in Ghettos, in streets or houses, at times on the basis of individual summonses through lists of names. Summons by name was done for the purpose of sending a person to death, to internment in a concentration camp, or for recruitment for slave labour in the factories of the occupier or in agriculture. Moreover, it seems that the summons to slave labour was always on an individual basis.
The gist of the petitioners’ argument is that the first paragraph prohibits any transfer of a person from the territory against his will.
The implications of this thesis are that Article 49 does not refer only to deportations, evacuations and transfers of civilian populations, as they were commonly defined in the period of the last war, but also to the removal of any person from the territory under any circumstances, whether after a legitimate judicial proceeding (e.g. an extradition request), or after proving that the residence was unlawful and without permission [...], or for any other legal reason, based upon the internal law of the occupied territory.
According to the said argument, from the commencement of military rule over the territory there is a total freeze on the removal of persons, and whosoever is found in a territory under military rule cannot be removed for any reason whatsoever, as long as the military rule continues. In this matter there would be no difference between one dwelling lawfully or unlawfully in the territory, since Article 49 extends its protection to anyone termed “protected persons”, and this expression embraces, according to Article 4 of the Convention, all persons found in the territory, whether or not they are citizens or permanent residents thereof and even if they are there illegally as infiltrators (including armed infiltrators), [...].
The petitioners’ submission rests essentially on one portion of the first paragraph of the Article, i.e. on the words “... transfers ... deportations ... regardless of their motive”. That is, according to this thesis, the reason or legal basis for the deportation is no longer relevant. Although the petitioners would agree that the background to the wording of Article 49 is that described above, the Article must now be interpreted according to them in its literal and simple meaning, thus including any forced removal from the territory.
[F]rom the thesis offered by the petitioners, it would follow that an infiltrator for sabotage purposes could not be deported before or after serving his sentence. The same would be true, according to this approach, of a person who came for a visit over the open bridges, yet stayed beyond the expiration of his permit. The literal and simple interpretation leads to an illogical conclusion.
Regarding the issue before us, the petitioners have directed our attention to the remarks of Pictet in Commentary, supra, at 368, who adopts the literal interpretation, according to which all deportations are prohibited no matter what the reason. One should see this interpretive view, which would apply Article 49 to as broad a group of circumstances as possible, in its context and within its limits. The desire for a literal and simple meaning, which may find expression in scholarly opinions in professional literature, does not bind the courts. Not only are there other and contradictory viewpoints [...], but, more essentially, the Court deals with the law as it exists and clarifies the meaning of a law or of a treaty, as appropriate by adopting accepted rules of interpretation [...].
Were we to adopt the rules of interpretation used in our law, we could not accept the thesis proposed by the petitioners. The Court would consider the flaw which the Convention was intended to correct [...]; would examine the material context and the structure of Article 49, which in its other provisions refers clearly and openly to evacuations and transfers of population [...], would attempt to lift the veil from over the legislative purpose in order to adopt it as a standard of interpretation [...]; and would be wary of and refrain from the adoption of a literal interpretation which is, so to speak, simple but in law and in fact so simplistic that it leads the language of the law or the Convention, as appropriate, to a range of applicability that confounds reason [...] e.g. the absolute prohibition against the deportation of an infiltrator or spy, since deportations are prohibited, as it were, “regardless of their motive”.
Essentially, even reference to the rules of interpretation of international conventions does not help the petitioners’ argument: For even the Vienna Convention does not submit to the literal interpretation, but rather sees the words of the convention “in their context and in the light of its object and purpose” (Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention). The Convention permits us to examine the preparatory work and shies away from an interpretation whose outcome is “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”, and this description would apply at once to a prohibition against the deportation of an infiltrator [...].
By contrast with this answer to the petitioners’ contention, the opposite question naturally arises, namely, what then is the alternate interpretation of the words “regardless of their motive”.
If we adopt the interpretation by which the term “deportation” refers to the mass and arbitrary deportations whose descriptions are familiar to us, then the words referring to the motive do not change the essence; the reference to some possible motive simply serves to preclude the raising of arguments and excuses linking the mass deportations to, as it were, legitimate motives. In other words, whatever the motive, the basic essence of the prohibited act (deportation), to which the words of Article 49 are directed, does not change. The opposite is true: There is basis for the claim that the reference to “some motive” is also among the lessons of World War II.
The legal situation in Israel: Israeli law on the question of the relationship between international law and internal law – that is in order to settle the question of whether a given provision of public international law has become part of Israeli law – distinguishes between conventional law and customary law [...].
“The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention (Hague Convention Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land) expressly stated that it was an attempt ‘to revise the general laws and customs of war’ which it thus recognized to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognized by all civilised nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war. ...” (I.M.T. Judgment, supra, at 65).
H.C. 785/87: (a) The petitioner Abd al Nasser Abd al Aziz Abd al Affo, born in 1956, is a resident of the city of Jenin.
