Coyote, et al,
It is always helpful to speak to the people who wrote a document to actually understand what the purpose and intent was for the writing.
“The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘
Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Quote From: Lord George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968, who helped Draft Resolution 242,
According to the resolution:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Israel was not "singled out". The resolution called on all participating states:
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Well this is very specific and politically crafted language that sounds misleading. Understanding the intent of UNSC Res 242:
“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” Quote From: Eugene Rostow, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, who helped draft Resolution 242.
It also states this:
John McHugo says that
by the 1920s, international law
no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
[18]
(COMMENT)
Yes I've heard, over and over again, this explanation. But it is not correct. The phrase "
acquire title to territory by conquest" does not mean territory secured in the process of a defense or by treaty in surrender. Even the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) divided up the Ottoman Empire that had maintain the territories for 800 years or more. By 1920 (as John McHugo, points out) you must remember that the San Remo Convention of the Principle Allied Powers was meeting and crafting the language for the Mandate for Palestine. (McHugo is just plain wrong.) Even today a century later, the McHugo Concept is not made its way into customary law. One needs only look at the events of the events of the Russian - Crimean dispute and the 2014 events where Russia acquired the Crimea and nullified the "right to self-determination."
Yes, you have correctly quoted Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. But this aspect of the Charter is no more applicable to the 1967 War (defending against an eminent attack) than it was when the Arab League (5 nations simultaneously) attacked Israel in 1948. In 1967, three countries of the Arab League were staging forces in preparation to invade Israel yet again:
• 8 Brigades from Syria in the North
• 10 Brigades from Jordan in the center and East
• 100,000 troops, 900 tanks and 800 artillery pieces from the sourth
Now Article 2(4) does not over rule Article 51 (Self-Defense).
Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle
that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.
[19] Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.[20]
(COMMENT)
You will notice that in no instance, does Surya Sharma (who writes his book over a century after the First International Conference of American States in 1890, make a quote. Why, because it is simply not true to form in its meaning. The United States alone, had several exchanges in which territory was acquired as a result of a military outcome:
West Florida
- Declared to be a U.S. possession in 1810 after the territory had declared its independence from Spain and US Forces took take control 6 weeks later. General Andrew Jackson accepted the delivery of West Florida from its Spanish governor on July 17, 1821.
Texas
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines
Cuba
- Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, with the island to be occupied by the United States.
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
The Atlantic Charter of 1941 is really quite short.
Atlantic Charter
AUGUST 14, 1941
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;
Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;
Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
If you scan this document, you will see that it in NO WAY expresses any limits of self-defense or any prohibition on securing territory. What it says is, "they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."
In the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936, the concepts are
DECLARES:
1. That the American Nations, true to their republican institutions, proclaim their absolute juridical liberty, their unqualified respect for their respective sovereignties and the existence of a common democracy throughout America;
2. That every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every one of them, and justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation provided for in the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace, signed at this Conference; and
3. That the following principles are accepted by the American community of Nations:
(a) Proscription of territorial conquest and that, in consequence, no acquisition made through violence shall be recognized;
(b) Intervention by one State in the internal or external affairs of another State is condemned;
(c) Forcible collection of pecuniary debts is illegal; and
(d) Any difference or dispute between the American nations, whatever its nature or origin, shall be settled by the methods of conciliation, or unrestricted arbitration, or through operation of international justice.
It is probably the closest, but not binding. Disputes are settled by peaceful means, not dissimilar to the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Nations.
(The PARADOX)
If the concept that an aggressor set of nations, like the Arab League, is allowed to attack (Israel) and fails, but then the defender (Israel) has to give back (to the Arab League) any territorial losses, THEN what is to prevent them from repeating the cycle over and over again, until they win?
• Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces THEN
• Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces THEN
• Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces THEN
• Attack --- ... ... ...
No law, convention, treaty, or binding agreement purposely gives the unfair military advantage to the aggressor (the Arab League). At some point, the aggressor nations of the Arab League must be disabled and disarmed to end the cycle of violence.
Each Member nation that is under the constant threat from military assault and jihadist action will exercise its national sovereignty --- and ultimately withdraw from the CHARTER and the Treaty ... if Israel decides that extraordinary events, related to the survival of the Jewish National Home, jeopardized the supreme interests of The Jewish State of Israel.
Most Respectfully,
R
