The West Bank, also referred to as Judea and Samaria, has been subject to belligerent occupation since 1967, and its legal framework is grounded primarily in international law. This legal foundation of belligerent occupation emanates from the international law of occupation, which regulates the legislative, judicial and executive powers of the occupying state in the occupied territory. However, the utilisation of international law in adjudicating criminal matters within military courts in this region is sporadic. The underlying reasons for this practice call for inquiry and prompt a reconsideration of the optimal configuration of the legal regime.

This article contends that despite a recent uptake in integrating international law into military court decisions, its effectiveness in addressing criminal issues within these courts is limited. Moreover, in most cases presented before military courts, international law lags behind domestic legal doctrines, including Israeli criminal law. Despite its overarching authority, international law falls short of providing a pragmatic solution to the challenges confronted by military courts. Consequently, these courts are compelled to turn to alternative legal sources. The article proposes an integrated model, advocating reliance on international law for fundamental, constitutional-level issues while deferring to the Israeli criminal justice system for specific practical criminal matters.