Recognizing Palestinian Statehood
By Iain Scobbie, Alon Margalit and Sarah Hibbin*
This article is based on an extensive brief entitled “Palestinian Statehood and Collective Recognition by the United Nations,” which is available at http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/.
The international status of Palestine has been a thorny topic since "the question of Palestine" was first placed on the agenda of the UN and is rooted in the international community’s decision that both the Jewish and the Arab populations of the Mandate Historic Palestine have the right to self-determination. Whilst the initial "Partition Plan" the General Assembly (UNGA) adopted to give effect to this was ultimately abandoned, the vision of a two-state solution in Historic Palestine has endured and been endorsed by the international community and by both Parties. Israel’s declaration of independence after the termination of the British Mandate, its recognition by third States, and its subsequent admission into the UN was acknowledged to fulfill the Jewish population’s right to self-determination. The parallel right of the indigenous Arab population to self-determination in the remaining part of Historic Palestine is yet to be attained.
The status of Palestine is expected to be the center of attention next September as various reports suggest that the Palestinians will request the UNGA to adopt a resolution recognizing that Palestine is now a State. There has also been speculation that Palestine may submit an application to be admitted as a member of the UN. Both prospects have, in Henry Siegman’s words, provoked a “near-hysterical” reaction from some quarters. Three principal objections have so far been raised: 1) that the territory claimed by Palestine is currently in dispute and this needs to be resolved before recognition can be granted; 2) that the Palestinian National Authority (PA) does not have sufficient governmental control over the Palestinian territory; and 3) that the Palestinian move is a unilateral act which aims to change the status of territory and is accordingly prohibited by the instruments governing the Middle East Peace Process. There is also some confusion regarding the difference between a UNGA resolution granting recognition and the conditions for UN membership.
Statehood
The traditional criteria for statehood in international law are set out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, namely: defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States. Applying these to Palestine, the question of its population and capacity to enter into relations with other States are uncontroversial. It is undeniable that Palestine has a permanent population and in relation to the latter, the overwhelming majority of States formally recognize the PLO or the PA as the representative of the Palestinian people and maintain bilateral relations with it, sometimes to the level of full diplomatic relations. The two remaining criteria, territory and government, however deserve closer inspection.
In relation to territory, Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 242 and 338 call upon Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, thus indicating that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel in 1967 constitute the territory of the Palestinian State. This has been accepted by the international community, including by the International Court of Justice and the Quartet on the Middle East (the UN, the US, the EU and Russia), as well as by the Palestinians and Israelis themselves. Both have agreed that negotiations on a permanent settlement will lead “to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”
The fact that its borders are not fully delineated does not preclude the possibility that Palestine is a State. Statehood implies exclusive control over some territory, however large or small. The territory does not have to be exactly demarcated by definite frontiers. Accordingly, arguing in support of Israel's application for UN membership, the US representative to the UNSC declared in 1949 that “[b]oth reason and history demonstrated that the concept of territory did not necessarily include precise delimitation of the boundaries of that territory.”
A more serious obstacle for Palestinian statehood is the criterion of government. The risk of creation of a "puppet" government by an occupying power presents particular concerns, and consequently there is a presumption against the legitimacy of a State created on occupied territory. In essence, a puppet State is a non-independent entity established as an agent of the occupant. This is, however, not the case here. The claim to statehood for Palestine is not being advanced by Israel, the occupying power, but is rather being opposed by it. This indicates a Palestinian determination to assert its autonomy, and is evidence of some degree of an independent government.
Over the years doubts have been raised regarding the extent in which the Palestinians exercise governmental control over their territory. Although more than 114 States recognised Palestine following the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, the PLO did not exercise effective control over the West Bank or Gaza. These acts of recognition were premature. Conversely, since 1993, Israel has transferred to the PA certain governmental powers and responsibilities. The factual situation is different now.
It is true that this transfer of control is partial and limited both in terms of comprehensive governmental powers and in its territorial scope; the PA delivers governmental services in about 40 percent of the West Bank, the remaining 60 percent of the West Bank and East Jerusalem being controlled by Israel. Since June 2007 the Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas but some services – such as electricity, health, population registry, the salaries of public sector employees and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip following the Israeli "Cast Lead" military operation – are still provided by the PA. A recent UN report concluded that in the limited territory under the PA control, “governmental functions are now sufficient for a functioning government of a State.” This observation is shared by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Quartet Representative.
