Proceedings of the Conference held at the Institute of Law, Birzeit University between 24-26 September 2011

The calendar of Middle East events has been packed over the last few months. Wheels are in motion. But pointing in which direction? Is international law an effective instrument for peace? One could be pessimistic. While we have seen a strengthening of the instruments of international law in the last decade, the system itself has come under pressure. We see again and again that core obligations are circumvented, unilaterally redefined or simply ignored. If human rights and humanitarian law were ever seen as a standard menu, they now have become dishes at a buffet, where people can pick and choose as they like.

The traditional legal approach considering violations of international law as mere exceptions unable to undermine the effectiveness of the rule hardly capture the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where violations have become the rule. New approaches must be explored. The proceedings of the Conference held in Birzeit University on 24-26 September 2010 aims to outline a new approach setting aside the debate about the legal consequences flowing from the violations committed by the occupying power to focus on the actual content of the international obligations, the breach of which gives rise to responsibility, and on how these violations -as well as the processes by which they are justified­- retroact on the primary rules.

During the conference, the tension between the anti-formalist practices of international law highlighted in the Israeli-Palestinian context, the move toward indeterminacy of legal standards and the need for objective, shared values that can serve as a cornerstone capable of adjudicating moments of conflicts were analysed to determine the place and role of the law of armed conflict in asymmetrical warfare, the relevance of the fourth Geneva Convention in a long-lasting occupation, and the effectiveness of international legal mechanisms aimed at correcting the effects of current legal policy. In order to accurately reflect the work conducted, the same articulation has been used in the present publication. The various contributions explore the duty to spare civilians in asymmetrical warfare in light of recent Israeli practice, the notions of transformative occupation and annexation from a theoretical and practical perspective, and the use of the law of state and individual responsibility in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The editors do not contend that the essays assembled here have reached final answers to all of the questions raised. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, practice and the elaboration of arguments has produced ever-more complicated and diffuse arguments, but seem ever-less able to determine outcomes. We believe, though, that it is possible, through the critique of meta-narratives, to create uncertainty in previously unquestioned policies. We hope that this publication will make a sensible and constructive contribution to reaching that goal.