Lorent D Espinoza
Traditional International Law focuses on the behavior of legal recognized states before the
International Community. Its provide those with rights but also obligations. Although states are
the main actors in the international system, there are other entities known as non-state players
that also take part as actors the system. These non-state actors had within the years gained
rights and recognition within the statutes of International Law. However, of the three kind of
armed non-states actors that pose a threat to established governments, only two of them are
recognized by the law. They are insurgency and belligerency. Within the framework of
customary International Law, Justice Joseph Story formulated the basic policy on the
recognition of belligerency in 1818.1 To qualify for the status of belligerency, three criteria must
be met: rebellion must be organized around a government, the revolt must extend a local
uprising, and a substantial area must be under the de facto control of antigovernment forces.2
Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim group, which emerged in the 1980s as an Islamic
resistance group determined to remove the Israelis, who has occupied the South of Lebanon
since 1978, by force;3 and the radical Palestinian organization Hamas, founded in 1988. Which
under their covenant pursue a very clear objective, to drive off Israel out of Palestinian territory;
1
James H. Wolfe, International Law pp.58 (2002)
2
Gerhard Von Glahn, Law among Nations pp. 72-73 (1996)
3
Deen Shariff Sharp, Lebanon’s Main Political Groups, pp. 11 (2009)
this objective is stated in Hamas’ Covenant Article 9.4 Both armed non-state actors (ANSAs)
have been classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in a list released by The Offices
of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in April 30, 2007. Although both organizations are
documented as Terrorist by the U.S. Government, The European Nations, and Israel; the
curious case is that they also met International Law criteria to be qualified as belligerent groups.
As stated before by Wolfe, In order for an organization to gain the belligerent status, they must
meet the three criteria’s. First, there must be the existence of an armed conflict. In fact, there is
an armed conflict that has been going on for more than fifty years between Lebanon, Palestine,
and Israel. Second, insurgents must occupy a substantial part of a state territory. Effectively,
Hezbollah has control of Lebanon territory not only as a militia but also by popular vote; they are
legally recognized as members of one of the main political allegiance in Lebanon, they run 14
seats in the Lebanese parliament and another 34 on manor bloc. They have a dominant
geographical control in areas such as South Beirut, Northern Beqaa, Jbeil, and Southern
Lebanon.5 Regarding the control of Hamas, On January 25th 2006, candidates of the Change
and Reform, a party associated with Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative
Council (PA) election, defeating Fatah. Consequently, Hamas have legislative control over the
territory in dispute.
The implications of legal standing for these terrorists’ organizations are based on International
Law, to be specific under the United Nations Security Council resolution 242 adopted on
November 22, 19676. This resolution call for Israel withdraws from the occupied territories
4
Hamas, The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, pp. 5 (1988)
5
Sharp, pp. 11 (2009)
6
U.N security Council Resolution, 442 (1967)
during the June 1967 war. This includes the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, The Gaza
Strip, and East Jerusalem.7 On May 2000, after 18 years of Israeli occupation in South
Lebanon, Israel completely withdraws from the Lebanese territory. The U.N. Security Council
certified Israel’s withdrawal on June 2000, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 425 of 1978.
Lebanon and Syria government maintain that the process is not complete since it does not
include the still disputed Shib’a Farms territory.8 Israel argues that Shib’a Farm where part of
the territory acquired from Syria, the Golan Heights. Although the method that Hezbollah
practices terrorizing and killing Israeli’s population, the dispute will continue until a resolution
and the enforcement of the same one takes place under International Law. Hezbollah has no
legal standing at the present time. The attack perpetrated to Israel on 2006, is a violation of the
territorial integrity of a country and is a serious infringement of the International Law; ironically
Hamas is a totally different case; Israel has occupied Palestinian territory since 1967. The U.N.
and The International Court of Justice have adopted many resolutions and judicial reviews in
this regard. Israel as state that has obligations under International Law as well as rights, but it
seems that Israel violates International Law in a daily basis. Over the years the list of its
violations is extending, It infringe the preamble of the United Nations Charter, 39 Security
Council Resolutions on Israel; International legislation resulting from the Peace Conference of
Hague in 1899 and 1907, Human Rights as set out in the Geneva Convention, especially the
fourth; the many treaties and declarations concerning Universal Human Rights, the treaties
against torture, the treaties on the right of the child; and the advisory opinion on existing
international law of the International court of Justice, July 9, 2004 regarding the wall.9 This only
7
Wijemberg, pp. 22 (2008)
8
Jeremy M. Sharp, Lebanon: The Israel- Hezbollah-Hamas Conflict, pp. 39 (2006)
9
Jan Wijemberg, Key to Peace in the Middle East, pp. 6 (2008)
shows that Israel has a great disdain for the International Law, and provides also Hamas with
the argument to stand legally against Israel, supported by the tenets of the Law of War. Hamas
as combatant under the Law of Belligerent has the right to participate directly in hostilities,
according to AP1, Art. 43.2.10 Since Israel has kept its occupation over the Palestinian territories
on dispute against the ruling of The U.N. Security Council of 1967, Hamas is also entitled to
fight against that occupation under Art. 2. Para. 2. of the Geneva Convention.
In conclusion, It can be stated that International Law not only focuses on the rights and
obligations of States; the implication goes beyond States, at the same time it is complicated to
understand how the law side sometimes with organizations that posses a potential threat to
global security. From this observation it can be concluded also the existence of one undeniable
fact, “When a state fails to fulfill its obligations according International Law, that State is the only
responsible on creating opportunities for such organizations to rise and gain status of protection
under International Law statutes”. At the same time this statement do not justify the terrorist
acts committed by Hezbollah and Hamas; but it will be helpful to understand this conflict more in
dept if some attention is pay to the external factors playing a part in the dispute. Syria and
specially the Iranian ambition of becoming the major influence to exercise geographical control
on Middle East, and also the position of the United States toward the only ally in the zone,
Israel. Finally, this case proves what Wolfe has stated, International Law is not a true law.
Observance of the law is voluntary, for no superior political authority exists to compel
obedience.11
Work Cited:
10
The Law of Armed Conflicts
11
Wolfe, pp. 1 (2002)
Sharp, Deen H.: The Lebanon’s Main Political Groups (2009)
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/13460784/the-main-lebanese-politicalparties> 10 august,
2009
Sharp, Jeremy M.: Lebanon: The Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas Conflict. C.R.S. Report for Congress,
“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” The Avalon Project. 18 August 1988.
“The Four Geneva Convention” U.N.T.S. No. 973, Vol. 75, P. 278, 12 August, 1949
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_rights/geneval.html
<http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/Resolution/Gen/NRD/240/94/IMG/NRO24094.pdf?OpenE
lement>
Von Glahn, Gerhard: Law among Nations: An Introduction to Public international Law, 7th Ed.
(1996)
Wijemberg, Jan: Key to Peace in the Middle East, Civis Mundi: Journal for Political Philosophy