It must be acknowledged that the persistence of the occupation and the political divide between the West Bank and Gaza deprives the PA of the ability to extend its institutional authority. Nonetheless, there is no question that the PA provides services to the Palestinian population in most aspects of daily life in a defined territory and that Palestine has its own legislature and a judicial system; constitutive elements of effective governance. The role and control of the PA in Gaza may be extended in the near future in light of the conciliation agreement recently signed in Cairo between Palestinian factions which might lead to a national unity government that will control both the West Bank and Gaza.
If some uncertainty still remains, it should be noted that contemporary international law accords primordial importance to the realisation of the right to self-determination, and thus is more flexible when it considers the effectiveness of the government of a new State. A striking example of this was the recognition of the former Belgian Congo as the Republic of the Congo in 1960 in circumstances where, as James Crawford comments, “Anything less like effective government it would be hard to imagine.” But once Belgium had renounced its right to govern the Congo, it had to be presumed that the new entity thus granted independence had the right to exercise authority. As self-determination is “one of the essential principles of contemporary international law,” which all States have the duty to promote, and the Palestinian people possess the right to self-determination, recognition of Palestine’s Statehood would contribute to the realisation of both peoples' – the Jewish/Israeli and Palestinian – right to self-determination.
Unilateral Act?
It has been argued that a Palestinian request to the UNGA to recognize Palestine as a State would be in breach of its commitment under previous agreements and UNSC resolutions to refrain from unilateral acts which might change the status of the territory or prejudice the outcome of the peace negotiations. This objection misses the fundamental point that in any act of recognition, the unilateral act lies with the States according recognition and not with the entity thus recognized. Indeed, as over 120 States have shown, recognition of Palestine as a State is a unilateral act that may be done on their own initiative, and is not dependent on any request that they do so.
In addition, Israel does not have clean hands in this matter given its continuous settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. It is not only in violation of international humanitarian law, bilateral agreements and UNSC resolutions, and itself a unilateral act. The settlements aim to change the status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by creating "facts on the ground." Israel cannot complain about the Palestinian relying on the instruments which Israel has itself disregarded
A Palestinian request for recognition cannot be considered separately from the broader context of the deadlock in the bilateral negotiations. These negotiations have continued for almost 20 years and yet a final permanent agreement has not been reached. Since 2008 there has been no substantial progress and the Parties have not been engaged in direct negotiations. Thus far, the Israeli government has dismissed calls to impose a permanent freeze on settlement activity. It also rejected US President Obama’s initiative to resume negotiations based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps.
Collective Recognition v. UN Membership
The recognition of a Palestinian State is significant. Given the special circumstances of Palestine – confronted by Israeli occupation and an internal political divide – collective recognition by the UNGA would constitute strong evidence that Palestine is nevertheless a State that fulfills the requirements laid down by international law. Thus a somewhat ambiguous Palestinian statehood might be consolidated by a UNGA resolution that receives unequivocal support.
However as the act of recognition is a discretionary political act, a prerogative of the recognizing State, a UNGA resolution does not bind other States that refuse to recognize the new State. It is suffice to mention that Israel itself is not recognized by many Arab and Muslim States. Moreover, collective recognition does not entail UN membership. While admission to the UN is, by definition, recognition of statehood, as according to Article 4 of the UN Charter membership is open only to States, it does not work the other way: recognition of statehood does not entail or guarantee UN membership. A political entity may meet the formal criteria of statehood without being admitted to the UN or even applying for membership.
Admission to the UN requires a decision of the UNGA upon the recommendation of the UNSC. In the Palestinian case, that recommendation might be vetoed by one or more Permanent Members of the UNSC. While the UNGA could "certify" the statehood of Palestine in a resolution, this would not bind the UNSC.
There might be another obstacle to UN membership. The Palestinian application might be vetoed not only due to a reluctance to support any avenue that is not based on bilateral negotiations, but it might also reflect a material doubt whether Palestine qualifies for membership at this stage. Under the UN Charter membership is open to “peace-loving states” that are able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter. According to the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement, Hamas, the de facto government in control of Gaza, is expected to participate in future elections and to become a full partner in the de jure government of a Palestinian State. Because some States consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, its anticipated role in the government of Palestine might cause them to argue that Palestine cannot be regarded as a “peace-loving State.” Further, because the territory of Palestine is still under Israeli occupation, some might judge that this places such impediments on the exercise of power by the Palestinian government that it cannot discharge Charter obligations.
