To the contrary, having accepted the partition lines as the limits of the state and having declared readiness to provide assistance in implementing the resolution, 64 the government of the State of Israel precluded itself from going back on this commitment. Consequently, while the incorporation by Israel of the areas situated outside the partition lines in terms of law was not entirely excluded, it was not possible without fulfilling strict requirements.
It is hard to deny that the international community is the primary source of rules and principles of international law and de facto the ultimate judge of every situation involving their application. It must be accepted that, in the same manner as parliaments in the sphere of municipal legislation, the international community is capable of making exceptions of a more or less general character from those rules and principles.
Therefore, it cannot be denied that illegal or at least legally doubtful acts affecting the community as a whole, if generally recognized, may produce full legal effects, such as creating valid titles to territory. This concept, accepted by many eminent scholars, 65 may modify usual consequences of the ex injuria jus non oritur.
It seems desirable to adopt the view that in cases like the one analyzed in this paper, involving fundamental principles of international law, the fact of subsequent general acquiescence should be considered as the most important factor in the process of creation of the title — such an approach would permit to safeguard the validity of the very principle of illegality of acts of acquisition of territory by use of force.
Nevertheless, one cannot escape the conclusion that, in fact, in such cases the act of military conquest will be found at the very beginning of the chain of developments leading to consolidation of the title. It was the guardian of the rights of inhabitants of the mandated territories, the apparent addressee of the Israeli declarations of acceptance of the provisions of the partition resolution, and it was obviously affected by territorial modifications involving the use of force in the territory of former mandatory Palestine.
As will be presented below, such a consent, in fact, has been granted not only by the international community as a whole, but also by the Palestinians, whose right to self-determination and independence has eventually been universally recognized. The forthcoming considerations relate generally to the areas situated between the partition lines and the demarcation lines established in accordance with armistice agreements, as they existed before the war of However, the question of opinion of the international community as to status of West Jerusalem remains outside the scope of the present article.
On the other hand, it is difficult to determine precisely the point in time where the process of consolidation came to an end, but it is not rare in cases where legal status of territory crystallizes in effect of a more or less long-lasting process. What is most important, this process has been completed, and therefore it would be interesting to look through its different phases. Accordingly, on May 14th,the General Assembly adopted a. In consequence, facing developments clearly diverging from the partition scheme, neither the United Nations nor, in general, its member-states, insisted upon its full implementation, and Israel was not called by the United Nations to withdraw.
Instead, it was widely accepted that it was for the interested governments finally to arrive at an agreement resolving the outstanding questions between them. The situation became even clearer after In result of the short conflict of June, Israel took control over remaining parts of former mandatory Palestine, that is, the West Bank of Jordan with East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
But it was generally recognized that the results of the June war did not affect the territorial regime of Palestine based on the armistice lines. Acquisition of Title to Territory 81 inherent right, the postulate of implementation of this right has been naturally linked with the framework of the Resolutiongiving eventually birth to the widely accepted vision of two states co-existing in Palestine on the basis of the pre lines.
This idea has been endorsed in many widely-supported General Assembly resolutions76 and recent peace proposals. Furthermore, the boundaries formally established between Israel on one hand and Egypt and Jordan on the other under relevant provisions of the peace treaties have been generally recognized and have not been challenged, even though the Egyptian-Israeli frontier has separated Egypt not only from the territories to which Israel had a title as a newly-created state, but also from the areas allotted by the partition resolution to Palestinian Arabs.
Again, this fact is not challenged, although this line separates Lebanon from territories allotted in to Palestinian Arabs. Eventually, the uniform and constant treatment as the occupied territories by the international community of the areas that fell under Israeli control in remains in strong contrast with the practice concerning the areas situated between the partition lines and the pre armistice lines. This differentiation was de facto confirmed in its advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which for the purpose of examination of legality of the wall construed by Israel clearly distinguished between territory of the State of Israel and Palestinian occupied territories, separated by the Green Line.
Initially opposed to the idea of the partition of Palestine and the creation of the Jewish state there, 82 eventually they have recognized the pre lines as the basis of national aspirations of the Palestinian people. A similar standpoint, emphasising the role of the Security Council Resolutions andhas also been reflected in the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The only problem involved and calling for an additional analysis is the legal character of the line separating Israel from the Palestinian territories.
As will be presented below, it does not seem justified to recognize it as a fully-fledged frontier within the meaning attributed to this term by international law. Legal character of the Green Line.
It goes without saying that establishment of an international boundary must involve either the element of consent of the interested parties or action by a competent authority, such as an international court endowed with the appropriate jurisdiction. So far, no formal agreement has been concluded concerning the boundaries, and no decision of an international court or other international authority has bound the Israeli government and the Palestinian authorities in this respect.
On the other hand, there is no tacit agreement between the parties as to the role of the pre lines in general. The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and large areas of the West Bank, settlement activities in the occupied territories and opinions expressed as to the character of the Green Line87 disperse any possible doubts in this respect. Furthermore, the principle that the object of establishing of a frontier is to achieve stability and permanence is well-established in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice88 and of other international tribunals.
That the frontiers should be negotiated in this case is also generally accepted by the international community. Bearing this in mind, it is difficult to accept that the line recognized as permanent and final neither by the interested parties nor by the third states has crystallized as a definitive frontier. True, owing to the existence of the Green Line it is not difficult to determine where the territory of the State of Israel ends and the occupied Palestinian territories begin.
