1 See in general, Gupte, , U.S. Quits I.L.O. and Touches Off a Furor in U.N., N.Y. Times, Nov. 2, 1977, §A at 13, col. 1Google Scholar; Raskin, Struggle over I.L.O. Pullout, N.Y. Times, Nov. 3, 1977, §A at 10, col. 1. See also press briefing by the Secretary of Labor, F. Ray Marshall, Nov. 1, 1977. 72 AJIL 375 (1978), 16 ILM 1561 (1977).

2 Convention on International Civil Aviation, done Dec. 7, 1944, 61 Stat. 1180, TIAS No. 1591, 15 UNTS 295.

3 Signed Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, TS No. 539, 1 Bevans 631.

4 Dated Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, TIAS No. 3365, 75 UNTS 287.

5 Done May 14, 1954, 249 UNTS 215, Art. 5; Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, Arts. 13 and 19; Protocol, para. 1(4).

6 Regarding the Israeli views on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territory, see infra, note 31.

7 Article 29 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna, May 23, 1969, UN Doc. A / C O N F.39/27 (1969) at 289, 63 AJIL 875, 884 (1969) was not intended to deal with the question of extraterritorial application of treaties and is not helpful as regards territories under belligerent occupation. Seethe Commentary on Article 25 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, 21GAOR, Supp. (No. 9) , UN Doc. A/6309/Rev.1 (1966), reprinted in [1966] 2 Y.B.Int. L. Comm. 169, 213, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.1.

Following the Six Days’ War, the Government of Israel and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) agreed that UNRWA would continue its assistance to refugees in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and that Israel would recognize that the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, done at New York, Feb. 13, 1946, 21 UST 1418,TIAS No. 6900, 1 UNTS 15, 43 AJIL Supp. 1 (1949), (to which both Israel and Jordan were parties) governed the relations between the government and UNRWA. Exchange of Letters of June 14, 1967 constituting a provisional agreement concerning assistance to Palestine Refugees, 620 UNTS 183. It is arguable that Israel would have had the duty under Article II to apply this Convention to UNRWA on the West Bank even in the absence of such a special agreement. See in general Military Prosecutor v. Fatima Abdel Fatah Al Nag'uli, 1 Selected Judgements of The Militarycourts In The Administered Territories 197 at 202–03 (1970) (in Hebrew).

The Government of Israel agreed on the administrative level to grant West Bank institutions of higher learning the right to import, free of duty, books and publications in accordance with the [UNESCO] Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, done Nov. 22, 1950, 131 UNTS 25, to which both Israel and Jordan were parties. A request from another party to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters done at Strasbourg, Apr. 20, 1959,EUROP. T.S. No. 30, 472 UNTS 185, to execute a letter rogatory with regard to a resident of the West Bank has been executed by the Israel Government through the cooperation of the West Bank judiciary system.

8 International Labor Conf., 59th Sess., Record of Proceedings 351–52 (1974) [hereinafter Int. Labor Conf., Proc.].

9 Adopted July 9, 1948, 68 UNTS 17.

10 Adopted June 25, 1958, 362 UNTS 31.

11 Int. Labor Conf., 59th Sess., PROC. 349–54, 417–27, 467–70, 477–78 (1974).

12 Instrument for the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labor Organization, dated Oct. 9, 1946, 62 Stat. 3485, TIAS No. 1868, 4 Bevans 188, 15UNTS 35, Art. 35, providing, inter alia, for the duty of members that have ratified ILO conventions to apply them to non-self-governing nonmetropolitan territories, except where they are inapplicable because of local conditions. Regarding ILO conventions that have been specifically designed for nonmetropolitan territories, see C.Jenks, the Common Law of Mankind 234–37 (1958). Because of the varying stages of economic and social development of such territories and for other reasons, Jenks did not support suggestions that ILO conventions should be automatically applicable to nonmetropolitan territories. Id.at247. As regards ILO conventions in time of war, see Wolf, , L'lnterdépendance des Conventions Internationales du Travail, 121 Rec. Des Cours 113 at 135 (1967-II)Google Scholar.

13 Art. 2. It appears that prior to the beginning of the occupation, Jordan had not adopted legislation aimed specifically at implementing Convention No. 111. The first report concerning that Convention, submitted by Jordan to the ILO in 1967, drew attention to the constitutional guarantees of equal opportunity as regards access by nationals to employment and stated that the Labor Code was in conformity with the principles of the Constitution. Labor legislation was being prepared with a view to granting Arab and foreign workers equal opportunity on the basis of reciprocity. Int.Labor Conf., 51st Sess., Third Item on the Agenda: Information and Reports on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Summary of Reports on Ratified Conventions, Report III, Part I at 206 (1967).

