Has Israel Signed the Geneva Conventions? Signed in 1949, Ratified in 1951
Israel signed the 4 Geneva Conventions on 8 December 1949 and ratified them on 6 July 1951. It is not a party to the 1977 Additional Protocols.
Israel signed the 4 Geneva Conventions of 1949 on 8 December 1949 and ratified them on 6 July 1951, the Turkel Commission recorded in its Second Report in February 2013. Ratification made Israel a party, and the Commission cites all 4 Conventions in Israel’s own treaty series. Israel is not a party to either 1977 Additional Protocol. Since 1967, Israel’s own stated position has been that the Conventions do not apply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
| Figure | What it counts | Who published it | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 December 1949 | Israel’s signature of all 4 Geneva Conventions | Turkel Commission, Second Report | 1949 |
| 6 July 1951 | Israel’s ratification of all 4, the act that made it a party | Turkel Commission, Second Report | 1951 |
| 4 of 4 | Conventions recorded in Israel’s Convention Registry, volume 1 | Turkel Commission, Second Report | As at February 2013 |
| 0 of 2 | 1977 Additional Protocols to which Israel is a party | Turkel Commission; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Israel’s own statement of its legal position | 2013; updated to 2 November 2023 |
| 1967 | Year from which Israel’s official position has been that the Conventions do not apply to the West Bank and Gaza, the State’s own stated position | Turkel Commission, Second Report | 1967 onward |
| 1971 | Attorney-General’s declaration that Israel would comply with the Fourth Convention’s “humanitarian provisions” | Turkel Commission, Second Report | 1971 |
| 5 to 0 | Unanimous Elon Moreh judgment, whose leading opinion called Geneva treaty law not binding in an Israeli court | Supreme Court of Israel | 22 October 1979 |
Israel signed the 4 Geneva Conventions on 8 December 1949
The Turkel Commission recorded both dates in one footnote to its survey of the law binding on Israel in armed conflict: “Israel signed the conventions on Dec. 8, 1949 and ratified them on Jul. 6, 1951.” In its main text, the Commission states that the four Conventions “have been signed and ratified by Israel.” Signature came first. The 1951 ratification is the act that made Israel a party.
Israel’s Convention Registry records all 4 Conventions in volume 1
The Turkel Commission recorded each Convention’s place in Israel’s Convention Registry, Kitvei Amana. All 4 sit in volume 1. That includes the Fourth Convention, which covers civilians. The Registry is Israel’s own treaty series, and these citations are where the ratification can be found in it.
| Convention | Citation as printed | Page in volume 1 |
|---|---|---|
| First | TP 1, 387 | 387 |
| Second | TP 1, 423 | 423 |
| Fourth | TP 1, 453 | 453 |
| Third | TP 1, 559 | 559 |
Source: Turkel Commission, Second Report, printed p. 56, footnote 12.
In the volume, the Third Convention appears after the Fourth. Its page number is the highest of the four.
Israel is not a party to the 1977 Additional Protocols
The Turkel Commission stated in 2013 that “Israel is not a Party to the Additional Protocols but recognizes their customary provisions.” The Protocols are separate instruments from the 4 Conventions. The 1951 ratification does not cover them. The record treats the two Protocols differently.
| Instrument | Israel a party? | What the record says Israel applies | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protocol I | No | Provisions that reflect customary law, including the definition of military objectives “as reflected in Article 52” | Turkel Commission, footnote 15; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 8 |
| Protocol II | No | None as customary law: Israel “does not consider it to reflect customary international law” | Turkel Commission, footnote 18 |
| Both | No | “all applicable rules of customary international law, including those embodied in conventions to which it is not a party” | Ministry of Foreign Affairs, p. 7 |
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated Israel’s own legal position in its paper Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Key Legal Aspects, updated to 2 November 2023. In that paper, the Ministry states that Israel “abides by all applicable rules of customary international law,” and it names the 1977 Additional Protocols as conventions to which Israel is not a party. The Commission’s position on Protocol I is that “since Israel is not a Party to the Protocol, it should only be subject to those provisions that reflect customary law.”
