Video Infoblog: Dr Ralph Wilde Webinar: How Britain broke international law to stop Paestinian independence
The 29th of September marks the centenary of when the League of Nations ‘Mandate Agreement’ for Palestine entered into force in international law. This legal instrument purported to put the commitment to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine made by Arthur Balfour in the eponymous Declaration of 1917—then merely a non-legally-effective statement—on a sound international legal footing. It paved the way for how the UK administered the Mandate. The Agreement purported to bypass the legal obligation in Article 22 of the League Covenant to provisionally recognize statehood of and for the inhabitants of the Mandate—people who were overwhelmingly Arab Palestinians—at the time the Mandate commenced. And it purported to permit the UK to maintain its administration, for what turned out to be a quarter of a century, so as to enable Jewish migration to, and Jewish institutions of self-government to be established in, what could then be proclaimed the state of Israel, as happened, covering part of the territory of the Mandate, in 1948. In international law, then, the key date for the supposed legal basis for all that happened in that period is 1923, not 1917. On the eve of the centennial anniversary of that date, this lecture will present a new argument, challenging the received wisdom about the legal effectiveness of the Mandate Agreement. For the first time it will be explained that the body adopting the Agreement—the League Council—did not have the legal power to modify the obligations in the League Covenant, and, as such, the requirement to implement provisional statehood in Article 22 remained the operative legal obligation binding on the UK. Consequently, by failing to enable Palestinian statehood a century ago, the UK breached international law, and this can form the basis for a claim for reparations by the Palestinian people today.
The lecture is based on Dr Wilde’s article published in the Journal of the History of International Law, ‘Tears of the Olive Trees: Mandatory Palestine, the UK, and accountability for colonialism in international law’. Ralph Wilde is a member of the Faculty of Laws at UCL, University of London. He is an expert in international law.
His current writing focuses on extraterritorial human rights, migration and refugee protection, and international law and the Palestinian people. His previous work on the concept of trusteeship over people and territorial administration by international organizations includes his book International Territorial Administration: How Trusteeship and the Civilizing Mission Never Went Away(OUP), awarded the Certificate of Merit of the American Society of International Law. He previously served on the Executive bodies of the American and European Societies of International Law, and the International Law Association, and is the past recipient of the UK Philip Leverhulme Prize and the Peace Fellowship of the Åland Peace Institute. He also provides legal advice and representation to states, international organizations, and NGOs, and is currently acting as Senior Counsel and Advocate representing the 22 states of the League of Arab States in the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem Advisory Opinion case before the UN International Court of Justice.
Transcript
0:00
it's a great pleasure to be with you um I should say today um that I'll be speaking only in my uh
0:07
personal individual capacity and not on behalf of any states or International or
0:14
non-uh non-governmental organizations in his speech before the UN General
0:21
Assembly last week Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas called for and I quote
0:28
reparations in accordance with international law against the UK for what he described as
0:36
the Fateful Balfour Declaration this call for reparations from the UK
0:42
for its role in the Balfour Declaration a statement made by the then UK foreign
0:49
secretary Arthur Balfour in 1917 pledging to establish and I quote a
0:55
national home for the Jewish people end of quote in Palestine
1:00
despite that land already being inhabited mostly by non-jewish
1:06
Palestinians is not new notably it was made at the time of the
1:12
Centenary of the Balfour pledge when also then UK prime minister Theresa
1:18
May reportedly proclaimed at a commemorative event with Israeli Prime
1:24
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that she was and I quote proud of our pioneering role
1:30
in the creation of the state of Israel Mahmoud Abbas invokes international law
1:37
but is there a legal basis for reparations against the UK for something
1:43
that happened when Global Norms were very different from today
1:48
based on new research I argue that there is and the key to this possibility is a
1:56
legal agreement adopted 100 years ago tomorrow
2:01
in the 1917 declaration Arthur Balfour stated to Lionel Walter Rothschild of
2:08
course a prominent member of the Jewish community in the UK that and I quote
2:15
his Majesty's government view with favor The Establishment in Palestine of a
2:21
national home for the Jewish people and will use their best Evers to facilitate the achievement of this
2:27
object end of quote when the UK took over control of
2:32
Palestine from the Ottoman Empire after the so-called first world war it
2:38
implemented this commitment in practice it facilitated Jewish only migration
2:44
which enabled a demographic shift in favor of members of the Jewish community in Palestine
2:50
it provided for the transfer of land and property to members of the Jewish Community including through compulsory
2:57
expropriations and other confiscations from non-jewish Palestinian owners
3:02
occupiers it provided support for developing and
3:07
establishing provisional self-governing Jewish political institutions while denying support to and suppressing the
3:15
activity of any corresponding equivalent non-jewish Palestinian institutions
3:22
popular Palestinian descent was violently and lethally suppressed notably in the case of the great
3:29
Palestinian Revolt of 1936-1939 an uprising against this colonial rule
3:36
and the policy of enabling the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people
3:43
with the onset of conflict in Palestine following the UN General Assembly adopting the partition resolution of
3:50
1947. the UK withdrew its presence in the first part of 1948.