14 Article 6 of the Convention deals with its applicability to nonmetropolitan territories in accordance with the Constitution of the ILO. Brownlie reprints the text of both Conventions in his Basic Documents on Human Rights at 279, 296 (1971). Regarding the relevance of the Conventions for human rights, see L. Sohn T. Buergenthal,International Protection Of Human Rights 517, 532–33 (1973).

In its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), the International Court of Justice observed that, given the fact that South Africa's presence in Namibia had been declared illegal by the Security Council, member states were under an obligation to abstain from entering into treaty relations with South Africa in all cases in which South Africa purported to act on behalf of or concerning Namibia. As regards existing bilateral treaties, member states must abstain from invoking or applying those treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which involve active intergovernmental cooperation. The Court added, however, that the same rule could not be applied to certain general multilateral conventions, “such as those of a humanitarian character, the non-performance of which may adversely affect the people of Namibia.” [1971] ICJ REP. 16 at 55. The case for the application of general multi lateral conventions of a humanitarian character to which the power in control is a party is even stronger in the case of belligerent occupations, which have not been declared illegal by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice. Regarding “general welfare” treaties, see Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup in the South West Africa Cases, Preliminary Objections, [1962] ICJ REP. 319 at 428.

15 See Progress Report on the Study of the Situation of Workers of the Territories Occupied by Israel, submitted by the Director-General of the ILO to the 199th Session of the Governing Body, in Activities of the ILO, 1976, Report of the Directorgeneralto The International Labor Conference 47 at 51, 42–47 (1977, Part 2).

ILO has been receiving reports regarding Arab workers in the territory submitted by Israel in response to the organization's requests as well as reports submitted on their own initiative by Arab governments and Arab trade unions.

16 Progress Report, supra note 15, at 55.

17 Israel Information Centre, Human Rights in the Administered Areas, Information Briefing No. 10 (1976).

18 Int. Labor Conf., 63d Sess., Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III, Part 4A at 230 (1977).

19 Int. Labor Conf., 63d Sess., Prov. Rec, Third Item on the Agenda: Information and Reports on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,25/52 at 25/58 (1977).

20 Id. at 25/61–25/62. See also the letter dated June 9, 1977 from Secretary-General Francis Blanchard to the President of the Conference. Prov. Rec, 12th sitting, at 12/31.

21 The delegate of Iraq, on behalf of all the Arab delegations, id., 28th sitting, at31/10.In its 1971 Advisory Opinion on Namibia (see supra note 14), the International Court of Justice observed that “[p]hysical control of a territory, and not sovereignty or legitimacy of title, is the basis of State liability for acts affecting other States.“[1971] ICJ Rep. 16 at 54.

22 The Government delegate of Egypt, 28th sitting, at 31/25.

23 Id. at 31/15. See also statement by the Government adviser of the USSR, id. at31/12. As to the obligations of member states with regard to ILO conventions which they have ratified, see Arts. 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution.

24 See also the statement by the Government delegate of the United States, 28th sitting, at 31/19–31/20.

25 Id. at 31/18.

26 Id. at 31/16. Professor Ago based this conclusion mainly on the fact that, during the Second World War, Nazi Germany respected the exterritoriality of certain buildings in Rome in accordance with treaties concluded between Italy and the Holy See. Can such a general conclusion be drawn from this case? For a view that the occupant may suspend commercial treaties entered into by the legitimate sovereign of the occupied territory and involving such territory, see G. Von Glahn, the Occupationof Enemy Territory 212 (1957). G. Schwarzenberger takes the view that the occupant does not succeed to the obligations of the dispossessed government under a concession agreement concluded by the latter. 2 International Law 343–44 (1968).

27 In the ILO, proposals are often not adopted through the technique of preventing the required quorum from being obtained. See Art. 20 of the Standing Orders of the International Labor Conference and Art. 17(3) of the ILO Constitution. For the results of the vote, see 28th sitting, at 31/27.

