Introduction
Many generations of foreign control and occupation have deprived the Palestinian people of their opportunity to develop their own legal order. The recent establishment of a Palestinian Authority to administer portions of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River, under internationally illegal Israeli occupation since 1967, introduces the question of whether the emerging state of Palestine will be capable of overseeing a system of rule of law. This debate is important not only in the political arena but in the legal arena as well, since a viable state must have a legal system that is functional and reliable. Despite the historically deteriorated condition of the Gazan and West Bank legal systems under occupation, the Palestinians recently have sought to seize the opportunity to determine the fate of their own legal heritage. To determine how this may be possible, we must look at what laws currently exist in the Palestinian territories.

The law applied in different parts of the West Bank and Gaza strip is a combination of all the various laws imposed on Palestine at various periods this century, when Palestine fell under different occupations and administrations. Instead of each new law superseding the previous law, almost all of these laws remain in effect in the territories. Therefore, one would have to research multiple legal systems and codes to determine the law in one area. This is quite a confusing situation. The Palestinian legal system can be compared to a tossed salad, with layers of different laws and systems all mixed up into a confused mess. This situation in the Palestinian Territories is perhaps unprecedented in modern history. This article undertakes the task of briefly describing and explaining the evolution of law in Palestine as statehood may be on the horizon. The evolution of the legal system in Palestine will be presented against the historical backdrop.

Customary Law
Alongside every formal legal system in Palestinian history, there existed a system of customary law known as “Urf”, which means “that which is known” in Arabic. This was a system of rules outside the court system, which handles disputes based on traditional oral customs. This system stressed conciliation, mediation, and family honour. Urf covered disputes such as contracts, family disputes, personal injury, and land matters.

Ottoman Law
When the Ottoman Turks defeated the Mameluks in 1517, Palestine came under the rule of a new empire for the next four hundred years. The Ottomans gave major autonomy to local Islamic judges to rule in many matters. There was no legislation, only Shariah (Islamic law), as interpreted by the judges. The Ottomans then sought to modernise the legal system and passed a code of law that governed Palestine. This codification mirrored Islamic law but also incorporated elements of European law, especially the law of France. Major parts of the Ottoman Codes are still in force in Palestine. The Ottoman Land Code is very confusing and hard to follow, and has been used by Israeli authorities to seize Palestinian lands.

British Law
With the World War I defeat of the German allies, the Ottomans, Great Britain began to administer Palestine in 1918. The British wholly reformed the Palestinian legal system and established a new judiciary to replace the departed Ottoman judges. The English kept the Ottoman statutes in place, but supplemented them with English common law and equity. Thus, Ottoman law stayed in place, but English law filled in the gaps and determined how that law would progress. The British introduced legal education in Palestine that led to the presence of a significant number of trained lawyers and jurists. The British also gave the judiciary independence and allowed the courts to review the actions of the High Commissioner. Unfortunately, this enlightened system gave way to British Emergency regulations that gave the High Commissioner substantial powers in the interest of suppressing rebellion. The British Mandate Emergency Regulations constitute a special impediment to democratisation.

Jordanian Law
In 1948 the British withdrew from Palestine and the Zionists proclaimed the State of Israel. The West Bank was put under Jordanian control. At first, Jordan ruled that West Bank on the basis of a belligerent occupation. This means that all previous laws would remain in effect, and Jordan would use a military governor to direct these laws. This view changed in 1950 as Jordan included West Bank representatives in the Jordanian Parliament. Then the new Jordanian constitution replaced Palestinian law with Jordanian law. Laws not replaced stayed in effect. For example, Jordan also retained much Ottoman law. Jordanian civil law like the Ottoman Code was outdated and Palestinian lawyers viewed the Jordanian legal administration as backward even compared to previous law. The civil courts in the West Bank lost legitimacy with the people.

Egyptian Law
The situation in the Gaza strip was quite different. Also in 1948, the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian control. Unlike Jordan, Egypt never applied its own law in Gaza. Egypt upheld the law already in effect at the time of occupation. In 1962, Egypt adopted a constitution for Gaza stating that it was “an indivisible part of Palestine.” Egypt applied laws carried over from the mandate, and supplemented them by Egyptian governor decrees issued in the name of “the people of Palestine.” Previous judges retained their positions and enjoyed broad autonomy, including the ability to void administrative orders that conflicted with legislation. - Israeli Law - In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza as a belligerent occupant, leaving in place the existing laws and judicial institutions. However, Israel’s military government issued so many orders of a legislative effect, it effectively replaced much previous law. Israel’s occupation seriously impaired judicial autonomy, including the seizure of the power to appoint and remove judges. Israeli military authorities displaced the Palestinian courts on many issues, including the right to move any trial or hearing to a military committee. This displaced the court’s function.

Israeli rule displaced previous law and imposed many conditions that violated international law. Palestinians became subject to curfews, expulsions, home demolitions, legal torture, and a wide variety of human rights violations. Palestinians were afforded no due process rights when arrested, interrogated, or convicted. In contrast, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories enjoy all civil liberty protections embodied in Israeli law. As a result, public confidence in the Palestinian judiciary plummeted. Courts had no real power or credibility. People completely feared authority and had no faith in the law.

The Law of the Underground- Intifada
The Palestinian Uprising of 1987-1990 was a major influence on Palestinian society. The “Intifadah” shook up the traditional structures and constituted an embryonic attempt of the people to gain control over their society. Intifadah leaders formed popular committees with underground leadership. This was basically a quasi system of laws and tribunals. During this period, Palestinians made little use of the civil court structure. Israel’s military became more unrelenting on human rights such as the late Yitzhak Rabin’s “Broken Bone” policy for stone throwers. The Intifadah period further destroyed the people’s faith in an institutionalised legal order.

Palestinian National Authority
In 1994, under an agreement with Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organisation began administering parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 1995-96, the P.L.O. assumed control of the major populated areas of the Territories. Free elections were held in 1996, unprecedented for an Arab government of any kind. Under the P.N.A., the previous legal scheme remained in place. President Arafat decreed that “all laws and regulations and orders that were in force prior to June 5, 1967 shall remain valid.” Thus, Palestinian law remained in effect in Gaza, Jordanian law in the West Bank, and the court system was kept in place.

The major issues surrounding current P.N.A. rule revolve around the centralised authority of the President. Arafat is appointing the judges and the West Bank trial courts sit under a High Court in Ramallah. The P.N.A. did establish new Security Courts that were intended to hear cases involving security issues. Arafat can “confirm, ease, or stiffen” sentences by these courts. Arafat also utilises British Emergency Orders to enforce various actions. Despite much criticism by human rights watch groups, the P.N.A. emphasises that the current arrangement is a temporary one governing the transition of power to Palestinians, and the eventual formation of a Palestinian state.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the legal system in Palestine consists of layer upon layer of law that almost all remain in effect. To help cure this quagmire, the P.N.A. Executive Committee assigned a team of lawyers, headed by British barrister Dr. Anis Kasem, to draft a proposed constitution for Palestine. At the time of this article, eight drafts have been completed. These drafts have been circulated to different groups including women’s groups, law scholars, Birzeit University law faculty, and foreign lawyers. The drafters emphasised a document that would respect human rights and take into account the experience of other nations and the Palestinian context. After numerous revisions, the final draft sits on President Arafat’s desk.