Since the mid-19th century, however, many such rules have been codified by States in international treaties, like the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions.

The conventions say little or nothing about actual combat, and were seen as supplementary to the 1907 Hague Regulations, which remained in force.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army," reads Article 42 of the Hague Regulations.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, noted the same passage in the Hague Regulations, but offered a different interpretation.

Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the court determined Kononov could be punished for failing to meet the regulation criteria, specifically, wearing German Wehrmacht uniforms while carrying out the crimes.

These cases all served to establish the role of the Hague Regulations, specifically that of Article 43, to be played in the context of Israel's occupancy of the former Palestine.

Since the arrival of the Hague Regulations in 1907, Israel used their Supreme Court's interpretation of the principles of Article 43 for decisions regarding their occupied areas.

Now, in addition to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulation of 1907, there is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 of 2003.

This resolution also calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law, in particular the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Regulations.

The Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention expressly forbid collective penalties, intimidation, terrorism, acts of revenge or reprisal against the civilian population or forcible mass transfers of population.