Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[P F Tinmore]

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your question is about "sovereign authority." That does one sovereign authority exercise sovereign authority over another territory (or new territory) in order to make changes:

• Section 2: Acquisition of Territory •
• Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law •

The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.

Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another.[14] Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).​

(2) Prescription

A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

As the requirement of adequate length of time for possession is concerned, there is no consensus on this regard. Thus, the adequacy of the length of period would be decided on a case by case basis. All the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the territory and the absence or presence of any competing claims will be taken into consideration.​

(3) Accretion

(4) Cession

(5) Conquest and Annexation

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation.[31] The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.

At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.

Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.​

What foreign country has the authority to change the borders of another country?

(COMMENT)


• Disengagement from the West Bank • Quote Jordan - History - Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature.

On July 31, 1988 (before the PLO Declared Independence) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

The decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. During the same period, mounting economic difficulties led to a spate of rioting in certain parts of the Kingdom. Circumstances had therefore coalesced to produce a situation favoring the resumption of the democratic process King Hussein had initiated early in his reign. In November 1989, general parliamentary elections were held in Jordan for the first time since 1966, ushering in a new era for the institutionalization of Jordan’s democratic experience.​

In practice, the "disengagement" left the West Bank and Jerusalem in the hands of the only "Effective Authority" over the area (Israel).


Most Respectfully,
R

Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory,

The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State,

Indeed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

(2) Prescription

A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.

It has not been peaceful and there have been many protests.

 

[Shusha]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

Well, no. Again, this is tension between old and new concepts in law.

Sovereignty was NEVER with the people, until relatively recently. The people had little choice but to go along with sovereigns who tossed balls back and forth over their heads like piggy in the middle.

The previous law held that territory could only have three possible classes:

• terra nullius (belonging to no one)
• under the legal sovereignty of one state, and controlled by the same state
• under the legal sovereignty of one state, but controlled through military might by another state

The new laws developed in the 1940s and onwards introduced a fourth category:

• territory claimed for the future self-determination of a peoples

This last category is still in development in international law. There are conflicts between category 2 and category 4. And the law hasn't settled a definitive resolution to that conflict.

 

[toomuchtime_]

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

Are you high? The so called Palestinians have never had sovereignty over the land despite living there for a long time. Sovereignty is not a natural right but a legal right that is always claimed by the group in control, in this case, Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

Are you high? The so called Palestinians have never had sovereignty over the land despite living there for a long time. Sovereignty is not a natural right but a legal right that is always claimed by the group in control, in this case, Israel.

Military control is an occupation. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Victors write history. Tinmore is a loser like the “Palestinians”. No one cares about losers.

 

[Shusha]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Lots of things don't acquire sovereignty. You keep missing the crucial points of what DOES acquire sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Lots of things don't acquire sovereignty. You keep missing the crucial points of what DOES acquire sovereignty.

At this point in time it must be by treaty. The Palestinians have never signed such a treaty.

 

[Shusha]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Lots of things don't acquire sovereignty. You keep missing the crucial points of what DOES acquire sovereignty.

At this point in time it must be by treaty. The Palestinians have never signed such a treaty.

Sign a treaty with whom? Agreeing to what?

 

[toomuchtime_]

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

Are you high? The so called Palestinians have never had sovereignty over the land despite living there for a long time. Sovereignty is not a natural right but a legal right that is always claimed by the group in control, in this case, Israel.

Military control is an occupation. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

More bullshit from you. According to the fourth Geneva Convention, an occupation only occurs when one signatory to the Convention takes and from another signatory and since that has not occured, there is not occupation, but since sovereignty simply means having the power or authority to govern the land, all the rest is irrelevant.

Israel has had de facto sovereignty over the land but demurred applying de jure sovereignty in the hope some of the land could be traded for peace, but now that that is clearly impossible, Israel will apply de jure sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your interpretation of "Sovereignty" is twisted. You are (yet once again) involved in misinformation (intentionally).

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

(COMMENT)

You are intentionally trying to confuse "personal" sovereignty with that of "political" sovereignty. In our discussion, we are talking about (as Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM, Professor of Law, Beirut Arab University Faculty of Law and Political Science has said) "Sovereignty regarding a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State." I specifically use Dr Abdulrahim as a source (for which I provided the link) because he is from the Region and very familiar with the realities of the Middle East.

I would also like to direct you to this additional scholarly work: • Palestinian Statehood: A Study of Statehood through the Lens of the Montevideo Convention • Suzanne (Kelly) Panganiban, Virginia Tech. I mention this because you need to adopt a more knowledgeable context from which to argue your position. And this is a fine piece of research from which to address → an opinion contrary to mine. If you read this, you will no doubt notice that it takes an entirely different view from that of mine. It will give you the ability to sharpen your arrows for when you challenge me.
​

The rules underlying this principle derive their importance from the basic fact that “almost all international relations are bound up” with the independence of States. Thus, the principle of sovereignty in general, and that of territorial sovereignty in particular, remains of necessity the “point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relations” [ Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 at 839]’: Schwarzenberger , International Law (3rd ed.), 114–115.

sovereign power. (I5c)

1. The power to make and enforce laws.

2. See sovereign political power under POLITICAL POWER.​

sovereign right. (16c)

A unique right possessed by a state
or its agencies that enables it to carry out its official
functions for the public benefit, as distinguished from
certain proprietary rights that it may possess like any
other private person. [Cases: States ~21.]​

sovereign state. (17c)

1. A state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject.

2. A political community whose members are bound together by the tie of common subjection to some central authority, whose commands those members must obey. Also termed independent state. Cf. client state, nonsovereign state under STATE. [Cases: International Law ~3.]