3:56
this paved the way for and did nothing to stop and protect the majority
4:02
non-jewish Palestinian people from two related things first the creation of Israel as a Jewish
4:10
state in a significant part of the territory of Palestine that year
4:15
second the associated false displacement of a large number of the non-jewish
4:22
Palestinian population from the territory that would form the basis of that new state the nakba
4:31
as Mahmoud abbas's U.N speech illustrates calls for accountability typically invoke the Balfour pledge
4:39
the legal significance of that pledge however is not so much in the Declaration itself and its adoption in
4:45
1917. at that stage it was merely a political statement made by the UK
4:52
foreign secretary to a prominent private individual as such it is of dubious legal standing
4:58
as a commitment binding on the UK and in any case the UK had no authority over
5:04
the territory when it was made what makes it significant politically
5:09
practically and legally is something else with a different date
5:16
the Centennial anniversary of which being tomorrow to appreciate this it's necessary to
5:23
understand Palestine as a mandate of the League of Nations what then was the Palestine mandate and
5:30
how is this relevant to contemporary accountability at the end of the so-called first world
5:36
war the Victorious allies took over the colonies of the defeated Powers one of
5:42
the prizes of victory the UK became the power in Palestine
5:47
displacing the defeated Ottoman Empire these Arrangements were placed under the
5:53
authority of the League of Nations in the mandate system unlike with other colonies they were
6:00
subject to the stipulations of the Covenant of the League of Nations the Covenant formed part of the Versailles
6:06
treaty thereby binding in international law on the states administering the mandated territories as part of that
6:13
International agreement to which they were a party the administration of each particular
6:19
mandate was set out in a dedicated mandate agreement itself a binding international law
6:26
instrument adopted by the governing Council of the League of Nations on which the UK sat
6:33
in the case of the Palestine mandate the agreement Incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration
6:40
it expanded out the general objective of the Declaration into a detailed set of
6:46
objectives for Colonial rule this then formed the ostensible legal
6:51
basis as a matter of international law for how the UK implemented these
6:56
objectives in the way it administered Palestine thus as a matter of international law it
7:03
is the Mandate agreement not the Balfour Declaration as such that is the key
7:08
legal instrument the council approved of the terms of the agreement in 1922 in a closed session at
7:17
St James's palace in London however the entry into force of the agreement was
7:23
made dependent on whether and when a separate mandated arrangement for Syria was concluded
7:30
when that subsequently happened the council then decided on the 29th of
7:35
September 1923 100 years ago tomorrow that the
7:41
Pastime mandate entered into Force as a binding International legal instrument
7:47
when it comes to Palestinian demands for a reckoning and the question of addressing what
7:52
legal instrument is relevant to these demands then it is the Mandate agreement
7:57
its entry into false and subsequent implementation by the UK that ultimately
8:04
counts not the Balfour Declaration for this the key Centennial anniversary
8:10
is tomorrow now some critics of the league council's
8:16
adoption of the Mandate agreement and the UK's implementation of it invoke the
8:22
idea of a right of self-determination in international law vested in the
8:27
inhabitants of the territory typically they associate this somewhat
8:32
vaguely with wilsonian self-determination and the League of Nations
8:38
however the view of international lawyers is that in this period there was
8:43
no legal right of external self-determination a right to be free
8:49
from Colonial rule four Colonial peoples generally this according to the general view of
8:56
international lawyers came later in the second half of the 20th century
9:02
thus the Palestinian people may have that legal right now but they didn't
9:07
have it then in consequence it is said the UK and the
9:13
League of Nations Council had a free hand on the question of the future of Palestine
9:19
if they decided that all or part of it was to be and I quote a national home for the Jewish people
9:25
even though most people living in Palestine at that time were not Jewish there was nothing legally impermissible
9:33
about this such an account removes any international law basis for addressing
9:40
Palestinian demands for a reckoning this feeds into the predominant current
9:46
approaches to the scope of the Palestinian right to self-determination in some Western countries
9:53
according to these approaches things only start once Israel and the territory
10:00
it claimed in 1948 has been taken into account and excluded from consideration
10:07
this limited Focus then addresses matters only in terms of Israel maintaining the occupation of the
10:14
Palestinian territory outside its borders captured in 1967.
