then it’s a territory of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q
If you can disprove any of the items here with logic and citations of official documents from credible sources, I will gladly remove the offending item. Till then, feel free to put up, sans abuse and personal attacks…..enjoy!
link to this section
1st some Background Information
WHO OWNS TERRITORY: The deeds of Government/regime & private/corporate/institutional ownership of ‘real estate’ does not give those parties territorial or sovereign rights. The ‘real estate’ of Governments/regimes & private/corporate/institutional land ownership can change hands. It is not the ‘territory’ of states. E.g., Government Institutes in Japan own large tracts of land in Australia. It does not give them any sovereign right to it, they are not Australian citizens. Australia could nationalize that real estate and depending on there being a contract or treaty between Japan and Australia pay or not pay compensation.
The ‘territories’ of an entity, whether Sovereign, state or stateless, titled or un-titled, belong to all the entity’s citizens, regardless of their political persuasions or ‘real estate’ ownership deeds. This includes the homeless, non-voting, non-land owning, alcoholic bum who lives under a bridge. This is true of all entities. (this BTW also applies to RoR).
All immigrants into Palestine under the British Mandate, were required to become citizens of Palestine. Any person or organization who owned ‘real estate’ in Palestine and were not citizens of Palestine, were not a part of the entity of Palestine, they had no right to determine the fate of territory in Palestine.
There is no obligation for an entity to declare statehood or independent sovereignty, It would quite simply be against the very principle of independence. Nor is there any obligation to recognize states. There are numerous UN Member States who do not recognize each other, they are never the less legitimate states and under Customary International Law and the UN Charter, all must show “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” as reflected in numerous UNSC Resolutions.
When the majority of the International Community of states do recognize an entity as a Sovereignty or State, the objections of the parties who do not recognize the entity, are over ridden. Once a majority have ratified a convention, it passes into Customary International Law. Likewise with recognition. Once recognized by a majority, Sovereign Independence becomes irrevocable.
Despite the Arab States objections, Israel was recognized as a Sovereign State “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 “, and was accepted into the UN, before Israel tried to illegally claim( on Aug 31st 1949 ) any territory “…outside of Israel”
A Sovereign State controls all it’s territories and must have delineated borders in order to indicate exactly what it controls. It can do whatever it likes within it’s borders. It cannot acquire territory through unilateral annexation. Under Customary International Law since at least the mid 1800′s is by legal annexation (see the US annexation of Texas). Legal annexation requires a referendum of the citizens in the territory to be annexed. A Sovereign State acting outside the extent of it’s Sovereign borders, may only do so in accordance with International Law, the Laws of War, Humanitarian Law, (all mandatory, without exception) and if it is a UN Member, according to the UN Charter and any Conventions it has ratified (Contracting Power) and/or anything it has committed itself to uphold. E.g., Israel obliged itself to the principles of the UN Charter before it became a UN Member state. (see Declaration)
A State on the other hand, might not control all of it’s territories. It’s territories might/may be under the control or administration or protected by another party by agreement or treaty. It cannot acquire territory through unilateral annexation. Legal annexation is by agreement or treaty with the other entity. A state acting outside the extent of it’s borders, may only do so in accordance with International Law, the Laws of War, Humanitarian Law, (all mandatory, without exception) and if it is a UN Member, according to the UN Charter and any Conventions it has ratified (Contracting Power) and/or anything it has committed itself to uphold.
An Entity might/may exist independently or under the control or administration of another party or group of parties. This might/may be under agreement or occupation. Under an agreement, it becomes a protectorate or is under the UN Charter for Trustees. An entity under occupation is protected by the UN Charter Chapter XI. Any entity may under take to adhere to International Law, the Laws of War, Humanitarian Law and/or the principles of the UN Charter.
In respect to the Geneva Conventions, if an entity is a protectorate or under a trusteeship or being represented (e.g., the Arab States represented Palestine), the protector or trustee/s are the High Contracting Power under which the Geneva Conventions apply. Prior to the Geneva Conventions coming into force, they were still bound by Customary International Law, the Laws of War and where applicable, the UN Charter.
Despite some Palestinians not having deeds for ‘real estate’ under the British Mandate over Palestine, the territory was theirs as much as it was anyone else living in it. Despite there being Jewish ‘real estate’ ownership in Palestine under the British Mandate over Palestine, the Jewish private, corporate and institutional ‘real estate’ ownership did not confer Sovereignty over territory.
