International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying.

Why do you post here when you know so little? The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine by international law in 1924 and by domestic law in 1925.

(REFERENCE)

144 (b) [A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947 ]: Within this unitary State, Jews who had acquired Palestinian citizenship (for which the qualification would be ten years’ residence in the country) would have full civil rights, equally with all other citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925 was an Imperial Order by the King. It was confirmed by the British Parliament. While considered an International Order, my understanding is that HM's Government the criteria necessary for citizenship.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, with the excuse that it is anybody's fault BUT the Arab Palestinians.

Have you not read any of these fake peace offerings?

(COMMENT)

This is merely the Arab Palestinian mode for rationalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, with the excuse that it is anybody's fault BUT the Arab Palestinians.

Have you not read any of these fake peace offerings?

(COMMENT)

This is merely the Arab Palestinian mode for rationalization.

Most Respectfully,
R

Every one of these fake peace offerings require the Palestinians to surrender and give up their rights.

 

[Shusha]

Every one of these fake peace offerings require the Palestinians to surrender and give up their rights.

Arabs do not have the sole rights to the entire territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Every one of these fake peace offerings require the Palestinians to surrender and give up their rights.

Arabs do not have the sole rights to the entire territory.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

No, No one here missed the point. That is an ideal, not a reality.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmoore, et al,

This is simply naive and wishful thinking.

That territory was ceded to Palestine and the people became the sovereign citizens of Palestine. The right to sovereignty is held by the people not a government or state.

(COMMENT)

The successor government after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, was effectively the Government of Palestine (the Allied Power that accepted the Mandate), HM's Government.

Palestine was defined as the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

No matter what you may think today, the Allied Powers were in the driver's seat. You cannot transfer power to a government that does not exist. That would be abandonment.

Even today, there is a great discussion on whether a State of Palestine exists.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the point again.

The right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people not a state or government. Mandates had no sovereignty over the territory in their trust.

(COMMENT)

OK for the umpth-tennth time.

The Charter is supreme. And the Charter does not say that it is based on the premise that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. It says --- twice:

• Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the "sovereign equality" of all its Members.
​

• Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of "sovereign equality."​

The meaning of sovereignty, substantively, has to do with supreme power or authority. Not who is entitled to sovereignty.

"Sovereign equality" is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal rights as any other sovereign state in international law.

Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not in force as law) does it attribute your assumption that in the reality of International Law --- the "right to sovereignty" lies in the hands of the people. That is very dependent on the form of government. In a true Kingdom, for example --- sovereignty is in the hands of the King.

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
​

In the case of the Treaty law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), sovereignty, in terms of a right of the people, is not mentioned once. In nearly all of our discussions, we are talking about "National Sovereignty."

(QUESTION)

This is your chance to school me... Where is the Universal Right of Sovereignty placed in the hands of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

• Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your statement here is attributing some meaning I did not say.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

• I did not say that the Arab "Palestinians have no rights." (If I did not know better, I might think that you were intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating my commentary.) They most certainly do have rights. But not always the rights you try to attribute to them.

The Rights and Duties of a State are generally cited and framed in Montevideo Convention.

In the context on which we were discussing the broader statement you made: "right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people." While that sounds very American or Democratic, it is not found as a binding right or requirement in International Law. If that were true, then you would be questioning the legitimacy in the
the Government of the Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id of Oman, or the Government of King Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are both absolute Arab Monarchies.

Even the Constitutional Monarchies vary in form. For instance, the The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the HM the King and in his cabinet. The King signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The King may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Every one of these fake peace offerings require the Palestinians to surrender and give up their rights.

Arabs do not have the sole rights to the entire territory.

Link?

Oh come on. Have you read the Mandate for Palestine? Why must we repeat this foolishness every time?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your statement here is attributing some meaning I did not say.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

• I did not say that the Arab "Palestinians have no rights." (If I did not know better, I might think that you were intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating my commentary.) They most certainly do have rights. But not always the rights you try to attribute to them.

The Rights and Duties of a State are generally cited and framed in Montevideo Convention.

In the context on which we were discussing the broader statement you made: "right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people." While that sounds very American or Democratic, it is not found as a binding right or requirement in International Law. If that were true, then you would be questioning the legitimacy in the
the Government of the Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id of Oman, or the Government of King Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are both absolute Arab Monarchies.

Even the Constitutional Monarchies vary in form. For instance, the The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the HM the King and in his cabinet. The King signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The King may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session.