Since 1967 Israel has said Common Article 2 excludes the territories
The Turkel Commission recorded Israel’s official position, in the State’s own terms: “Since 1967, the official position of the State of Israel has been that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because these were not territories of a ‘High Contracting Party’, as required by Common Article 2.” Being a party to the Conventions and applying them to these areas are two separate questions on this record. The legal framework in the West Bank is set out in the record on which law applies there, and to whom.
| Year | What was stated | Who stated it | Recorded in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1967 onward | The Conventions do not apply to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not territories of a “High Contracting Party” | State of Israel, its own official position | Turkel Commission, footnote 12 |
| 1971 | Israel would comply with the Fourth Convention’s “humanitarian provisions” | The then Attorney-General | Turkel Commission, footnote 12 |
| 2016 | Israel holds the Area by way of “belligerent occupation”, under which Israeli law does not apply there | State Comptroller, its own statement of the legal framework | State Comptroller, Annual Report 66b, printed p. 74 |
The State Comptroller stated the framework in Hebrew, and its term is תפיסה לוחמתית. The sentence concerns the Area the Comptroller calls Judea and Samaria. It appears in an audit of that Area alone.
Elon Moreh held Geneva treaty law not binding in Israeli courts
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Elon Moreh case on 22 October 1979. Its leading opinion treated the Fourth Convention as treaty law that an Israeli court does not enforce. It treated the Hague Regulations as customary law that binds the military administration. The quotations below come from the unofficial English translation published by the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project. The Hebrew text governs.
- Deputy President Landau, leading opinion: Article 49(6) of the Fourth Convention, “as part of treaty-based international law, it is not binding law in an Israeli Court,” whereas the Hague Regulations, “as customary international law, they do indeed bind the military administration in Judea and Samaria.”
- Justice Witkon, concurring: “It is a mistake to think … that the Geneva Convention does not apply to Judea and Samaria. It does apply, though, as noted above, it is not ‘justiciable’ in this Court.”
- Beit El, decided 15 March 1979: the Ministry of Justice records, in its own published account of the judgment from 2019, that the Court held the international-law provisions relied on to be conventional law between states rather than customary law. The legality of settlement was therefore a political question, and not justiciable.
- Domestic status: the Turkel Commission recorded in footnote 12 that treaties are not automatically domestic law in Israel. Ratification binds the State internationally without itself incorporating the text.
The Court left Article 49(6) itself undecided. What it decided on the requisition order is set out in the Elon Moreh record.
Every treaty date here comes from the Turkel Commission
- The Turkel Commission recorded the signature date, the ratification date and the 4 registry citations from Israel’s Convention Registry. The report gives no entry-into-force date.
- 8 December 1949 is the signature date. 6 July 1951 is the ratification date, and it is the date on which Israel became a party. The two are not interchangeable.
- The Conventions and the Additional Protocols are separate instruments. Israel’s position outside the Protocols does not change its status under the Conventions.
- The 1967 position is Israel’s own stated position, as the Commission recorded it. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs paper of 2023 is Israel’s own statement of its legal position.
- The Elon Moreh quotations come from an unofficial English translation, and the Hebrew judgment governs.
Questions readers ask
Is Israel a party to the Geneva Conventions?
Yes. The Turkel Commission recorded in 2013 that Israel ratified all 4 Geneva Conventions of 1949 on 6 July 1951. Ratification is what makes a state a party.
When did Israel sign the Geneva Conventions?
The Turkel Commission recorded that Israel signed the 4 Conventions on 8 December 1949. The signature came about 19 months before the ratification.
When did the Conventions enter into force for Israel?
The Turkel Commission recorded the signature and ratification dates only. Its report gives no entry-into-force date.
Has Israel ratified Additional Protocol I?
