The wall and international law
No organization or international body recognizes the alleged Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara as the Sahrawi dossier is put on the UN agenda since 1961 as a problem of decolonization.
Meanwhile Morocco after occupying a significant portion of the territories of Western Sahara, by force, and after seven years of bloody war, he developed an escalation and an unprecedented system not only in the Sahara but also in the world, are the mythical walls.
The Moroccan government justifies the construction of these works by "necessity defense". Hence comes the false name of "the wall defensive "! But reality belies this hypothesis, since the wall is designed: expansionism, annexation and introduction of settlers, as well as to give coverage to a fait accompli that is the occupation.
The international humanitarian law
It goes without saying that Moroccan authorities seriously violate the most basic rights of people with the fact the construction and ongoing operation of this wall. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges parties to allow free transit of drugs, medical supplies, food and clothing. This obligation is subject (paragraph [c]) that the enemy can get from them an obvious advantage for their acts of war or the economy.
Also article 53 of Geneva Convention discussed in greater detail these problems:
"It is forbidden by the Occupying Power or destroy property property belonging individually or collectively to people individuals, the State or public authorities, organizations social or cooperative, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. "wall is known that the Moroccan has crippled one way or another by the use of various sources Saharan they enjoy the field like water sources, fertile land, livestock grazing, apart from the wall meant exile thousands of the inhabitants of several of the Saharan villages.
No organization or international body recognizes the alleged Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara as the Sahrawi dossier is put on the UN agenda since 1961 as a problem of decolonization.
Meanwhile Morocco after occupying a significant portion of the territories of Western Sahara, by force, and after seven years of bloody war, he developed an escalation and an unprecedented system not only in the Sahara but also in the world, are the mythical walls.
The Moroccan government justifies the construction of these works by "necessity defense". Hence comes the false name of "the wall defensive "! But reality belies this hypothesis, since the wall is designed: expansionism, annexation and introduction of settlers, as well as to give coverage to a fait accompli that is the occupation.
The international humanitarian law
It goes without saying that Moroccan authorities seriously violate the most basic rights of people with the fact the construction and ongoing operation of this wall. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges parties to allow free transit of drugs, medical supplies, food and clothing. This obligation is subject (paragraph [c]) that the enemy can get from them an obvious advantage for their acts of war or the economy.
Also article 53 of Geneva Convention discussed in greater detail these problems:
"It is forbidden by the Occupying Power or destroy property property belonging individually or collectively to people individuals, the State or public authorities, organizations social or cooperative, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. "wall is known that the Moroccan has crippled one way or another by the use of various sources Saharan they enjoy the field like water sources, fertile land, livestock grazing, apart from the wall meant exile thousands of the inhabitants of several of the Saharan villages.
This also contradicts the content of Article 52 of the same convention states that it "prohibits any measure aiming at creating unemployment or at restricting the employment opportunities of workers in an occupied country in order to induce them to work for the Occupying Power".
Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention recognizes: "Parties in conflict may take with regard to protected persons or control measures necessary security because of the war," but this regulation does not justify several activities that perform the real forces in Western Sahara Moroccan denying the rights recognized in the art. 27.
International law and annexation
It is considered that the occupation of any region or area in a military conflict is something illegal in itself, since international law describes the takeover of land as temporary measures and temporary. The status of any territory is determined by the warring parties through direct negotiations among themselves or by means of a referendum in which the authentic native-determine its future as it is accepted by all countries in the world, the United Nations and the African Union -. When King Mohammed VI recently has rejected this idea has further aggravated this situation.
Additionally, the International Law enshrines the principle of illegality of the annexation of territory by force. Besides this international legality. Such annexations by force from foreign lands have no legal cover and always will be void and without foundation.
The Security Council has tried a similar case in resolution 478 of 1980 and Resolution 497 of 1981 when Israeli forces remained in occupation of Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan. These resolutions denied legitimacy to the occupation and advised countries not to recognize this occupation by Israel. The paradox is most regrettable is that the Moroccan wall in Western Sahara, despite the time he has built and has an infinite number of effects not only for the Sahrawi, but for the whole region has never been discussed in the Council Security although the Saharawi president told the Algerian newspaper "El Bilad" that could appeal to the Saharan tribunal in The Hague when the weather is conducive to this.
