英国在巴勒斯坦(1917-1948)-占领、巴勒斯坦托管和国际法

Patrick Terry
{"title":"英国在巴勒斯坦(1917-1948)-占领、巴勒斯坦托管和国际法","authors":"Patrick Terry","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At a time when there are not even negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in order to resolve their longstanding dispute, this article seeks to explain the origins of the conflict by examining Britain’s conduct in Palestine from 1917-1948, first as an occupier, then as the responsible mandatory, under international law. Although at first sight dealing with a purely historical issue, a discussion of British conduct in Palestine is relevant at a time when the realization of a viable two-State-solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is becoming ever more urgent and concurrently less likely. This article analyses the developments in Palestine as of 1917 and the legality, in international law, of (mainly) British actions. It will be argued that British attempts at implementing the Balfour Declaration -which, as will be shown, had no standing in international law- while being occupiers of enemy territory were contrary to the Hague Regulations as acknowledged by leading British officials at the time. It will then be explained that the Palestine Mandate, as confirmed by the League of Nations’ Council, contravened Article 22 (4) of the League of Nations Covenant, and that British efforts to implement it as of 1920 -and thus four years before the peace treaty with Turkey came into force- were similarly inconsistent with the Hague Regulations. Far from believing in the legality of their actions, leading British officials and politicians were, as will be documented, well aware of their conduct’s “legal imperfections”. It will be concluded that British conduct in Palestine could rarely, if at all, claim to be accordance with the new international legal order the UK had helped to create following WWI. Repeatedly ignoring international law did not benefit the British: their rule in Palestine was to end in humiliating defeat in 1948. Almost seventy years later the world is still trying to resolve a conflict the British set in motion in 1917 with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.","PeriodicalId":36563,"journal":{"name":"University of Bologna Law Review","volume":"66 1","pages":"187-251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Britain in Palestine (1917-1948) - Occupation, the Palestine Mandate, and International Law\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Terry\",\"doi\":\"10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At a time when there are not even negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in order to resolve their longstanding dispute, this article seeks to explain the origins of the conflict by examining Britain’s conduct in Palestine from 1917-1948, first as an occupier, then as the responsible mandatory, under international law. Although at first sight dealing with a purely historical issue, a discussion of British conduct in Palestine is relevant at a time when the realization of a viable two-State-solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is becoming ever more urgent and concurrently less likely. This article analyses the developments in Palestine as of 1917 and the legality, in international law, of (mainly) British actions. It will be argued that British attempts at implementing the Balfour Declaration -which, as will be shown, had no standing in international law- while being occupiers of enemy territory were contrary to the Hague Regulations as acknowledged by leading British officials at the time. It will then be explained that the Palestine Mandate, as confirmed by the League of Nations’ Council, contravened Article 22 (4) of the League of Nations Covenant, and that British efforts to implement it as of 1920 -and thus four years before the peace treaty with Turkey came into force- were similarly inconsistent with the Hague Regulations. Far from believing in the legality of their actions, leading British officials and politicians were, as will be documented, well aware of their conduct’s “legal imperfections”. It will be concluded that British conduct in Palestine could rarely, if at all, claim to be accordance with the new international legal order the UK had helped to create following WWI. Repeatedly ignoring international law did not benefit the British: their rule in Palestine was to end in humiliating defeat in 1948. Almost seventy years later the world is still trying to resolve a conflict the British set in motion in 1917 with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Bologna Law Review\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"187-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Bologna Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7663\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Bologna Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在以色列和巴勒斯坦之间甚至没有谈判来解决他们长期以来的争端的时候,本文试图通过考察英国从1917年到1948年在巴勒斯坦的行为来解释冲突的起源,首先作为占领者,然后作为负责任的强制性,根据国际法。虽然乍一看处理的是一个纯粹的历史问题,但在为以色列和巴勒斯坦人之间的冲突实现可行的两国解决办法正变得越来越紧迫,同时可能性也越来越小的时候,讨论英国在巴勒斯坦的行为是有意义的。本文分析了1917年以来巴勒斯坦的事态发展,以及(主要是)英国行动在国际法上的合法性。有人会说,英国作为敌国领土的占领者,企图执行《贝尔福宣言》(该宣言在国际法中没有地位),违反了当时英国主要官员所承认的《海牙条例》。然后将解释说,经国际联盟理事会确认的巴勒斯坦托管违反了《国际联盟盟约》第22(4)条,而英国在1920年——也就是在与土耳其的和平条约生效的4年前——实施这一托管的努力同样不符合《海牙条例》。英国的主要官员和政治家们根本不相信他们的行为是合法的,他们非常清楚自己行为的“法律缺陷”。人们将得出结论,英国在巴勒斯坦的行为,如果有的话,很少能声称符合英国在第一次世界大战后帮助建立的新的国际法律秩序。一再无视国际法并没有给英国人带来好处:他们在巴勒斯坦的统治在1948年以耻辱的失败告终。近七十年过去了,世界仍在努力解决1917年英国通过发布《贝尔福宣言》(Balfour Declaration)引发的冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Britain in Palestine (1917-1948) - Occupation, the Palestine Mandate, and International Law
At a time when there are not even negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in order to resolve their longstanding dispute, this article seeks to explain the origins of the conflict by examining Britain’s conduct in Palestine from 1917-1948, first as an occupier, then as the responsible mandatory, under international law. Although at first sight dealing with a purely historical issue, a discussion of British conduct in Palestine is relevant at a time when the realization of a viable two-State-solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is becoming ever more urgent and concurrently less likely. This article analyses the developments in Palestine as of 1917 and the legality, in international law, of (mainly) British actions. It will be argued that British attempts at implementing the Balfour Declaration -which, as will be shown, had no standing in international law- while being occupiers of enemy territory were contrary to the Hague Regulations as acknowledged by leading British officials at the time. It will then be explained that the Palestine Mandate, as confirmed by the League of Nations’ Council, contravened Article 22 (4) of the League of Nations Covenant, and that British efforts to implement it as of 1920 -and thus four years before the peace treaty with Turkey came into force- were similarly inconsistent with the Hague Regulations. Far from believing in the legality of their actions, leading British officials and politicians were, as will be documented, well aware of their conduct’s “legal imperfections”. It will be concluded that British conduct in Palestine could rarely, if at all, claim to be accordance with the new international legal order the UK had helped to create following WWI. Repeatedly ignoring international law did not benefit the British: their rule in Palestine was to end in humiliating defeat in 1948. Almost seventy years later the world is still trying to resolve a conflict the British set in motion in 1917 with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
University of Bologna Law Review
University of Bologna Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Securitizing Notes of Small Businesses and Needy Workers The Price of Transitional Justice: A Cost‐Benefit Analysis of its Mechanisms in Post‐Revolution Phase Is a Requirement to Wear a Mask Economically Valid During COVID-19? Constituting Over Constitutions Challenging the Undesired Outcome of FIOST Clauses on Cargo Interests
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1