HOW THE U.S. IS OBSTRUCTING THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE

 

By Joan Russow, Victoria, B.C. and Dimitri Lascaris, Montreal, Quebec,

Global Compliance Research Project

 

Over the past 75 years, there have been many United Nations Security Council resolutions acknowledging Israel’s violations of international law, including a Security Council Resolution under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, that could have addressed, if implemented, the plight of the Palestinians 

In addition, in 2004, the International Court of Justice issued a legal opinion unanimously declaring Israel’s settlements to be a violation of international law.

 

Despite these interventions, today the Palestinian people seem further than ever from realizing their right to self-determination.

 

After the United States veto of a proposed May 16 2021 Security Council resolution relating to the current round of violence, which Israel provoked by unlawful actions in Jerusalem, the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 should have been invoked.

Instead, member states sought to appease the U.S. with a new, insufficient resolution from the Security Council.

Of course, a ceasefire is welcome news, but nothing will be solved without sanctions on the State of Israel. By pursuing a decades-long policy of settlement expansion and forcible dispossession of Palestinians, successive Israeli governments have revealed the peace process to be a sham, a tool to buy time for further land theft by the State of Israel. Without sanctions, any demand that the Israelis and Palestinians return to the negotiating table will prove utterly ineffectual.

 

As Independent Jewish Voices Canada has stated: “A temporary absence of Israeli bombs is not justice.”  Rabbi David Mivasair added "Jews in our communities in Canada are overcome with grief and anger... We say loud and clear, 'not in our name.' Israel can no longer continue to commit these atrocities in the name of the Jewish people."

 

1. The structure of the UNSC violates, through the veto, the fundamental principle of the United Nations: The sovereign equality of states; the UN General Assembly, however, does embody this principle.

The 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution 377 was a precedent set by the United States for finding a way of preventing the Russian veto of the U.S. military actions in Korea.

The Uniting for Peace resolution is applicable to the plight of Palestinians because it stipulates that, in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue appropriate recommendations to UN members for collective measures, in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The purpose of the Uniting for Peace resolution was to facilitate prompt action by the United Nations General Assembly in the case of a deadlocked Security Council. The resolution created the mechanism of the "emergency special session". Undoubtedly, the General Assembly could call for an emergency special session to consider drafting a resolution which could include solutions which have been proposed for years in Palestine, but continually vetoed by the U.S.

The May 16, 2016 Security Council resolution 2443 is reminiscent of the situation in 2003, when at least two permanent members opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. As a result of failure of unanimity of the P5, many were calling for the invoking of 377 resolution to prevent the invasion of Iraq. By invoking the Uniting for Peace resolution, the U.N. could have initiated an emergency meeting of the UNGA. This was in fact underway until the U.S. circulated an intimidating letter to all member states of the UNGA.

Why was Resolution 377 used  against the Russian and not against the US veto

2. The lack of action by the UNSCto implement the ICJ opinion on the proposedIsraeli wall

In 2004 the ICJ used the 1950 resolution 377 to legitimize the issuance of a legal opinion^[1] when the request came from the General Assembly rather than the Security Council:

“Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests. The Court further observed that the General Assembly had adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making.”

The International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion to the General Assembly that Israel's building of a barrier in occupied Palestinian territory is illegal and that its construction must stop immediately and Israel should make reparations for any damage caused.

The Court’s legal opinion concluded  with the following statement:

                                                                                         “Finally, in regard to the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court indicated that they should consider what further action was required to bring to an end the illegal situation in question, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

Why did the security council not consider what further action was required to bring to an end the illegal situation in question, taking due account of the present advisory opinion?

3. Security council resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements used chapter VI and never addressed enforcement to international law

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. It concerns the Israeli settlements in "Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem". The resolution states that Israel’s  settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international lawand has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying powerunder the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Critically, the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter - the peaceful resolutions of disputes.

The resolution passed in a 14–0 vote by members of the U.N. Security Council. Four members with United Nations Security Council veto power, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, voted for the resolution, and the United States abstained.^[1]

 In response, the government of Israel retaliated with a series of “diplomatic actions” against some members of the Security Council.^[9]

Why did the security council not move this resolution beyond chapter VI so that there could be provisions for sanctions and coercive measures? Was the security council reticent because of the potential U.S. veto or U.S./Israeli retaliation?

 

4. The uniting for peace resolution must be invoked and the power moved to the general assembly

If only the 1950 RES 377 had been invoked after May16 2001, then peace and security could have been achieved, and there could have been a potential emergency General Assembly resolution addressing the years of Security Council Resolutions that failed because of U.S. intransigence.

