It may be that the idea of statehood, imperfectly expressed in the Montevideo Convention, has been modified by these developments. But it is curious that the debate about the statehood of entities such as Palestine is still conducted in terms of that Convention. Boyle's essay is a good example of this. Rather than examining separately the four apparently discrete criteria listed in the Montevideo formula, it is preferable to focus on the notion of state independence as a prerequisite for statehood. From this perspective, the often stated proposition that the absence of clearly delimited boundaries is not a prerequisite to statehood is axiomatic.
Boundaries are the consequence of territory.
It is the basis in space for the organized community which is the state. No doubt the PLO directly and indirectly exercises considerable influence within the occupied territories, and commands the allegiance of a significant part of the population of those territories. But this falls far short of what is required in terms of the first element, the existence of an organized self-governing community. In this respect Boyle fails to face up either to the law or the facts. Of course there are other conceptions of statehood under which different results might be reached.