International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict: Encyclopedia II - International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict - Legal issues related to sovereignty

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict - Legal issues related to sovereignty

The vast majority of the world's sovereign states are a result of wars that were resolved through peace treaties. Some of these peace treaties were imposed on the losing side in a war; others came about as a result of negotiations that followed wars, or were entered into under the threat of war. In these cases, the applicable law is bound in peace treaties among the states.

All international treaties recognize the supremacy of national sovereignty over other considerations.

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict - Origins

The legal sovereignty over areas now under Israeli rule (including areas within the armistice lines from the War of 1948, areas in Gaza, the Golan Heights, and west of Jordan captured during the Six-Day War) is subject to two different interpretations:

• The Israeli perspective is that the San Remo conference in 1920 explicitly granted the mandate for the relevant areas and today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to Great Britain in order to set up a Jewish homeland there. They further claim that the resolution is still in force and that it still applies to disputed areas not resolved by peace treaties.
• The Arab perspective is that the San Remo conference (if it still applies, which is disputed) made no mention of Jewish sovereignty, nor did it identify which parts of Palestine a "Jewish homeland" would occupy. Furthermore, the right of self-determination of national groups has been recognised many times by the international community.
• Those who reject Israeli claims of sovereignty of all or parts of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza claim that these areas were never intended for Israel in the UN partition plan for Palestine; they were seized from Jordan (whose annexation of the area after 1948 Arab-Israeli War was not recognized by the vast majority of the international community) during the Six Days War and are thus considered "occupied" by Israel. Jordan relinquished its claim to these territories in 1988.

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict - Subsequent treaties and resolutions

During the course of the British mandate in Palestine, the British government sought to reconcile the two claims in different ways. A number of proposals and declarations were put forward, all of which were rejected by one party or the other, and usually both. Again, two different interpretations apply:

• The Israeli perspective is that Great Britain only had the mandate to propose solutions in keeping with the San Remo conference, not to amend them. Proposals that were offered but rejected by either or both of the parties had no legal authority.
• The Arab perspective views British proposals as promises (subsequently broken) to the people of Palestine, see also the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.

After World War II, the British government decided to abandon its mandate in Palestine. A United Nations Commission (UNSCOP) was assigned to recommend a solution to the conflict to the General Assembly. The recommendation was a partition plan that would result in an Arab and a Jewish state in the remaining mandate, and Jerusalem under UN rule, was approved by General Assembly. This plan does not have the authority of international law, since the General Assembly can only express international diplomatic consensus, not make international law. In any case, the plan was rejected by Arab states at the time.

However, the resolution served partially as a basis for the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel to take effect when Great Britain's mandate expired. Many states granted the State of Israel either de facto or de jure recognition. Israel was accepted as a sovereign member state in the United Nations and enjoys diplomatic relations with many, but not all, sovereign states.

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict - The legal consequence of subsequent events

Several events have affected the legal issues related to the conflict:

• After the war in 1948, the mandate ended up being split between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Israel and Jordan annexed all areas under their administration; Egypt maintained a military occupation of Gaza. The United Nations did not assert its authority of Jerusalem, and the city ended up being split between Israel and Jordan.
• Although there were numerous informal and backchannel communications between Israel and Arab states through the years, all Arab states refused to accept Israel's sovereignty until 1979, and most (excluding Jordan, Mauritania, and Egypt) persist in rejecting Israel's right to exist (see Khartoum Resolution).
• The war in 1967 brought all remaining parts of the Mandate (as defined by Great Britain in 1947) as well as parts of the Golan Heights under Israeli administration. Israel subsequently annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan, asserting that the West Bank and Gaza were "disputed territories".
• Both as a result of the wars in 1948 and 1967, Arab residents of the former Mandate were displaced and classified by the United Nations as "refugees"
• In approximately the same time frame, most Jews in Arab states fled, with most of them absorbed by Israel.
• United Nations Security Council issued resolution 242 that set the framework for a resolution through "land for peace".
• In 1979 Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1979, agreeing on international borders between the two states, but leaving the disposition of Gaza for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
• In 1988, the PLO declared "the formation of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital."
• In 1993, the PLO and Israel signed a declaration of principles that included mutual recognition and the ultimate goal of establishing self rule for the Palestinian people.
• In 1994, Jordan and Israel also signed a peace treaty.
• No other Arab state has granted legal recognition of Israel's sovereignty. A formal state of war still exists between Israel and several Arab states, though armistice agreements govern interaction between the states.
• Several attempts at finalizing the terms for a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO have failed, though so far, both parties accept each other as legitimate negotiation partners

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Legal issues related to sovereignty", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki