1 Dennis, Michael J., ‘Application of human rights treaties extraterritorially in times of armed conflict and military occupation’, American Journal of International Law, 99 (1) (2005), pp. 119–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See, in particular, W. Kälin, Special Rapporteur, Report on the situation of human rights in Kuwait under Iraqi occupation, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/26, 16 January 1992; Robert Kolb and Sylvain Vité, La protection des populations civiles soumises au pouvoir d'une armée étrangère, Bruylant, Brussels (2009, forthcoming).

3 International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, General List No. 95, para. 25; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, General List No. 131, para. 106; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), General List No. 116, 19 December 2005, para. 216. See also Permanent Court of Arbitration: Partial Award, Civilians Claim, Ethiopia's Claim 5, 17 December 2004, para. 26.

4 ICJ, Legal Consequences, above note 3, para. 106; ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 3, para. 216.

5 On the law of military occupation in general see Jean Pictet (ed.), Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: Commentary, ICRC, Geneva, 1958; Roberts, Adam, ‘What is a military occupation?’, British Yearbook of International Law, 55 (1984), pp. 249–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation, 2nd edn, Princeton University Press, Princeton etc., 2004; Kolb and Vité, above note 2.

6 ‘Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907’, in Dietrich Schindler and Jiri Toman (eds.), The Laws of Armed Conflict, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1988, pp. 69–93 (hereinafter Hague Regulations).

7 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter Fourth Geneva Convention), ICRC, Geneva, 1949: Article 2(2).

8 Hague Regulations, above note 6; Fourth Geneva Convention, above note 7; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1977, pp. 3–89.

9 See in particular Alston, Philip and Quinn, Gerald, ‘The nature and scope of states parties' obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, 9 (3) (May 1987), pp. 156–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Absjorn Eide, ‘Economic, social and cultural rights as human rights’, in A. Eide (ed.), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, A Textbook, 2nd edn, Kluwer, Dordrecht etc., 2001, pp. 9–28.

10 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, UNTS, 993, p. 3.

11 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, The Nature of States Parties' Obligations (Art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), General Comment No. 3, 14 December 1990, para. 9. See also Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/13, 2 October 2000, No. 8.

12 General Comment No. 3, above note 11, para. 1 (emphasis added). See also The Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/13, 2 October 2000, No. 8.

13 General Comment No. 3, above note 11, para. 5: ‘Any suggestion that the provisions indicated are inherently non-self-executing would seem to be difficult to sustain’ (emphasis added).

14 Article 2(1). See General Comment No. 3, above note 11, para. 1; General Comment No. 12, The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11 of the Convention), UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5, 12 May 1999, para. 18. See also Limburg Principles, above note 12, Nos. 22 and 35.

15 Article 10(3).

16 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3, above note 11, paras. 2, 9. See also Alston and Quinn, above note 9, p. 166.

17 General Comment No. 3, above note 11, para. 2.

18 Coalition Provisional Authority, Order No. 89, Amendments to the Labor Code – Law No. 71 of 1987, CPA/ORD/05 May 2004/89 (emphasis added).

19 General Comment No. 3, above note 11, para. 10 (emphasis added). See also Maastricht Guidelines, above note 11, No. 9.

20 General Comment No. 3, above note 11, para. 10.

21 See, in particular, Audrey Chapman and Sage Russell (eds.), Core Obligations: Building a Framework for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Intersentia, Antwerp etc., 2002.

22 ICJ, Legal Consequences, above note 3, para. 112.

23 Article 6(2).

24 Despite the heading of Article 64, which refers to ‘penal legislation’, this applies to the entire domestic legal system. Jean Pictet emphasizes in that respect that ‘the reason for the Diplomatic Conference making express reference only to respect for penal law was that it had not been sufficiently observed during past conflicts; there is no reason to infer a contrario that the occupation authorities are not also bound to respect the civil law of the country, or even its constitution’. Pictet, above note 6, p. 360. See Benvenisti, above note 5, pp. 100 ff.

