No description available.

Successive U.S. administrations have mired themselves in fruitless attempts to arrive at a peaceful conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish and Islamic extremist groups have both been complicit in the delay, complication and derailment of peace efforts undertaken by regional moderates and the international community. Whatever the ancillary secular motivations of these factions have been, both sides also lay claim to profound religious reasons for their opposition to peace. Israeli religious Zionist extremists acting on a divine mandate have pressed to incorporate all of biblical Israel into their modern state, pursuing settlement activity and violence against Arabs and fellow Israelis to achieve this. Palestinian Islamic extremists claim justification from their scriptures for their war against the Jewish state and their ultimate goal of seeing it annihilated. These scriptural dogmas have been reified by religious leaders of both faiths, and have been utilized as ideological grounds for violence by their respective religious extremist groups. This work is an effort to expose the significant religious motivations propelling Zionist and Islamic extremist opponents of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; seeking thereby to raise awareness of the origins of this complex and central dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among U.S. policymakers and intelligence analysts.

No description available.

No description available.

The thesis aims to analyze to what extent the non-recognition of illegal territorial acquisition rule is applicable in investment treaty arbitration and specifically whether it may constitute a jurisdictional hurdle depriving investors of the opportunity to effectively seek the protection of their investments on illegally acquired territories through investment treaty arbitration.

This thesis adopts a bottom-up, qualitative approach to Palestinian identity construction in East Jerusalem and asks how the new politics and altered geography of the city since Oslo are recreating Palestinian subjectivities and redefining Palestinian struggle. I make the case that East Jerusalemites are doubly marginalised, first as Palestinians spatially and politically dislocated from the West Bank, then as residents of Israel, inside the politics and economy of the state but permanently excluded from the national project. Distanced from both state projects and from the discursive structures through which Palestinian identity was constructed after 1967, East Jerusalem residents are redefining from below what it means to be Palestinian in ways that are unfamiliar to Palestinians elsewhere in the occupied territories. Drawing on the vocabulary and theoretical contours of discourse theory, I problematise the top-down optic favoured by mainstream academic approaches which essentialises identities and privileges an occupation/resistance binary. I suggest that a ground-level approach to everyday practices in East Jerusalem sheds light on the extent to which existing nationalist and resistance discourses have either lost or changed meaning for Palestinian residents and makes evident the complexities of domination which are not visible from an elevated perspective. I suggest that the view from the ground in East Jerusalem is significantly underexplored and that from this position, the assumptions underlying existing analytic approaches to Palestinian identity and struggle are called into question.

Notre thèse portant sur les « difficultés de mise en œuvre du droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles dans les territoires occupés et les territoires non autonomes » est née d’un constat initial selon lequel le droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles dans les territoires occupés et les territoires non autonomes n’est toujours pas respecté par plusieurs acteurs de la scène internationale, dont certains se disant très attachés aux normes du droit international. Deux hypothèses ont été avancées pour expliquer ce dilemme, à savoir soit le principe de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles n’a pas été encore affirmé comme une règle de droit international positif applicable aux territoires occupés et aux territoires non autonomes ; ou bien ce principe est d’ores et déjà enraciné en droit international mais il n’est pas encore effectif en raison du manque de mécanismes de suivi permettant sa mise en œuvre. Concernant la question de savoir si le principe de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles constitue une règle du droit international positif, notre examen a montré que l’enracinement juridique de ce principe a profondément bouleversé le cadre juridique régissant les activités d’exploration et d’exploitation des ressources naturelles menées dans les territoires occupés et les territoires non autonomes. L’examen de l’effectivité du droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles devait passer inévitablement par un état des lieux des activités d’exploration et d’exploitation des ressources naturelles dans un échantillon des territoires occupés et des territoires non autonomes. Cet état des lieux a renforcé davantage la présomption de la difficile effectivité du droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles. Les actions menées par les organisations internationales en faveur du suivi et de la mise en œuvre du droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles dans les territoires occupés et les territoires non autonomes ont montré de nombreuses limites en la matière. L’effectivité du droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles est également et manifestement remise en cause par une pénurie de mécanismes juridictionnels capables de remédier efficacement à l’exploitation illégale des ressources naturelles dans les territoires non autonomes et les territoires occupés. Par ailleurs, l’examen du rôle joué par certains ONG et fonds d’investissement dans le suivi et la mise en œuvre du droit de souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles dans les territoires non autonomes et les territoires occupés, a montré que ces acteurs privés peuvent constituer des outils efficaces afin d’inciter les entreprises mises en cause à mettre fin à leurs activités illégales. Toutefois, ce rôle encourageant des acteurs privés est loin de remédier seul à la situation causée par la pénurie de mécanismes mis en place par les acteurs publics (Etats et organisations internationales). / Our thesis on "the difficulties in the implementation of the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in occupied and non-self-governing territories" was developed from the initial observation that the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in occupied and non-self-governing territories is still not respected by several actors on the international scene, some of whom claim to be very committed to the norms of international law. Two hypotheses have been put forward to explain this dilemma: either the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources has not yet been affirmed as a positive rule of international law applicable to occupied and non-self-governing territories; or this principle is already rooted in international law but is not yet effective due to the lack of monitoring mechanisms for its implementation. On the question of whether the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is a rule of positive international law, our review has shown that the legal routing of this principle has profoundly changed the legal framework regulating the exploration and exploitation of natural resources in occupied and non-self-governing territories. The examination of the effectiveness of the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources would inevitably require an inventory of natural resource exploration and exploitation activities in a sample of occupied and non-self-governing territories. This inventory has further reinforced the presumption of the difficult effectiveness of the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. The efforts of international organizations to monitor and implement the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in the occupied and non-self-governing territories have shown many limitations in this regard. The effectiveness of the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is also clearly undermined by a lack of jurisdictional mechanisms capable of effectively remedying the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the non-self-governing and occupied territories. Furthermore, an examination of the role of certain NGOs and investment funds in monitoring and implementing the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in the non-self-governing and occupied territories has shown that these private actors can be effective tools in encouraging the implicated companies to put an end to their illegal activities. However, this encouraging role of private actors is far from remedying by itself the situation caused by the lack of mechanisms put in place by public actors (States and international organizations).

