Ibrahim Shaban

War is a social phenomenon that affected humanity since ancient times. Its aim is to achieve different and varied goals of human communities. It stems from various causes. War has been a human predicament since creation and will probably continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

Despite the tragedies of this complicated phenomenon and its heavy human costs, some still think that it is a natural phenomenon or even a useful one that warrants no justification. They add that war is a means to settle disputes between nations. It is neither a crime nor a shame. But it is a conventional means to settle international differences and disputes.

Yet other jurists do not think that war is an inherent human condition; nor is it an evil trait acquired unknowingly and indiscriminately. It is the product of objective circumstances and ailments that plague the International Community because of economic and/or, social injustice, and/or exploitation, racial discrimination, manipulation and/or hegemony or otherwise.

Whatever the view of the war is, we can simply say that it is an armed struggle between two or more states, each trying to achieve victory over its enemies so that it might impose its will and conditions to bring about peace and security.

War has two sides: De Facto and De Jure. The former implies military operations and the latter implies severing peaceful and diplomatic relations, treating ships and planes according to the Law of War, and imposition of restrictions on trade with the enemy state and its subjects. Be it De Facto or De Jure, war is bound to end by the conciliation of the two warring parties.

Tremendous efforts have been expanded to stop war, but to no avail. War remained a major means to settle international disputes. However, those efforts were revived after World War I through the League of Nations and were crowned with the Paris Pact of 1928 (Briand-Kellogg). They were confirmed by the United Nations Charter in 1945. Both agreements banned war. The ban on war was clear and blunt in Paragraph four of Article two of the UN charter which stipulates, that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations". Paragraph IV was but a confirmation and manifestation of Paragraph III of Article II, of the Charter, which stipulates that all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice, are not endangered".(1)

This total ban on war can only be abrogated or restricted in the case of legitimate self-defense which was endorsed by the Charter in Article 51 which stipulates that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and Security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security".

Despite this ban, war broke out between UN member's states Each country had its own pretext for waging war. But the general justification was the legitimate self-defense. Examples of this can be found in the 1956 Suez War, the Vietnam War, the Indian-Pakistani War, the Arab-Israeli War, El Salvador, Cyprus, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and others. But one may notice that wars between the big powers have receded and were replaced by regional and local wars.

Among these wars are : the June 1967 War between Israel on one side and Egypt, Syria and Jordan on the other and the August 1990 War between Iraq and Kuwait. The former resulted in the occupation of Sinai, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel. The latter ended with Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. But the causes, nature, essence and results of each of these two wars were different.

Israeli Occupation after twenty-four years is still holding on to the Arab territories except for Sinai. But Kuwait was liberated after less than eight months and it regained its independence and government.

As far as the Iraqi-Kuwaiti dispute is concerned, there is an abundance of UN Security Council resolutions. In less than five months the UN Security Council passed twelve resolutions, whereas on the Palestine question we have only one resolution, namely 242. Even this single resolution, in my view, deals more with the consequences of the 1967 War than with the Palestine question proper, its roots, causes and consequence.

When we examine the Security Council resolutions concerning the Gulf Crisis, we find that they have started on August 2nd, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first resolution demanded Iraq's withdrawal unconditionally. On 6 August, the Council adopted resolutions 661 imposing strict trade embargo on Iraq. On 9 August resolution 662 declared Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, null and void. And on 25 August 1990, the Council adopted resolution E665 authorizing the use of limited naval force to ensure compliance with the economic blockade. On 25 September 1990, an air-blockade was imposed on Iraq. Finally on 29 November 1990, the Council adopted resolution 678 authorizing the use, against Iraq, of all the necessary means. In other words it authorized the use of force.

The UN Security Council resolutions concerning the Palestine question are very few or non-existent. It took the Council five and a half month to adopt resolution 242. As for resolution 338, it was irrelevant and dealt more with the cease-fire in the October 1973 War. I would like to point out here that I am referring to the Security Council resolutions rather than those of the General Assembly or any other Committees of the UN.

When the Gulf War was over, hopes were revived with respect to the Palestinian issue. Voices were raised demanding that international legitimacy be used as a basis to solve the Palestine question. There were calls for renouncing duality in implementing international law and for carrying out what had been endorsed by international consensus and conventions.