Abd al Nasser Abd al Affo Muhamad Abd al Aziz, [...] be deported from the Region.
H.C. 845/87: (a) Abd al Aziz Abd Alrachman Ude Rafia, born in 1950, is a resident of Gaza.
Immediately upon receipt of this order, the petitioner was arrested and jailed in Gaza. The petitioner applied to the Advisory Committee [...].
“The applicant is mentioned as responsible for the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and perhaps beyond that area. He is depicted as a guide of that organization and as an influential figure among the residents of the area in general and among those who belong to that organization in particular. They look to him constantly and often wait by his doorway to hear his words. He acquired his status through his activities as a lecturer at the university and as a preacher in the mosque, where he delivered extreme religious and nationalist addresses laden with incitement and hatred against Israeli rule. These contained on occasion calls for violent struggle, including encouragement of civil disorder and even extreme acts of violence, such as murder. There is no doubt, therefore, that the applicant constitutes an actual danger to the security of the Region and its inhabitants and to the maintenance of public order; and that the deportation order was given, therefore, within the framework of considerations enumerated in Regulation 108 of the Regulations.
The question remains whether in the applicant’s case, the most severe step, namely deportation, is in order.
Even placing him in prison, such as in administrative detention, will not counter his influence. There are grounds for fearing that precisely in such a place he will be even more accessible to the extremists among his followers and that his stay in prison will have a most dangerous and negative influence on what takes place both within the prison and outside it.
The most efficient and suitable measure in this case is, therefore, to deport the applicant outside the Region and the country.
I, therefore see no grounds for the intervention by this Court in the decision of respondent [...].
H.C. 27/88: (a) The petitioner J’mal Shaati Hindi is a resident of Jenin and is studying at Al Najah University. On 1 December 87 a deportation order was issued against him [...].
I concur in the final conclusion that my esteemed colleague, the President, has reached regarding these petitions; however, on one point of principal importance I must dissent from his opinion.
I accept the approach, which found expression in Sussman P.’s judgment in H.C. 97/79, namely that the Convention was framed in the wake of the Hitler period in Germany, and in face of the crimes which were perpetrated against the civilian population by the Nazis during World War II. Similarly, I would subscribe to the opinion that one may consider the historical facts accompanying the making of a convention and the purpose for its framing in order to find a suitable interpretation for the articles of the convention. Even the Vienna Convention, upon which Professor Kretzmer relied in this context, does not refute this possibility [Article 31] [...].
[...] I find no contradiction between this “historical approach” and the possibility of giving a broad interpretation to the Article in question.
The crimes committed by the German army in occupied territories emphasized the need for concluding a convention that would protect the civilian population and served as a lever (and quasi “trigger”) for its framing. But this fact does not in any way refute the thesis that, when they proceeded to draw up that convention, the draftsmen decided to formulate it in a broad fashion and in a manner that would, inter alia, totally prevent the deportation of residents from those territories either to the occupying state or to another state.
The text of the Article, both in terms of its context and against the backdrop of the treaty in its entirety, cannot admit in my opinion the interpretation, that it is directed solely towards preventing actions such as those that were committed by the Nazis for racial, ethnic or national reasons.
We must not deviate by way of interpretation from the clear and simple meaning of the words of an enactment when the language of the Article is unequivocal and when the linguistic interpretation does not contradict the legislative purpose and does not lead to illogical and absurd conclusions.
The second portion of Article 49 supports the aforesaid interpretation. Here the Convention allows the evacuation of a population within the territory, i.e. from one place to another in the occupied area, if it is necessary to ensure the security of the population or is vital for military purposes. It teaches us that the draftsmen of the Convention were aware of the need for ensuring security interests, and allowed for this purpose even the evacuation of populations within the occupied territories. The fact that in the first portion this qualification was not introduced, i.e. the deportation of residents beyond the borders for security reasons was not permitted, demands our attention.
Additionally, a perusal of other articles of the Convention illustrates an awareness by the draftsmen of the security needs of the occupying state and indirectly supports the aforesaid broad interpretation of Article 49.
We see that under the Convention, the rights of spies and saboteurs can be denied in various ways, if the matter is deemed necessary for security reasons. Yet despite the alertness of the Convention’s draftsmen to the security needs of the occupying power, there is no Article qualifying the sweeping prohibition in Article 49, and there is no allusion to the right to deport such persons to another state.
The above-mentioned Articles of the Geneva Convention supplement the provisions of Regulation 43 of the Hague Regulations, which obligates the occupying power to ensure public order and public welfare in the occupied territories, in the sense that they indicate the measures which may be adopted in order to fulfil this obligation. In any event, nothing in Regulation 43 of the Hague Regulations stands in contradiction to the simple and broad interpretation suggested for Article 49.
A clear direction is discernible in the Convention. The freedom of movement of a “protected person” can be limited, and he can even be arrested without trial, if it is necessary in order to protect public security or another vital interest of the occupying state; this is in addition to the possibility of placing him on trial, punishing him and even condemning him to death. But the “protected person” cannot be deported; for the moment deportation to another country is carried out, the occupying state has no further control over him, and he therefore ceases to be a “protected person”.
