An Unstoppable Avalanche Toward Palestinian
Statehood?
The Palestinians can’t have a state and
still claim they’re under occupation, says
one Israeli scholar. The international
community seems to disagree
By Raphael Ahren
December 28, 2014 "ICH"
- "TOI"
- The avalanche of European
resolutions calling for the recognition of a
Palestinian state is entirely symbolic and
therefore meaningless, Israeli officials
often argue. Palestinian statehood, they
say, will only come about when the two sides
sit together, negotiate and come to an
agreement.
And
yet, the large number of parliaments that
have voted in favor of recognition —
including in Britain, France, Spain,
Ireland, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg and
the European Union — is more than just a
symbolic gesture.
While Europe cannot create a state where
there is none, it could be argued that the
mere fact that more and more countries want
to recognize Palestine accords this entity a
certain status approaching statehood.
The
former chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb
Erekat said Friday that the Palestinians
will submit their UN Security Council
statehood resolution to a vote by Monday at
latest. However it fares, the snowball
of international recognition for “Palestine”
is gathering pace.
The constitutive view of
statehood vs…
According to one school of thought in
international law, an entity becomes a state
not only when it fulfills all objective
criteria of statehood, but also when it is
recognized by a critical mass of other
states. The so-called constitutive theory
postulates that “the act of recognition
itself actually creates the state” based on
a common definition.
Followers of this theory could argue that if
Palestine hadn’t already been considered a
state before the onset of the European moves
toward recognition, that time has certainly
come. Indeed, the
argument that it’s the recognitions that
make the state could have been made
since November 29, 2012, when 138 countries
voted to accord Palestine non-member state
status at the United Nations General
Assembly. The European legislators’ current
eagerness to recognize Palestine further
strengthens that reasoning.
“Each act of recognition, though not
constitutive, is essentially another pebble
in the pan of the balance, especially in
light of the momentum captured in the 2012
GA resolution,” said John Cerone, a
professor of international law at Lund
University in Sweden and a visiting
professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher
School.
“Of
course, whether each is seen as a sizable
pebble or as a grain of sand is a matter of
interpretation,” he told The Times of Israel
in an email. “It would also be relevant
whether this new act is consistent with that
state’s vote in the GA, or whether this is a
‘new’ pebble.”
In
2012, France and Portugal, for instance,
voted in favor of non-member state status
for Palestine — they already
recognized Palestinian statehood, and their
parliamentary motions don’t add anything.
While the new status at the UNGA actually
improved the Palestinians’ standing in that
it enabled them to accede to international
treaties, conventions and organizations such
as the International Criminal Court, the
largely symbolic parliamentary votes have
absolutely no concrete effect.
Britain, on the other hand, abstained in
2012, which lends the House of Commons’
October 14 vote some significance, in that
it adds the UK to the list of states that
officially endorse Palestinian statehood.
The British Parliament
votes to recognize a Palestinian state,
October 14, 2014. (screen capture)
Whether recognition of states is indeed
constitutive (or, as the
rival school of thought believes,
declaratory) is a complicated issue and
one needs to proceed with caution before
applying this theory to Palestine,
said Frances Raday, an Israeli professor of
international law and the president of the
Concord Research Center for Integration of
International Law in Israel.
“The only short answer I can give is that
there is cumulative impact in the
international arena of diplomatic and public
discourse and [the European parliamentary
votes] will further impact attitudes to
Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza.”
…the declarative view
Some scholars argue that the constitutive
theory has long lost out to the
declarative theory of statehood, which
postulates that statehood is entirely
independent of recognition and that an
entity needs to fulfill certain objective
criteria before it can be considered a
state.
According to the first article of the 1933
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and
Duties of States, which has
traditionally been recognized as the
benchmark to determine what constitutes a
state under international law, a state needs
to possess the following qualifications:
- a permanent
population
- a defined territory
- government; and
- capacity to enter
into relations with the other states.
Article 3 states that the “political
existence of the state is independent of
recognition by the other states,” which
leads some to argue that the fact that many
other states have moved to recognized
Palestine doesn’t necessarily mean it’s
really a state — since it doesn’t fulfill
the four criteria.
