David Singer, who describes it as an Epilogue to that article, writes:
I have now been supplied with an English translation of the opinion piece written by three law professors on 20 October upon which Sweden's Foreign Minister relied when claiming that the international law criteria for the recognition of the State of Palestine had been satisfied.
As I suspected when I wrote my article – the three professors do not maintain that those international criteria have been satisfied.
They never could have – if they were to retain any shred of professional credibility.
The three professors indeed argue that those criteria have been replaced by a new controversial and questionable principle they call the "legality principle" to justify the right of Sweden to recognise the State of Palestine under international law.
The three professors' espousal of the applicability of the "legality principle" is not worth the paper it is written on, since it fails to consider Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
UN General Assembly Resolutions they mention to support their claim have no legal binding effect and the 2004 decision of the International Court of Justice is similarly an advisory non- binding opinion only.
Justice El-Araby (now ironically Secretary General of the Arab League) warned his fellow judges:
"The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain."
– as well as the 1937 Peel Commission Report and the 1947 UN Partition proposals.
There is a myriad of international law legally sanctioning the right of the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in what is today called the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
Sweden can do as it likes – as I stated in my article – but perverting international law on the way should be exposed at every opportunity.
Trying to hide behind the veil of "international law" to justify Sweden's decision without fully examining the facts and the applicable law is disgraceful.
Meanwhile in another perversion of international law a law academic has managed to stretch the language to a determined if ultimately failed attempt to stitching up Israel on a charge of genocide.ReplyDelete
Didn't quite get there so it must be some lesser war crime.
In Melanie Philips phrase I'm snitching. The Academic Intifada.
Interesting - will read properly tomorrow. You have some great posts there I need to catch up with, Geoff.Delete