Yet, this is not due to the fact that the line is an international boundary, but because it separates territories whose status is well-defined, and this need not necessarily entail the conclusion that the frontiers are also finally settled. The reasoning presented above finds additional support in the opinion of the International Court of Justice of and in the practice of the General Assembly. The Court appears to have very carefully distinguished the concept of boundaries.
Moreover, it is of considerable importance that the Roadmap, the spirit of which still remains the widely-accepted guide for the Middle Eastern peace process, 97 contains an interesting reference to the problem of frontiers.
It remains to be analyzed whether the fact of recognition of the Palestinian state within the pre borders by a considerable number of governments should be regarded as having any effect on the reasoning consistently presented in the preceding paragraphs.
The author offers that it should not. Prima facie, the discussed recognitions would indeed suggest that the states in question have accepted the status of the pre lines as definitively settled.
However, this conclusion seems to be unjustified. The process of recognition of the Palestinian state has been in progress since and it cannot therefore be maintained that it constitutes a novelty, or that it reflects any recent modification of the attitude of the large part of the international.
Acquisition of Title to Territory 85 community which generally accepts the principle that the frontiers should be determined during the permanent status negotiations. It appears that the issue of recognition of the State of Palestine operates on a different level than issues of the permanent status negotiations, and seems rather to be associated with the undisputed status of the Palestinian territories than with the problem of precisely finalized frontiers.
Moreover, it appears to be regarded by many governments as secondary to the process of negotiations and some of them expressly emphasize that the intended effect of recognition is to increase the prospects that negotiations will resolve final status issues. This is accompanied by the continual acceptance of the boundaries as a subject of future negotiations in accordance with Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
In summary, the Green Line may be regarded as the de facto frontier between the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and it is hard to deny that the effects generated by this line are similar to those that a fully-established border would entail. But this is only insofar as the notion of a boundary applies to the pre lines. Though identity of effects may contribute to elimination of practical consequences of the doctrinal divergences between some concepts of international law, this is certainly not the case here.
The concepts of a temporary de facto.
Regimen cas tienen derecho a cts
In the course of the last decades Israel has obtained sovereign rights to territories which it had captured during the war without any pre-existing title, and which its authorities themselves initially treated, properly from the point of view of international law, as occupied territories.
This particular case of acquisition of territorial sovereignty must be recognized as of highly exceptional character, in departure from the principles rooted in Article 2 4 of the Charter. True, this case had many of its own peculiarities. Invasion of Arab states on Palestine and consistent denial of right to establish their state by Jews did not render a service to the Palestinian cause, either.
Eventually, not yet developed principle of self-determination of peoples could not have lent such a support to Palestinian Arabs as it has since mid-seventies of the previous century in relation to territories occupied by Israel during the June war of Therefore, it is an inevitable conclusion that there has been an international practice revealing that the principle that the use of force cannot serve as a root of the title to territory even in the United Nations era cannot be analyzed without due attention paid to special considerations surrounding those cases where the liposuccion rhone community.
Acquisition of Title to Territory Annex I. Sketch map No 1 Territorial changes in Palestine Annex II. However, as far as the question of frontiers within Palestine is concerned, the only relevant international instrument was the non-binding resolution of the General Assembly II of November 29th, see infra, text accompanying notes See Annex 1, below.
All with the exception of Ethiopia agreed to the holding of the special session devoted to this matter. For the reference to an act of commitment in advance to the expected recommendation of the General Assembly, see. Memoirs by Harry S. Vol 27 April at cc Also Mr. Rockwell of the Department of State noted that such proclamation of sovereignty over areas held by Israel could have been expected in case of annexation of the West Bank by Jordan Herbert A.
For the view of the American government that territories held by Israel outside the partition lines were occupied, see Fine. Agreement, supra note 51, art 5. See also ibid at, — See also Fine,supra note 23 at It was the view expressed in resolutions of both the Council and the General Assembly that it was for the interested states to settle the questions outstanding between them.
For opinions on the continuity of application to the Palestinian soin de visage a base de curcuma of the principles of non-annexation and that the well-being and development of peoples under mandate form a sacred trust of civilization, see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, supra note 1 atseparate opinions of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Elaraby.
For commentaries of members of the Institute on this principle, see ibid at Palestine was recognized as indivisible territorial unit in Article 2 of the. Palestinian National Charter, according to its versions of and I, October Revue québécoise de droit international Année pp. Résumé eng The territory to which the State of Israel had a title as a newly-created state corresponded to the areas allotted to Jews by the provisions of the resolution II adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29,which had recommended the partition of Palestine and creation of the Arab state, the Jewish state and the City of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum.
Résumé fre Le territoire auquel l'État d'Israël a eu le droit [juridique] en tant qu'État nouvellement-créé, correspondait aux territoires attribués aux Juifs par la résolution II de l''Assemblée générale de l'ONU en date du 29 novembre Plan I. Title to territory of Israel as a newly-created state [link] II. Acquisition of territory by Israel outside its original territorial domain [link] A.
Status of territories of former mandatory Palestine situated outside the State of Israel [link] B. Passez à. Sections de cette page. Adresse courriel ou téléphone Mot de passe Informations de compte oubliées? À propos. Voir plus de contenu de I. Se connecter. Informations de compte oubliées? Plus tard. Publications des visiteurs. Erika Cancino.