25 Sassòli, Marco, ‘Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers’, European Journal of International Law, 16 (2005), p. 676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 See, in particular, Gerhard von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1957, pp. 95, 107; Morris Greenspan, The Modern Law of Land Warfare, University of California Press, Berkeley etc., 1959, p. 245.

27 Coalition Provisional Authority, Order No. 7, Penal Code, 9 June 2003, Sections 3 and 4.

28 For a more detailed evaluation of the scope of these two provisions see Sylvain Vité, ‘Applicability of the international law of military occupation to the activities of international organizations’, International Review of the Red Cross, 86 (853) (2004), pp. 14 ff. (full text in French only).

29 Hague Regulations, Article 43.

30 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 55(1).

31 Additional Protocol I, Article 69(1).

32 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 55(1); Additional Protocol I, Article 69(1).

33 Pictet, above note 5, p. 310.

34 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 59(1). For further details, see Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 30 and 59 ff. See also Robert Kolb, ‘De l'assistance humanitaire – La Résolution sur l'assistance humanitaire adoptée par l'Institut de droit international lors de sa Session de Bruges en 2003’, International Review of the Red Cross, 86 (856) (2004), pp. 853 ff.

35 Pictet, above note 5, p. 320.

36 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 56(1); Additional Protocol I, Article 14(1).

37 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 56(1), points out that the occupying power is bound ‘to the fullest extent of the means available to it’. Some provisions are also devoted to the living conditions of particularly vulnerable categories of people, especially detainees and internees (Fourth Geneva Convention, Arts. 76, 85, 89–90, 91–92, 108, 125).

38 Ibid., Article 49(1) and (2).

39 Ibid., Article 49(2) and (3). For an application of these rules, see the case law of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission, Civilian Claims, Ethiopia's Claim 5, Partial Award of 17 December 2004, paras. 116 ff; Civilian Claims, Eritrea's Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32, Partial Award of 17 December 2004, paras. 66 ff., 79 ff.

40 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25(1); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 27.

41 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11. See Eide, above note 9, p. 133. For an example of the application of the law at an adequate standard of living in periods of occupation, see Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, UN Doc. A/58/311, 22 August 2003, paras. 44 ff.

42 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12.

43 Ibid., Article 11(2).

44 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12, above note 14, para. 6.

45 Ibid., para. 8. On this particular point, see Rolf Künneman, ‘The right to adequate food: violations related to its minimum core content’, in Chapman and Russell, above note 21, pp. 161–83.

46 On this point see General Comment No. 12, above note 14, para. 7.

47 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12, above note 14, paras. 15 and 19. Following the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, 22,000 people took refuge in the Philippines embassy. The Iraqi troops had prohibited supplying those people, thus violating the right to food, as was subsequently confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur called to report on these events; see Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kuwait under Iraqi Occupation, above note 2, para. 222. In its Concluding Observations of 2001 addressed to Israel, the Committee had, for example, criticized the government for having turned back international missions to supply civilians living in the occupied territories, particularly those of the International Committee of the Red Cross: Concluding Observations, Israel, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.69, 31 August 2001, para. 13.

48 See, for example, Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations, Israel, E/C.12/1/Add.90, 26 June 2003.

49 For greater detail, see Künneman, above note 45, pp. 177 ff.

50 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14 (2000), The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000, para. 43. See also Report on the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, 6–12 September 1978, Health for All Series, No. 1, WHO, Geneva, 1978, Ch. 3, para. 50. On this subject, see Audrey R. Chapman, ‘Core obligations related to the right to health’, in Chapman and Russell, above note 21, pp. 185–215.

51 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14, above note 50, para. 47.

52 Ibid., para. 44.

53 Ibid., para. 44.

54 Noam Lubell suggests that human rights therefore constitute a lex specialis with regard to health: Lubell, Noam, ‘Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict’, International Review of the Red Cross, 87 (860) 2005, p. 751CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Heintze, Hans-Joachim, ‘On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law’, International Review of the Red Cross, 86 (856) 2004, p. 795Google Scholar.

