Judge Schwebel served extensively on the International Court of Justice, and is a former Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State, as well as Professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins.
Here he discusses the legitimate acquisition of land via conquest – provided the conquest was defensive and the previous occupation of the territory unlawful.
Eugene Rostow (1913-2002) served as Dean of the Yale Law School, and as US Undersecretary of State. Involved in the drafting of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, explains that the resolution did not require a complete Israeli withdrawal from territories conquered in 1967, leaving the extent of Israeli withdrawals an issue to be determined by Israel and its neighbors.
Robbie Sabel is Professor of Law at the Hebrew University, and former Legal Adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Professor Sabel considers classic International Law on Occupation, which is meant to protect the rights of the former sovereign state whose territory is being occupied.
The Convention does not apply at all to the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] because the former ruler – Jordan – lacks legitimate claim to sovereignty over this territory, a prerequisite to the application of the Convention.
A law professor at Northeastern University School of Law, David Phillips summarizes the legal history of the disputed territories, describing whether, how and why different principles of international law apply. He shows how legal arguments against Jewish settlements misapply and misuse international law on the subject.
Excerpts from Professor Julius Stone’s book on how international law has been twisted against Israel. The excerpts cover many legal points about Israel’s legitimate rights to the disputed territories and Jewish settlement therein, and sovereignty in Jerusalem
Meir Rosenne, scholar of international law and diplomat, was the legal adviser to the Israeli delegation at Camp David.
Here he takes a close look at UN Security Council Resolution 242 and considers a number of pertinent factors: It applies itself to states only, making no reference to Palestinian Arabs, and calls for “secure and recognized boundaries,” which excludes the 1949 and 1967 lines. The reference to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” is of no legal force because of its placement in the preamble, and legal authorities have in any case indicated that this inadmissibility is pertinent only when the aggressor, not the defender, conquers territory. The resolution pointedly refrains from referring only to Arab refugees, instead implicitly applying as well to Jews expelled by Arab countries.