In this cursory study I am not going to present my perceptions for political solutions because this would carry the study beyond its boundary. But I am going to point out the main legal points that should be taken into consideration as a basis for a future solution. If these legal points are not considered, the solution will be deficient, incomplete and illegitimate. The Gulf Crisis will undoubtedly enhance these principles and reduce their disputability, or refutability or even treating them in a different manner than was the case in the Gulf Crisis. In the following paragraphs these considerations will be discussed with some detail.

The Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force:

he contemporary international law, has rejected war as a means to settle international disputes. This principle had only been established after the formulation of the United Nations Charter, though it had been written in the Paris Pact of 1928. Accordingly, the outcome of war becomes illegal especially when it is a war of aggression.

However, international law had defined ways for acquiring title on a territory. Some of these ways are: geographical discovery, the occupation of res nullius or relinquished land, prescription, invasion, cession and annexation. All these means have been legal until recently.(2)

Since there is no territory left undiscovered nowadays, all these means have ceased to be valid. Even the Antarctic has been discovered. The conditions for prescription are so difficult that some jurists doubt its existence in reality. As for invasion, it is totally banned and is inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.

The only remaining means of legal territory acquisition is cession. It is a bilateral, rather than unilateral, act. In other words, it has to be agreed upon by two states. One cedes something and the other accepts it, that is, there has to be two elements: first, agreement between two states, and second, actual delivery.

This being the case, all these means for territory acquisition become invalid in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are then left with the last form, namely, cession. This form should be ratified by an international treaty, without which Israel's hold over Arab and Palestinian territories remains illegal.

The UN Security Council resolution 242 was perhaps aware of this fact and this principle of international law, when it provided in (its preamble to Resolution 242 that:
"The Security Council, expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which 1every state in the area can live in security,
emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter ..."

It should be noted here that the truce agreements signed by each of Jordan, Egypt and Syria with Israel, do not constitute a source of sovereignty for any of them. Nor do they grant legal title to any one. They do not diminish the sovereignty of anyone either. A truce agreement is a legal act to cease hostilities between two or more parties until a peaceful settlement has been reached between the disputants. The agreement itself has explicitly stated that.

It should also be remarked that the omission of "the" from the English text concerning the territories makes no difference. For, the Security Council is neither authorized nor capable of revoking an established principle of International law regarding the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.

The Inadmissibility of annexation :

If war is banned, the acquisition of territory by invasion is illegal, or rather an international crime, then it is only logical and 1adequate to consider annexation null and void.

Whatever means and form annexation might assume, it is still banned. In other words, annexation, whether performed by the single volition of the occupier, or by the volition of the occupier together with the volition of a government of its making, and whether this annexation came in the form of a so-called unification, and consent of the inhabitants, even if a third country recognizes its legitimacy, and whatever the nature of the war leading to annexation, be it legitimate or illegitimate, all these factors, collectively or individually, do not legitimize annexation. It remains null and void.

It is well-established in the writings of jurists and in the workings of the judiciary that the annexation of occupied territories is inadmissible. The Nuremburg Court upheld that in 1946. This principle was also upheld in the deliberations of North and South American politicians. Thus, the principle of Stemson which decides that annexation is null and void still prevailing.(3)

The International Community, represented by the UN Security Council did the same thing when it rejected Israel's annexation of Arab Jerusalem. It declared that this annexation was null and of no avail (4) The same thing happened to Iraq's annexation of: Kuwait. But there was a major difference between the two annexations. It took the Security Council more than two years to pass a resolution on Jerusalem's annexation, whereas in the case of Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, hardly a week had elapsed on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, then a resolution was passed on 9 August 1990, that is, just a day after Iraq had declared its decision to annex Kuwait. This clearly indicates a fault in UN mechanisms with their double standard and colorful criteria. The principle, however, is one but the implementation varies.

Despite the nullity of annexation in the international law, the issue of Jerusalem is expected to be subject to acute controversy as Israel would refuse to withdraw. In return, the Arabs and Palestinians will be more adamant in their rejection of the annexation. They will go even further and make Jerusalem the capital of the independent Palestinian State. International legitimacy must stand up for its principles and elementary facts.

It is true that religious freedom is a basic one that all people should enjoy. But it does not, in any way, legitimize Israel's annexation of Jerusalem under the pretext that Jews should also observe their religious rites. They should abide in their observances, by the British Mandate Law of 1931. They should also restore the status quo to its pre-5 June 1967 condition, especially in the Magharbeh Quarter where more than 550 houses need to be restored and renovated in this Waqf property.

The issue of religious practices is not an insurmountable problem. Its solution is easy. It will not be difficult for the politicians to solve it especially when religious holidays are few.
The main issue, however, is Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements

Settlement

UN resolutions 242 and 338 did not deal with the issue of settlement which has taken a considerable dimension under the prolonged Israeli occupation. However, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 dealt with this issue. The last paragraph of Article 49 stipulates that: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".

Israeli settlements is a morbid phenomenon that had spread in Palestine. It is not only an obstacle to peace, but it is also a violation of international law. So any solution consistent with international law must decide that settlements are illegal, that they should be vacated and the settlers sent to whence they came from without any commitment for compensation by the Palestinian side "or the international community.

Settlements were basically established in accordance with the security theory. A series of settlements were created according to the Alon Plan. Moshe Dayan stated that these settlements create facts that would demarcate the new lines for security. Since Security in the new era and in accordance with the emerging world order is not based on military force, then settlement as a security pretext is null.

The settlement question in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip appears easy to resolve when compared with what happened in Sinai, specifically Yamit. But, the major problem lies in Arab Jerusalem, especially in the quarters constructed by Israel to encircle Arab Jerusalem.(5)

International law does not differentiate: What is based on nullity is null. Aggression is fruitless. The United Nations strongly condemned the establishment of new settlements and considered it null and void. Hence, the conditions must be restored to their pre-War status. And the occupying power should pay for the damages incurred by the citizens as a result of settlement.

The Right to Self-Determination

Self-determination is a basic and binding right. It is not true that it is an ambiguous, or a political or a discrepant principle. Nor is it true that it leads to the destruction of the United Nations Charter. On the contrary, many jurists consider self-determination as legal defense because it is the defense of a people against violence, and repression. It leads to the freedom of the individual and to the fulfillment of human needs and rights for all.

Violation of the right of self-determination is an international crime. It is one of the Jus Cogens in international law. It is also a fundamental and primary condition for the achievement of all basic human rights, such as the right to life, opinion, conscience and others. It is sufficient to know that the first rules of the Convention on civil and political rights and the Convention on the social, cultural and economic rights provide for self-determination.

Jurists of international law consider violation of the right of self-determination in any form as void because it is inconsistent with Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of International Treaties and is inconsistent also with the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations in 1970.(6)

To sum up, self-determination has been one of the well-established principles in the international law. It is a legal as well as a political conception. Besides, it is a right for human communities that has been practiced by all peoples except the Palestinian people.(7) .The omission of any mention of this right in UN Security Council resolution 242 makes no difference at all. It Mourners would have been better, if this right had been laid down in the SC resolutions.

I am not going to delve into the historical characteristics of the Palestinian people, either the distant past or the present. It is enough to recall the 1969 UN General Assembly resolution, which recognized the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. I would like also to recall the UN General Assembly resolution recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to equal rights and the right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and that it fully recognizes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to independence as an essential element for establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Right of Return

The right of return is something legitimate and is practiced by states and individuals. No one has ever doubted its legality. Therefore, no one has thought of laying it down in an international bill. Historically, this right has not caused much controversy. Most probably, it was the denial of this right to the Palestinians since 1947 and 1967 that had aroused this controversy.

If we are to respect international law, then we must respect human rights and the humanitarian international law. It follows then that the Palestinians' right of return is honored. Count Bernadotte referred to this right in his report in 1948. The UN accepted his recommendation and affirmed the right of the refugees either to return, or to adequate compensation.

The UN General Assembly passed many and successive resolutions concerning the right of return. The GA went further and described this right as un-transferable and cannot be ceded. This right includes pre partition, post-partition and post-1967 Territories (8)

It may be argued that the right of return may change the Jewish character of the Israeli State. To this argument we reply by saying that this "Jewish Character" claim is only an extenuation of the racial discrimination practiced by the Israeli State. Moshe Dayan stated that "We can absorb the refugees economically. But I think that their absorption does not conform with our future goals. For, Israel might be turned into a bi-national state instead of being a Jewish State. We want a Jewish State. We can absorb them but the State will no longer be the same State".