“In
fact, it’s hard to find a single country
that exists today through the constitutive
approach,” said Eugene Kontorovich, a law
professor of at Northwestern University.
“There are no cases where there is no state
but people wished it into existence. It
doesn’t really happen. Statehood isn’t
subjective — it’s a yes or no question.”
Few
people would deny that Taiwan — officially
called the
Republic of China — is a bona fide
state, yet it is only recognized by 21 other
countries. On the other hand, Russia and a
handful of other states recognize the
Republic of Abkhazia and hardly anyone
outside these countries would argue this
breakaway republic actually belonging to
Georgia deserves to be considered an
independent state.
Wanting the best of both
worlds
But things aren’t always black and white in
statehood theory, said Amichai Cohen, a
senior lecturer of international law at Ono
Academic College. “It’s a process. There is
not always an exact moment in time when an
entity becomes a state.” Regarding
Palestine, “we’re currently in the middle,”
he assessed.
As
more and more states and international
organizations move to recognize a
Palestinian state, its recognition will at
some point become final. Retroactively, the
current wave of European endorsements will
then be seen as one step in the continuum
toward statehood, he said.
Crowds in Ramallah watch
the speech of Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas at the UN,
November 29, 2012 (photo credit: Issam
Rimawi/Flash90)
Palestine’s ostensible statehood raises some
other questions, said Kontorovich, who is
currently also a senior fellow at Kohelet, a
Jerusalem-based think tank.
“They’re acting in an incoherent way,” he
said about the Palestinian leadership. “A
state means something, it’s not just an
idea. Being a state means having a territory
with a government that exercises control. It
can’t be under occupation. Because being
occupied means you’re not in control.”
In
historical precedents, new countries came
into being by getting rid of foreign rule.
Israel, for instance, was declared only
after the British Mandate ended. “Before
that, it would have been a joke,”
Kontorovich said. An Arab state of Palestine
would be the first new “state” that still is
occupied at time of its inception, he said.
“The Palestinians want to have best of both
worlds. They want to have a foreign ministry
and embassies across the world, give out
passports and pass laws, and at the same
time complain that they’re dispossessed and
controlled by Israel.”
Former Palestinian prime
minister Salam Fayyad participated in
the unveiling of the first postage stamp
bearing the name of the State of
Palestine on January 28, 2013. (photo
credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90)
The
Palestinians argue that theirs is a state
under occupation, similar to France being
occupied by Germany during World War II. But
this situation cannot be compared to today’s
Palestine, which claims to have come into
being while under occupation.
“There is no example in the last 50 years of
a state being created while all of its
territory is being occupied,” Kontorovich
said.
In
his view, the Palestinians indeed have a
state, but therefore can no longer claim to
be occupied.“ Rather, the current conflict
should be seen as a border dispute,”
Kontorovich said. The Palestinian people
exercise self-determination in the parts of
the West Bank under their control (Areas A
and B), which means Palestine is indeed a
state. While the Palestinians wish to
exert control over the entire West Bank,
self-determination doesn’t necessarily mean
you get the best possible borders for your
state, he argued. “There are Hungarians in
Serbia, that doesn’t mean that Hungarians
don’t have self-determination.”
International recognition
In
January 2015, more European parliaments will
vote on the recognition of a Palestinian
state. Finland, Italy, Belgium and Slovenia
have already scheduled votes; other states
are sure to follow. (Thirteen European
states — Sweden, Cyprus, Malta and 10
Central and Eastern European states —
already formally recognized Palestine; and
countless countries in the rest of the
world).
In
addition, the Palestinians are planning in
the next days to take their statehood bid to
the UN Security Council,
where it will likely be vetoed by the United
States.
Jerusalem’s response to all these processes
is that all unilateral recognitions in the
world won’t change anything on the ground,
and that actual Palestinian independence
will only come about as the result of
negotiations with Israel. That may be so,
but meanwhile it seems as if the world has
decided not to wait for that day and start
by bestowing formal statehood upon
Palestine.