28 Law No. 21 of 1960, Off. Gaz. No. 1491; Law No. 2 of 1965, OFF. GAZ. NO.1818.

29 Orders Nos. 37, 95, 181, 256, 408, 420, 430, 433, 438, 439, 445, 446, 453, 514,515, 662, 663.

30 26 (I) Piskei Din 574 (1972), summarized in English in 2 Israel Y.B. on Humanrights 354 (1972); see also Muhammad Amin Al Ja'bari v. Ahmad Ya'qub ‘Abd Al-Karim Al'-Awiwi 42 I.L.R. 484 (1971); Dinstein, , The Power of Legislation in the Administered Territories, 2 Iyunei Mishpat (Tel Aviv U. L. Rev.) 505 (1972)Google Scholar; Judicial Review of Acts of the Military Government in the Administered Territories, 3 id. 330(1973); The Judgment in the Rafiah Intersection Case, 3 id. 934 (1974) (in Hebrew).

31 In this case and in a number of other cases, the High Court of Justice put various Orders of the military government to the test of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of the Hague Regulations by specific consent of the Attorney General without laying down any general ruling as to the applicability of these instruments to the occupied territories. The Government of Israel has claimed that the status of the territory is sui generis, that the legal standing of Jordan in the West Bank was that of a belligerent occupant following an unlawful invasion, that territory controlled in war does not always become “belligerently occupied territory” to which the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply, and left open the question of the applicability of the Convention. The Attorney General expressed his personal opinion that the Fourth Geneva Convention did not apply to the occupied territories but stated that the government “decided to act de facto, in accordance with the humanitarian provisions of the Convention.” Shamgar, , The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories, 1 Israel Y.B. on Human Rights 262 at 263, 265–66 (1971)Google Scholar.

See in general Blum, , The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria, 3 Israel L. Rev. 279 (1968)Google Scholar; Shapira, The Six-Day War and the Right of Self-Defence, 6 id. 65 (1971); Lauterpacht, E., Jerusalem and the Holy Places, Anglo-Israel Association, Pamphlet No. 19 (1968)Google Scholar; Schwebel, , What Weight to Conquest? 64 AJIL 344 (1970)Google Scholar.

For a criticism of the position of Israel with regard to the status of the West Bank and the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, see Boyd, , The Applicability of International Law to the Occupied Territories, 1 Israel Y.B. on Human Rights 258 (1971)Google Scholar; Dinstein, supra note 30; Feinberg, , The West Bank's Legal Status, Newoutlook 60 (Oct.-Nov. 1977)Google Scholar. Following the establishment of the Likud Government, the statements of Israel with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention appear to have moved from ambivalent to negative. During the 32nd session of the UN General Assembly, Foreign Minister Dayan stated that “[i]n view of this illegal annexation of the West Bank [by Jordan], the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable.“UN Doc. A/32/PV.27 at 83–85 (1977). This statement was not qualified by any indication that the humanitarian provisions of the Convention would continue to be applied. This statement notwithstanding, it appears that the directives of the military government as to the administrative and the legal system of the West Bank have not been changed. Indeed, in reply to a query, this writer was informed by the Israel Ministry for Foreign Affairs that “although the IVth Geneva Convention is not applicable, Israel continues to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Convention.“Letter from Deputy Legal Adviser R. Sabel (Apr. 7, 1978).

32 Dinstein, supra note 30, at 511 (1972). For a critique of this test, see M. Drori,The Legislation in the Area of Judea And Samaria 82 (1975) (in Hebrew).

33 See 2 L. Oppenheim, International Law 434 (7th ed., H. Lauterpacht 1952);G. Von Glahn, supra note 26, at 97; Schwenk, , Legislative Power of the Military Occupant under Article 43, Hague Regulations, 54 Yale L. J. 393, 400–01 (1945)Google Scholar.

The “Pictet Commentary” on Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention supports the view that working conditions need not remain unchanged throughout the period of occupation and that labor laws would probably be modified from time to time. O. Uhler & H. Coursier, Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 1949: Thegeneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 298 (1958). See also M. Greenspan, The Modern Law of Land Warfare273 (1959).

Regarding labor in occupied territories, see also U.S. Dept. of the Army, Thelaw of Land Warfare, (FM 27–10), paras. 418–21 (1956); Great Britain, Waroffice, The Law Of War on Land Being Part III of the Manual Of Militarylaw 154–55 (1958).

34 See also Schwenk, supra note 33, at 403. As regards the continuation of social security regulations in force in the occupied territory, except for the elimination of vicious features or practices offending the principles of international law, see M.Greenspan, supra note 33, at 274.