The time has come for the Uniting for Peace Resolution to be brought to bear on Israel’s persistent and “flagrant” violations of international law. Below we set forth the proposed text of such a resolution:

 

RECALLING THE 1950 RES 377 which bestows responsibility for peace and security on the General Assembly;

DEPLORING the years of Security Council Resolutions supporting Palestinian rights that failed because of the U.S. veto:

The General AssemblyCalls for the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which stressed the "inalienable rights of the people of Palestine" which would include the following:

Abiding by the right to return;

Ending Israeli settlements and evictions;

Setting up United Nations sanctions against the State of Israel;

Condemning Israel’s settlement activities in Occupied Palestinian Territory as violations of international humanitarian law;

Making reparations for physical and mental harm caused by the construction of the wall on occupied territory;

Urging the UN Secretary General to release the report of Professors Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley on Israeli Apartheid; and

Invoking Article 22 of the Charter of the United Nations to set up an International Tribunal to investigate Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

 

For further information, please see this presentation on the oppression of the Palestinian people:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNyus69iYo

 

The Day UN Buried its Report Focusing on Apartheid in Israel

Credit: The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

• by Thalif Deen (United Nations)
• Friday, April 30, 2021
• Inter Press Service

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 30 (IPS) - When the UN’s Beirut-based Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), released a landmark 2017 report on “apartheid” in Israel, the United Nations disassociated itself with the study and left it to die--- unceremoniously and unsung.

POSTED ON 

JANUARY 17, 2021

from TOMDispatch

Only one thing truly hurt him at a gut level, and it wasn€™t the‚ endangerment‚ of his vice president in a Capitol attacked by a rabid mob sporting the‚ Confederate flag, MAGA hats, and‚ anti-Semitic T-shirts.  Nor, believe it or not, was it even the threat of being the first president in American history to be‚ impeached twice; nor having‚ Deutsche Bank‚ (which kept him afloat for years) and other major corporate entities suddenly sever ties with him; nor even having one of his major financial supporters, Sheldon Adelson,‚ die‚ on him. For Donald Trump, the biggest blow of last week was reportedly the Professional Golfers€™ Association, or P.G.A.,‚ announcement‚ that it was taking its 2022 championship match away from the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.  In other words, the man who had visited golf courses more‚ than 300 times‚ during his presidency had suddenly become the golf equivalent of an undocumented immigrant and, according to those close to him, that truly €œgutted€ him.

 By Inger Andersen

  This is reposted  from 2015  UN at 70  by Joan Russow Global Compliance Research Project

because States still fail to sign, ratified and enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance with  international  instruments 

At key anniversaries of the U.N., there have been calls for compliance with international instruments.

In 1995, Secretary-General Boutros Boutrous-Ghali indicated support at the 50th anniversary of the U.N., in San Francisco, and, at the 55th Anniversary, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged states to sign and ratify international instruments.

Human welfare, ecology and negotiation must be a priority over global supply chains and "profit-driven" development through coercion.

In 2015, with the confluence of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, COP 21, and the launch of International Decade for People of African Descent, there is an opportunity to again call upon states to sign and ratify international instruments, to determine what would constitute compliance with these and to undertake to comply with them through enacting the necessary legislation.

This could also be the time to advance and reinforce the concept of peremptory norms as stated in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties:

“A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purpose of the present convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole.”

Peremptory norms have been described as those derived from treaties, conventions and covenants which have been ratified by all states or by most states representing the full range of legal systems and the major geographical regions. Also, peremptory norms could be derived from U.N. General Assembly Declarations and Conference Action Plans.

Ratifying key legally binding agreements

International Covenants such as on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its protocols, on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); Conventions such as Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), on Torture (UNTC), on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its protocols, on Endangered Species (CITES), on Climate Change (UNFCCC), on World Heritage Convention / WHC), on Desertification (UNCCD), on Ozone (MP),on Rights of the Child (CRC), on Women (CEDAW) and its protocols, on Racial Discrimination ( (ICERD), on Genocide (CPPCG) on Rights of Migrant Workers, on Labour (ILO), on Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto (CTOC) on Persons with Disabilities(CRPD); Declarations such as Rights of indigenous Peoples UNDRIP; peace Treaties, such as NPT, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Anti_Personnel-Mine-(APM), Cluster Munitions (CCM), Arms Trade (ATT). Respect for the jurisdiction and decisions of the ICJ, and the ICC Rome Statute are paramount. 1992

1992 UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

2017 THE UN TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS

GLobal Compliance Research Project, 

A PRPRINT FROM UN at 70 BECAUSE IT IS STILL A TIME FOR COMPLIANCE

If states comply with these many instruments, the global community will have more respect for the rule of international law, and more faith in the United Nations, including for the compliance with and implementation of the SDGs. Credit: UN Photo/Joao Araujo Pinto

 At key anniversaries of the U.N., there have been calls for compliance with international instruments.

In 1995, Secretary-General Boutros Boutrous-Ghali indicated support at the 50th anniversary of the U.N., in San Francisco, and, at the 55th Anniversary, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged states to sign and ratify international instruments.

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 2 2015 (IPS) - The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has criticised member states for ‘cherry-picking’ human rights – advocating some and openly violating others – perhaps to suit their own national or political interests.

Despite ratifying the U.N. charter reaffirming their faith in fundamental human rights, there are some member states who, “with alarming regularity”, are disregarding and violating human rights, “sometimes to a shocking degree,” he said.