6 No. 59 JUSTICE conflict which is to be settled in three stages, with reciprocal and parallel steps to be taken by the parties in the field of security, politics, economics, humanitarian issues and institution-building matters. The passage from one phase to the next will depend on confirmation by the monitoring body – i.e., the Quartet – that the obligations under the preceding phase had been fulfilled. The Arab Peace Initiative (2002-2007) is based on an initiative of Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia. According to this proposal, Israel must withdraw from all the areas occupied in 1967 including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon; an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital should be established; a just solution to the Palestinian refugees should be reached by agreement on the basis of General Assembly Resolution 194(III); and peace between Israel and all the Arab States would be established. Having studied the main issues discussed in Security Council Resolution 2334, it is now time to examine its legal effect. As is well known, the Security Council has been authorized by the UN member states to adopt recommendations as well as binding decisions. Chapter VI of the UN Charter deals with the pacific settlement of international disputes, the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security. Chapter VII of the Charter deals with more dangerous situations – threats to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. When acting under either of these two chapters, the Council can adopt recommendations and binding decisions. Actually, most resolutions under Chapter VI have been recommendations, while most of the binding decisions were adopted in the framework of Chapter VII. In the 1971 Namibia case,14 the International Court of Justice laid down four criteria that should be taken into consideration in finding the nature of a resolution: (i) the Charter provisions invoked in the resolution; (ii) the terms of the resolution; (iii) the discussions leading to it; and (iv) other relevant circumstances. However, state practice is to regard only resolutions under Chapter VII as binding. In the case of Resolution 2334, the language used indicates that it is a recommendation, namely the terms used: “affirming,” “reiterating,” ”underlining,” “stresses,” “urges” and “calls upon.” Only once does the word “decides” appear, in the provision according to which the Council “Decides to remain seized of the matter” (para. 13). Concluding Remarks Resolution 2334 has severely condemned Israel for several acts, in particular for the building of settlements beyond the “green line.” However, it has not marked them as criminal. It has outlined in strong terms the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, laying down two principles – the two-state solution and a complete Israeli withdrawal, subject to changes by agreement. A two-states solution is a very general concept that needs more details. What kind of states would they be? What would be the relations between them? Is there a possibility of a confederal relationship? Could there be possible cooperation, e.g. in matters of security and economics? The intention to look for means to make sure that this and other resolutions are implemented is enigmatic. Let us hope that the parties find a solution by sincere negotiations, irrespective of UN resolutions. It may be interesting to consider whether the parties may find a solution which does not include the principles laid down by Resolution 2334. n Ruth Lapidoth is professor emeritus of international law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She was awarded the Israel Prize for excellence in legal research in 2006, and was named prominent woman in international law by the American Society of International Law in 2000. 14. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), I.C.J. 1971, at 6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=