35 The more controversial question of the effect of the acts of the dispossessed government during the occupation will not be considered. See in general A. Mcnair & A. Watts, the Legal Effects of War 445–46 (1966).

36 3 Yalkut Hapibsumim 1832 (1967), No. 1376; 2 Kovetz Hatakanot 1277(1968), No. 2211.

37 Licensing of Aviation Services (Charter Flights Regulations) (1976).

38 Maps of the Air Traffic Services System, Aeronautical Information Publication,(AIP).

39 See Middle East High/Low Altitude Enroute Charts, ME(H/L) 2, Jeppesen & Co. (1970).

40 ICAO Doc. 8700/10, Chart ATS 3 2–2-13 and AGA 1 1–1-36 (1976).

41 It should be observed that Iraq joined in the complaint, although in 1949 it had invoked Article 89 of the Chicago Convention against Israel (as did Egypt). Article89 provides:

In case of war, the provisions of this Convention shall not affect the freedom of action of any of the contracting States affected, whether as belligerents or as neutrals. The same principle shall apply in the case of any contracting State which declares a state of national emergency and notifies the fact to the Council. See also under Article 89, ICAO, Repertory Guide to the Convention On Internationalcivil Aviation, Doc. 8900, Part IV, Ch. XIX, at 1–2 (1971).

42 See ICAO Doc. 8700/10 at D-6E.

43 For the debates, see ICAO, 21st Sess., Minutes of the Plenary Meetings, Doc.9119, A21-Min. P/l-12, at 154–65. The resolution is in Doc. 9118, A21-RES. at38–39.

44 See supra note 41. The debates of the Council were closed to the public. Doc.9158-C/1028, C-Min. 86 (18) (closed). The resolution of the Council is in Doc.9163/C/1029, at 41–42.

India argued before the International Court of Justice that Article 89 was declaratory of customary international law. Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council[1972] ICJ Rep. 46, at 69, 109 and Pleadings at 158–59, 571–73, 635. See also Little, , Commentary on the Development of the Individual Articles of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Article 89, 2 Proceedings of the International Civilaviation Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Nov. 1-Dec. 7, 1944 Google Scholar, at 1395, Dept. of State Publication No. 2820 (1949) [hereinafter cited as Proc.].

For a view that the right of belligerency under customary law prevails over the rights granted by a belligerent to a neutral, state under Article 5 of the Chicago Convention, see 1 Shawchoss & Beaumont on Air Law 207 (3d ed. 1966).

45 See H. Wassenbergh, Post-War International Civil Aviation Policy and Thelaw of the Air 100 (2d rev. ed. 1962); Goedhuis, Questions of Public International Air Law, 81 Rec. Des Cours 201 at 209–11 (1952–11)Google Scholar.

46 H. Wassenbergh, supra note 45, at 70.

47 Regarding leased areas, see Shawcross & Beaumont, supra note 44, at 193 n. 3; B. Cheng, The Law of International Air Transport 294–95 (1962).

48 On protectorates in international law, see 1 L. Oppenheim, International Law 192, 290, 561 (8th ed. H. Lauterpacht, 1958). Traffic rights with respect to protectorates have been granted by the protecting powers. See B. Cheng, supra note47, at 294.

49 Shawcross & Beaumont, supra note 44, at 193. The authors agree that trusteeship territories and territories for whose international relations a contracting state is responsible “presumably” come within the scope of Article 2 but express the view that only territories over which the sovereignty of a state has been recognized come within the meaning of Article 2 and that Ethiopia once conquered would not be considered Italian territory (except by Germany, which “recognized the conquest“). Id., and n. 2. See also B. Cheng, supra note 47, at 109.

50 Id. at 106.While the travaux préparatoires of the Chicago Convention do not lead to a clear conclusion regarding the interpretation of Article 2, they are consistent with the view that the definition of territory is not comprehensive and that it embraces situations of “jurisdiction.” Article 3 of the U.S. proposal (1 Proc, supra note 44, at 556) provided that the Convention shall be applicable to all territory over which each contracting state “exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction.” See also Art. 1(10), id. While Article 3 was deleted from the text of the Convention, it appears that this was done because “[i]t was agreed that if the definition of ‘territory’ were reformulated, Article3 could be omitted” (id. at 680) and because it was “redundant” (id. at 691). See also id. at 651, 671 and the Commentary, supra note 44, at 1381.

51 See the Preamble to the Convention and Article 44(a), (d) , and (h) . ICAO's Plans are prepared in implementation of Annex 11 to the Convention, which provides that the contracting states shall determine in accordance with the provisions of the Annex and for the territories over which they have “jurisdiction” where air traffic services will be provided (§§2.1.1, 2.1.2).