The extent of the Sovereign territory of the Jewish state, was given to the Jewish people of the world, completely gratis, without the consultation of the local population of the territory of British Mandate Palestine. From the moment Israel Declared Sovereignty, the private, corporate and institutional owned ‘real estate’ outside of Israel’s Sovereign borders was by default not a part of Israel.
Israel’s Sovereignty over the extent of it’s Declared boundaries/frontiers was given de jure recognition I.e., recognition of the State of Israel. The provisional Government was given de facto recognition because it was only a provisional government. The US granted Israel’s first elected Government de jure recognition on the 31st Jan 1949.
link to this section
Was the original intention of the British for a Jewish state in Palestine? The answer is NO!
BALFOUR :
“The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”
It is interesting to note he says “the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine“, which indicates the intention of the Balfour declaration was not to have a separate Jewish ‘state’, but a homeland for Jewish folk IN Palestine, the peoples to be Palestinian citizens, under Palestinian Law. Where of course, under those circumstances, as citizens of Palestine, Jewish folk would have had the right to live anywhere in Palestine.
link to this section
There is no mention of a Jewish State in the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine (in particular see Article 7)
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that countryArticle 2 The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Article 4 An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
link to this section
This is re-iterated in the British White Paper (1922)
British White Paper (1922) ” It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change. “
link to this section
Re-iterated again in the British White Paper (1939)
British White Paper (1939)
His Majesty’s Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.
Israel exists. So it’s all water under the bridge. People should get over it? Facts on the ground have changed the reality?
Well, no. Because A) Peace agreements are based on Internationally recognized borders of the parties, even if only one has them. B) It shows, if the Palestinians agree to the fabled ‘67 borders, (which in fact are only armistice lines between Israel and the other parties who signed the armistice), that contrary to the Israeli propaganda, it will be the Palestinians who are being generous.
Q: Why should decent folk tolerate lies, propaganda and fallacies about the past being purposefully promoted and used TODAY, on Israel’s behalf TODAY, in order to justify and support it’s continued and illegal expansionist policies, TODAY.
link to this section
As for G_/od having promised it and the oft claimed ‘right to live anywhere in Palestine’ in this day and age. Sorry G-/od, the Peoples Council sold you out when Israel accepted and Declared Sovereignty over the borders outlined in UNGA resolution 181 and was recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of states. Not a binding resolution, true. However, a Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding!
Q1: Where is the deed, signed by G-od?
Q2: If Israel’s borders are not defined, how can it be a sovereignty?
Non-partisan repository for Documents on the Palestine / Israel issue
link to this section
RECOGNITION: A Sovereign or non-sovereign state is considered ‘recognized’ when the majority of the International Community of States grants recognition. Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.”
There are different forms of recognition within the UN and the International Community. Although it is not obligatory for Member states to grant recognition, all states must acknowledge boundaries and acknowledge the right to live in peace within those boundaries. This is reflected in the UNSC resolutions on conflicts between the Arab states and Israel. (UNSC res 242) “….acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
More on USNC Res 242 It does not say ‘negotiate’, it says ‘acknowledgement of’
link to this section
SOVEREIGN STATES: In order to become a Sovereign State, an entity must define and have full control over the territories it wishes to declare sovereignty over. The requirement to define is so that the International Community of States knows exactly what they are claiming as their own, in order to recognize them as a Sovereignty.
Their Declaration of Sovereignty must then be recognized by the majority of the International Community of States. Recognition by the majority of the International Community of States over rides those states objecting.
Sovereign states can only acquire further territory by legal annexation. Ie., by agreement or treaty. Unilateral annexation is not permitted, nor is territory acquired by war or claiming armistice lines as borders when they weren’t borders before the armistice.
Q: – If it is illegal to acquire territory by war and if armistice lines were not borders before the armistice and if the Sovereign state of Israel has never legally annexed any territory, can you please produce a map of Israel’s actual Sovereign territory, that includes Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba, Acre, and all the territories acquired by war by 1949?
link to this section
NON-SOVEREIGN STATES: An entity may declared statehood without having full control over all their territories. They can, at a later date, declare sovereignty. Meanwhile, their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force. Only through mutual agreement, Legal Annexation. Likewise protectorates are through mutual agreement. Non-sovereign states can only acquire further territory by legal annexation.
link to this section
ENTITIES: Entities whose territories are usually identified by, but outside of, the borders of adjacent Sovereign and Non-Sovereign States. There is no obligation for entities to declare statehood. Never the less, their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force. Only through mutual agreement, Legal Annexation. Likewise protectorates are through mutual agreement.
