Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: I confini di Israele

Un'analisi giuridica dello status dei TO, seguita da un lungo commento, che
ometto, e che si può comunque leggere all'URL
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php
 .
The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law
Anthony D'Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
This is an essay on the legal boundaries of the State of Israel. It is based
entirely on my understanding of international law. I have no first-hand
experience of the Middle East, and I speak entirely from law books and the
documentary record. I am not a Jew. I am not an Arab. In trying to assess my
internal biases, I must disclose that I feel a huge debt to the cultural and
intellectual enrichment flowing to me from the contributions of Jews: in
Broadway musicals (my especial passion), movies, theatre, law, and the
philosophy of science. I have also been a steadfast supporter of the State
of Israel as it was established, and under the boundaries it was given, on
May 15, 1948.
1. Palestine was a Mandate under Article 22 of the League of Nations
Covenant; in our parlance, a trust. The beneficiaries were the people
residing in Palestine. The Mandatory Power (trustee) was Great Britain.
Palestine was defined in Article 22 as one of those Mandates that was
"provisionally" recognized as an independent nation but nevertheless needed
on its road to statehood the "administrative advice and assistance" of a
Mandatory Power.
2. The League of Nations was dissolved in 1946. Its duties regarding
Mandates were assumed by the new United Nations that had been established in
1945. The Palestinian Mandate, of course, remained intact, just as a trust
remains intact even though the supervising judge or even the trustee may
change.
3. Great Britain informed the UN of its intention to relinquish its
trusteeship. By then a great deal of common law regarding Mandates had
developed through the years of the League of Nations. Under that law, Great
Britain could not simply abandon its responsibilities to the people of
Palestine. It could only relinquish its trusteeship responsibilities if it
left the people of Palestine in a viable self-governing position.
4. In consultation with the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, Great
Britain argued that it could not leave Palestine as a unitary self-governing
state, but it could relinquish its trusteeship if the territory were divided
into two states, a Jewish State and an Arab State. The question then turned
to the allocation of Palestinian land between the two new entities. Great
Britain argued that the division should not reflect the actual numbers of
Jews and Palestinians living in the territory because the Jews, as an
ethnic/religious entity, had a right to invite the surviving victims of the
Holocaust to come and live in the new Jewish State. As a result, the
proposed "partition plan" would give substantially more territory to the
Jewish State than was warranted by the number of Jews living in Palestine.
(I might add that I have always believed that the British decision was both
morally and legally justified.)
5. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted the key "partition"
resolution, Resolution 181, ratifying the British proposals. It also
provided for an independent international mixed status for the city of
Palestine. In my opinion, this Resolution constitutes the first, last, and
only legally authorized demarkation of the Israeli-Palestine borders. It was
legally authoritative not because it took the form of a UN Resolution, but
solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the
British proposal to divide the Mandate and leave its governance to the
people. In other words, the alpha and omega of the legal power resided in
Great Britain as the trustee and not in the United Nations. As trustee, it
had the power to partition the territory if and only if that was the best
way to provide for its future self-government. The General Assembly did not
derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but rather as
surrogate for the League of Nations as it devolved its powers of mandate
supervision to the UN and, through the UN, to the General Assembly itself.
Legal title to the land was not conferrred by Resolution 181 alone but
rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the terms of Resolution 181. The
State of Israel owes its entire legal existence to the proper exercise by
Great Britain of its League of Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory
of Palestine. It owes nothing to the United Nations and, by the same token,
cannot claim any additional rights from the United Nations. Instead, as soon
as Resolution 181 was passed (and of course Great Britain voted in its
favor), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever fixed.
Those borders henceforth could only be changed by one of two processes:
first, explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized representatives
of Palestine, and second, in the few cases of limited disputed areas where
the verbal description contained in Resolution 181 was ambiguous in terms of
existing maps or surveys, by international arbitration. The Security Council
had and has no power to change international borders.
6. Although Israel proclaimed itself as a state within six months of
Resolution 181, the Palestinians - for convoluted internal reasons plus the
land-grabbing ambitions of surrounding Arab states - did not seriously
entertain the idea of a State of Palestine for almost another forty years.
In any event, as is well known, neighboring Arab states, proclaiming that
the United Nations had sold out the Palestinians, attacked Israel. To the
world's astonishment, Israel not only prevailed in the war, but beat back
the Arab invaders and in the process more than doubled the previously
partitioned territory of Israel. Israel then ousted the Palestinians who
were living in the conquered area, and they have ever since been remitted to
conditions of squalor in refugee camps that dot the Middle East.
7. The six-day war of 1967 further increased the size of Israel at the
expense of the Palestinians. In the direct aftermath of the war, the
Security Council of the United Nations, exercising its Chapter 7 powers
under the UN Charter, passed Resolution 242 calling for the withdrawal of
Israeli forces "from territories of recent conflict" and "achieving a just
settlement of the refugee problem." Israel and the U.S. interpreted the
Resolution's call for "withdrawal from territories," and not "the"
territories, as a less than complete withdrawal because the word "the" was
not mentioned. The mild joke in circulation at the time was that anyone
opposed to the U.S.-Israeli interpretation was "anti-semantic". Israel took
the position that it was therefore not legally required to withdraw from the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip that it had just conquered, and indeed that it
could erect Israeli settlements in those territories.
8. But semantics aside, in my view the Security Council simply does not have
the power to take land from A and give it to B, irrespective of its
undoubted legal power in the event of a threat or breach of the peace to
restore international peace and security. The sanctity of international
borders is a principle of international law that antedates the Charter of
the United Nations; in fact it goes back five thousand years. No smaller
nation would have supported the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference
in 1945 if the draft Charter had given to the five permanent menbers of the
Security Council - the United States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union,
and China - the legal power to change international frontiers. After all,
the five permanent members at the time had been wartime allies, and in
concert they could reshape the world at will if they had been given such an
unprecedented power. Morever, there is nothing in the Charter of the United
Nations that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security
Council to change international borders. Even Resolution 242 only calls for
a withdrawal of forces, and makes no mention of a permanent change in
boundaries. As far as the Israeli settlements are concerned, they are
clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to de facto annexation of
portions of the territory by population transfers.
9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact
that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the
International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea
of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the
aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort
to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the
self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all
its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied,
but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions
and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN
resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after
Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain
today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.

