In a surprising press conference in Washington, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, proposed that the United States “take over” of the Gaza Strip and permanently relocate the almost two million Palestinians living there in neighboring countries in neighboring countries .
Before making these statements, Trump asked Egypt and Jordan to return to the Palestinians of Gaza, which both countries firmly rejected.
His new comments, and the possibility of the United States from taking over a sovereign territory, were immediately received with criticism and questions about the legality of such a measure.
When asked what authority would allow the United States to do this, Trump had no answer. He only pointed out that it would be a “long -term property position.” Nor did he rule out the use of US troops.
But what does international law say about this idea?
Can the US seize a sovereign territory?
The fast answer is no: Trump cannot seize an alien territory.
Since the end of World War II, in 1945, the use of force is prohibited. This is one of the foundations of international law since the creation of the United Nations.
The United States could only take control of Gaza with the consent of the sovereign authority of the territory. Israel cannot give Gaza to the United States. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the Strip is an occupied territory, and that this occupation is illegal according to international law.
Therefore, for that to happen legally, Trump would need the consent of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
And what about the expulsion of a population?
One of the greatest obligations of an occupying power is included in article 49 of the Geneva agreements. This prohibits this occupying power from moving or displacing people from a territory.
All other states also have the obligation not to help an occupying power to violate international humanitarian law. This means that if the United States would like to displace the population of Gaza by force, Israel could not collaborate in this action. And in the same way, the United States cannot help Israel violate the rules.
The occupant powers can expel a population for security reasons.
Trump and his envoy to the Middle East, who visited Gaza last week, have repeatedly mentioned how dangerous it is. Trump wondered how people could “want to stay” there, saying they have no “choice” to leave.
However, the expulsion of people for this reason can only be temporary. Once someone can be returned, you should do it.
What happens if people voluntarily go?
The transfer of a population must be agreed. But in this specific case, the consent of all the Palestinians of Gaza would be necessary. The United States could not force anyone to move if they do not want.
In addition, a government, such as the Palestinian authority, cannot give this consent in the name of a people. People have the right to self -determination, the right to determine their own future.
A perfect example is migration: if someone emigrates from one state to another, it is their right. It is not a displacement. But it is not allowed to displace them by force.
And using what sounds like a threat would not be a consensual threat. This could be to say, for example: “If you stay, you will die because there will only be more war. But if you leave, there will be peace. ” This is the threat of force.
Forcing people to leave would be ethnic cleaning?
Ethnic cleaning has not been defined in any treaty or convention.
However, the majority of international law experts are based on the definition of the Report of the Commission of Experts on the former State of Yugoslavia to the UN Security Council in 1994. This defined ethnic cleaning as:
“Make an area ethnically homogeneous by using strength or intimidation to expel people from certain groups from the area.”
Thus, according to this definition, what Trump suggests could be classified as ethnic cleaning: expel the Palestinian people from a certain geographical zone through the use of strength or intimidation.
What can be done if Trump continues with his plan?
If Trump continues with this plan, he would commit a violation of the fundamental rules that support international law.
And international law dictates that no country can cooperate with another in violation of these norms and that all countries should try to stop or prevent any possible violation. This could include the imposition of sanctions to a country or the non -provision of support to that country, for example, through the sale of weapons.
A perfect example of this is when Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014: very few countries recognized that territorial incorporation. The large -scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine in 2022 was followed by sanctions and the freezing of Russian assets, among other actions.
If Trump followed this course of action and it is he who instigates the forced transfer of a population, it could also be personally responsible according to international criminal law.
The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest orders against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense minister and a Hamas commander in relation to the conflict.
The risk of this type of language
One of the dangers of this type of rhetoric is the possibility of dehumanizing the enemy or the other side.
Trump does it through statements such as: “If you look throughout the decades, everything is death in Gaza”, and rearing people in “beautiful houses where they can be happy” instead of being “stabbed until death” . This language implies that the situation in Gaza is due to the “incivilized” nature of the population.
The risk at this time, even if Trump does not do what he says, is that the mere enunciation of his proposal is dehumanizing for the Palestinian people. And this, in turn, could lead to more violations of the rules of war and international humanitarian law.
The carefree way in which Trump talks about things like seizing a territory and moving to a population gives the impression that these rules can be easily broken, even if he does not break them.
Tamer Morris, Senior Lecturer, International Law, University of Sydney
This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original.
