Palestine's ultimate goal is to become a member of the world body, allowing it all the rights of other member states, including the right to sponsor and vote on General Assembly resolutions and the right to field candidates for key UN posts. Membership, which requires nine votes from the member Security Council then a simple majority in the General Assembly, would confer legitimacy to Palestine as a legitimate actor on the international stage.
United Nations observer status: facts The Palestinians are to formally apply for upgraded Uninted Nations membership to obtain the rank of a non-member state for Palestine along lines that existed before the Six Day War. Agence france Presse. Sudan's military head appoints new apex council after takeover.
Britain's forgotten heroes remembered at Sharjah graveyard. It is also important to remember that it is not just parties to the Statute of the ICJ that are entitled to use the Court. So Palestine can use the Court if it fulfil conditions laid down by the Council.
Rather than laying down conditions for use by non-parties on a case by case basis, the Council has in SC Res 6 9 [typo corrected] laid down general conditions that must be met by the non-party.
So Palestine would not need to get specific council authorization to use the ICJ. Under SC Res. According to paragraph 2 of that resolution, a declaration by a non-State party accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ may either be particular dealing with particular disputes or general dealing with all disputes or classes of disputes. A general declaration may be made as under Art. In short Art. However, saying that Palestine can use the ICJ does not mean that it can use it with respect to or against?
For there to be a case between Palestine and Israel at the ICJ, there would still need to be a specific basis for jurisdiction. Israel does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ so the only way in which Palestine could initiate a case against Israel would be were there was a special agreement between the two to go to the ICJ by special agreement hardly likely at the moment or where some other treaty to which both are party gives the ICJ jurisdiction.
It is not clear what treaties would fall within that category. Thinking more broadly than the position of Palestine before the ICC and the ICJ, one question that is raised by the recent action of General Assembly is whether Palestine should now be regarded, under international law, as a State for all questions for which that is relevant. The declaratory theory of recognition posits that recognition is at best declaratory of an existing Statehood and is neither required for the creation of, nor does it constitute Statehood.
Under this theory, what is required for Statehood is the fulfilment of objective criteria for Statehood, under the Montevideo Convention and perhaps also under additional legal criteria. The declaratory theory of recognition is generally to be preferred and is generally preferred to its rival, the constitutive theory. However, acceptance of the declaratory theory should not be taken to mean that recognition is never constitutive. A distinction should be drawn between individual recognition and collective recognition.
Collective recognition, particularly collective recognition adopted within the institutional framework of the UN can have a constitutive effect as explained in this recent paper by my Oxford colleague Jure Vidmar. For one thing, as has already been examined above, such collective recognition can have important constitutive effects within international institutions such that an entity that is collectively recognised is then treated as a State within international institutions where questions of statehood are relevant.
Indeed one may argue that collective recognition should be constitutive because it amounts to a waiver by the international community of defects which may otherwise exist in claims of Statehood. In addition, it is a mechanism by which the international community can give effect to important community values that may affect claims of Statehood. For example, collective recognition of an entity that possesses the right to self-determination but does not possess an effective government or whose independence is in doubt, may be seen as a way of giving effect to the importance of the self-determination claim over and above the claims of effectiveness.
So, there are good reasons for arguing that Palestine is indeed a State under international law because of collective recognition. However, again this is not to say that it is the GA action which necessarily brought this about — the UNESCO vote was also an act of collective recognition. Also, Palestine was already recognised by states before the GA vote. For now, I am unsure about whether to regard collective recognition on the basis of an aggregate of individual recognitions as the same as a single concerted act of collective recognition.
I have also left unclear precisely what we should regard as collective recognition. However, I would suggest that where only 9 States oppose the act of recognition, we have collective recognition even though over 40 abstained.
Thus, one state enters a convention because it agrees to take a certain attitude regarding some aspect of the exercise of its attributes i. Thus, it is nonsence to pretend that an entity may gain sovereignity by entering an agreement with other states. We may live in an haegemonical world but we're not at that moment maybe not quite yet. For example, that UN Law of the Sea Convention that you mentioned is an agreement between states and not an entity whith sovereignity over something.
Even if, let's say, that would be right which is absurd , Israel is not a signing country and even if it were it could simply withdraw from the convention and thus not be bound by it. Unfortunately, these problems presently have no legal solution. As the author of this article said, there has to be political will from both countries to be able to invest an entity such as the ICJ to judge a dispute and even then, the enforcement of such a decision could be problematic at best.
I deeply resent the fact that the journal hasn't commented on the recent judgement about the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicargua and Colombia. Thanks for an excellent post. I had a quick look at the statements made in connection with the above-mentioned vote and noted that several States distinguished their vote on non-member observer State status from official recognition. Nonetheless, these States clearly do not recognize Palestine. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties isn't just a formula that the Secretary General alone is bound to respect.
The State Parties to that multilateral agreement have accepted an obligation to treat members of UN specialized agencies as States capable of concluding treaties. The Convention provides that a members of UN agencies belong to one of the four categories of states that are invited to become parties to the Convention Articles 81 and 83 ; b that every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties Article 6 ; and c The terms of the Convention on the Law of Treaties applies to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization e.
The State Parties have agreed to accepted similar unambiguous obligations towards members of the same categories of states by inviting them to file accessions to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Articles 74 and 76 and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Articles 48 and Permanent Observers may participate in the sessions and workings of the General Assembly and maintain missions at the UN Headquarters.
Disclaimer: answers are prepared by library staff using resources available at the time of writing. This site may include links and references to third-party databases, websites, books and articles, this does not imply endorsement by the United Nations. Was this helpful? Yes 17 No Welcome to the United Nations.
This cookie allows users to embed files or other content onto the website, this function can be limited to specific visitors. The data includes the number of visits, average duration of the visit on the website, pages visited, etc. UIDR 0 1 year The cookie is used to tracks the users activity across the internet on the browser such as visit timestamp, IP address, and most recently visited webpages.
Third-party non-necessary. The purpose of the cookie is to enable LinkedIn functionalities on the page. This is a Microsoft MSN 1st party cookie for sharing the content of the website via social media.
GPS 0 30 minutes This cookie is set by Youtube and registers a unique ID for tracking users based on their geographical location. LOCALE 1 LocaleResolver implementation that uses a cookie sent back to the user in case of a custom setting, with a fallback to the specified default locale or the request's accept-header locale.
This is particularly useful for Xing for stateless applications without user sessions. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website. The cookie is used to store a summary of the consent given for the use of cookies. Used by sites written in JSP. This is a Microsoft SharePoint cookie for internal use of the application.
This cookie is native to PHP applications. Session cookie that expires when the page is closed. The cookie is defined by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not the user has consented to the use of cookies. This is a Microsoft SharePoint cookie for internal use of the application to indicate whether a page is shown in full screen mode.
Matomo cookies: used to store a few details about the user such as the unique visitor ID. Matomo cookies: used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website. Matomo cookies: short-lived cookies used to temporarily store data for the visit.
Matomo cookies: this is set if visitors opt-out of website analytics so we remember your preferences.
0コメント