Expert Opinion by Prof. Michael Bothe on The Limits of the right of expropriation (requisition) and of movement restrictions in occupied territory (Firing Zones)

In an expert opinion, Prof. Michael Bothe, an International Law expert, states that the Israeli plan to conduct extensive destructions and forcibly displace Palestinians from the South Hebron Hills for the purpose of establishing an Israeli "Firing Zone" would constitute a grave breach of international law.

Ahead of the expected extensive destruction and forcible transfer of over 1,500 Palestinian residents of 8 villages [1] located in the “Firing Zone 918” in the South Hebron Hills, Professor Michael Bothe [2]  a leading authority in international humanitarian law, provides an expert opinion on the ‘Limits of the right of expropriation (requisition) and of movement restrictions in occupied territory’. 

If the plan is enforced, the destruction of Palestinian properties and the forcible eviction of persons from their location would violate the guarantee of private property which international law provides in a situation of occupation as well as the prohibition of the destruction of property and of forced transfer of protected persons. According to Professor Bothe: ‘General training needs of an army of occupation cannot justify forced transfer of a protected population’. These violations constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Article 147 of the IV Convention) [3].

Summary of the main legal arguments:

1. The establishment of the “Firing Zone 918” for general military trainings of the Occupying Power cannot justify the expropriation nor the movement restrictions on the 12 villages. Only the specific needs of the occupation could justify such measures, which general military training, unrelated to the specific needs of the occupation, is not. But even if the training could be considered as being generally able to justify such restrictions, in the case of “Firing Zone 918” the expected harm to the civilian Palestinian population (i.e. the loss of homes, agricultural lands and threats to very existence of the community) is disproportionate –and hence, unlawful- when balanced against the concrete and direct military advantages sought as a consequence of establishing the training area. 
2. Destruction of property is prohibited unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations, in accordance with Article 53 of the IV Geneva Convention. Destruction of property for the purpose of establishing a “Firing Zone” for training cannot be justified because training does not constitute a military operation in this sense. Under these circumstances, the expected extensive destruction of the property of the 12 villages for the purposes of establishing a “Firing Zone” would constitute a clear violation of Article 53 of the IV Geneva Convention and would amount to a grave breach according to Article 147.
3. The prohibition of forcible transfers by IHL does not differentiate between permanent and non-permanent residents of the “Fire Zone”, as the Israeli military legislation does.  Israeli law must conform to international law. Hence, forcibly displacing any of the inhabitants or any community of the 12 villages – either for general military trainings or based on arguments of lack of building permits – is a violation of Article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention and constitutes a grave breach according to Article 147.

 [1] Eight villages are presently at immediate threat, but twelve villages are located in the “Firing zone 918”.
 [2]  Professor Michael Bothe is Professor emeritus of international law, at J.W. Goethe University in Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
 [3] It should be noted that all grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are war crimes.