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. the principle that
each nation answers only to its own domestic order and is
not accountable to a larger international community, save
only to the extent it has consented to do so. Sovereign
states are thus conceived as hermetically sealed units,
atoms that spin around an international orbit, sometimes
colliding, sometimes cooperating, but always separate and
apart." David j. Bederman, International Law Frameworks
50 (2001).​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

Are you high? The so called Palestinians have never had sovereignty over the land despite living there for a long time. Sovereignty is not a natural right but a legal right that is always claimed by the group in control, in this case, Israel.

Military control is an occupation. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

More bullshit from you. According to the fourth Geneva Convention, an occupation only occurs when one signatory to the Convention takes and from another signatory and since that has not occured, there is not occupation, but since sovereignty simply means having the power or authority to govern the land, all the rest is irrelevant.

Israel has had de facto sovereignty over the land but demurred applying de jure sovereignty in the hope some of the land could be traded for peace, but now that that is clearly impossible, Israel will apply de jure sovereignty.

The UN and the Palestinians say different.

 

[toomuchtime_]

(1) Occupation

Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. The sovereignty remains with the people.

The Palestinians never abandoned their territory.

Are you high? The so called Palestinians have never had sovereignty over the land despite living there for a long time. Sovereignty is not a natural right but a legal right that is always claimed by the group in control, in this case, Israel.

Military control is an occupation. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

More bullshit from you. According to the fourth Geneva Convention, an occupation only occurs when one signatory to the Convention takes and from another signatory and since that has not occured, there is not occupation, but since sovereignty simply means having the power or authority to govern the land, all the rest is irrelevant.

Israel has had de facto sovereignty over the land but demurred applying de jure sovereignty in the hope some of the land could be traded for peace, but now that that is clearly impossible, Israel will apply de jure sovereignty.

The UN and the Palestinians say different.

The UN has no jurisdiction and the Palestinians lack a government that is competent to negotiate for them, so both are irrelevant.

 

[Shusha]

Israel has had de facto sovereignty over the land but demurred applying de jure sovereignty in the hope some of the land could be traded for peace, but now that that is clearly impossible, Israel will apply de jure sovereignty.

Israel has de jure sovereignty over the entire territory (sovereignty by way of law). It has always limited its de facto sovereignty in some areas of the territory (sovereignty in action).

The latter is gradually coming to an end.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is a fantasy position. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.

The UN and the Palestinians say different.

(COMMENT)

In this case, "the UN and the Palestinians," as well as others, the political position held by the UN and Palestinians does not match the reality of the actual ground truth.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is a fantasy position. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.

The UN and the Palestinians say different.

(COMMENT)

In this case, "the UN and the Palestinians," as well as others, the political position held by the UN and Palestinians does not match the reality of the actual ground truth.


Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't match Israeli propaganda.

 

[toastman]

RE: Settlements only "illegal" for Jews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is a fantasy position. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.

The UN and the Palestinians say different.

(COMMENT)

In this case, "the UN and the Palestinians," as well as others, the political position held by the UN and Palestinians does not match the reality of the actual ground truth.


Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't match Israeli propaganda.

Once again, you lost the argument and you have no rebuttal. Why don't you just give up Tinmore, you're going nowhere.

 

[Shusha]

Another analysis of how the international community (UN, governments, NGOs, businesses) applies "international law" uniquely to Israel.

Selected summary of policy recommendations:

Craft equitable policies toward the different conflict zones. To date, the United States, European Union, United Nations, human rights organizations, and private companies have not applied evenhanded policies. These inconsistent standards subject Israel to inordinate pressure, while nearly all of the other countries in this study remain unhindered.

Through proxy regimes and inconsistent policy with regard to certificates of origin, sanctioned goods are likely reaching U.S. and European markets.

The international community needs consistent policies for refugees’ “right of return” to their homes or the homes of their ancestors. Currently, the international community supports the “right of return” of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren in one dispute, the Palestinian case, while at the same denying the same right to other refugees, such as Azerbaijanis evicted by Armenia or Georgians evicted from Abkhazia.

Certificates-of-origin regulation should be enforced for all conflict zones,

At a minimum, the United Nations should be consistent throughout its own agencies. In addition, a timely step would be to address UNHRC’s decision to maintain a database of companies that engage in business in the West Bank. If a database should be maintained on companies operating there, the same policy should apply to all the cases in this study, as well as other disputed territories. This is a clear case of a UN body subjecting Israel to measures it does not apply to other member states.

Some members of Congress advocate denying or conditioning aid and assistance to Israel due to its settlement policies, even as they support earmarking aid for use in Armenia’s settlements and in other conflict zones.