10:19
the so-called West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza
10:24
with Jerusalem as a whole also treated as a distinct matter according to this account
10:32
the question of Palestinian self-determination is legally only a
10:37
subject addressed by Norms that became properly recognized in international law after the creation of Israel
10:45
Israel may be bound by the international law of self-determination and the law on
10:50
the use of force to end the occupation on an immediate basis though even this standpoint which is the
10:57
position in international law is not commonly Advanced by Western States but equivalent questions relating to the
11:05
mandatory period running up to 1948 are it is said by virtue of when in history
11:12
that period Falls subject to an opposing normative position
11:18
at that time the practice of the UK which in preventing Palestinian
11:24
Independence and enabling Zionist settler colonialism Echoes Israel in the
11:29
occupied Palestinian territory since 1967. was supposedly permitted
11:36
for the same reason the nakbar in 1948 did not therefore involve the violation
11:42
of the self-determination right of the Palestinian people in the territory of
11:48
the newly proclaimed Israeli state this feeds into broader international
11:54
debate law debates about Colonial redress and reparations
11:59
here a similar account is sometimes given to the account I just gave of the
12:05
Palestine mandate international law facilitated imperialism and colonialism it did not
12:13
prohibit it so contemporary efforts at redress have
12:18
to try to respond to this inter-temporal normative challenge by emphasizing
12:23
ongoing effects and Legacies this temporal shift moves the clock
12:29
forward into later periods of history when international law standards became
12:34
different others such as Sir Hilary beckles chair
12:40
of the reparations Commission of the Caribbean Community CARICOM challenge the it was lawful at the time
12:47
narrative in his case when it comes to the enslavement of people transported
12:53
and held at sorry transported to and held and exploited in the Caribbean
13:01
inspired by his work and also in response to a question put to me by the
13:07
Palestinian writer and founder of the Palestinian human rights NGO al-haq Raja
13:13
shahada concerning the issue of UK responsibility I decided that it was necessary to
13:20
revisit the international law Arrangements of the Mandate and re-evaluate the received wisdom about
13:26
these Arrangements this led me to the conclusion that the
13:31
legal position is different from how it's commonly understood there was no internationally valid legal
13:40
basis for the league to incorporate the Balfour commitment into the Mandate
13:45
agreement and so no legal cover for the UK to implement the commitment in practice
13:53
so I argue the UK violated international law in doing this
13:58
and the creation of in Israel in 1948 necessarily involved a violation of the
14:05
collective legal rights of the Palestinian people to appreciate how this argument's made
14:12
it's necessary to clarify the significance of a third legal instrument
14:17
that entered into Force halfway in the period between the Balfour Declaration
14:23
of 1917 and the Mandate agreement entry into force in 1923
14:30
as I mentioned the League of Nations mandate system was set up legally through the League of Nations Covenant a
14:38
binding in international law as part of the Treaty of Versailles and that entered into force in 1920.
14:46
in particular through article 22 of the Covenant
14:51
that article contained a crucial provision for mandates covering the former
14:57
dominions of the Ottoman Empire what became referred to as a class mandates
15:04
the mandates were divided up into three classes article 22 stipulates that and I quote
15:11
their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject
15:18
to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they're able to stand
15:26
alone Ender quote this is effectively a sui generous model
15:33
of self-determination it's not the same as the immediate right to Independence which became the right
15:40
in international law applicable to people in all Colonial territories in
15:46
the second half of the 20th century and so applicable to the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza now
15:54
but it's close to it through the requirement that independent statehood is the clear objective and
16:01
moreover that this should be provisionally recognized the people in A-Class mandates were
16:09
effectively placed in a privileged category compared to the people of all other colonies including other classes
16:17
of mandate as far as their entitlement to self-rule in general international
16:22
law was concerned this is commonly ignored because of the
16:28
lack of such an entitlement for people's in-colonial territories generally at that time which only came decades later
16:37
A-Class mandates are sometimes mistakenly lumped together into a
16:42
general category whereby self-determination as it came to be understood in the second half of the
16:48
20th century didn't have any relevance in the earlier period
16:54
this oversight treats the position of the people of these mandates such as the
17:00
population of mandatory Palestine as if the status of their territory was
17:05
to be determined at the complete discretion of the Lee Council and or the
17:11
mandatory Authority such discretion did indeed Prevail to a
17:17
certain greater degree in the case of many other Colonial territories until the later emergence of the general right
17:24
of self-determination in international law however things were different for
17:29
A-Class mandates the sui generous regime of article 22
17:35
was to be in operation from the start of the mandate the community that was to be
17:42
provisionally recognized as an independent nation was that of mandatory
17:48
Palestine at that time the population of which being 90 percent
17:53
non-jewish Palestinian there is therefore a fundamental
17:59
contradiction between the provisional Independence obligation in article 22 of
18:05
the Covenant and the Balfour Declaration plan enshrined in the Mandate agreement and
18:12
implemented in practice now I'm far from being the first person
18:17
