The question of Israel's responsibility in the territories gained in the War of 1967 invokes disagreement with whether the territories are in fact "occupied" or merely "disputed." Israel's rule of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza is most often defined by the body of international law developed after World War II as a "belligerent occupation." According to the Foundation for Middle East Peace, "[Israel’s] responsibilities toward the Palestinian population under its occupation are codified in both The Hague Convention Regulations (1906) and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (1949)." Within this framework, Israel is obliged to maintain the security of the territories, ensure public order and safety, and act for the welfare of the local population. See "Israel Required by International Law to Protect Palestinians Under Occupation." Foundation for Middle East Peace. Vol. 4, No. 3 (May 1994), http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol04/no3/02-israel_required_by_internationa.... See also the text of the IVth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm Others, however, argue that there was no previously-recognized sovereignty in the territories, and as such, Israel's claim to it cannot be considered an "occupation." This body of legal thought also asserts that the War of 1967 was a defensive one, and that "occupation" was forced on Israel, rather than an organic decision. A core legal defense of this case is summarized by former United States State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In 1970, regarding Israel's case, he stated, "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." See Gold, Dore. "From 'Occupied Territories' to 'Disputed Territories.'" Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs. No. 470 (January 2002), http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm. The case of East Jerusalem is equally disputed, although its situation is unique. Israel "unified" East and West Jerusalem in its 1980 "Jerusalem Law," which declared unified Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, leaving borders undefined. Due to the ambiguity of the law, it is still unclear whether Israel has officially annexed the territory, although the Israeli government has invested significant resources into building Israeli infrastructure in East Jerusalem. Most countries do not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, an opinion codified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. To read the text of the 1980 Basic Law, see “Basic Law-Jerusalem-Capital of Israel.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 31 October 2011. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1980_1989/Basic+Law-+Jerusalem-+Capital+of+Israel.htm.  http://www.justvision.org/glossary/international-law-and-“occupied”-“disputed”-territory-debate