The Palestinians might well succeed in obtaining recognition of its statehood from the UNGA. Recognition would be in accordance with international law and does not require a prior application to the UNSC. However, considering the projected involvement of Hamas, as well as the continuing Israeli occupation which makes it unclear whether Palestine is able and willing to fulfill the obligations contained in the UN Charter, the question of its UN membership remains open.
*IAIN SCOBBIE is the Sir Joseph Hotung Research Professor at the Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. ALON MARGALIT and SARAH HIBBIN are PhD candidates and research associates at the Hotung Programme.
19 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Recognizing Palestinian Statehood « Middle East atemporal
- Discussion 1: Debate on Palestine’s Statehood and possible UN Membership | Public International law
Leave a Response
I FIND SOME OF YOUR ARGUMENTS A BIT BAFFLING IN FACT UN GENERAL ASSEMLY CAN GIVE PALS SEAT AT UN AND IT MY UNDERSTANDING IN READING THE UN CHARTER IS THAT IT IS BASED ON MAJORITY AND SOVERIGNTY IS BASED ON HOW MUCH SUPPORT THERE IS FOR THE CREATION OF THE STATE AND NOT THE UN CANNOT ALLOW IT ISREAL WAS NOT FORMED THROUGH UNSC BUT THROUGH GENERAL ASSEMBLY I BELIEVE AND THAT RUSSIA INITIALLY ASTAINED BUT RECOGNIZED THEM SOME TIME LATER IF THE PALS GET STRONG SUPPOST IN UNSC BUT IS VETOED BY US AND BRITAIN DOES THIS HELP THAT THEY GOT A LOT OF SUPPORT IN UNSC IS THE VOTE DISCLOSED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE FACT THAT YOU MUST ALSO AGREE THAT 1948 SAW THAT NO LAND TAKEN BY FORCE UNLESS SECCEDED BY OWNER CAN BE RECOGNIZED WHY HAS THE UN AND MOST COUNTRIES DROPPED THIS IS IT NOT SUPPORTING LAW OF THE JUNGLE IT SEEMS UN WAS DELIQUENT IN !949 DRAWRING THE ARMISTICE LINE WHERE IT DID BUT SHOULD HAVE PERSUED ISREAL TO WITHDRAW BEHIND ITS LEGAL BORDERS THUS THE RIGHT OF RETURN WHICH YOUR SUMMATION DOES NOT COVER AND I HAVE QUESTION WHICH I WOULD APPRECIATE AN ANSWER TO IS COMPENSATION AND THE RIGHT OF RETURN ALOWED LEGALLY TO BE ADRESSED AS A TRANSFER OF LAND RATHER THAN ADRESSED AS A PEOPLE ISSUE WHICH WOULD ALLOW PALS TO SETTLE THEIR OWN PEOPLE IT ALSO STOPS THE FEAR MONGERING THAT ISREAL WILL BE DEVOURED LAND AS SETTLEMENT STOPS THIS I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE AN ANSWER EMAILED TO ME THANKYOU
Thank you for your comments. Membership in the UN is indeed based on a (2/3) majority vote in the General Assembly, but this can only be voted on once the Security Council has made a positive recommendation. This has been the procedure for the admission of all States since the founding of the United Nations, including Israel and has nothing to do with the quite separate issue of recognition which is a matter for each individual State. We could not understand clearly what you were saying about sovereignty as no punctuation came through in your comments but suggest that you read the more lengthy analysis on the issue of Palestinian statehood we produced at http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, or more generally read James Crawford's "The Creation of States in International Law", 2nd ed (OUP, 2006). A vote in the UNGA declaring that that body "collectively recognised" Palestine as a State would be more symbolic than legal in its effect (which makes it confusing as a term - it is not the same thing as "recognition" proper), and make it easier for Palestine to accede to international treaties. A subsequent application for membership to the UN would no doubt be all the more difficult to dismiss by the UNSC but never-the-less, membership is not necessary in order to be a State (Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2002 yet no one would dispute it was a State long before this).