No. The Turkel Commission stated that “Israel is not a Party to the Additional Protocols but recognizes their customary provisions.”
Does Israel apply any part of Additional Protocol I?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated Israel’s own legal position in 2023. In that position, Israel applies the customary definition of military objectives “as reflected in Article 52 of Additional Protocol I.” The Ministry treats the definition as customary law, not as a treaty obligation.
Does Israel treat Additional Protocol II as customary law?
No. The Turkel Commission recorded that Israel “is not a Party to the Second Additional Protocol and does not consider it to reflect customary international law.”
Does Israel say the Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the West Bank?
The Turkel Commission recorded Israel’s own official position since 1967: the Conventions do not apply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, because these were not territories of a “High Contracting Party” under Common Article 2.
What did Israel undertake in 1971?
The Turkel Commission recorded that in 1971 the then Attorney-General declared Israel would comply with the Fourth Convention’s “humanitarian provisions.”
Does an Israeli state body describe the West Bank as under belligerent occupation?
The State Comptroller stated in its 2016 audit that Israel holds the Area it calls Judea and Samaria by way of “belligerent occupation.” The Comptroller states that one legal meaning of this is that Israeli law does not apply there.
Are the Geneva Conventions binding in Israeli courts?
The Supreme Court’s leading opinion in Elon Moreh, given on 22 October 1979, called Article 49(6) of the Fourth Convention “not binding law in an Israeli Court” as treaty law. Justice Witkon wrote that the Convention applies but is not justiciable in that Court.
Did the Beit El case decide whether settlements are lawful?
No. The Ministry of Justice records, in its own 2019 account of the judgment, that the Court held the legality of settlement to be a political question and not justiciable. The Court declined to decide it.
Does ratification make a treaty part of Israeli law?
Not by itself. The Turkel Commission recorded that treaties are not automatically domestic law in Israel. Ratification binds the State internationally without incorporating the text.
Where can the ratification be found in Israel’s treaty series?
The Turkel Commission recorded all 4 Conventions in Israel’s Convention Registry, Kitvei Amana, volume 1, at pages 387, 423, 453 and 559.
Is Israel a party to the Rome Statute?
No. The Turkel Commission stated that “Israel is not a Party to the Rome Statute,” in its survey of international criminal law.
Sources
- Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023. Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Key Legal Aspects. Updated to 2 November 2023, pages 7 and 8. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/swords-of-iron-faq-6-dec-2023/en/English_Documents_Hamas-Israel%20Conflict%202023%20-%20Some%20Factual%20and%20Legal%20Aspects%20-%20Israel%20Ministry%20of%20Foreign%20Affairs%20(2%20NOV%202023).pdf. Official or primary record, a party’s own statement of its legal position.
- Israeli Supreme Court, 1979. HCJ 390/79 Dweikat v. Government of Israel (the Elon Moreh case). Judgment of 22 October 1979, unofficial English translation by the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/upload/opinions/Dweikat%20et%20al.%20v.%20State.pdf. Official or primary record, court judgment.
- Ministry of Justice of Israel, 2019. There Are Judges in Jerusalem: on the Beit El and Elon Moreh judgments. Roots in Law project, 21 March 2019. https://www.gov.il/he/Departments/publications/reports/roots_1979_2. Official or primary record.
- Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), 2013. Second Report: Israel’s Mechanisms for Examining and Investigating Complaints and Claims of Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict According to International Law. Printed pp. 53 and 56, footnotes 3, 12, 15, 18 and 61. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/downloads_eng1/en/ENG_turkel_eng_b1-474.pdf. Official or primary record.
- State Comptroller of Israel, 2016. Judea and Samaria Area: Activity of the Supervision and Enforcement Unit and Aspects of Land Registration. Annual Report 66b, printed p. 74. https://library.mevaker.gov.il/sites/DigitalLibrary/Documents/2016-66b-201-IOSH.pdf. Official or primary record.