This thesis intends to prove that Stephen V. Ash’s model of occupation from his work, When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, is applicable to St. Augustine’s occupation experience in the Civil War. Three overarching themes in Ash’s work are consistent with Civil War St. Augustine. First, that Union policy of conciliation towards southern civilians was abandoned after the first few months of occupation due to both nonviolent and violent resistance from those civilians. Second, that Ash’s “zones of occupation” of the occupied South, being garrisoned towns, no-man’s-land, and the Confederate frontier apply to St. Augustine and the surrounding countryside. Finally, Ash’s assertions that the southern community was changed by the war and Union occupation, is reflected in the massive demographic shifts that rocked St. Augustine from 1862 to 1865. This thesis will show that all three of Ash’s themes apply to St. Augustine’s Civil War occupation experience and confirms the author’s generalizations about life in the occupied South.

La question palestinienne est depuis un siècle sans solution. Les Palestiniens qui, tout comme les peuples arabes de la région, espéraient obtenir leur indépendance à l'issue de la 1ère Guerre mondiale se sont vus placés sous Mandat britannique octroyé par la Société des Nations. Depuis la Palestine est la terre d'un affrontement de deux nationalismes ; arabe palestinien d'un côté et juif sioniste de l'autre. L'intervention de l'ONU en vue de résoudre la question par le partage de la Palestine (un Etat arabe et un Etat juif) n'a pas apporté la solution. Au contraire, cela a aggravé la situation. Plusieurs guerres ont éclaté créant des situations humaines terribles notamment en ce qui concerne les réfugiés palestiniens et l'occupation des territoires palestiniens en 1967. De plus, le conflit israélo-arabe a pris un caractère durable. Depuis 1967 le Droit International dans son organisation actuelle se trouve tantôt inappliqué tantôt bloqué. En effet, Bien que les droits nationaux du peuple palestinien à l'autodétermination et à l'indépendance étatique aient été reconnus et à mainte reprise rappelés fussent l'occupation israélienne perdure. L'échec du Droit International dans le règlement de la question a laissé place à des négociations politiques, entre Israël et les Palestiniens représentés par l'OLP, et qui se sont soldées par la mise en place d'un régime transitoire vers la formation d'un Etat palestinien souverain. La dynamique d'Oslo a consolidé le droit du peuple palestinien à l'autodétermination, notamment par la territorialisation de la direction palestinienne dans les Territoires Occupés et l'instauration des structures institutionnelles autonomes, pouvant servir de base à la construction étatique. Toutefois, forcé de constater une inertie dans les négociations, qui durent depuis dix-huit ans, et un non respect du calendrier établi par les Accords. Aussi, plusieurs éléments mettent en doute la possibilité d'un Etat souverain et indépendant sur les frontières de 1967 : le durcissement de la position israélienne sur la question territoriale ; la volonté manifeste d'Israël de conserver le contrôle sur une partie de la Cisjordanie ; le refus d'évacuer les territoires selon le calendrier ; la multiplication des faits accomplis ; la poursuite de la colonisation et la construction du mur de séparation dans les Territoires Occupés. / For a century, the Palestinian issue has been unresolved. Following the First World War, Palestinians, like other Arab people in the region, hoped to gain their independence but were placed under British mandate granted by the League of Nations. Since then, Palestine has been a place where two nationalisms have clashed: Palestinian Arab nationalism on the one side and Jewish Zionism on the other. The UN intervention to resolve the issue by a partition of Palestine (one Arab state and one Jewish state) failed to provide a solution. On the contrary, it aggravated the situation. Several wars erupted which generated terrible human situations, regarding in particular the Palestinians refugees or the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967. Furthermore, the Arab-Israeli conflict became a long standing one. Since 1967, International Law, in its current form, is sometimes unimplemented sometimes blocked. Despite the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independent statehood having been recognized and repeatedly reaffirmed, the Israeli occupation endures. International law's failure in resolving the issue has given way to political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians represented by the PLO. Such negotiations