To put the matter simply, we might say that despite the fact that the Security Council resolution "affirms the need for an urgent settlement of the refugee problem" and despite the flexibility of this wording, I believe that it meant the right of return. Otherwise, the laid down principles of international law would fit cases selectively. Then we would fall into a double-standard system and into the same loopholes that impaired international law and called its credibility into question.

The Mechanism of Implementation

The above-mentioned principles are undoubtedly, well-established in international law. But Israel has never honored them. It always believed that it would get away with this. So, it jettisoned all the principles of international law and the resolutions of its organs. Since the Gulf Crisis has turned over a new leaf in international law, how can these principles and resolutions be enforced to the question of Palestine?.

The question is: Shall we follow the text of Paragraph 3 of resolution 242? Is the provision of 242 a must and binding? In other words, was the failure of Gunnar Jarring - the envoy of the UN - Secretary General - in 1968, the end of the round, with no need to renew this mission? Or, must the Secretary General send a representative to the Middle East to make contacts with the concerned states to help in the efforts to bring about a peaceful and acceptable settlement based on the provisions and principles of this resolution?

The envoy of the UN Secretary General has failed to implement Secretary Council Resolution 242. Does this deter the Secretary General from trying again? Is it rational to abandon peace efforts because one or more persons have failed? The question is: Is this the only way to achieve peace? Or are there other ways not provided for in 242 or 338?

Does the mechanism of implementing international law mean just convening an International Conference? And what kind of Conference will it be? Is it similar to Geneva Conference of 1973? Or is it a conference sponsored by the United Nations? Or will it be sponsored by the two super powers? Or is it to be a regional conference with US presence? Or is it a mixture of all those proposals? Or is it still too early to convene such a conference, which has to be well structured and to take place at the appropriate time so that it may be fruitful, as the US claims?

Israel discarded the first two proposals. It demanded direct negotiations with some Arab countries without pre-conditions. It also prefers to conduct those negotiations with countries which have no common borders with it, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The second part of this Israeli plan calls for elections in the O.T. with whom it will negotiate over self-government provided that it declares its detachment from the PLO.

It is my opinion that the United Nations which played a decisive role - albeit ostensibly - in the Gulf Crisis is requested to play the same role in the Arab-Israeli dispute. It should cease to be discriminative in international disputes. For aggression is the same. And occupation is occupation everywhere. And peace is peace.

To put it in simple terms: Will the Security Council denounce the Israeli aggression, and demand the withdrawal of the Israeli forces unconditionally? Should Israel fail to comply, will the Security Council invoke Article 41 of the seventh chapter of the UN Charter? In other words, will the Security Council ask the UN member states to sever their economic relations, their sea, posted, air, cable and wireless communications, totally or partially with Israel? Will it also ask those member states to cut off their diplomatic relations with Israel?

If Israel rejected those sanctions, would the Security Council enforce a naval blockade against it as it did against Iraq by virtue of resolution 665? Will it also couple the sea blockade with an air blockade as it did in resolution 670? All that was done in accordance with Article 42 which stipulates that "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade and other operations, by air, sea or land forces of members of the United Nations".

Even if Israel rejected all these resolutions, would the Security Council, just as it did in resolution 678, adopt in resolution authorizing the use of all possible means to liberate the Palestinian territory, unless Israel withdrew from it unconditionally?.

I very much doubt that the Security Council would adopt any such resolutions. Even in the aftermath of the Gulf Crisis, there is no hope for such hypothesis. More than twenty-three years have elapsed since Israel occupied the Arab territory, and not a single resolution of this sort was adopted. Can one conceive such cases and resolutions after such a long time!?

Anyway, in light of what had happened in the Gulf Crisis, the only resort to the Palestinian people has to be the charter of the United Nations, the established principles of International Law, and the resolutions and declarations of the United Nations and its various organs. To reactivate these organs and set them to work, I suggest the following.

An International Organization, and Guaranteeing
International Peace and Security

A real peace in the Middle East is inconceivable with the absence of law. This requires the establishment of an international authority that ensures for international law the necessary and effective sanctions valid to all nations and crises. There is no argument that the best way to ensure the respect and implementation of this law of nations is to set up an international organization based on the principle of cooperation. This organization should rely on the world public opinion and, if need be, on military strength to deter aggression and stop it.