[...] My esteemed colleague, the President, also relies on the argument that, in light of the sweeping formulation of Article 4 of the Convention which includes a definition of the term “protected persons” under the Convention, a literal interpretation of Article 49 would lead to the conclusion that one could not even deport terrorists who illegally infiltrate into the territory during the occupation, and similarly that it would not be possible to extradite criminals from the territories to other states in accordance with extradition treaties.
The question regarding infiltrators could arise because of a certain difficulty in the interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention, which is not free of ambiguity. Thus when that same Article 4 states that “Persons protected by the Convention are those who find themselves in case of a conflict or occupation in the hands of a Party to the conflict or an Occupying Power...” (emphasis added – g.b.) then there is perhaps room to argue that the reference is to people who due to an armed conflict or belligerence between states, have fallen into a situation where against their will they find themselves in the hands of one of the parties to the conflict or in the hands of the occupying power; whereas people who subsequently penetrate into that territory with malicious intent are not included in that definition. If and when this problem arises in an actual case, there will be a need to resolve it through an appropriate interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention, but this does not suffice, in my opinion, to raise doubts concerning the interpretation of Article 49. In the matter before us, the aforesaid difficulty is in any case non-existent, since the petitioners are, by all opinions, permanent residents of the territories controlled by the I.D.F.; and if the Convention under discussion applies to those territories, then they are undoubtedly included in the definition of “protected persons”.
The same applies to the problem of extraditing criminals. The question of to what extent an extradition treaty between states is feasible, when it concerns people who are located in territories occupied by countries which are parties to the treaty, is thorny and complicated in itself; and whatever may be the answer to this question, one can not draw inferences from this regarding the interpretation of Article 49. In any case, should it be established that it is indeed possible to extradite persons who are residents of occupied territories on the basis of the Extradition Law, 5714-1954 and the treaties that were signed in accordance with it, then regarding the possibility of actually extraditing the persons concerned, I would arrive at the same ultimate conclusion as I do regarding the petitioners against whom the deportation orders were issued under Regulation 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, as will be detailed below.
However, each case will be examined in accordance with its circumstances, and in contrast with the interpretation of laws and conventions which at times require strict adherence to the meaning of words and terms, the Court enjoys a flexible and broad discretion when it examines a Government policy declaration in accordance with its content and spirit.
In the light of the aforesaid and as I also agree with those portions of the President’s opinion which deal with the factual aspects of the petitions, I concur in the conclusion reached by my esteemed colleague in his judgment regarding the fate of these petitions.
Are all provisions of Convention IV purely treaty-based? Are some customary law? Is Art. 49 of Convention IV customary law? How is this assessed? How could it be assessed, taking into account that 164 out of 170 States were bound in 1985, as Contracting Parties, to respect that provision? Should one assess the practice of the 6 States not party to the Convention? Does the Court not assess instead whether Art. 49 was customary in 1949? Or in 1923? Was there no development in customary law between 1949 and 1988?
Why is the status, whether conventional or customary, of Art. 49 relevant to the Convention’s applicability in this case if Israel is party to Convention IV?
Are the Hague Regulations applicable in this case? As conventional or as customary law?
Is Art. 49 of Convention IV self-executing? Is the answer to this question relevant in this case? Does such a question, however, explain e.g. the inclusion of Arts 49/50/129/146 or 48/49/128/145 respectively, concerning national legislation, in the four Conventions?
Could you conceive of different wording for Art. 49(1) that would more clearly prohibit individual deportations than the present wording? Is the result of the literal interpretation (that individual deportations are prohibited, regardless of their motive) unreasonable in light of the object and purpose of Convention IV? Do Pictet’s and other drafters’ recollections of the mass deportations by Nazi Germany mean that they wanted Art. 49 to cover only such deportations? Would such an intention be decisive for today’s interpretation of the rule?
In his separate opinion, how does Bach interpret Art. 49? If the majority had adopted Bach’s opinion, would the deportations addressed in this case still occur? Why?
general it intends to honour the humanitarian provisions of Convention IV. What are these humanitarian provisions? Do articles prohibiting deportation not constitute humanitarian provisions? Or only in certain instances? Are the three petitioners in this case protected persons according to Art. 4 of Convention IV? Does a literal interpretation of Arts 4 and 49 lead to an absurd result in the case of the three petitioners?
Petitioners objected to the evidentiary use of “classified material”, as it denied their right to a fair trial, e.g., para. 14(d) of the majority’s opinion. Notwithstanding a determination concerning utilization of “classified material”, would Art. 49 permit deportations following a legitimate judicial proceeding?

References: Art. 49
 Art. 49
 Art. 49
 Art. 49
 Art. 49
 Art. 49
 Art. 49
 Art. 4
 Art. 49