led to the establishment of a transitory system towards the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. The dynamics of Oslo has strengthened the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including by the territorialisation of the Palestinian authority in the occupied territories and the establishment of autonomous institutional structures which can form the basis for state building. However, forced to conclude to a lack of progress in the negotiations, under way for the past eighteen years, as well as to a failure to comply with the timetable established by the Agreements. Therefore, several factors cast doubt on the possibility of a sovereign and independent state to be established on the 1967 borders: the hardening of the Israeli stand on the territorial issue, Israel's clear desire to retain control over part of the West Bank; its refusal to evacuate the territories according to schedule; its policy of fait accompli, its continuation of settlement activities and the construction of the separation wall within the Occupied Territories.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Bruno Huberman.pdf: 3948916 bytes, checksum: 0ac5109e458a9c62d4b1fe7fe11bbf86 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-05-26 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This dissertation aims at investigating a phenomena called Judaization of Palestine: its purpose, politics, means, instruments, techniques, reasoning, objectives and interests and measure its impact on Israel-Palestine matter and lives of people living in Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) palestinians and jewish settlers. In that manner, the main manifestations of this phenomenon will be historically and analitically examined, such as the development of the Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories and the legal and burocratical instruments of social control over the Palestinian population between 1967 and 2013. The central problem of this investigation is focused on the oficial arguments of the israeli authorities about the Jewish presence in the OPT and the political impasse with the palestinians, linked to the paradigm of security and conflict in opposition to the Judaization of Palestine spectrum, which is about colonization, dispossession, volunteer and involunteer desplacement and social control of a foreigner dominant social ethnical group above other indigenous and subdued one. I intend to support the judaization narrative in opposition to the zionist hegemonic narrative as the most appropriate to understand some of the central aspects of the dispute between israelis and palestinians over that land, as the spatial fragmentation of Cisjordani, the Gaza Strip isolation, the silent displacement occuring in East Jerusalem and the maintenance of status quo. From this we can reach the relevance and justification for the elaboration of this dissertation / A presente dissertação pretende fazer uma investigação a respeito do fenômeno chamado de judaização da Palestina: qual é o seu propósito, políticas, meios, instrumentos, técnicas, racionalidade, objetivos e interesses, e medir o seu impacto sobre a questão Israel-Palestina e a vida das pessoas que residem nos Territórios Palestinos Ocupados palestinos e colonos judeus. Desta forma, serão historicamente e analiticamente examinadas as principais manifestações deste fenômeno, como o desenvolvimento da política de assentamentos judeus nos territórios palestinos e os instrumentos legais e burocráticos de controle social da população palestina entre 1967 e 2013. Pretende-se identificar a racionalidade da burocracia colonial israelense. O problema central da presente investigação reside na contraposição dos argumentos oficiais das autoridades israelenses à respeito da presença judaica nos TPO e do impasse político com os palestinos, trancados nos paradigmas da segurança e do conflito, com o espectro proposto da judaização da Palestina, que trata da colonização, desapropriação, deslocamento voluntário e involuntário e controle social de um grupo étnico social dominante e estrangeiro sobre outro subjugado e indígena. Pretendo sustentar que a narrativa da judaização em oposição à narrativa hegemônica sionista é a mais apropriada para compreender alguns aspectos centrais da relação entre judeus e palestinos naquela terra, como a fragmentação espacial da Cisjordânia, o isolamento da Faixa de Gaza, os silenciosos despejos em Jerusalém Oriental e a manutenção do status quo. As autoridades israelenses conseguiram, por meio do projeto de judaização, despolitizar a questão Israel-Palestina, transformando-a em uma discussão econômica, humanitária e de segurança