to point out this contradiction a minority of commentators suggest that
18:23
it can be somehow reconciled in favor of the agreement and so actually there is
18:28
no contradiction but most of the actors involved in and
18:33
reacting to the process of adopting the agreement including Arthur Balfour himself
18:39
and commentators at the time and since proceed from an assumption that there
18:46
was a fundamental contradiction between the agreement and the Covenant
18:52
some criticize the agreement as a non-justified departure from the Covenant characterizing this as a
18:59
violation of the Covenant that they don't then explain whether this had any consequences for the legal
19:06
effectiveness of the agreement and in turn the lawfulness of the UK
19:12
actions in implementing it it is as if the Covenant was violated
19:19
but the Mandate agreement was nonetheless legally valid insofar as it
19:24
departed from the Covenant and thus constituted such a violation
19:30
to ultimately the same effect others assume without even acknowledging that
19:36
they're doing this let alone justifying their reasons for doing so they assume
19:41
that the agreement legally validly overrode the Covenant insofar as there
19:47
were contradictions between the two either way then the suggestion is that
19:54
the Mandate agreement was legally effective notwithstanding the fundamental contradiction with the
20:00
Covenant what all these approaches ignore is a
20:07
fundamental legal question that always arises when organs of international
20:12
organizations so here the Council of the League of Nations Act
20:18
did that organ have the legal competence under the constituent instrument of the
20:25
organization that it forms part of so here the League of Nations Covenant
20:31
to modify the operation of a fundamental stipulation of that constituent
20:37
instrument in the way it did here and if it did not what are the
20:45
consequences for the legal validity of the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine that contradicted article 22
20:54
and thus the legality of the UK actions whose lawfulness depended on such legal
21:01
validity although many commentators have addressed the legal status of the
21:07
Mandate agreement in the Centenary since it entered into Falls no one has considered it imprecisely
21:14
these terms according to the general principles of international law relating to the powers
21:21
of international organizations the Council of the League's competence
21:26
to act was limited it had to stay within the bounds of the
21:33
League of Nations Covenant as the constituent instrument of the organization
21:40
in Consequence the council didn't have the power to take action that
21:46
contradicted the express provisions of the Covenant thus the council could not validly
21:53
approve any stipulations in the Mandate agreement which were incompatible with
22:00
those provisions any such purported approval would
22:05
involve the council acting ultravirus Beyond its powers
22:12
as a result the relevant approval would be without legal effect in legal
22:18
terminology void AB initio in the same way the UK was bound to
22:25
respect and comply with the provisions of the Covenant as part of a binding
22:31
International treaty insofar as they related to mandatory Palestine
22:37
this prohibited the UK from any action which didn't respect and comply with
22:43
those provisions any breach of this prohibition is not
22:49
only a violation of international law also necessarily it could not act as a
22:56
valid basis for new Arrangements such as the Mandate agreement which purported to
23:02
Trump the prior relevant stipulations in the Covenant
23:08
the consequence as a matter of both the limited legal powers of the league
23:13
Council and the legal obligations of the UK as a party to the Treaty of
23:20
Versailles is as follows the operative International legal regime
23:26
for mandatory Palestine was constituted by the relevant provisions of the league
23:32
Covenant article 22 taken together with only those elements
23:39
of the Mandate agreement compatible with the Covenant provisions
23:46
it follows that we have to read the Mandate agreement as if those parts of
23:52
it implementing the Balfour commitment and contradicting article 22 of the
23:58
league Covenant are not there and insofar as the UK followed these
24:04
invalid parts of the agreement which it did in practice it acted unlawfully
24:12
by failing to provisionally recognize Palestinian statehood in the 1920s and
24:19
instead holding on to the territory for a quarter of a century
24:25
in order to enable the Balfour pledge to be realized the UK violated
24:30
international law just as the Contemporary inability of
24:37
the Palestinian people to exercise their right of self-determination has its
24:43
origins in what the UK did and did not do during the Mandate period
24:49
the violation of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people began with the UK in that period
24:57
not 1948 or 1967.
25:02
as a result of its cousin wrong in 1948 the UK has not since then been in the
25:10
same position to terminate the violation it enabled compared to the period when
25:16
it was the direct agent of that violation however The Unbroken factual trajectory
25:24
of the violation since 1948 means that
25:29
UK liability for it has operated since and continues today
25:37
now a protective obligation of trusteeship over people was adopted to
25:44
apply to all mandates under the Covenant this was in the terms of article 22 a
25:52
sacred Trust of civilization as such it implicates a general special
25:59
Global Community interest that all states and the United Nations have in
26:07
both expressing concerns about the violation and supporting redress
26:12
mechanisms for it in international law certain core
26:18
obligations have this special status engaging a global Good Neighbor
26:24
principle where everybody is regarded as having a legitimate stake in seeing a
26:30
core protective Norm observed not just those directly affected when it is
26:36
violated thus not only the Palestinian people and
26:41
the state of Palestine can potentially invoke UK liability
26:48
also other states and the UN as the institutional manifestation of the
26:53
International Community can do this on a global public interest basis
27:00
