Freedom of demonstration is enshrined in Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also permits the balancing of this liberty against other interests. The article states:

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Israel frequently argues that human rights law does not apply to its actions in the Occupied Territories. However, this position enjoys almost no support among non-Israeli jurists or among other states. The accepted argument today is that human rights law continues to apply alongside International Humanitarian Law, which applies in a situation of armed conflict or occupation. According to this argument, human rights law applies in all situations, though on occasions it is overruled by concrete provisions of Humanitarian Law in situations of combat. Accordingly, in the absence of any concrete provision in Humanitarian Law permitting infringement of the rights granted to civilians in accordance with human rights law, the latter must be observed. Since International Humanitarian Law does not address the right of demonstration, its observance in an occupied territory is to be examined in accordance with human rights law.

Moreover, the authors of International Humanitarian Law envisaged an occupation lasting for a limited period of time. The restrictions this law imposes, both on the occupier’s powers and on the rights of civilians, derive from the temporary nature of the occupation. However, the situation is different in a case of protracted occupation. It is unreasonable that a population subject to occupation for decades be denied basic rights on the grounds that these are not enshrined in International Humanitarian Law.