… HOME …
————
link to this section
DECLARING STATEHOOD: A declaration of statehood is not made on behalf of an entity by a Government or a political party. Political parties & regimes change. It is made by a politically neutral body which only exists for the time it takes to Declare statehood and institute a political system in the new state. As such, they might have a mandate. They do not have a charter.
For example, the Fatah and Hamas Charters are irrelevant to what kind of state the Palestinians might choose to have. Hamas & Fatah are both political parties. Neither can declare statehood.
A good example of the process is the People’s Council who declared the Jewish State on 14th May 1948
An entity may declare statehood under occupation, it CANNOT declare sovereignty under occupation. The British had to end the Mandate over Palestine in order to give either party the opportunity to declare sovereignty. Likewise Indonesia was required to withdraw in order for East Timor to declare sovereignty.
Israel would be legally be required to relinquish ALL control over ALL the territories not within it’s actual sovereignty, in order for the Palestinians to declare themselves a Sovereign State. This is of huge concern because Israel has not legally annexed any of the territory it has illegally acquired by war since it’s own Declaration of Sovereignty in 1948. See HERE.
link to this section
ISRAEL’S DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: Supersedes all prior promises, declarations, resolutions. On the 14th May 1948, Israel became a Sovereign State within the borders proposed by UNGA Res 181. They were accepted by the Peoples Council, in order that the new Jewish State be recognized as a Sovereign State. Resolution 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State. Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory outside of it’s Sovereign territory.
You will often encounter the argument that Israel has no borders because the Arab states did not recognize it. However, Israel was recognized by the majority of the International Community of states (democracy at work). Furthermore the existing Arab states were already recognized BEFORE Israel declared in 1948. The borders of the Arab States are the same now, as they were adjoining the British mandate over Palestine in 1948 and Israel’s are the same as they were under declaration.
This is reflected for example in the Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949 where it confirms that Lebanon not only bordered Israel, but Lebanon also bordered PALESTINE.
link to this section
It is also shown in the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty.
Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty – Article II “The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.”
Q: Sovereign states must have defined territory in order to be recognized as sovereign states. As Israel is a Sovereign state and it has never legally annexed any of the territories it has acquired by war, what are it’s actual sovereign borders?
… HOME …
Hi Talknic.
Three quotes from the first General Attorney of Palestine, the moderate jewish Zionist Norman Bentwich:
“A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights.”
(Norman Bentwich, Palestine, 1934, p. 101 cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 15)
I have Cattan’s book right in front of me and you can also find the quote in Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=6uQsAAAAMAAJ&q=bentwich+distinguished#search_anchor
http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=6uQsAAAAMAAJ&q=following+terms#search_anchor
http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=6uQsAAAAMAAJ&q=benn#search_anchor
He must have also writen nearly the same in an earlier book:
“Again, the Jewish national home was defined by a Jewish jurist, Mr. Norman Bentwich, in a book published by him in 1924 called The Mandate System. On page 24, he wrote as follows: “It signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas.”
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1343338D30D39DCF85256E5C00578E01
He wrote about the Mandate:
“The Mandatory … will be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of the Mandated State, and will have the right to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine outside its territorial limits. Palestine will have a separate Government and form a separate national unity with its particular citizenship.”
(Norman Bentwich, “Mandated Territories,” supra note 6, p. 53. cit. in http://bcrfj.revues.org/index6405.html#ftn35)
From a treaty before the mandate between the future Mandatories French and Britain:
His Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador, in addressing to his Excellency the President of the Council, Minister for Foreign Affairs, a copy of the report and of the maps annexed thereto, signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Newcombe, the British delegate, * whose signature equally binds the State under mandate*, has the honour to inform him that His Britannic Majesty’s Government agree to ratify the proposals of the commission, and consider the present note as being equivalent to ratification.
French part:
Le Ministère des Affaires étrangères, en adressant à Son Excellence l’Ambassadeur d’Angleterre à Paris un exemplaire du rapport et des cartes annexées signé par le lieutenant-colonel Paulet, délégué français, dont la signature engage également *l’Etat sous mandat*, a l’honneur de lui faire savoir que le Gouvernement de la République accepte de ratifier les propositions de la Commission et considère la présente note comme valant ratification.
