Current and Future World Bank Projects on Land Administration
The speakers Ms. Agnes Bertrand- focused in her presentation on the issue of the exportation of products to the EU mainly the products coming from the Israeli settlements and the Israeli-EU relationship, EU reaction and international responsibility to the Israeli settlements policy. She started by giving a historical short brief on this case by introducing the Israeli- EC association agreement signed in 1995 which establishes a free trade area and grants a preferential treatment to products originated from territories of the parties. Then the speaker gave an overview of the Israeli violation to this agreement through exporting products originating form settlements in occupied territories and the EU reaction to this violation considering Israel as suspect of a breach of treaty. Nevertheless, the speaker cleared that the EC did not employ any means to force Israel to stop the violation of the agreement. Then the speaker elaborated on the recent developments particularly what’s referred to as the Olmert arrangement, the minister of trade and industry at the time. This controversial agreement provided a technical solution to the Israeli violation of the Euro med pan-cumulation system or rules of origins (the technical name of the free - trade area between the Mediterranean partner of the EU) through identifying products originating from Israel and subject to the preferential treatment and products originating from Israeli settlements which are subject to custom duties. This solution enabled the EC to distinguish at identify products originating from Israeli territories, yet it enabled Israel to continue to export products originating from occupied territories. In 2005 the commission decided with Israel to amend the protocol on origins to enable Israel to participate to the Euro med pan-cumulation system of origins. This amendment assisted in spreading the violation of international law in the pan-cumulation system through enabling products from settlements to be exported with preferential treatment and without being detected. Hence, The EU is much aware of the risk nevertheless Israel is still violating the association agreement and the EU is trying to avoid the international responsibility consequences especially its duty of non-recognition. According to the international law the EU is entitled to several responsibilities and duties. The first is the duty of non–recognition which represents the minimum necessary response by states to a serious breach of an obligation arising under peremptory. Second duty not to aid and assist and cooperate to put an end to the violation. Then the speaker explained the meaning of recognition according to the international law: recognition is an optional act by countries or international organization to accept the opposability for its own legal system of the existence of an objective fact. Hence, the act of recognition is transformed into an obligation not to recognize when the situation is in a violation of international law which is the case with territories acquired by force. The recognition of any situation in violation of international law means that the international actor has participated in the situation or the realization of an act. The question that arouses is there an obligation not to recognize the Israeli settlements?? Yes, according to the Geneva Convention and the international law it’s an obligation. Then the speaker addressed the duty not to recognize the certificates of origins that coming from the settlement through demonstrating examples from several instances in Africa and particularly Namibia where members abstained from entering into economic relationships with the exception of acts determined of the inhabitant of the territory such as registration of birth, deaths and marriages. Nevertheless, the certificates of origins issued from the settlement are still controversial in the EU depending on the way one envisages the duty of non – recognition. The EC has taken the necessary measures not to give illegal situation the right that’s own law would require the EC to give through taxing products coming from settlements and pressing countries not to grant a preferential treatment to products coming from settlements. Nevertheless those measures are very fragile and the developments of the Israeli EC relationships put those measures on the edge of recognition.
Israel allocates NIS 30 million to compensate operators across the green line whose products are subject to exports duties from European Customs this is a prove that Israel is willing by all means to obtain an economic link with the EC and it’s a violation to subsides the exportation of products. The EC tries to restore the legality of the association agreement which could lead to its suspension if Israel doesn’t comply with it.
The speaker Ms. Gretije Baars addressed the issue of settlement trade: the liability of cooperation and individuals in international criminal law. The speaker started with an introduction that identifies the Israeli settlements as a war crime and a breach of Palestinian human rights that obstructs the Palestinian right to self determination and also highlighted that the motivation for several settlements is economic where corporations works with the Israeli administration to maintain these settlements economic profits in particular the settlements in Jordan Valley (Jericho) for agricultural profit, which complicit these corporations in the violation of international law as well as individual company officers yet the enforcement of the international law is not forth coming. The speaker presented the violations of the settlements according to the Hague regulations, Geneva Convention and international human rights provisions in light of annexation of land, illegal transfer of population to occupied territories, violation of Palestinian rights to property and right to private and family life and adequate standard of living. The Israeli government is responsible of these violations, in turn, individual Israeli government are subject to violations to the international criminal law. The speaker set examples on various levels such as leaders, presidents (Sharon, Milosivic, Saddam) companies (Krupp and IGP-Farben for their role in the holocaust) stating the measures taken and convictions towards those violations in light of international criminal law. The speaker highlighted that there is a criticism against enforcement of International Criminal Law (ICL) on companies and the tendency of courts saying there is no legal personal liability in international law and set an example of the Caterpillar issue and highlighted that the International Criminal Court (ICC) doesn’t have jurisdiction over legal persons. The speaker stated that there is a trend towards this associating companies and commercial actors from legal enforceable norms on human rights and violations. This trend extents to seeing the ICC regime as the only regime. Nevertheless several treaties criminalize the financing of terrorism even on a personal level.
The legal systems of domestic law all around the world deals with corporate crimes on all levels such as individuals groups of employs or directors. Yet the issue of settlement trade is still controversial as according to Oslo the Israeli courts have jurisdiction over Palestinian laws, ICC and universal jurisdiction. It is worth mentioning that the individual boycott for settlement products is one of the effective means to affect the settlement trade markets of settlement products.
A number of interested people and representatives from societies attended the encounter. The total Nr. was 30 participants.
