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.
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