There is perhaps much to be said with regards to your comment that the UN was delinquent in 1949 - don't forget though that it was still a young organisation that was struggling to function with the onset of the Cold War, and that the UN Charter was still very new (the admission of States to the UN during the Cold War illustrates well how the process is as much, or even more about high politics than it is about law). The Armistice Lines were not intended (with the exception of the line with Lebanon), to denote international borders and indeed, immediately after its declaration of independence, in 1948 Israel accepted in conversations with States such as the US, that it was in military occupation of those areas outside the Partition Plan boundary assigned to it. The strongest argument for saying that the Armisice Lines now form the presumptive international border comes from the fact that it the PLO itself formally recognised Israel within that territory in 1993, as part of the Oslo Accords. For more on this you could read an analysis we produced on territorial issues in the conflict which is also available on our website.
Sorry not to have a clear answer to your question about the right of return - this is something we will be considering more closely in future however you could read opinions by Guy Goodwin Gill, who is an expert in International Refugee Law. My basic understanding is that the right of return is an individual right, not a collective one that could be easily bargained away in negotiations.
Hi I would just like to comment on a statement you made, " the U.N. was a young organisation IN 1949. ".
Yes it was .,,,,, but at that time NOT representing the majoity of the countries on this globe it was surely not in a position to act legaly in creating a new state .
This article contains so many distortuions of facts that I don't know even where to start commenting on it. First, UNSC resolutions did not call on Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines. Second, the 1967 borders were a cease fire borders after the Jordenian Army launched an attack on Israel in response to the 1948 UN Assembly recognition of the State of Israel, which the Arab never accepted. The territory Israel took from Jordan in 1967 are disputed terrtories, never awarded to Jordan by the UN. Anyone who looks at a map of Europe today can see numerous territories now held by countries that joined the Allies after they were attaked from those territories during the war. Only when it comes to Israel, these common sense consequences are challenged.
The PA does not even control the Gaza strip, after it was given back to the Palesinians, how can anyone suggest they will be able to control attacks by terrorists from their territory if they get a state. This article that we should be impressed by the fact that "Since June 2007 the Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas but some services – such as electricity, health, population registry, the salaries of public sector employees and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip following the Israeli "Cast Lead" military operation – are still provided by the PA." It just neglects to tell us that these services are provided with donations from Western countries and the reason why Hamas allow the PA to provide these services is that Hamas as a terrorist organization cannot receive these funds.
Finally, the authors show their real colors by comparing Israel to Belgium occupation of Congo, implying that Israel is just another Western colonial power, which is a view shared by all those whose goal is to see Israel disappear.
Perhaps I mistake your meaning, but
COMPARE
"...some services – [...] population registry, [...] are still provided by the PA."
WITH
Gisha representative Tamar Feldman told the Turkel Commission
"there is no argument and no dispute over the point that Israel maintains full control over the population registry, and I say this with foundation. This is not some kind of invention of ours..."
[ref. Turkel Commission English language protocols, 13.10.2010.
Arabs in particular and Muslims in general have a reputation difficult to dismiss off hand: there is not a single serious history book that does not confirm the inconvenient truth that as long as these strange creatures are alive and kicking there will be no peace on this planet.
To try and make a legal presentation of the Israel vs. Arabs conflict is totally useless. Mainly because the Arabs don't care about legal niceties or other people's rights and will never allow a Jewish State to exist and prosper in their neighborhood. Or a Christian State, for that matter.
It is unfeasible for these "unterlegene", a.k.a. "Palestinians", to wake up in the morning, look at their Jewish neighbours and not react violently to the profound feeling of inferiority that the view generates in their tortured souls. Usually, the "Palestinians" and most other Muslims, Arabs or not, feel a sudden and uncontrollable urge to wipe Israel off the map so that the feeling of being inferior does not drive them to kill themselves – in the name of Muhammad the prophet.
Throughout their history these people contributed ZERO towards the progress of humanity. They are primitive, liars, haters, invidious and will not be able to continue staring at themselves and survive. So somewhere, something, somehow, will have to give and many innocents will die. Allahu Akbar!
Jayson Rex
Your 'argument' stands as a fine example of the problem's root causes. Bigotry and ignorance.
