Abstract

The International Humanitarian Law ("IHL") was carved into the body of International Law (IL) with the primary intent to strike a balance between military necessity and human rights. In pursuit of such vision, this concerned branch of law regulates protection of those who are not participating in the hostilities (the so-called "protected persons"). IHL, within its scheme, tends to protect the prisoners of war ("POWs") as well as consists of clauses pertaining to "hors de combat." The concurrent case is a milestone to be cited in the context of evolution of IHL as it was decided during the budding stage of the blossom (of the IHL). Prior to the signing of Additional Protocol II in 1977, there existed a vacuum in the realm of ‘established rules’ for the protection of prisoners leading to the widespread uncertainty. The significance of this judgment is engraved in the manuscripts of history as it set a precedent for courts of the Belligerents (here, Israel) to prosecute individual activists of the Occupied State (here, Palestine); oftentimes, considered a blot on implementation and interpretation of IHL. Thus, it may seem in the light of academic perusal that the existing loopholes in the early years of evolution of IHL enabled Belligerent authorities to sustain a hegemonic control over the political system of the Occupied State. By virtue of this case analysis, the authors attempt to analyze the decision to quench a query regarding Article 4(A)(2) of Geneva Convention III in the context as to whether it can be used to deny POW status to an individual of the Occupied State (Palestine).

Keywords