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty
-----------------
All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had de facto been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXII) of 22 November 1974 reaffirmed the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including (a) the right of self-determination without external interference, (b) the right to national independence and sovereignty.” This right was reconfirmed in General Assembly resolution 169 A (XXXV) of 15 December 1980, which stated that just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The right to self-determination has been spelled out very clearly and consistently in all General Assembly resolutions on Palestine since the time after the 1967 war.
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm#_ftn24
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of the Resolutions cited by you (not they are not good references) constitutes international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law,

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your statement here is attributing some meaning I did not say.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

• I did not say that the Arab "Palestinians have no rights." (If I did not know better, I might think that you were intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating my commentary.) They most certainly do have rights. But not always the rights you try to attribute to them.

The Rights and Duties of a State are generally cited and framed in Montevideo Convention.

In the context on which we were discussing the broader statement you made: "right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people." While that sounds very American or Democratic, it is not found as a binding right or requirement in International Law. If that were true, then you would be questioning the legitimacy in the
the Government of the Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id of Oman, or the Government of King Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are both absolute Arab Monarchies.

Even the Constitutional Monarchies vary in form. For instance, the The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the HM the King and in his cabinet. The King signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The King may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session.

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty
-----------------
All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had de facto been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXII) of 22 November 1974 reaffirmed the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including (a) the right of self-determination without external interference, (b) the right to national independence and sovereignty.” This right was reconfirmed in General Assembly resolution 169 A (XXXV) of 15 December 1980, which stated that just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The right to self-determination has been spelled out very clearly and consistently in all General Assembly resolutions on Palestine since the time after the 1967 war.
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Remembering:

• A/RES/35/169(A-E) Right to Self-determination without External Interference 15 December 1980
• A/RES/3236 (XXIX) Inalienable Rights of 22 November 1974
​

Neither resolution actually change the reality of customary law as applied in the real-world; either specifically to a nation, to a regional area, or to treaty compact. In fact, neither resolution projects a theme that the Ramallah governing body applies to its form of government (Semi-presidential & parliamentary democracy).
Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

The general concept in the universal "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable" is something abstract but perceptible in human rights energized by the very first sentence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(non-binding) and carried over into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)(entered into force 23 March 1976). However, with very few exceptions are there actual "inalienable rights." Most rights under the CCPR waiver-able under exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

• Inherent right to life.
• Prohibition against torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Prohibition against slavery, indentured servitude or compulsory labor.
• Prohibition against debtors imprisonment.
• Prohibition against retroactive prosecution.
• The right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

But there is no absolute right to sovereignty, in the context of our discussion, held by the people → "who in turn delegate it to their governments." This would be especially true in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, North Africa and Arab League States (only Tunisia and Israel are democracies). The sovereignty that you imply would be pretty unique as obligations arising from established state practice in that part of the world.

World View --- Including The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
This booklet is a summary of findings for the 2017 edition of Freedom in the World.
The complete analysis including narrative reports on all countries and territories can be found on our
website at www.freedomhouse.org.

[LINK] 2017 Narrative found at Freedom House.
​

Idealistically we might discuss just how the concept of inalienable rights might fit in the MENA region, to include the Arab-Israeli are Palestinian Conflict; but the "Customary Law" in that Region - on such matters is entirely different.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of the Resolutions cited by you (not they are not good references) constitutes international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law,

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your statement here is attributing some meaning I did not say.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

• I did not say that the Arab "Palestinians have no rights." (If I did not know better, I might think that you were intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating my commentary.) They most certainly do have rights. But not always the rights you try to attribute to them.

The Rights and Duties of a State are generally cited and framed in Montevideo Convention.

In the context on which we were discussing the broader statement you made: "right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people." While that sounds very American or Democratic, it is not found as a binding right or requirement in International Law. If that were true, then you would be questioning the legitimacy in the
the Government of the Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id of Oman, or the Government of King Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are both absolute Arab Monarchies.

Even the Constitutional Monarchies vary in form. For instance, the The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the HM the King and in his cabinet. The King signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The King may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session.

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty
-----------------
All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had de facto been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXII) of 22 November 1974 reaffirmed the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including (a) the right of self-determination without external interference, (b) the right to national independence and sovereignty.” This right was reconfirmed in General Assembly resolution 169 A (XXXV) of 15 December 1980, which stated that just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The right to self-determination has been spelled out very clearly and consistently in all General Assembly resolutions on Palestine since the time after the 1967 war.
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Remembering:

• A/RES/35/169(A-E) Right to Self-determination without External Interference 15 December 1980
• A/RES/3236 (XXIX) Inalienable Rights of 22 November 1974
​

Neither resolution actually change the reality of customary law as applied in the real-world; either specifically to a nation, to a regional area, or to treaty compact. In fact, neither resolution projects a theme that the Ramallah governing body applies to its form of government (Semi-presidential & parliamentary democracy).
Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

The general concept in the universal "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable" is something abstract but perceptible in human rights energized by the very first sentence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(non-binding) and carried over into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)(entered into force 23 March 1976). However, with very few exceptions are there actual "inalienable rights." Most rights under the CCPR waiver-able under exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

• Inherent right to life.
• Prohibition against torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Prohibition against slavery, indentured servitude or compulsory labor.
• Prohibition against debtors imprisonment.
• Prohibition against retroactive prosecution.
• The right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

But there is no absolute right to sovereignty, in the context of our discussion, held by the people → "who in turn delegate it to their governments." This would be especially true in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, North Africa and Arab League States (only Tunisia and Israel are democracies). The sovereignty that you imply would be pretty unique as obligations arising from established state practice in that part of the world.

