Under international humanitarian law it is prohibited to make the object of attack a person who has surrendered. This article explores the circumstances in which the act of surrender is effective under international humanitarian law and examines, in particular, how surrender can be achieved in practical terms during land warfare in the context of international and non-international armed conflict. First, the article situates surrender within its broader historical and theoretical setting, tracing its legal development as a rule of conventional and customary international humanitarian law and arguing that its crystallisation as a law of war derives from the lack of military necessity to directly target persons who have placed themselves outside the theatre of armed conflict, and that such conduct is unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective. Second, after a careful examination of state practice, the article proposes a three-stage test for determining whether persons have surrendered under international humanitarian law: (1) Have persons attempting to surrender engaged in a positive act which clearly reveals that they no longer intend to participate in hostilities? (2) Is it reasonable in the circumstances prevailing at the time for the opposing force to discern the offer of surrender? and (3) Have surrendered persons unconditionally submitted to the authority of their captor?

The question of Palestinian refugees has long been recognised as one of the core issues that would need to be addressed in any eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This article examines compensation for property seizure and forced displacement, an aspect that has figured in every round of major peace talks on permanent status issues for the past quarter of a century. Drawing upon research, informal ‘track two’ discussions and official negotiations, it highlights the challenge of crafting arrangements that would be both politically and practically feasible.

There has been a growing trend in recent years towards the adoption of evidence-based policy in a variety of fields, including criminal justice. The purpose of evidence-based policy is to guide the activities of organisations based on scientifically verified facts, enabling the development of effective and efficient policies. In this article, we introduce the commitment of the Israel Prison Service (IPS) to the implementation of evidence-based policy by detailing the processes and development of a large-scale research programme in the IPS. We illustrate how the cooperation and commitment of key individuals, including successive IPS Commissioners, have enabled the implementation of evidence-based policy in a hierarchal organisation. Within this context, we demonstrate how human agency is a key factor in the successful implementation of the policy in criminal justice settings. By following the different stages of development and implementation, the example of the IPS also highlights the importance of agencies taking ownership of science. We conclude by arguing that the road to evidence-based policy is a ‘winding road’, highlighting the key turning points that influenced the institutionalisation of the policy in the IPS.

I am particularly grateful to be accorded the honour and privilege of giving this year's Lionel Cohen Lecture as it enables me to examine the position of the judiciary within the state.

A primary purpose of a human rights theory is to provide a foundation from which the actual and complete nature of human rights can be gleaned. Particularly for rights that are controversial or do not enjoy widespread consensus, a human rights theory provides a system for understanding what rights exist or should exist and what rights contain or should contain. The most predominant theories of human rights are based in law, politics and morality. Patrick Macklem's The Sovereignty of Human Rights proposes a new theory of human rights devised to bypass the shortcomings of those predominant theories. He argues that sovereignty is a better foundation for understanding human rights because sovereignty and its distribution in the international legal order has given rise to the need for certain rights to exist. The exercise of sovereign power by individuals also influences how human rights are implemented within state borders. He maintains that understanding the adverse effects of sovereignty and its distribution yields greater insight than other theories into why human rights exist, what they contain, and how they should be implemented.

Following a brief summary of Macklem's argument, the review examines how his theory compares with the predominant theories of human rights, particularly in light of the shortcomings of those theories. The review outlines Macklem's position that the adverse effects of sovereignty can clarify the international community's understanding of why human rights are necessary and what forms of protection they include. The review then examines how Macklem's theory corresponds with traditional classifications of human rights, which depict such rights in terms of generations. Finally, the review concludes with reflections on the theory and poses new questions raised by Macklem's theory of human rights.