55 Walter Kälin, Human rights in Times of Occupation: The Case of Kuwait, LBE, Berne, 1994, p. 28.

56 General Comment No. 12, above note 14, para. 6.

57 Ibid., paras. 6 and 16.

58 Ibid., para. 15.

59 Ibid., para. 25.

60 Ibid. On this point, human rights overlap with the law of occupation. See the Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 55. That provision stipulates that the occupier may only manage property (including the natural resources) and agricultural estates belonging to the occupied state as ‘administrator and usufructuary’. It must therefore ‘safeguard the capital of these properties’.

61 Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14, above note 50, para. 43.

62 Ibid. For a more detailed analysis of the obligations to respect, protect and implement the hard core of the right to health, see Chapman, above note 50, pp. 205 ff.

63 Article 11(2)(a).

64 Ibid.

65 Convention, Article 12(2).

66 Catarina Krause, ‘The right to property’, in A. Eide, C. Krause and A. Rosas (eds.), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, A Textbook, 2nd edn, Nijhoff, Dordrecht (etc.), 2001, p. 194.

67 On the legal bases of the right to property, see ibid., pp. 194 ff.

68 Protocol Additional to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 20 March 1952, as amended by Protocol No. 11 of 11 May 1994, entered into force 1 November 1998, Article 1; American Convention on Human Rights, entered into force 18 July 1978, OAS Treaty Series No. 36, 1144, Article 21; African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into force 21 October 1986, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, Article 14.

69 For an analysis of this provision see Luigi Condorelli, ‘Premier Protocole additionnel, article 1’, in L. E. Pettiti, E. Decaux and P. H. Imbert (eds.), La Convention européenne des human rights, Commentaire article par article, Economica, Paris, 1995, pp. 972–97.

70 Ibid., p. 972.

71 However, the UN General Assembly has referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to recall the rights of the Palestinian refugees to reclaim the goods taken from them during the Israeli occupation. See, in particular, Palestinian Refugees' Properties and Their Revenues, UN Doc. A/Res/61/115, 14 December 2006.

72 In this regard, albeit less explicit, see also Articles 46–56 of the Hague Regulations of 1907. On the prohibition of destruction see Eric David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, Bruylant, Brussels, 2002, p. 518.

73 See Pictet, above note 5, p. 302. See also Greenspan, above note 26, pp. 278 ff. When the destruction is ‘extensive … and carried out unlawfully and wantonly’, it also constitutes a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and, as such, must be subject to criminal proceedings. Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 146 and 147; see, in particular, in ICTY case law, the Naletilic Case, Judgment of 31 March 2003, paras. 574 ff.; Kordić case, Judgement of 26 February 2001, para. 341.

74 On the idea of necessity in Article 53, see von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 224 ff.

75 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 33(3). C. Rousseau cites the case of a German soldier sentenced in 1949 by the Netherlands Special Court of Cassation for having set fire to several civilian houses in reprisal for acts of sabotage committed by unknown persons (judgement Wintgen, No. 178, 6 July 1949, in Charles Rousseau, Le droit des conflits armés, Pedone, Paris, 1983, p. 165).

76 Additional Protocol I, Articles 52 et seq.

77 First Geneva Convention, Article 33(2) and (3).

78 Additional Protocol I, Article 12(1).

79 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 56. See von Glahn, above note 26, p. 191.

80 Article 56(2).

81 See Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Article 5, and the Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, in particular Articles 2(a), and 19. See also the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), which prohibits exporting cultural property from the occupied territories. The Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission, for example, considered that the Stela of Matara (which was approximately 2,500 years old) had been deliberately destroyed by the Ethiopian forces in violation of customary law (since the two states were not party to the 1954 Convention), in particular the law which is reflected in Article 56 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 52 of Additional Protocol I. However, according to the Commission, it is not clear whether Article 53 of Additional Protocol I applies, given the type of historic monuments covered by that provision. See Central Front, Eritrea's Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 22 (2004), paras. 107 ff. See also ibid., paras. 58 ff and 85 ff. Central Front, Ethiopia's Claims 2 (2004), paras. 43 and 75; Civilian Claims, Ethiopia's Claims 5 (2004), paras. 133 and 135.

