P F Tinmore, et al,
Like Peace Treaties, Neither Oslo Accord (I or II) has an expiration date; only a date it goes into force. There are several time limit challenges in the agreements; but the accomplishment (or lack thereof) does not terminate the agreements.
Both agreements have clauses stipulate the method of "Dispute Resolution."
Article XV ---
Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo Agreement I)
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.
2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.
3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
ARTICLE XXI --- Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
Settlement of Differences and Disputes
Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
1.Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
It seems that the Palestinians cannot even terminate the agreements in the proper manner, first proceeding through the Dispute Resolution Processes agreed upon; a further demonstration of their trustworthiness and good faith effort.
The months of March/April 1999 were key benchmark period.
Didn't Oslo expire in 1999?
(COMMENT)
It is unlikely that Israel will argue or maintain a reliance on the Accords. It may actually work in Israel favor. If the Palestinians abrogate the agreements, then it is understood that the negotiation that would have covered remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest, are no longer required in the eyes of the Palestinians that have refused to open a dialog without preconditions.
Further, it is a demonstration of the adoption of the Khartoum Resolution that established the Arab Three-NO's:
• No peace with Israel,
• No recognition of Israel, and
• No negotiations with Israel.
And the Palestinian Authority, established in accordance with the
Gaza-Jericho Agreement, was given meaning in these agreements. The disestablishment of these agreements could result in the unintended consequence of destabilizing the would-be State. And finally, the abrogation of these agreements makes any agreements to achieve a goal irrelevant, and no long up for debate since the Arab Palestinians have waived the Dispute Resolution process.
One of the more interesting consequences is
Annex III of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, (Protocol Concerning Legal Matters), and when this abrogation takes effect. I consider this one of the more critical agreements. It speaks to the heart of many issues.
It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.
Most Respectfully,
R