War should be renounced by the international community. Legal rules have to be crystal clear, with implied sanctions. Aggression, legitimate defense and the use of armed force have also to be defined. This international organization is to be concerned with mediation, enquiry and conciliation in the international disputes. It should lay down peaceful solutions to these disputes in such a way as to prevent the use of force or the threat of force in international relations. All states should comply with the conditions of settling disputes as drawn out by the various organs of this new international organization or the existing United Nations organization.

The Establishment of an International Judicial Organ

The International Court of Justice in the Hague is the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice after World War II. It has its own basic statute that governs the work of its judges, its functions and its decisions. But, in actuality, it had been demonstrated that the judgments of this court - though very few - have no compulsory character. They are no more than moral obligations.

However, it is my opinion that this respectable judicial organ should be preserved, with an attempt to amend its basic statute to endow it with more credibility than it enjoys now concerning international disputes.(9)

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict we may turn to the International Court of Justice for advisory opinion of any disputed issue that is shrouded with ambiguity in the mind of any party to the conflict such as self-determination, settlements and sovereignty.

Creation of Permanent International Forces

All states have expressed their desire to have an effective United Nations. So, they have entrusted the Security Council with the main task of keeping international peace and security. To carry out its task, the Security Council has set up a staff committee to help it handle all forms of military operations. But, I think that the formation of a permanent international force that would repress all forms of illegal use of force, and would deter any state seeking to attain unjust goals inconsistent with the UN Charter or the principles of international law, is the only means to compel such states to seek peaceful solutions to their disputes.

I am certainly not talking about UN forces to supervise a cease-fire between two states, or forces to disengage warring parties, or peacekeeping forces. I am talking about international forces in the precise sense of the term. Forces that would repress all forms of aggression. This does not mean the abolishment of all types of UN Peace-Keeping forces. Both are complementary.

I do not think it needs a strong imagination to affirm that had such forces, been created, there would have been no Israeli occupation of Palestinian or other territories. Nor would occupation have lasted for so long.

Total Disarmament

The elimination of all conventional weapons from the Middle East is vital to guarantee the ban of wars and to achieve international peace and security. This total disarmament or even a substantial reduction of these weapons will enhance the efficiency of the permanent International Forces, the international judicial organ and will remarkably bolster the degree of obligation in the decisions of the international body.

Though the elimination or reduction of conventional weapons is important, yet it is much more important to eliminate weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The elimination or reduction of all these weapons in the Middle East will remove fear and will lead to a new era of 0friendly relations among the warring parties.

Social and Economic Welfare

One of the lessons drawn from the Gulf Crisis is that the deep gap separating the peoples of the region should be narrowed to the greatest possible degree. Should this gap be allowed to persist, it would remain a source of unrest and instability in the region. Narrowing this gap is vital and urgent regardless of its causes, be they economic exploitation, foreign occupation, narrow regionalism, racial superiority or a mixture of all the above-mentioned.

Therefore, it is obvious that what is required is the creation of regional or international economic funds to offer economic assistance to achieve economic prosperity, for all countries in the region and to held them out of their deprivations. The creation of such funds will certainly have a tremendous social impact on the working class or in the context of social security or the conditions of work or the rights of workers, their duties and the obligations of employers. Such funds or any other effective international mechanisms that would bring about economic or social prosperity to the region would, at the same time, provide fertile ground that might prevent or at least reduce international disputes.

Enhancing the Power of the General Assembly

In view of the special nature of the Security Council which may hinder the work of the international community for international peace and security, namely the five permanent A members of the Security Council, I therefore, suggest that the Charter of the United Nations be amended to give more power to the UN General Assembly and to give its resolutions a binding and determinative quality in the international community and the Palestine cause. It is my opinion that the General Assembly be empowered to maintain international peace and security, to settle international disputes peacefully and in accordance with justice, Fairness s and the principles of international law.

After all, what we have suggested, whether in the context of international law or the context of the mechanism of implementing these principles, in the wake of the Gulf Crisis, is no more than a romantic dream of hopes that may or may not be realized. But the current conditions prevailing in the region require that these proposals be considered and, hopefully, enforced.(10)

We must state that the way to achieve international peace and security, to promote friendly relations between nations, and to achieve international cooperation in the economic, social, cultural and human spheres, is the way for bringing about peaceful co-existence between the various systems and peoples of the Middle East. The spirit of doubt and fear will be removed and will be replaced by a spirit of cooperation if the proposals outlined here are applied. Peoples should move away from war, and the weapons of mass destruction. They should concentrate their efforts on peaceful means to solve their problems and to honor the principles of the international law.