82 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations, Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para. 16.

83 Articles 17, 12, 26 and 7 respectively. Similarly, the United Nations Committee against Torture considered that ‘Israeli policies on house demolitions may, in certain instances, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’; Conclusions and recommendations: Israel, UN Doc. A/57/44(SUPP), 25 September 2002, para. 6(j). For other examples see David, above note 72, p. 519; Krause, above note 66, pp. 207–8.

84 For a review of the concept of pillage and its implications in international humanitarian law, see ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al., IT-96-21-T, paras. 584–92. The chamber also recalls that, according to the texts, the same behaviour has variously been termed ‘pillage’, ‘plunder’ and ‘spoliation’, para. 591. See also von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 228 ff.; Freeman, Alwyn V., ‘Responsibility of States for Unlawful Acts of their Armed Forces’, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, (2) (1955), pp. 325–43Google Scholar. There are countless examples. See, inter alia, Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kuwait under Iraqi Occupation, above note 2, paras. 224 ff.; Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award, Central Front, Ethiopia's Claim 2, April 28, 2004, paras. 71 ff.

85 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 47; Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 33(2). See Pictet, above note 5, p. 226.

86 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds.), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, Geneva and Cambridge 2005: Rule 52 (and appended practice). See, in particular, Kordić Case, above note 73, para. 351.

87 Kordić Case, above note 73, para. 352.

88 Ibid.

89 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 3, para. 248. In the 1958 Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, the ICRC had already acknowledged this duality. On the subject of Article 33, it considered that ‘[t]he High Contracting Parties prohibit the ordering as well as the authorization of pillage’ and that they ‘pledge themselves furthermore to prevent or, if it has commenced, to stop individual pillage’ (Pictet, above note 5, p. 226).

90 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 3, paras. 327 ff.

91 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, above note 68, Article 21(2); ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 3, para. 245.

92 The Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission also draws attention to the vast amount of pillage carried out in the case submitted to it. It underlines the fact that the occupying power is responsible for maintaining public order in the occupied territory and that it is obliged to prevent pillage (Articles 43, 46–47 of the Hague Regulations of 1907). In the case in question, Ethiopia is responsible for having allowed this pillaging without trying to stop it as required by law. However, the Commission also admits that any violation in this area could not reasonably have been prevented by the authorities of the occupying force. It therefore decided to hold Ethiopia responsible for 75 per cent of the acts of pillage committed in the area (Central Front, Eritrea's Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 22 (2004), paras. 67 ff).

93 On this point see von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 176 ff.; Myres S. McDougal and Florentino P. Feliciano, The International Law of War, Transnational Coercion and World Public Order, Nijhoff, Dordrecht etc., 1994, pp. 809 ff.

94 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 53(1). On this provision see von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 180–81. On public property in occupied territories see Greenspan, above note 26, pp. 287 ff.; Rousseau, above note 75, pp. 159 ff.; David, above note 72, pp. 521 ff.

95 Article 53(1). G. von Glahn considers that the number of items which could be included in this category is extremely large. He states that ‘in view of the increasing technological character of modern war, … few articles and commodities owned by the enemy state escape seizure by an occupant by reason of their lack of adaptability to war use’, von Glahn, above note 26, p. 181.

96 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 56.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid., Article 55. On this matter see in particular Julius Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflicts, 2nd edn, Rinehart, New York, 1959, pp. 714–15.

99 Von Glahn, above note 26, p. 177.

100 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 55.

101 ICJ, Armed activities, above note 3, para. 245.

102 Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East-Timor, Final Report, January 2006, paras. 48–49. The production of sandalwood was, moreover, virtually eradicated during the occupation because of over-exploitation; ibid., paras. 46–47.

