Соответствующая норма
Jordan
Practice Relating to Rule 129. The Act of Displacement
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “[T]he deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory”. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(15).
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that Jordan has never ordered the forced movement of civilians nor compelled civilians to leave their own territory owing to internal armed conflict. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 5.5.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Jordan stated:
5.120 The wall being constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around east Jerusalem divides the West bank into six sections not linked except by or through Israeli checkpoints and controls. As indicated … it has the clear effect, and also the intention, of consolidating and protecting the civilian Jewish settlements constructed on the West Bank and in the East Jerusalem area with the active assistance of the Government of Israel. …
5.121 Those settlements involve an unlawful alteration of the population balance in the West bank. Consequently, the construction of the wall in such a way as to support that unlawful alteration of the population balance is itself unlawful.
5.122 The population balance of an occupied territory may be affected by the operation of two processes, either separately or taken together. On the one hand, the indigenous inhabitants may be removed from or compelled to leave the territory; on the other hand, persons from outside the territory, and particularly from the Occupying Power’s own country, may be transferred into the occupied territory. In respect of the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem, both processes have been at work; both are contrary to applicable international rules.
5.136 The other element in changes to an occupied territory’s population balance – the removal of the indigenous local inhabitants – has been equally apparent in Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem. These general practices and policies are well-established and a matter of public record, but they serve only as background to the further application of these practices and policies resulting from the construction of the wall, which is the immediate concern of the present advisory proceedings.
5.137 In order for there to be “individual or mass forcible transfers … of protected persons from the occupied territory” in breach of Article 49 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] it is not necessary that the Occupying Power should, in a formal way, promulgate orders for the transfer of local populations (although clearly such orders would fall within the prohibition contained in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention): it is sufficient that the Occupying Power should adopt practices which are intended to drive the local inhabitants from their territory, or which may be reasonably foreseen to have that result. Given the nature of recent dispossession and displacement practices, as well as the concerted policy of forcible acquisition, recent observers have expressed concern about the possible future refugee flows …
5.138 Prohibited transfers may involve individuals as much as large numbers (“mass transfers”), and a transfer will be “forcible” if the measures adopted by the Occupying Power are such as in practice to leave the affected local population no realistic alternatives but to leave the territory. Even if such a movement of the local inhabitants is not the purpose behind the construction of the wall it is nevertheless a clear consequence, and Article 49 makes it clear that transfers of the local population are prohibited “regardless of their motive”. …
5.202 The policy and practice of displacement resulting from the construction of the wall, considered in its historical context and in the light of consistent patterns of expropriation, destruction of agricultural land, orchards and olive groves, designate [sic] of Palestinian land as “state land”, refusal of return of refugees, promotion of and assistance to non-indigenous settlers, allow an inference of permanent forcible transfers attributable to Israel. Such transfers are contrary to any exception permitted under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
5.203 Moreover, deportation and transfer incur individual criminal responsibility in international law. 
Jordan, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 5.120–5.122, 5.136–5.138 and 5.202–5.203.