Compressibility and Hydraulic Conductivity of Zeolite-Amended Soil-Bentonite Backfills

The effect of zeolite amendment for enhanced sorption capacity on the consolidation behavior and hydraulic conductivity, k, of a typical soil-bentonite (SB) backfill for vertical cutoff walls was evaluated via laboratory testing. The consolidation behavior and k of test specimens containing fine sand, 5.8 % (dry wt.) sodium bentonite, and 0, 2, 5, or 10 % (dry wt.) of one of three types of zeolite (clinoptilolite, chabazite-lower bed, or chabazite-upper bed) were measured using fixed-ring oedometers, and k also was measured on separate specimens using a flexible-wall permeameter. The results indicated that addition of a zeolite had little impact on either the consolidation behavior or the k of the backfill, regardless of the amount or type of zeolite. For example, the compression index, Cc, for the unamended backfill specimen was 0.24, whereas values of Cc for the zeolite amended specimens were in the range 0.19 ≤ Cc ≤ 0.23. Similarly, the k for the unamended specimen based on flexible-wall tests was 2.4 x 10-10 m/s, whereas values of k for zeolite amended specimens were in the range 1.2 x 10-10 ≤ k ≤ 3.9 x 10-10 m/s. The results of the study suggest that enhancing the sorption capacity of typical SB backfills via zeolite amendment is not likely to have a significant effect on the consolidation behavior or k of the backfill, provided that the amount of zeolite added is small (≤ 10 %).

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.