103 Hague Regulations of 1907, Articles 48, 49, 52. See Antonio Cassese, ‘Powers and duties of an occupant in relation to land and natural resources’, in E. Playfair (ed.), International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories, Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992, pp. 428–9. The question is certainly debated in the doctrine. Some authors consider that, since no mention is made in Article 55, the occupier would be entitled to exploit immovable property belonging to the occupied state in order to achieve the objectives that it has freely set, including that of developing its own national economy (see in particular von Glahn, above note 26, p. 177; McDougal and Feliciano, above note 93, pp. 812–13). However, that position is not in keeping with the spirit of the law of occupation, whose aim, we recall, is to organize the temporary management of a territory until a global permanent solution is found.

104 Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, I, Nuremberg, International Military Tribunal, 1947, p. 239. See also Flick and others, US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, IX, 1949, pp. 21–4; The Law of Land Warfare – Field Manual, Department of the Army, FM 27-10, 1956, para. 363. See also Stone, above note 98, p. 697. For other examples see Langenkamp, R. Dobie and Zedalis, Rex J., ‘What happens to the Iraqi oil? Thoughts on some significant unexamined international legal questions regarding occupation of oil fields’, European Journal of International Law, 14 (3) (2003), pp. 430 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 An analysis of these questions is beyond the scope of this article. The reader seeking further information will find parts of the answer in Cassese, above note 103, pp. 419–42; Iain Scobbie, ‘Natural resources and belligerent occupation: mutation through permanent sovereignty’, in S. Bowen (ed.), Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Nijhoff, The Hague etc., 1997, pp. 221–90; Kolb and Vité, above note 2.

106 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 46. On private property in occupied territories, see von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 185 ff; Greenspan, above note 26, pp. 293 ff; Stone, above note 98, pp. 708 ff; Rousseau, above note 75, p. 162; David, above note 72, pp. 527 ff.

107 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 46.

108 Ibid., Article 53(2).

109 Franco-Greek Arbitral Tribunal, Lighthouses Case, Sentence of 24 July 1956, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, XII, pp. 200 ff. On this matter see Rousseau, above note 75, pp. 160–161.

110 Hague Regulations of 1907, Articles 48 and 49. See also Article 51. For a review of these contributions see Greenspan, above note 26, pp. 227 ff.; von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 161 ff.; Stone, above note 98, pp. 712–13.

111 See Gerhard von Glahn, above note 26, pp. 165 ff.; Greenspan, above note 26, pp. 300 ff.; Rousseau, above note 75, p. 166.

112 Rousseau, above note 75, p. 166 (translation ICRC).

113 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 52(1).

114 For case law on the admissibility of the objectives of the requisitions, see McDougal and Feliciano, above note 93, pp. 817 ff.; Rousseau, above note 75, p. 167.

115 G. von Glahn has drawn up a fairly long list of goods which may be requisitioned. It includes, in particular, animals, vehicles, homes, factories, machines and food. In the author's view, even luxury consumer goods, such as cigars and alcoholic beverages, may be requisitioned, ‘if they are in sufficient supply’. Money is the only item which does not clearly feature on that list, since it can only be obtained by means of taxes, tolls or other forms of taxation; von Glahn, above note 26, p. 167. See also Greenspan, above note 26, p. 305.

116 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 52.

117 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 55(2).

118 Ibid., Article 57.

119 Several judgments have obliged former occupiers to pay compensation to owners dispossessed of their property by means of requisitioning. For a review of that case law see, in particular, Rousseau, above note 75, p. 168.

120 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 55(2).

121 Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 52(3). See also Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 55(2); McDougal and Feliciano, above note 93, pp. 821–2.

122 For a comparative analysis of the two areas during periods of occupation, see Kolb and Vité, above note 2.

123 See Horowitz, Jonathan Thompson, ‘The right to education in occupied territories: making more room for human rights in occupation law’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 7 (2004), pp. 233–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.