Despite occasional difficulties, especially with regard to the establishment of FIR boundaries over areas of high seas where disputes have arisen over delineation of areas of economic jurisdiction (see working paper by IATA presented to the 22ndICAO Assembly in 1977, ICAO Doc. A22-WP/40, TE/3(1977)), the practice of ICAO supports the proposition that agreements pertaining to delineation of FIR boundaries and their approval by the ICAO do not imply recognition of sovereignty over an area and are concerned simply with flight safety. See Appendix N, Art. 1–2 of the Chicago Convention (Resolution A21–21), in ICAO, Repertory Guide to the Convention Oninternational Civil Aviation, Doc. 8900/2, Part I, Ch. I (2d ed. 1977). See also Report of the Technical Commission, Doc. A22-WP/141, P/43 (1977), approved by the ICAO Assembly on October 3, 1977, which states that the boundaries of airspaces subject to Air Traffic Services, which include FIRs, shall be established on the basis of technical and operational considerations.

52 Great Britain, War Office, The Law of War on Land Being Part III of Themanual of Military Law 147 (1958). Regarding the right of the belligerent occupant to regulate the operation of all means of transport in occupied territories, see U.S.Dept. of The Army, The Law of Land Warfare (FN 27–10), para. 378.

53 See id. at 297–303. Arts. 1 and 5 of Chapter 12 (Civil Aviation) of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters arising out of the War and the Occupation, concluded on May 26, 1952 between the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and the Federal Republic of Germany. 332 UNTS 220 at 310.

As regards civil aviation, it has been observed that international practice supports the proposition that a belligerent occupant may not only prohibit air traffic over occupied territory, but may also regulate civil air navigation. E.Castén, the Presentlaw of War and Neutrality 596–97 (1954). See also B. Cheng, supra note 47,at 386. Cheng observes also that, during the period when the former colonies of Italy in Africa were under British military occupation after the Second World War, traffic rights with respect to them were granted by the British Government. Id. at 295.

54 See Treaty of Peace with Japan signed Sept. 8, 1951, 3 UST 3169, TIAS No.2490, 136 UNTS 46, 46 AJIL Supp. 71 (1952), Art. 3; Civil Air Transport Agreement between the United States and Japan signed Aug. 11, 1952, 4 UST 1948, TIAS No.2854, 212 UNTS 27, Art. 2 and Schedule; Agreement for Air Services between the United Kingdom and Japan signed Dec. 29, 1952, 175 UNTS 130, Schedule and Exchanges of Notes; Exchanges of Notes between the United States and Japan amending the Civil Air Transport Agreement of Aug. 11, 1952, 23 UST 677, TIAS No. 7333, 835 UNTS 212; Agreement between the United States and Japan concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, signed June 17, 1971, 23 UST 446, TIAS No.7314. See also B. Cheng, supra note 47, at 296–97.

55 Supra note 7.

56 Regarding the broad character of Article 89, see Jennings, , International Civil Aviation and the Law, 22 Brit. Y. B. Int. L. 191, at 203, n. 3 (1945)Google Scholar; see also supra note 44.

57 Signed Dec. 7, 1944, 59 Stat. 1693, EAS No. 487, 3 Bevans 916, 84 UNTS 389.Jennings observed that this Agreement does not contain a peacetime clause and may continue to operate, within certain limits, even during war. Supra note 56, at 203.The Agreement itself (Art. 1, sec. 2) makes it clear that the exercise of the two freedoms was to be in accordance with the provisions of the Chicago Convention, thus strengthening the case for taking this agreement into account for the interpretation of the Chicago Convention. See Art. 31, para. 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 7; T. Buergenthal, Law-Making in the Internationalcivil Aviation Organization 154 (1969).

Wording similar to that of Article 1 of the International Air Services Transit Agreement was included by the Chicago Conference in the draft standard form agreement for provisional air routes. See 2 Proc., supra note 44, at 1289, 1294. Lord Swinton, Chairman of the United Kingdom delegation, declared in a policy statement that “even after the fighting is over, there will be a considerable period during which the allied military authorities will remain in charge…. Over a large part of the world… any arrangements which are made during the interim period will have to be made in close consultation with the allied military authorities.” 1 Proc, supra note 44, at 66.

58 Supra note 52.

59 Supra note 33.