they were delimited in Resolution 181.
Ca***ta finale.
-Stefano

 ad una nazione di rinunciare al suo mandato per qualsivoglia motivo.
Ah, sì, Coso? Beh, mr. D'Amato insegna alla Northwestern University School
of Law. Tu, ciccio, dove insegni? Magari non conosci quelle "fantasiose
leggi" per tua ignoranza. Ma, ne sono certo, il tuo curriculum accademico mi
toglierà ogni dubbio in proposito. Prego.
Namib

 Namib
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

School of Law.
E si nota come conosce bene i metodi di votazione del Consiglio di
Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite :))
*ROTFL*
-Stefano

mentale come de cesari?
...disse il bue all'asino... :))
*LOL*
-Stefano

 Namib
Namib anche tu sei ebreo? il nostro super-pseudosapientone ha un feeling
speciale per farsi mandare a cagare dagli ebrei....curioso, vero?
Non ce n'è uno (di ebreo) che gli abbia risposto su questo ng senza prima
o poi mandarlo affanculo...e nella sua foto sul sito a lui dedicato il
nostro compare accanto a una bella kefiah palestinese...alla fine l'unica
possibilità che ho trovato è che il deficentesari è pagato da qualche
Hamas per rendere odioso Israele. E mi sembra che spendano bene i loro
soldi, perchè ci riesce benissimo. Ciao,
CDG


 Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite
Ah ah ah.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/damato/damabio.html
BIOGRAPHY
ANTHONY D'AMATO
Judd and Mary Morris Leighton Professor Of Law
Anthony D'Amato's interest is in the theory of law. He writes in the areas
of international law and jurisprudence, focusing upon their underlying
analytic structure. His most recent books include The Alien Tort Claims
Statute: An Analytical Anthology, European Union Law Anthology,
International Law: Process and Prospect (2nd ed.), Analytic Jurisprudence
Anthology, International Intellectual Property Law, and volume 2 of his
collected papers, published by Kluwer Law International. His first book, The
Concept of Custom in International Law, published in 1971, is generally
regarded as a classic and is one of the most widely cited works in
international law.
Professor D'Amato has taught courses in constitutional law, environmental
law, international law, international intellectual property law,
jurisprudence, justice, legal ethics, and torts, and since 1976 has lectured
on professional ethics at Northwestern University Medical School. He has on
occasion taught courses on the Evanston campus in the departments of
Philosophy and Political Science. He is founder and chair of the Human
Rights Interest Group of the American Society of International Law, and past
president of the International Law Section and the Jurisprudence Section of
the Association of American Law Schools. He has been active in the American
Bar Association, serving as a member of the council of the Section of
International Law and Practice, as chair of the Committee on International
Courts and the Committee on Independence of Lawyers and Judges. He has
served as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of
International Law and is advisory editor of the Journal of International
Legal Studies.
Professor D'Amato has stated his belief that the occasional practice of law
helps make more realistic his teaching and writing. Notable among the cases
he has litigated are the only court of appeals victory against the
government in a military service case during the Vietnam era, the only court
of appeals victory against a foreign sovereign for a governmental tort
committed against an American citizen, and the only case litigated (and won)
by an American attorney in the European Court of Human Rights.
Professor D'Amato received his AB from Cornell University with Distinction
and High Honors, his JD from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, and a PhD
from Columbia University where he was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow. After
teaching for three years at Wellesley College, he joined the Northwestern
faculty in 1968. He was the Perkins Bauer Teaching Professor at Northwestern
in 1984-85 and the Stanford Clinton Sr. Research Professor in 1989-90.
-------------------------------
Oh, Coso, hai dimenticato ancora di comunicarmi il tuo curriculum
accademico...
Namib

prima o poi mandarlo affanculo...
Se lo dici tu... :))
*LOL*
-Stefano

 accademico...
E perche' dovrei? :)  Basta quello che scrive il tuo di accademico per
qualificarlo :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 *LOL*
naturalmente tu hai le prove ch ci sono degli ebrei che ti apprezzano, ma
non ce le vuoi mostrare, vero?
CDG
ps vai a cagare imbecille rottinculo....e come vedi anche se indirizzi le
risposte a it.fan.culo, io sono qui a mandarti a cagare lo stesso.


 qualificarlo :)
Ah ah ah... Il "mio" accademico? Lui lo č. Tu no (e si vede...). Lui INSEGNA
le materie su cui tu (senza nemmeno averle studiate: e si vede dalla tua
fessissima osservazione sul CdS, che dimostra - btw - anche la tua scarsa
consuetudine con la logica...) pretendi di pontificare (con spassosi
"effetti collaterali"). Suvvia, insisti: il ridicolo ti dona, asino. Vuoi
sottoporci qualche gaffes di Rubbia in subatomicis? Hai qualche verso di
Ungaretti da correggere? Non ti convincono le teorie linguistiche di
quell'ignorantone di Todorov? Vuoi dimostrarci che Asor Rosa non conosce la
letteratura italiana? Deh, delěziaci. P.S. Allora? A che punto sono i tuoi
studi sugli errori commessi dai redattori dell'ed. CEI-UECI della Bibbia nel
tradurre Isaia? Shalom.
Namib, the ox.

 Namib, the ox.
sěěěěěěěěě!!!! Mi ricordo anch'io di quando il deficentesari č cascato
dalle nuvole quando qualcuno gli ha parlato dei primi libri della Bibbia
come "i libri di Mosč", e lui non sapeva nemmeno che si chiamano cosě! 
Uno che non sa che i libri della Torah sono i libri di Mosč e poi fa
sempre l'apologia di Israele equivale a uno che dice di essere un
matematico, e poi non ha mai sentito nominare il quinto postulato di
Euclide...č al livello zero della conoscenza delle cose ebraiche! Secondo
me lo paga qualche servizio segreto arabo, per fare propaganda becera
filo-israeliana, in modo che grazie a lui alla gente che lo legge Israele
e gli ebrei staranno sul cazzo ancora di piu'....Ecco a chi fa comodo
deficentesari!
Ciao
CDG


ps vai a cagare imbecille rottinculo....
...disse il bue all'asino...
*ROTFL*
-Stefano

Suvvia, insisti: il ridicolo ti dona, asino.
...disse il bue all'asino... :)
-Stefano

Uno che non sa che i libri della Torah sono i libri di Mosč
Non lo sono infatti :)  Ne lo sono mai stati :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 *LOL*
sei proprio un testa di cazzo....


 -Stefano
poverino, gli si č incantato il disco.....


 poverino, gli si è incantato il disco.....