View attachment 168799
World View --- Including The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
This booklet is a summary of findings for the 2017 edition of Freedom in the World.
The complete analysis including narrative reports on all countries and territories can be found on our
website at www.freedomhouse.org.
View attachment 168804
[LINK] 2017 Narrative found at Freedom House.
​

Idealistically we might discuss just how the concept of inalienable rights might fit in the MENA region, to include the Arab-Israeli are Palestinian Conflict; but the "Customary Law" in that Region - on such matters is entirely different.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws and smoke screening the issues with verbosity.

Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

Not true. Example: "Without external Interference" does not only apply to the UN. It applies to everyone.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to read it again.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of the Resolutions cited by you (not they are not good references) constitutes international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law,

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your statement here is attributing some meaning I did not say.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

• I did not say that the Arab "Palestinians have no rights." (If I did not know better, I might think that you were intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating my commentary.) They most certainly do have rights. But not always the rights you try to attribute to them.

The Rights and Duties of a State are generally cited and framed in Montevideo Convention.

In the context on which we were discussing the broader statement you made: "right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people." While that sounds very American or Democratic, it is not found as a binding right or requirement in International Law. If that were true, then you would be questioning the legitimacy in the
the Government of the Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id of Oman, or the Government of King Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are both absolute Arab Monarchies.

Even the Constitutional Monarchies vary in form. For instance, the The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the HM the King and in his cabinet. The King signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The King may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session.

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty
-----------------
All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had de facto been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXII) of 22 November 1974 reaffirmed the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including (a) the right of self-determination without external interference, (b) the right to national independence and sovereignty.” This right was reconfirmed in General Assembly resolution 169 A (XXXV) of 15 December 1980, which stated that just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The right to self-determination has been spelled out very clearly and consistently in all General Assembly resolutions on Palestine since the time after the 1967 war.
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Remembering:

• A/RES/35/169(A-E) Right to Self-determination without External Interference 15 December 1980
• A/RES/3236 (XXIX) Inalienable Rights of 22 November 1974
​

Neither resolution actually change the reality of customary law as applied in the real-world; either specifically to a nation, to a regional area, or to treaty compact. In fact, neither resolution projects a theme that the Ramallah governing body applies to its form of government (Semi-presidential & parliamentary democracy).
Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

The general concept in the universal "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable" is something abstract but perceptible in human rights energized by the very first sentence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(non-binding) and carried over into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)(entered into force 23 March 1976). However, with very few exceptions are there actual "inalienable rights." Most rights under the CCPR waiver-able under exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

• Inherent right to life.
• Prohibition against torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Prohibition against slavery, indentured servitude or compulsory labor.
• Prohibition against debtors imprisonment.
• Prohibition against retroactive prosecution.
• The right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

But there is no absolute right to sovereignty, in the context of our discussion, held by the people → "who in turn delegate it to their governments." This would be especially true in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, North Africa and Arab League States (only Tunisia and Israel are democracies). The sovereignty that you imply would be pretty unique as obligations arising from established state practice in that part of the world.

View attachment 168799
World View --- Including The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
This booklet is a summary of findings for the 2017 edition of Freedom in the World.
The complete analysis including narrative reports on all countries and territories can be found on our
website at www.freedomhouse.org.
View attachment 168804
[LINK] 2017 Narrative found at Freedom House.
​

Idealistically we might discuss just how the concept of inalienable rights might fit in the MENA region, to include the Arab-Israeli are Palestinian Conflict; but the "Customary Law" in that Region - on such matters is entirely different.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws and smoke screening the issues with verbosity.

Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

Not true. Example: "Without external Interference" does not only apply to the UN. It applies to everyone.

(COMMENT)

The Charter is where the UN Member nations agree not to interfere (domestically).

The inalienable rights do not include your claim. The CCPR stipulates what the "rights are." I said that many different ways here, your not getting it. If you think that the "inalienable rights" have been established somewhere and agreed upon by all the different culture, speak-up... Tell me where it says that? If you think that any regional neighbor to Israel has adopted those rights as a given, then speak-up. But the big think tanks already wrote a narrative that I cannot improve upon. Israel is following customary law, just as any of the Arab League members would.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to read it again.

