Controversy over Iranian nuclear policy has been mounting in both legal and political circles since the early 2000s. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), tasked with verifying compliance of Member States with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been expressing concern that Iran's nuclear efforts are directed not solely toward peaceful uses, but also for military purposes. In response, various States have tried, individually and collectively, to engage Iran in agreed frameworks of action that would include an Iranian self-imposed restraint regarding its nuclear development. This volume documents the Iranian nuclear issue, tracing the evolution of international interest and concern with Iran's nuclear policy since the 1970s, when Iran began earnest efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities. Emphasis is nonetheless placed on events since 2002-2003, when it was established that Iran had concealed certain aspects of its nuclear activities from the IAEA. Alongside reports of the IAEA and Security Council documents, the volume covers diverse sources rather than relying solely on UN organs and agencies, international organizations, or dedicated ad hoc bodies.

This collection of essays is written by some of the world's leading experts in international human rights law, and corresponds to the main junctures in the professional life of Professor David Kretzmer, a leading human right academic and practitioner. The different essays focus on contemporary human rights protection challenges. They address conceptual problems such as differences between limits and restrictions, and application of human rights standards to businesses and international organisations; legal doctrinal responses to changing realities in the field of surveillance and identity politics; the weakness of monitoring institutions engaged in standard setting; and the practical difficulties in applying international human rights law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a manner sensitive to gender dimensions and the particular political dynamics of the situation. Collectively, the essays offer a rich picture of the current potential shortcomings of international human rights law in addressing complex problems of law, politics and ethics.

Judicial review by Israel's Supreme Court over actions of Israeli authorities in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is an important element in Israel's legal and political control of these territories. The Occupation of Justice presents a comprehensive discussion of the Court's decisions in exercising this review. This revised and expanded edition includes updated material and analysis, as well as new chapters. Inter alia, it addresses the Court's approach to its jurisdiction to consider petitions from residents of the Occupied Territories; justiciability of sensitive political issues; application and interpretation of the international law of belligerent occupation in general, and the Fourth Geneva Convention in particular; the relevance of international human rights law and Israeli constitutional law; the rights of Gaza residents after the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlements from the area; Israeli settlements and settlers; construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank; security measures, including internment, interrogation practices, and punitive house demolitions; and judicial review of hostilities. The study examines the inherent tension involved in judicial review over the actions of authorities in a territory in which the inhabitants are not part of the political community the Court belongs to. It argues that this tension is aggravated in the context of the West Bank by the glaring disparity between the norms of belligerent occupation and the Israeli government's policies. The study shows that while the Court's review has enabled many individuals to receive a remedy, it has largely served to legitimise government policies and practices in the Occupied Territories.

Yael Ronen analyses the international legal ramifications of illegal territorial regimes, namely the illegal annexation of territory or illegal declarations of independence, by reference to the stage of transition from an illegal territorial regime to a lawful one. Six case studies (Namibia, Zimbabwe, the Baltic States, the South African Bantustans, East Timor and northern Cyprus) are used to explore the tension between the invalidity of the illegal regime's acts and their effectiveness, with respect to the international relations of such territories, their domestic legal systems, the status of settlers and land transfers. Relying heavily on primary and previously unconsidered sources, she focuses on the international legal constraints on the post-transition regime's policy, particularly in the context of international human rights law.

Yael Ronen analyses the international legal ramifications of illegal territorial regimes, namely the illegal annexation of territory or illegal declarations of independence, by reference to the stage of transition from an illegal territorial regime to a lawful one. Six case studies (Namibia, Zimbabwe, the Baltic States, the South African Bantustans, East Timor and northern Cyprus) are used to explore the tension between the invalidity of the illegal regime's acts and their effectiveness, with respect to the international relations of such territories, their domestic legal systems, the status of settlers and land transfers. Relying heavily on primary and previously unconsidered sources, she focuses on the international legal constraints on the post-transition regime's policy, particularly in the context of international human rights law.