the Palestine mandate agreement is the key indeed to one of the main Avenues of
27:07
redress here each mandate agreement including the agreement for Palestine has an
27:14
international dispute settlement clause that Clause enabled a member of the
27:21
League of Nations estate to bring a case to the League of Nations permanent Court
27:27
of international Justice if that state had a complaint about how
27:33
the mandatory state was complying with its obligations under the mandate
27:39
whereas of course the league and its permanent Court are no more
27:45
the successor United Nations International court of justice in The Hague
27:50
inherited its predecessor Court's Jurisdiction and the icj has already affirmed in a
27:59
different context that the obligations under the Covenant concerning the
28:04
mandates did not come to an end with the extinction of the league
28:09
in consequence any state that was a member of the League of Nations would have standing
28:17
now to bring a case against the UK to the international court of justice in
28:23
The Hague to ask the court to provide the reparation sought by the Palestinian
28:29
people so to conclude the past is present
28:36
not only as is commonly appreciated in the ongoing denial of self-determination
28:43
of the Palestinian people and the link between this and Israel in both its 1948
28:51
Creation in and post 1967 occupation of the remaining parts of Palestine
28:58
but also as is much less commonly appreciated in the origins of the nakbar
29:06
in the acts and emissions of the UK and the the illegality of this
29:12
and the possibility of an international remedy today thank you
29:23
thank you thank you so much for that um we really appreciate you explaining a
29:29
lot of that stuff as someone with no international law in my background um very interesting to have a lot of it
29:35
clarified you're getting lots of comments people thanking you for um for laying that out so clearly and
29:41
we've had a bunch of really good questions already and I can see that there's more coming through so I'm going
29:47
to try to get through as many questions as possible um we will inevitably not have time for
29:52
all of them so apologies in advance um but I'll try to get at least one from every theme
29:58
um I just wanted to say Ralph that you quoted Raja shahadi he's actually watching today so hello Russia
30:04
um nice for you to join um so we've got a bunch about sort of
30:12
reparations a few different questions that have come in on that so I'm going to read to you two of them because
30:17
they're very similar um what they cover the same theme um if that's okay if Britain did break
30:24
international law to stop Palestinian Independence would Britain be liable for compensating the Palestinians because of
30:30
its part in keeping some under occupation and making others stateless and that's from Haytham Idris but we've
30:37
also got one from John Newman who says aside from the complicated legal situation How can any reparation
30:44
settlement be worked out 75 years after the end of the mandate
30:49
great questions so it there's a general principle of international law that um
30:54
every violation of international law um should give rise to uh reparations
31:01
and so that would be a very a standard
31:06
um uh a question that any any uh um uh International lawyer and judicial body
31:14
uh would have to assess according to the standard principles of international law and indeed
31:21
um uh that arises uh uh regardless of the severity of the violation regardless
31:29
of the time um uh the duration of the violation and how long ago of course we're talking uh
31:36
literally about a century uh from from tomorrow uh those factors of course make
31:43
that challenging but are Irrelevant in terms of the
31:49
entire entitlement to a compensation a separate piece of work which I have not
31:56
done yet would make us a suggestion about uh how uh a legal body would go
32:03
about uh making that calculation but for sure uh that is what the law would
32:09
require thank you for that um we have one question from
32:18
uh Chris August who was just curious about what other countries were Class A
32:23
and what types of countries were B and C so um
32:28
uh if you uh uh it I think the best thing to do would be
32:35
to suggest that you um have a look um online the information is is readily available essentially uh
32:43
there was a um a racist distinction adopted between uh three classes of uh
32:50
mandate ostensibly on the basis of their Readiness for Independence and the with
32:57
the A-Class mandates uh of which uh Palestine Was Won uh were understood to
33:03
be um uh potentially able to be independent
33:09
um uh as the league Covenant stipulated whereas for B and C mandates things were
33:16
different this was of course based on the uh racist standard of civilization
33:23
that was a feature of international law at that period dividing up peoples of
33:30
the world in in terms of their levels of civilization and in consequence their
33:37
supposed Readiness for um in the words of the league Covenant standing by themselves according to the
33:44
strenuous conditions of the modern world the post-second world war
33:50
self-determination entitlement supposedly did away with that concept of
33:58
incapability for self-administration ostensibly articulating an entitlement
34:04
to Freedom simply by virtue of being people with that right
34:11
so all the people of mandated territories all the different classes
34:18
plus people in other colonies were then understood to have that right in that in
34:24
this in the later period of the 20th century but under the league Covenant things were very different
34:30
and that's why Palestine as an A-Class mandate becomes uh especially
34:38
significant essentially the people of Palestine in international law had
34:44
effectively a right of external self-determination earlier along with other people in other
34:50
A-Class mandates earlier than people in other Colonial territories
34:59
thank you for that um we got a question from from
35:06
um I don't know but I'll read the question what specific responsibility is there on Britain for leaving Palestinian
35:13
stateless and Palestinian stateless at the end of the mandate
35:19
so that would form part of the general responsibility that the UK had as the