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/29/00039450.pdf
Israelis international lawyer Shabtai Rosenne:
“The statehood of the territories formerly part of Asiatic Turkey was provisionally recognized, but not their independence, and the mandatory régime was evolved to accommodate this state of affairs to the Wilsonian principle of non-annexation. Here, as in the case of the European secession states, the new statehoods although recognized only provisionally, came into existence ex tunc with the establishment of the mandatory régime and the withdrawal of the mandate, with the approval of the Council of the League, in the case of Iraq and with the formal a posteriori approval of the Assembly of the League in the cases of. Syria, the Lebanon, and Transjordanion was sufficient to transform this bare existence as a state into full independence.”
(Shabtai Rosenne: Effect of Change of Sovereignty upon Municipal Law”)
http://www.google.de/search?q=%22The+statehood+of+the+territories+formerly+part+of+Asiatic+Turkey+was+provisionally+recognized%2C+but+not+their+independence%2C+and+the+mandatory+r%C3%A9gime+was+evolved+to+accommodate+this+state+of+affairs+to+the+Wilsonian%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=de&client=firefox-a&hs=ao2&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=%22The+statehood+of+the+territories%22+%2B%22Effect+of+Change+of+Sovereignty+upon+Municipal+Law%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1280&bih=830&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b
(Had to squeeze every single world out with Google)
Hope you like it.
Comment by Michael — November 6, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
“1. There is no obligation for non-state entities to declare statehood”
A) Non-state entities are areas of territory that have not had statehood or independent sovereignty declared over them or have not been legally annexed to an already Independent Sovereign State. These fall into several categories such as protectorates (under the protection of existing declared states), semi autonomous regions etc and regions that have simply seen no reason to declare, they’re not threatened or self sufficient or simply happy with the status quo. Palestine was for centuries one of the few examples.
B) An obligation to declare independence defeats the notion of independence.
Self-determination. Inherent in the concept of being independent. The same on a personal level. One can only advise another person to be independent and/or guide them towards being independent ‘promote the realization of the right of self-determination’. The final step is theirs, alone.
UNGA Res 181 was a non-binding (not obligatory) resolution passed by the General Assembly, outlining the criteria and recommending boundaries. Although UNGA resolutions are themselves non-binding, they often contain reminders of binding criteria such as International Law, Conventions and binding UNSC resolutions. If Res 181 was to be a binding resolution, it would have to have been a UNSC resolution, which would have defeated the very notion of independence.
The argument that UNGA Res 181 is irrelevant because the Arab States refused to recognize it, is a fallacy. There is no article requiring a co-signature between the two parties, as that would have defeated the notion of independence.
The Israel Declaration itself enshrines UNGA Res 181 and Israel was granted recognition by the majority of the International Community of nations, over riding the Arab States legal objections. Proof – Israel is recognized as an Independent Sovereign State and a Member of the UN.
Israel accepted without reservations all the criteria and recommendations in UNGA Res 181 and declared. In doing so, Israel voluntarily obliged itself to the binding criteria inherent in … A) UNGA Res 181 … B) in it’s own Declaration … C) by default it also defined what was not it’s own. What remained of the non-state entity of Palestine after Israel declared was not obliged to declare, nor could even if it wanted, because Jewish forces were already in control of some of it’s territories by the time the British occupation ended. Since 1948 it has been Israel alone preventing the Palestinians independence. The Palestinians have never in the entire history of the region had an opportunity to miss. There has always been one entity or another in control of some or all their territories.
“2. Their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force”
A prime example is the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine Also here (often mistakenly called the British Mandate over Palestine), where the Ottoman Empire had been defeated in war. The British occupied Palestine (which had been a semi autonomous region under the Ottoman empire) as a trustee. The British didn’t claim Palestine as it’s own sovereign territory. (nor did Egypt claim Gaza or Jordan claim the West Bank as their own they both occupied as trustees)
The mandate (orders) the British were given by the League of Nations, were to try to form a state from a non-state entity. Under the mandate, the British had a right to hand over the territories East of the river Jordan to another Power to administrate (Article 25). This went to the French and under their stewardship TransJordan was first declared a state (not an Independent State as it was still administrated by another power) by consent of the vast majority of it’s inhabitants. TransJordan eventually became an Independent Sovereignty in 1946, no longer a part of the non-state entity of Palestine. It was not a part of the 1947 Partition of Palestine.
The 1947 Partition of Palestine however, was formulated on behalf of the Zionist Federation (which did not originate in Palestine) and the Arab States as regional Powers.