It is a moral duty of all Saharawi and all peace lovers to give due importance to this problem: the wall of shame.
This wall is an artificial barrier built by the occupying power and is the main reason which prevents the normalization of life in Western Sahara. Besides this the wall severely violates the rights of persons and which has exposed the civilian population into exile, separation, social and cultural discontinuity, and all without forgetting the horrible situation resulting from the millions of mines that surround these fortified works, causing hundreds of victims killed and wounded, most of them innocent people on both sides of this gigantic fortification.
Other walls have been built from prehistory through the medieval era to today, what is the story of each, and what happened to The Great Wall of China? What ended the great alcala of medieval Europe "? What about Japan? How long was the Siegfried line in Hitler's Germany, what happened to the Maginot and the Atlantic wall?, What was the fate of Mauritius Chall line built by the French in Algeria? How Barlev collapsed, it was not for the waters to meridian day? Is there still the Berlin wall, the wall that divided the world into two: ...
All these walls ceased to exist despite their own edification by the fact of war, or by popular demands. Will the Moroccan wall an exceptional case? How long? We have complete faith and belief that safe dismantling is only a matter of time. When and how will it be what remains to be known.
More information about this topic:
• Advisory opinion of the international court on Sahara West. (In French)
Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention recognizes: "Parties in conflict may take with regard to protected persons or control measures necessary security because of the war," but this regulation does not justify several activities that perform the real forces in Western Sahara Moroccan denying the rights recognized in the art. 27.
International law and annexation
It is considered that the occupation of any region or area in a military conflict is something illegal in itself, since international law describes the takeover of land as temporary measures and temporary. The status of any territory is determined by the warring parties through direct negotiations among themselves or by means of a referendum in which the authentic native-determine its future as it is accepted by all countries in the world, the United Nations and the African Union -. When King Mohammed VI recently has rejected this idea has further aggravated this situation.
Additionally, the International Law enshrines the principle of illegality of the annexation of territory by force. Besides this international legality. Such annexations by force from foreign lands have no legal cover and always will be void and without foundation.
The Security Council has tried a similar case in resolution 478 of 1980 and Resolution 497 of 1981 when Israeli forces remained in occupation of Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan. These resolutions denied legitimacy to the occupation and advised countries not to recognize this occupation by Israel. The paradox is most regrettable is that the Moroccan wall in Western Sahara, despite the time he has built and has an infinite number of effects not only for the Sahrawi, but for the whole region has never been discussed in the Council Security although the Saharawi president told the Algerian newspaper "El Bilad" that could appeal to the Saharan tribunal in The Hague when the weather is conducive to this.
It is a moral duty of all Saharawi and all peace lovers to give due importance to this problem: the wall of shame.
This wall is an artificial barrier built by the occupying power and is the main reason which prevents the normalization of life in Western Sahara. Besides this the wall severely violates the rights of persons and which has exposed the civilian population into exile, separation, social and cultural discontinuity, and all without forgetting the horrible situation resulting from the millions of mines that surround these fortified works, causing hundreds of victims killed and wounded, most of them innocent people on both sides of this gigantic fortification.
Other walls have been built from prehistory through the medieval era to today, what is the story of each, and what happened to The Great Wall of China? What ended the great alcala of medieval Europe "? What about Japan? How long was the Siegfried line in Hitler's Germany, what happened to the Maginot and the Atlantic wall?, What was the fate of Mauritius Chall line built by the French in Algeria? How Barlev collapsed, it was not for the waters to meridian day? Is there still the Berlin wall, the wall that divided the world into two: ...
All these walls ceased to exist despite their own edification by the fact of war, or by popular demands. Will the Moroccan wall an exceptional case? How long? We have complete faith and belief that safe dismantling is only a matter of time. When and how will it be what remains to be known.
More information about this topic:
• Advisory opinion of the international court on Sahara West. (In French)
No comments:
Post a Comment