control over territory. Following the Oslo Accords, Israel has maintained control over; security, land, including colonies and borders, and air and naval space in all of the West Bank and Gaza including East Jerusalem. The official position of numerous legal experts - including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) - and the international community at large, attests that the current level of control amounts to occupation and that the provisions of IHL continue to apply to all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.42 Article 47 of the GCIV reaffirm that: “Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power.” Consequently, the Oslo Accords cannot deprive the occupied Palestinian population from the protection and rights they are entitled to under the GCIV, including Israel’s obligations vis-à-vis the administration of service provision and natural resources. Furthermore, if any of the provisions of the Accords interfere with the rights of the occupied population, such provisions are deemed invalid. As such, the Accords cannot be introduced as a justification to absolve Israel from its responsibilities; Israel ultimately remains responsible for ensuring the occupied population’s rights and benefits in its role as an Occupying Power. As they were meant to be temporary transitional agreements, with a duration of five years, the validity of the Accords themselves could be questioned. Today, almost a quarter of a century after the signing of the Accords, their capacity to serve as a valid legal instrument to manage the affairs of the oPt is dubious at best. For the purposes of this analysis, the paper will address and deal with the Oslo Accords as a valid legal instrument; however, based on the agreed upon duration, and the lack of movement following their expiration, the validity of its provisions will be measured against relevant international rules. Thus, if the provisions contradict the GCIV or derogate the fundamental rights and entitlements of the occupied Palestinian population, their validity should be considered void. The delegation of limited autonomy to the PA (through the Accords) does not absolve Israel’s legal responsibility for the welfare of the occupied population, and this will remain the case until occupation, including its effective control, is resolved. Accordingly, despite any conflicting provisions contained within 42 ICRC, Occupation, 7-10, supra note 5. 18