## Facts

- Palestinian residents of the West Bank were served with individual deportation orders issued by the IDF military commander.
- The orders were based on determinations that the petitioners had engaged in hostile activities endangering state security and public peace.
- The commander relied on Regulation 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, authorizing deportation on security and public-order grounds.
- Petitioners sought judicial review, arguing the deportations violated Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits deportation or forcible transfer of protected persons from occupied territory.
- The Court reviewed the legality of the orders under both domestic emergency regulations and international humanitarian law arguments raised by petitioners.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 49(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to, and prohibits, the challenged individual deportations from the West Bank.
2. Whether Article 49 is enforceable in Israeli courts absent implementing legislation (i.e., whether it is part of Israeli municipal law).
3. Whether the commander had a sufficient factual basis to find the petitioners involved in hostile activities and to order deportation under Regulation 112.

## Decision

- The Court denied the petitions and left the deportation orders in force.
- The majority interpreted Article 49(1) as directed primarily at preventing mass, arbitrary, or inhuman deportations, and concluded the challenged individual deportations did not fall within the prohibition as construed.
- The Court held Article 49 is treaty-based (conventional) international law and is not automatically incorporated into Israeli municipal law without Knesset legislation; it therefore did not provide an independent basis to invalidate the orders.
- Regulation 112 was treated as valid domestic authority for deportation, and the evidentiary material was found to support the security assessment that the petitioners engaged in hostile activities.
- Justice Bach disagreed with the majority’s narrowing interpretation of Article 49 (reading it to prohibit individual deportations as well), but concurred in the result because, in his view also, Article 49 was not directly enforceable domestically.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty obligations do not become enforceable domestic law without implementing legislation; they generally create obligations between states rather than directly conferring judicially enforceable individual rights.
- Customary international law may be applied domestically unless displaced by statute; treaty provisions are treated differently for incorporation purposes.
- Article 49(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention was construed by the majority as aimed at preventing mass, arbitrary, or inhuman removals, not every security-based individual removal carried out pursuant to law.
- Regulation 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, provides domestic authority for deportation decisions taken on security and public-order grounds.
- In security matters, the Court may review the evidentiary basis for administrative action, but it may give weight to the military commander’s security assessments when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld individual deportation orders issued under Regulation 112, concluding that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was not self-executing in Israeli law and, in any event under the majority’s interpretation, did not bar all individual deportations ordered on a case-by-case basis for security reasons.


Afu v. Commander of IDF Forces in the W. Bank, HCJ 785/87, 845/87, 27/88, 42(2) P.D. 4 (Isr. 1988)