35:26
mandatory power I focused in the lecture on the central issue of failing to
35:33
implement uh effectively self-determination independent statehood in the
35:40
um early 1920s but also a separate heading of liability
35:46
um would be a failure to discharge its
35:51
duty of care uh to protect and Safeguard the welfare
35:58
of people in the Mandate which was also a legal obligation that the UK was
36:05
subject to under this special regime of the mandates in article 22 of the league
36:11
Covenant so there is as it were um a a two-part process of legal
36:20
obligation and violation the legal obligation which is mirrored by the situation now when it
36:27
comes to the Israeli occupation but the Palestinian territory the fundamental obligation uh to end
36:36
the uh the Mandate Administration the Israeli occupation now but then also the
36:43
obligation of protection that exists while those administrative arrangements are
36:50
conducted and of course in both both of those obligations are violated by both States
36:57
and those violations including in relation to the consequences for uh
37:04
Palestinian people who were rendered stateless would give rise to the legal
37:11
responsibility on the part of the UK
37:17
thanks for that um we've got another question sorry I'm I'm giving them to you fast and furious because we have so
37:24
many good ones and it's so nice to have an expert to actually ask these and get answers from
37:29
um this is a question from Victor Catan the amazing Victor Catan so uh he says hello thanks very much for the talk
37:36
Ralph um is the Palestine mandate still in force would it not need to be
37:41
enforced to invoke the dispute settlement Clause today so
37:47
fortunately we we don't need to deal with this issue in hypothetical terms because we
37:55
actually have um a series of cases relating to another mandate uh the Mandate uh of uh relating
38:04
to what was in it originally called Southwest Africa and later Namibia which also itself was challenged of course
38:11
because South Africa refused to end its administration of that territory
38:18
um in the second half of the 20th century and that situation went before
38:25
the uh International court of justice and the court determined that the
38:33
obligations under the mandate system uh continue to operate even though
38:40
obviously the League of Nations itself no longer um existed so the position would the sacred trust
38:48
that the UK owed under uh the um uh the Covenant and also
38:55
um its obligations under the uh mandate agreement would still operate so for
39:01
example uh Deanna if I can if I can carry on a little bit longer just on this to
39:07
explain there because this is uh relevant to this issue of their possibly
39:12
being a case to the international court of justice um
39:18
that two former members of the um the League of Nations Ethiopia and Liberia
39:27
um who were concerned about the fate of their fellow African sisters and
39:34
brothers in Namibia attempted to sue South Africa before the
39:41
international court of justice on exactly the same jurisdictional basis
39:46
that I suggested would be possible in the case of Palestine
39:52
invoking the dispute settlement clause in the Mandate agreement for in that case Southwest Africa
40:01
and the international court of justice held that that there was a
40:08
jurisdictional standing possible on the basis of that mandate agreement
40:15
so even in the post-second world war period the Mandate agreement uh in that
40:21
case related to Southwest Africa was still in force for the purposes of uh
40:27
the jurisdiction of the international court of justice so it would seem highly likely that the
40:34
court would make the same decision about the ongoing um
40:40
applicability of the Palestine mandates dispute settlement Clause uh when it
40:46
comes to a case brought um on the basis of that clause now the case brought by Ethiopian
40:53
Liberia ultimately didn't succeed because of a controversial decision made
41:00
by that Court uh reflecting the mores of the time in the 1960s and
41:08
the particular um composition of the court at that time and and this is regarded to be
41:16
um a a dark stain on the jurisprudence of the Court the court decided that
41:22
although there was this jurisdictional basis under the Mandate agreement to bring the case those two states didn't
41:30
have a inch an interest at stake so although somehow they could
41:35
jurisdictionally bring a complaint uh that would then not be possible because
41:42
they weren't bringing a complaint relating to something that they had a direct interest in
41:47
now as I say that's regarded as a um a decision of the Court uh that that
41:54
many International lawyers regard to be uh one of one of the um
42:02
the most criticized decisions in international law but in any event the
42:09
big thing that has changed uh since then and indeed had happened even before that Court by the time another case about
42:16
Southwest Africa then called Namibia went before the court in that case it was an advisor opinion in 1970
42:24
is the idea that the writing question uh the obligation of
42:31
um uh the the sacred trust obligation that mandatory States had under article
42:37
22 of the League of Nations Covenant implicates self-determination
42:44
and self-determination has now been clearly affirmed by that court in
42:51
a number of cases to provide potentially
42:58
um a a basis for so-called third States so States whose interests are not
43:05
directly at stake to be able to invoke a violation of that rule of international
43:11
law before the court so it's highly likely that the court would make
43:18
um it would now make a different decision from the decision that was made in the 60s
43:23
concerning Ethiopia and Liberia's standing to bring a case about
43:29
um Southwest Africa Namibia and that now it would be possible to make the case
43:36
for the court to accept that any state that was a member of the League of
43:41
Nations regardless of any connection to Palestine would be able to bring that
43:48
case on the basis of that generalized Global community in interest that exists
43:56
in ensuring that the right of self-determination when it's violated is
44:03
addressed thank you for that clear
44:09
um description of what's going on there um we have a question from Ronald Mendel