The References

1. Brownlie, I. International Law and the Use of Force by States. Oxford,Clarendon Press, 1963; Schwarzenberger, G. "International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals", Volume II, The Law of Armed Conflict. London, Steven and Sons Limited, 1968; Miller, R. The Law of War. GLexington, Massachusetts, 1975; Verzijl, J.H.W. "International Law in Historical Perspective", Part Ix-A. The laws of War. The Netherlands, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1978.

2.Jenninges, R.Y. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, Manchester University Press, 1963; Gendell, J.P. and Stark, G.P. "Israel: Conqueror, Libarator or Occupier within the Context of International Law", Southern University Law Review, Vol. 7, Part. 1, 1975, pp. 206-235; Mallison, W.T. and Jabri, R.A. "The Juridical Characteristic of Belligerent Occupation and the Resort to Resistance by the Civilian Population: Doctrinal Development and Continuity", The George Washington law Review,Vol. 42, No. 2. January, 1974, pp. 185-221.

3. Oppenheim, L. International Law, A Treatise: Disputes, War and Neutrality. Vol. II Ed. Lauterpacht, H.
Seventh edition. London, Longman, 1952; Lord McNair and Watts, A.D. The Legal Effects of War. Cambridge University Press. Fourth ed, 1966;Glahn, V.G. The Occupation of Enemy Territory, A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation. Minneapolis, The University of Minnesota Press, 1957; Graber, D.A. The Development of the Law of Belligerent Occupation 1863-1914. AMS Press, New York 1968.

4. Mallison, W.T. and Mallison, S.V. The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order. London, Longman, 1986; Cattan, H. "The Status of Jerusalem Under International Law and United Nations Resolutions", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. X, No. 3. Spring, 1981, pp. 3-15; Cohen, E.R. Human Rights in the Israeli-Occupied Territories 1967-1982. Manchester University Press, 1985; Quincy Wright, "Legal Aspects of the Middle East Situation", Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 33, No. 1.Winter, 1968, pp. 5-31.

5. Lustick, I. "Israel and the West Bank After Elon Moreh: the Mechanics of De Facto Annexation", The Middle East Journal, Vol. 35, No. August,1981, pp. 557-577; Pictet, J.S. "IV Geneva Convention Relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War", Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958, p. 283; Will, S.D. "Zionist Settlements Ideology and its Ramifications for the Palestinian People", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol.XI-XII. Spring, 1982.

6. For the full text of the Declaration see: Brownlie, I. Basic Documents in International Law, Third Ed. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983.

7.Cobban, A. The Nation State and National Self-Determination England,Collins. The Fontana Library, 1969; Lung-Chu Chen, "Self-Determination as a Human Right", in Towards World Order and Human Dignity, edited by Reisman, M.W and Weston, H.B. New York, the Free Press, 1976, pp 198-261; Espiell, H.G. "Self-Determination and Jus Cogens", In: UN law and Fundamental Rights Edited by Casses, A. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1979, pp. 167-173; Eide, A. "Sovereign Equality versus the Global Military Structure", in: The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, edited by :Cassese, A. 1979, pp. 21-40.

8.Mallison, W.T. and Mallison, S.V. "The Right of Return", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. IX, No. 3. spring, 1980, pp. 125-136; Cattan, H. The Palestine Question, London, Croom Helm, 1988: De Zayas, A.M. "International law and Mass Population Transfers", Harvard International Law Journal,Vol. 16, 1975, pp. 207-258; Higgins, R. "The Right in International Law of an Individual to enter, stay in and leave a country", International Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 3. July, 1973.

9. Elias, T.O.: The International Court of Justice and some Contemporary Proplems. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983; Rosenne, Shabtai. Documents on the International Court of Justice, second Ed. Sijthoff and Noordhoff. 1979.

10.Gross, L. "The United Nations and the Role of Law", International Organization, Vol. 19, Summer, 1965, pp. 537-561; Skubiszewski, K. "Forms of Participation of International Organizations in Lawmaking Processes", International Organization, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1964, pp. 790-805; Onuf, G.N. "International legal Order as an Idea", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 73, No. 2, April, 1979, pp. 244-266.