The Arab objections to a Jewish State were entirely based self determination for the people of Palestine, oddly enough including the Jewish population before mass immigrationon the Articles of the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, International Law, the relative Conventions and after 1945, the UN Charter.
The UN Charter, subsequent International Law and relative Conventions were adopted in large part because of what was visited on the Jewish people under the Nazis. Had Israel adhere to its voluntary obligations to the Law and UN Charter, this issue would likely have been over long ago and there'd have been none of the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against Israel for acting illegally outside the extent of its internationally recognized sovereignty
Our paper mentioned that the PA still provides some governmental services in Gaza. For the PA responsibility to maintain and administer the Palestinian Population Registry, including to issue birth certificates, ID cards and passports, see Article 28, Annex III of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement. See also Gisha, Rafah Crossing: Who Hold the Keys? (2009) 170-171. It then transmits this information to Israel. It is true that Israel refuses to recognise some changes in the Palestinian Population Registry - this has serious implications for instance for Gazans who want to move or who already live in the West Bank. According to Gisha, this refusal amounts to 'control' of the Registry.
First all, to the authors of this article-
Commendable job on the articulation on the issue of statehood recognition on Palestine. I'm currently working on a paper regarding recognition theory and after trying to disentangle the complexities of declaratory theory and constitutive theory, I am attempting to present a case study of Palestine. Much to the credit of your article (which will of course be cited multiple times), I can now organize the incoherency of my facts.
My question to the authors is now that Palestine is a full member of UNESCO, what implication do you think this will have full UN membership, if any, given that the US as a member of the Sec. Council will most definitely veto the recommendation by the General Assembly if it gets one? (unless it already has received such recommendation please correct me if I am misinformed).
-------
To "Jayson Rex"
As much as I am a strong supporter of individual rights and liberties, especially that of free speech, I must say I find your contribution to this forum seriously disconcerting. You are entitled to your opinion, but as a courtesy it would not hurt to be a little professional. With that said, the meaning of your words whether intended or not could very well be misconstrued with seriously negative implications. Whether or not "these people have contributed ZERO towards the progress of humanity" is not a matter for discussion, at least with respect to the point of this article. So clearly, your extremely distorted response can only be indicative of the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about nor do you possess the capacity to form a coherent argument. Moreover what have YOU done towards the progress of humanity? Your response is a sufficient example of an answer to that question. In sum, please be conscientious of the authors who took the time to present their views and of other readers of this forum. Just a friendly suggestion from another "Arab".
Sorry, reverse the order of the terms in my question, I do understand that the General Assembly can vote only after a positive recommendation by the Security Council.
I apologize - I had not monitored this. Thank you very much for your feedback. Re the question are you still working on this issue of recognition?
The current Israeli Government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu leads a government whose polices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are less than democratic. To reject the United Nations from visiting the West Bank to probe illegal settlements is illogical since Mr Netanyahu claims to support a Palestinian State (but not based on the US President’s 1967 lines).
Nonetheless, I believe that there is a desire by most people in the world to see a full and comprehensive peace in the Middle East but this vision has been hampered by Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu, who relentlessly is building settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
To put the conflict into context with respect to international law and the feelings of the world, may I convey the following.
Last November, there were a further 6 UN Resolutions on Palestine and the Middle East. One resolution on Jerusalem was supported by 166 nations plus the UK. Israel disagreed. In fact, there are over 150 UN Resolutions (including 181 and 194) – all remain unimplemented in full.
Furthermore the ruling of the International Court of Justice in the Hague pertaining to the ‘security barrier’, which is 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall, has been sadly ignored by Mr Netanyahu. Perhaps if the ‘security barrier’ had to be built at all, it would have been better to have constructed it on the 1967 borders – instead of inside the internationally recognised Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem).
Nonetheless once this ‘separation barrier’ and the settlement enterprise is completed, Palestinian communities will be separated into pockets of territory that lack contiguity, surrounded by settlements only accessible by settler only roads. ‘Natural growth’ settlements too were not acceptable as part of Phase I of the internationally agreed Road Map (2003). Day by day, the ‘security barrier’ and settlements erode the possibility of a two-state solution and the viability to bring about a fully comprehensive peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
There are over 130 nations in the world that recognise Palestine including India, China, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil. More recently Iceland and Thailand have added to that recognition. Lastly UNESCO’s recognition last year of Palestine (supported by France, Spain, Ireland and Norway amongst many European nations) was still a positive step forward and a counter balance to those who deny Israel or Palestine’s right to exist. Dignity and peace is paramount for both peoples and recognition of both states ensures that those in the rejection camps are marginalized even further.