Even though the Arab States were a part of the process, representing the notion of a ‘New Arab State’, they saw this as contrary to the notions of independence based on the desires of the inhabitants (Arab and Jewish, many of whom were Arab Jews), who were not consulted. (Re-iterated by Balfour in 1947 “The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”)
In respect to the ‘acquisition of territory by war/force : UNSC Res 242 for example, states unequivocally : “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …”
‘acquisition’ is obtaining something which did not formerly belong to you, e.g., not ‘sovereign’. (see Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice )
The inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, defensive or aggressive, is based on the notion that citizens of an entity or territory, might not have voted for or even been able to vote for an aggressive regime in power when war is waged. For example: Did the citizens of Iraq get to freely vote for Saddam Hussein?
Hope this has made it clearer.
Comment by talknic — October 13, 2010 @ 3:08 am
Yes, it helps alot. Your arguments are very clear.
Comment by Michael — October 13, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
Hi Talknic,
hope you like it. Zhe Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1937:
“For the Mandates Commission, Palestine had never ceased to constitute a separate entity. It was one of those territories which, under the terms of the Covenant, might be regarded as “provisionally independent”. The country was administered under an A mandate by the United Kingdom, subject to certain conditions and particularly to the condition appearing in Article 5: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be . . . in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power”. [...] Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7
Comment by Michael — December 20, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Hi Michael,
Thx….now included here>> The denial of the greater part of Jewish history in the region, as Palestinians, is simply BIZARRE!!
Perhaps a page of instances where similar references are made AND agreed to by the Zionist Federation. There is nothing quite as convincing as showing folk the gaping holes in the Hasbara.
LOL
Comment by talknic — December 20, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Hi Michael,
Yes. The UN Charter – Trustees – http://uncharter.org/chapter/12 http://uncharter.org/chapter/13
Also see here
Cheers
Comment by talknic — October 12, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
Thanx alot again.
I should have been more precise. You state:
1. There is no obligation for non-state entities to declare statehood.
2. Their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force.
Any good sources?
Comment by Michael — October 12, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Hi Talnic,
can you give me a source about the rights of non-state-entities?
Comment by Michael — October 11, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
Hi, I am just not understanding this?
what defines an Entity?
And can i clarify, an Independent body can declare statehood for an entity, and then if the majority of sovereign states accept it,it becomes a sovereign state by law?
Can Sovereign states by dissolved by majority of states vote?
so theoretically. I can set up an independent body in Alaska, declare statehood, and if the majority of soverign states accept alaska can become an legal soverign state?
Maybe a couple of scenarios or comparisons would be good to help understand this whole, entity, state, sovereign state, borderless thingy
Comment by ilfordnorthelections — July 6, 2010 @ 9:08 am
Howdy.
Just to clarify…the International Community of States is not the UN, even though most states are in the UN and the UN was set up by them.
The International Community of States is all the states who have been recognized by a majority of already existing states, according to the criteria their majority have set.
In order to be recognized, a declaration is made by a politically neutral body, on behalf of all the people within the territories [1] being claimed for the state, regardless of their political persuasions. The declaration is TO the International Community of States in order that the declaring entity be accepted as a part of the International Community of States, as a state.
Recognition is granted on the basis that the new state has defined boundaries and that it will adhere to International Law. (same for entry into the UN)
Enter the UN… International Law is formed when a convention is ratified by the majority of UN Member states. Until such time as a majority have ratified a convention, only the signatories are bound to the convention. Entry into the UN is granted on the presumption that the state undertakes to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law
“Can Sovereign states by dissolved by majority of states vote?”
No. It’s only recognition they’re giving and they don’t vote to give recognition, it is up to the individual states to recognize IF they wish. There are states who do not recognize each other, but the majority do.
“so theoretically. I can set up an independent body in Alaska, declare statehood, and if the majority of soverign states accept alaska can become an legal soverign state?”
No, it’s already a part of a recognized state. You’d have to secede. If secession is granted by the state, then you could declare etc.
—-
An entity – any person or identifiable group of persons.
State – Defined territory. (Could be assisted in controlling it’s territories. Not independent)
Sovereign state – In total control of the territories being declared. Independent.
Borders – All states are defined by borders/boundaries. Non-state territories are usually defined by default, by the defined boundaries of their neighbours. I.e., if it isn’t sovereign territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, it’s a part of the non-state entity of Palestine.
——
[1] Israel is the only state to have ever been declared on behalf of a people (the world’s Jewish population), who are not citizens within the territories being declared, (even those not yet born)
Comment by talknic — July 7, 2010 @ 4:39 pm