De facto and de jure annexation: a relevant distinction in international law? Israel and Area C: a case study

Abstract

Since the occupation of the Arab territories in 1967, Israel has been carrying out policies of de facto annexation, notably through the establishment of settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall. However, current public declarations and legislative measures suggest that, similarly to what happened in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the State may be shifting towards measures of de jure annexation of Area C of the occupied Palestinian territories. Based on this case study, the present dissertation will assess whether there are conceptual differences between the notions of occupation, de facto and de jure annexation, identifying concrete measures in each case. It will also try to foresee the consequences of formally annexing either particular settlements or the whole Area C at both the domestic and the international level. The former will focus on the benefits for Israel at the internal level and on the impact on its existing human rights violations, while the latter will tackle third state obligations. The overall objective is to determine if making this distinction is relevant in international law and practice. KEYWORDS: occupation - de facto annexation – de jure annexation – settlements – third state obligations – human rights