Resolution 478 (1980)
of 20 August 1980
The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB
Dear All
With respect the international community including the European Union deem settlements as illegal and a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Please see below another UN Security Council Resolution (which is binding).
The other points you raise, I shall be pleased to answer. May I add that the ruling of the International Court of Justice was subsequently supported by the European Union and there was agreement that building within the Palestinian Territories is illegal and a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.
All Security Council resolutions must be adhered to.
Anthony
*** Resolution 694 (1991) ***
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on 24 May 1991
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,
1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;
3. Decides to keep the situation under review.
*** Resolution 672 (1990) ***
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on
12 October 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),
Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people,
Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,
1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;
2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;
3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.
May I lastly quote you a statement from Her Majesty’s Coalition Government of the United Kingdom below? Legal opinion and expertise is a matter they do not lack on the question of settlements.
24th April 2012 – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:
“I strongly condemn the Israeli government’s decision yesterday to turn three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli government in my statement on 5 April to remove - not legalise - outposts across the West Bank. I fully appreciate the difficult political discussion within Israel such action would require. However, the official sanction being given by Israel, designating outposts as settlements for the first time in over 20 years, sets a dangerous precedent for other outposts, which are illegal under both international and Israeli law."
“By seeking to entrench illegal settlements in the West Bank, as this decision does, the Israeli government risks sending the message that it is not serious about its stated commitment to the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United Kingdom, in common with all our European Union partners, urges the Israeli government to listen to Israel's international friends. The UK calls on the Israeli government to focus their efforts on a lasting resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, to which this further shift in settlement policy presents one more obstacle. I call on the Israeli government to rescind this decision."
"The fact that its borders are not fully delineated does not preclude the possibility that Palestine is a State. "
The borders of what remained of the non-self-governing territory of Palestine after Israel was declared independent were defined by default of the recognition of the surrounding states, including Israel.
The Arab States had already been recognized prior to 15 May 1948. Israel defined it's sovereign extent as of 00:01 15 May 1948 (ME time) in its pleas for recognition and was recognized as such. corpus separatum was never instituted. Jerusalem was never legally separated from Palestine.
Israel has never legally annexed any territory 'acquired' by war to its sovereign extent. ('acquired' as opposed to 'restored' Schwebel/Lauterpacht)
"The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, namely: defined territory."
This also applied to Israel, recognized and admitted to the UN thus:
USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”
Russia 17 May 1948 “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29,1!>47, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”
Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”
New Zealand 29 January 1949 “ It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”
Israel's sovereign extent was confirmed by the Israel Government in its statement to the UNSC 22nd May 1948
Israel's borders are disputed by Israel. They're not disputed by the Palestinians or the Interntional Community of Nations who gave recognition to Israel.
Oops. Sorry about the formatting
"Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 242 and 338 call upon Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines
UNSC res 242 doesn't mention Armistice Lines and was aimed at "states" only ( http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r ) Its purpose is expressed in the Egypt Israel and Jordan Israel Peace Treaties, the only two concluded chapters to UNSC res 242. Egypt/Israel example
"reason and history demonstrated that the concept of territory did not necessarily include precise delimitation of the boundaries of that territory" Leads only to this site. Where is this quote actually from?
"In relation to territory, Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 242 and 338 call upon Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, thus indicating that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel in 1967 constitute the territory of the Palestinian State. "
If UNSC res 242 had referenced the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines, they were "not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary... etc" and;
as the Israeli Govt by its own admittance May 22 1948 was operating "outside the territory of the State of Israel" and;
by its own admittance had territories " under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations (occupied) and;
as corpus separatum was never legally instituted separating Jerusalem from Palestine and;
as Israel has never legally annexed any territory 'acquired' in the 1948 war and;
as no country has recognized the extent of Israeli sovereignty beyond the boundaries recommended by UNGA res 181, the non-self-governing territory of Palestine extended far beyond the "territories occupied" in the 1967 war. (see map
Damn missed the formatting again..