44:15
can the purported contradiction between the agreement and the Covenant be
44:21
understood in the in the UK's abuse of its Authority as a colonial power to facilitate the establishment of another
44:28
Colonial Authority the state of Israel is a settler Colony over the indigenous Palestinian population
44:37
I'm sorry I need to ask you to to just say that question again please Deanna
44:43
the purported contradiction between the agreement and the Covenant be understood
44:49
as I'm guessing as the UK's abuse of its Authority as a colonial power to
44:54
facilitate the establishment of another Colonial Authority
45:02
um yes so so the
45:08
legally speaking the argument is is is put in different terms but I see I see
45:15
the way you're framing it yes but the the so so it may be that the effect of
45:22
of the legal position is is is as you describe it even though not articulated
45:28
in in those terms but but any essentially the the the any uh
45:35
arrangement for the status of that territory and the people on it that wasn't based on provisional Independence
45:43
uh in the early twenties uh was a violation of
45:49
article 22 by the state that enabled that which is of course the uh the UK
45:58
thank you um we've got one from Pat Bryden who says that was absolute masterly
46:03
absolutely masterly so well done uh I agree the trouble is that the UK
46:09
government seems to pay little heed to International or national at times to
46:14
suit them law or to proper research how does one move the argument into politics
46:24
oh
46:33
I think that's a broader political question that I would not want to give an off-the-cuff answer to
46:40
um to respond to the point about not caring about international law
46:45
um I think that maybe a broader sort of UK point to make
46:52
um the the UK of course faces this challenging situation
46:59
um of being an increasingly um
47:05
state that is declining in its power globally and yet with certain ongoing Colonial
47:15
legacies and um indeed entitlements based on its past such as being a
47:21
permanent member of the UN Security Council and so I think we have to
47:26
understand that as a very important International Dynamic when it comes to
47:32
what we can expect from the UK and its governments of whatever kind and their
47:38
and their commitment to international law um the the
47:43
powerful states can play fast and loose with
47:49
international law commitments because they do not need to depend on international law uh for to safeguard
47:58
their interests um the UK uh is is facing up to its
48:06
position in international relations uh where it has to account for
48:11
the significance of international law in a different way from perhaps how it did in the past and
48:18
adjust Its Behavior accordingly
48:24
that's great thank you um it's just a question to ask whether this will be recorded and available to
48:30
the public yes we are recording this and it will go up um on our website and we'll be posting it
48:36
um it will be up by tomorrow so please do feel free to watch it again at your convenience please share it with anyone
48:42
that you think might be interested this has been a very very important webinar I'm sure you can all agree with some
48:47
just very key information to help us all give us a bit of um uh information that
48:53
we can go forward with so thank you very much um I'm gonna um I think we've got time for two more
48:59
questions now and I've got them lined up so um this one is from usam Ahmed from
49:05
al-haq who you are awesome um what role can third States like South
49:10
Africa and Ireland play in moving this forward thank you with Sam and also I did where
49:18
Sam works for al-haq and um uh uh Diana you mentioned that uh um the great Raja
49:24
shahada is also in attendance and I just want to pay tribute to to alha and their amazing work uh in very difficult
49:31
um increasingly difficult and challenging circumstances and also to offer my great thanks to uh Raja shahada
49:39
because it was his question to me in Ramallah uh um about this that prompted
49:45
me to look into these questions so my my great thanks and and respect to him and
49:51
to where Sam and uh Sharon jabarin and the and um my friends and and um
49:57
colleagues at Al hap for their amazing work um what can South Africa and Ireland do
50:04
South Africa and um Ireland were members of the League of
50:09
Nations and so uh they and other uh former
50:15
League states are in a direct position in a unique position as former League
50:20
members uh to be able uh to bring such a
50:25
case uh as an act of solidarity uh with
50:31
the Palestinian people and they would be able to do that individually or collectively the case
50:38
brought against South Africa was uh brought by Ethiopia and Liberia
50:45
it doesn't need to be one state that one would be enough that's super interesting and I just want
50:51
to say that we've also had talks past webinar um past webinars with Raja shahadi and
50:57
other members of our hack and Shawan jabarin spoke at our recent conference back in may as well and that is also on
51:04
our website in past events um so do check that out if um if you want to have a listen to what there's
51:10
what they say they're absolutely phenomenal I agree with you there um
51:20
question because it's a nice one it's from Ronald Mendel whose question you just answered an excellent webinar led
51:25
by the insightful and provocative presentation by Dr Wilde so um and you've had loads of other
51:31
positive comments like I said I'll be sharing the chat box with Ralph after the event so he will see all of your
51:36
comments and everything and before I go into the last question I want to do my regular um a fundraising appeal let's call it so
51:44
I've posted some links in the chat box if we do a lot of our events like these webinars for free because we really want
51:51
to be able to share this information from these experts working in different areas history Politics the Arts Etc
51:59
um we want to be able to share that widely and give everyone the information they need to carry on working on this issue but uh we have costs and um so if
52:08
you can if you can't support us in any way the cost of a coffee we would really
52:14
appreciate it or better yet I've also posted the link um to become a friend of the Balfour
