Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 13,862
- 2,546
- 290
Sorry it went over your head.It is my link. Where is yours?Of course I do.On the contrary, its quite substantiated. Are you trying to argue that a State can come into being with no government, no control over territory, no ability to create infrastructure, laws, while completely under the control of another State?
Have you got a link for that?
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
Do you have one to substantiate your blabber?
Of course not. It is just blabber.
Not that tired old zebra again.
Your link is an rebuttal opinion of an opinion piece and in no way represents international law. It is poorly written and substantially neglects to provide sources, often with the author quoting his own opinions as "proof" that this opinion is valid. Its nothing more than a vague and unsubstantiated reference to constitutive theory, with no demonstration of how that applies to Palestine between 1922 and 1988.
So, where is your link?
You made a statement now you are ducking.
On the contrary, constitutive theory is an easy concept to understand (though in practice, the minimal threshold remains largely undefined.)
As is common with people attempting to argue legal principles with respect to Arab "Palestine", they are stretched to the breaking point. The zebra article "if it looks like a state, it is a state", is a perfect example of this. It proposes a minimal threshold for constituting a state so low that almost any territory could be considered a state. The example given is that a judgement between Greece and Great Britain mentions "Palestine", therefore "Palestine" came into being as a State in that moment based on constitutive theory. The very sound of it is ridiculous.
If would be like saying if Israel and Japan enacted some sort of treaty that mentions "Judea and Samaria" it would create a State of Judea and Samaria.