Legal status of the State of Palestine
In November 2012, UN General Assembly accepted the resolution upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" within the United Nations system, reasserting PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.
During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:"[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State.
The US formally recognized the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes" in 1997 at the request of the Palestinian Authority.
At that time, it asked the public to take notice of that fact through announcements it placed in the Federal Register, the official journal of the US government.
Part of the USAID mission is to "provide flexible and discrete support for implementation of the Quartet Road Map",[21] an internationally backed plan which calls for the progressive development of a viable Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.
[27] Most UN member states questioned the claim that Israel held better title to the land than the inhabitants, and stressed that statehood was an inalienable right of the Palestinian people.
[28] Legal experts, like David John Ball, concluded that "the Palestinians, based on the principles of self-determination and the power of the U.N., appear to hold better title to the territory.
Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation.
[35] Article 62 (LXII) of the Treaty of Berlin, 13 July 1878[36] dealt with religious freedom and civil and political rights in all parts of the Ottoman Empire.
Difference of religion could not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, "in any locality whatsoever."
The partition plan also contained provisions that bound the new states to international agreements and conventions to which Palestine had become a party and held them responsible for its financial obligations.
[42] Jacob Robinson was a legal advisor to the United Nations delegation of the Jewish Agency for Palestine during the special session of the General Assembly in 1947.
"[45] Alex Takkenberg writes that while "there is no doubt that the entity 'Palestine' should be considered a state in statu nascendi and although it is increasingly likely that the ongoing peace process will eventually culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state, it is premature to conclude that statehood, as defined by international law, is at present (spring 1997) firmly established.
He continues: "The weak link in Palestine's claim to already exist as a state was, until recently, the fourth criterion, "effective control...
Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate, an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned."
[48] Noting that Palestine under the Mandate entered into bilateral treaties, including one with Great Britain, the Mandatory power, he cites this as an example of its "sovereignty" at that time.
[23] Robert Weston Ash says that Quigley's analysis of the declaration that the Palestinian Authority provided to the International Criminal Court failed to explain a number of key issues.
He suggests that establishes a colorable Jewish —as well as Arab — claim to all of Palestine which tends to refute Professor Quigley's contention that there are no other claimants to that territory.
Ash says there are segments of Israeli society that continue to view "Judea and Samaria" as areas promised to the Jews by the Balfour Declaration and says that the Geneva Convention is not applicable to Israel's presence in those territories.
He cites Yehuda Blum's "Missing Reversioner" and Eugene Rostow's related claim that "The right of the Jewish people to settle in Palestine has never been terminated for the West Bank."
[49] Quigley has said that the International Court of Justice findings in the "Wall" case regarding the applicability of the Geneva Convention discredited once and for all, as a legal matter, the "missing reversioner" argument.
[51][52] Such experts as Daniel Benoliel, Ronen Perry and Nicholas Stephanopoulos,[53] Dore Gold,[54] Malcolm Shaw[55] also consider Palestinian declaration of independence as a violation of the Oslo Accords.
The Supreme Court held that the Palestinian Authority can be granted state immunity on an ad hoc basis when it is warranted by the circumstances.
[59] Stefan Talmon notes that "In international law it is true that one generally recognizes the Government which exercises effective control over a territory.
[61] Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently expressed a willingness to recognize the State of Palestine if it will agree to forgo taking effective control of its airspace, military defense, and not enter into alliances with Israel's enemies.
"[69] In September 2010, the World Bank released a report which found the Palestinian Authority "well-positioned to establish a state" at any point in the near future.
[70] In April 2011, the UN's co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process issued a report lauding the Palestinian Authority, describing "aspects of its administration as sufficient for an independent state.
"[71][72] It echoed similar assessments published the week prior by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