52:19
project which means signing up for any amount for a regular giving whether it's monthly or annual there are some perks
52:25
to being our friends um our Eternal gratitude of course but also uh some of our paid events like
52:31
film screenings you get discounted tickets or preview tickets or free tickets for the paid events we also have
52:38
very regular friends meetings where you will have we have limited spaces for
52:44
those because we want to keep them nice and small so that everyone can participate and interact where we have a
52:51
Friends Meeting on zoom and hopefully in person in the future with key members of the Balfour project uh depending on what
52:59
is happening in our um in our plan and our event schedule and so forth so uh please do consider
53:05
supporting us in any way that you can we really really appreciate that and on that note I'm going to end with our last
53:11
question which is from Lara bird leaky who is an amazing woman who is one of our fellows because we have a fellowship
53:16
program where um we offer training and so forth to people that are either studying law or
53:23
religious studies or something to do with the Middle East and in return they work on a project
53:29
um that will you know further the aims of the Balfour project and she was one of the international law students and
53:35
she's absolutely phenomenal so she's got a question as a lawyer how would you build the legal case against the
53:41
retrospective actions of a colonial power
53:52
I I would I would say I'm not quite sure what retrospective actions
53:59
are if the question is about a legal case for things that happened
54:05
in the past uh then I think there's a the very
54:11
important um work being done by International lawyers on that subject
54:18
um I would draw your attention to the work for example of
54:25
um the two wonderful people um uh tendai chumi who is the uh was the
54:31
uh un uh special rapporteur um against um racism uh xenophobia and other forms
54:38
of intolerance and uh her reports uh have been uh off a very important
54:43
insights to that question uh and uh also the Suki nasaya um a law professor at
54:50
NYU I referenced also of course the work of of Hillary the very important work of
54:56
Hillary beckles um and the ideas that he's put forward essentially there are two approaches
55:05
um the approach that that looks back at history
55:10
um which of course in many ways to to invoke the the cliche is often written by The Victors and that can therefore
55:17
obscure actually um the uh the the the the legal
55:24
in a way that can make it more difficult to identify uh possible areas where even
55:31
the law at the time was violated and I think the work
55:36
the investigation that I conducted on the Palestine mandate perhaps reveals that and then there is so so that is
55:43
about actually in the in the tradition of Hillary beckles um suggesting that that even the
55:49
standards that were operative at the time the legal standards uh were violated uh so this isn't some sort of a
55:57
historical application of uh standard legal
56:02
standards uh then um which didn't operate at the time sort
56:07
of a judging the past by today standards um idea which is always an odd idea
56:13
politically because of course the standards of the time uh that the people who were the victims of these atrocities
56:21
um those standards did operate at the time but they were the standards of of the
56:27
victims and how they felt uh so it was an odd idea isn't it to say that that somehow a historical
56:34
um but separate from that in terms of legal standards is to focus on ongoing
56:41
legacies and therefore if there is a continued link uh between the past and today and that and that tendai Tumi has
56:48
done important work uh suggesting the possibility of um uh approaches to reparations
56:56
um on that basis that's fantastic for giving us all that
57:03
information It's amazing And before we sign off for the day um I just want to thank everyone for
57:09
attending and for giving us all the good questions um I also once apologize for not being able to get through all of them we never
57:14
have time for that um but I will also just read you one last comment from Jim harb uh because
57:20
it's lovely the most significant webinar on Palestine maybe in my life and I've been at this for Palestine for over 50
57:27
years many thanks for this important research and Legal Information so that's Jim harp based in the USA so just
57:34
thought that was a lovely note to end on um again I want to thank everyone for for coming along we will be putting
57:42
up the recording soon after before reading the chat to Ralph um soon as well so do share this with
57:49
anyone that you think might find it useful might find it interesting because it has been fascinating so Ralph again
57:56
yeah I know if I can just add um there's a full version of the of the argument that I presented available online in the
58:03
the the academic article uh is is is available
58:08
um Open Access uh so if you just Google me uh for an article
58:14
um with the title tears of the olive trees which is of course is a Mahmoud uh
58:19
Darwish quote uh then you can find the full version of the argument that I I
58:25
set out in this video um yes we I posted the link in the chat
58:31
box but also it's on our website balfourproject.org forward slash Wild
58:36
with an e at the end um that is also where the recording will be put up there's links to the article
58:42
and um we will be sharing it on our mailing list as well once the video goes up and everything
58:48
um we will also at some point be working on a transcript that always takes me a little bit longer because we've had some
58:53
uh people requesting for example the names that have been mentioned in your talk and so forth so
58:58
um we will get that up as soon as we can so that you'll be able to have access to everything that Ralph has mentioned and talked about so I just want to thank you
59:06
Ralph on behalf of the Balfour project for coming along and speaking to us and thank you on behalf of the audience as
59:11
well and um keep us up to date with your activities we look forward to hearing about what's happening with the icj case
59:18
and so forth so thank you all and we will see you next time bye