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

None of the Resolutions cited by you (not they are not good references) constitutes international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law,

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your statement here is attributing some meaning I did not say.

Notice that it does not say Universal Declaration of States Rights.

As stated above, there is no particular political structure for the people to have universal rights in their own territory. To say that Palestine was never a state (debatable) the Palestinians have no rights is just Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

• I did not say that the Arab "Palestinians have no rights." (If I did not know better, I might think that you were intentionally misrepresenting or exaggerating my commentary.) They most certainly do have rights. But not always the rights you try to attribute to them.

The Rights and Duties of a State are generally cited and framed in Montevideo Convention.

In the context on which we were discussing the broader statement you made: "right to sovereignty lies in the hands of the people." While that sounds very American or Democratic, it is not found as a binding right or requirement in International Law. If that were true, then you would be questioning the legitimacy in the
the Government of the Sultan Qabus ibn Sa'id of Oman, or the Government of King Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are both absolute Arab Monarchies.

Even the Constitutional Monarchies vary in form. For instance, the The Constitution of Jordan vests executive authority in the HM the King and in his cabinet. The King signs, executes, and vetoes all laws. The King may also suspend or dissolve parliament, and shorten or lengthen the term of session.

Most Respectfully,
R

But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

The People's Sovereignty
-----------------
All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]

The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had de facto been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXII) of 22 November 1974 reaffirmed the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including (a) the right of self-determination without external interference, (b) the right to national independence and sovereignty.” This right was reconfirmed in General Assembly resolution 169 A (XXXV) of 15 December 1980, which stated that just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The right to self-determination has been spelled out very clearly and consistently in all General Assembly resolutions on Palestine since the time after the 1967 war.
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

(COMMENT)

Remembering:

• A/RES/35/169(A-E) Right to Self-determination without External Interference 15 December 1980
• A/RES/3236 (XXIX) Inalienable Rights of 22 November 1974
​

Neither resolution actually change the reality of customary law as applied in the real-world; either specifically to a nation, to a regional area, or to treaty compact. In fact, neither resolution projects a theme that the Ramallah governing body applies to its form of government (Semi-presidential & parliamentary democracy).
Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

The general concept in the universal "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable" is something abstract but perceptible in human rights energized by the very first sentence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(non-binding) and carried over into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)(entered into force 23 March 1976). However, with very few exceptions are there actual "inalienable rights." Most rights under the CCPR waiver-able under exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

• Inherent right to life.
• Prohibition against torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Prohibition against slavery, indentured servitude or compulsory labor.
• Prohibition against debtors imprisonment.
• Prohibition against retroactive prosecution.
• The right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

But there is no absolute right to sovereignty, in the context of our discussion, held by the people → "who in turn delegate it to their governments." This would be especially true in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, North Africa and Arab League States (only Tunisia and Israel are democracies). The sovereignty that you imply would be pretty unique as obligations arising from established state practice in that part of the world.

View attachment 168799
World View --- Including The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
This booklet is a summary of findings for the 2017 edition of Freedom in the World.
The complete analysis including narrative reports on all countries and territories can be found on our
website at www.freedomhouse.org.
View attachment 168804
[LINK] 2017 Narrative found at Freedom House.
​

Idealistically we might discuss just how the concept of inalienable rights might fit in the MENA region, to include the Arab-Israeli are Palestinian Conflict; but the "Customary Law" in that Region - on such matters is entirely different.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws and smoke screening the issues with verbosity.

Self-determination of Peoples emanates out of Article 1(2), UN Charter; while concept of • "without External Interference" • is an adaptation out of Article 2(7) of the Charter; in the restriction that the UN shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.

Not true. Example: "Without external Interference" does not only apply to the UN. It applies to everyone.

(COMMENT)

The Charter is where the UN Member nations agree not to interfere (domestically).

The inalienable rights do not include your claim. The CCPR stipulates what the "rights are." I said that many different ways here, your not getting it. If you think that the "inalienable rights" have been established somewhere and agreed upon by all the different culture, speak-up... Tell me where it says that? If you think that any regional neighbor to Israel has adopted those rights as a given, then speak-up. But the big think tanks already wrote a narrative that I cannot improve upon. Israel is following customary law, just as any of the Arab League members would.

Most Respectfully,
R

The inalienable rights do not include your claim.

The UN has repeatedly said they do.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al

Please!

The inalienable rights do not include your claim.

The UN has repeatedly said they do.

(COMMENT)

Please tell me where the binding agreement is for each "right" you claim is inalienable...

Most Respectfully,
R