P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, I've watch this before.
Start @ 41:15
(COMMENT)You know, Rocco, after studying international law I came to some conclusions that I have reported in this forum. I post a video of a professor of international law who comes to the same conclusions. Other legal scholars have drawn the same conclusions. UN resolutions state that the Palestinians have the right of return.There is no "right of return." There is no international law that stipulates the "right of return" (RoR)
The proposal for birthright Palestine is simply that, a proposal and not law.
There is no treaty between Israel and Palestine that incorporates the RoR; the normal way of implementing refugee returns. (As the video points out).
The speaker spoke of all the major convention and treaties in which the right is grounded.
• I recognize that the CCPR has passed into international law --- but it was not international law in 1948 or 1967. In fact it did not go into force until 1976.There is no International law that details the "right of return to the precise point of origin."
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty with the force of law, but does NOT even approach or mention the RoR. Article 49 deals with the:
Israel did not individually or take mass forcible transfers, as well as, deportations of protected persons from occupied Palestinian territories. (It doesn't apply.)
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
• The UDHR is NOT international law, and nor are the multitude of General Assembly Resolutions that the Palestinians are so found of pointing out. (Contrary to what is said in the video.) The presentation is merely a political position taken in an attempt to string a number of resolution together in a common relationship such that it sound sound and valid.
When you find someone that is actually willing to identify an actual international law on the RoR; THEN, I will be impressed. If you find someone that is actually willing to identify the (as she said in the video) the right to return to the precise point of origin; I will be even more impressed. Many speakers have made such claims over the years, but no one has actually successfully defend the claim with an actual international law citation.
Most Respectfully,
R
Then you come along and say that all of our assessments are incorrect. I don't understand where you get your information.
From the UN that says that its resolutions are not international law as they have no legal standing. They are just recommendations of what the UN would like to see put in place. You and your esteemed professors of international law have refused to actually cite the International law and its date of implementation because none exists. Don't forget that you and this professor are only spouting your own personal views, and until every body accepts these views as true they are just personal views and not actual International law.
Now produce the actual International law signed of by the ICC/ICJ or accept that you are wrong
From the UN that says that its resolutions are not international law as they have no legal standing. They are just recommendations of what the UN would like to see put in place.
That is somewhat true. UN resolutions are wishful thinking. However, they frequently reference international law as the basis of those wishes.
And when they do the international laws are spelt out in full giving dates of implementation and the names they go under. Strange how all the UN resolutions you produce as international law don't do this, can you explain why this is ?