14 No. 75 JUSTICE dispute.26 This is evidence which underscores the position both that the relevant framework for a territorial settlement begins with Resolution 242, and that any Palestinian right or title to exercise authority over disputed territory (and its inhabitants) is not necessarily exclusive. 25. Building on this existing international legal framework, the Oslo Accords are bilateral international agreements which were entered into between the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, pending a final settlement between the parties.27 Issues to be addressed in permanent status negotiations include “Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours and other issues of common interest.”28 Specifically with respect to recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, in the Oslo Accords Israel for the first time recognised the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people,29 and the Accords reflect the agreed bilateral framework through which Palestinian self-determination is and can be realised. 26. The Oslo Accords in general, and in particular the “Interim Agreement”, are agreements between subjects of international law (namely Israel and the PLO) and bind any successor to the PLO.30 The Security Council,31 the General Assembly,32 the Quartet, the Secretary-General’s special envoy, and the subsequent agreements between the parties have all referred to the Oslo Accords and their consistency with applicable UN resolutions.33 27. In the absence of termination clauses, general international law presumes that an international agreement remains in force unless either: (1) the parties intended to permit denunciation or withdrawal; or (2) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be “implied by the nature of the treaty.” Even had the Interim Agreement been lawfully terminated (which it has not), Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shows that termination does not affect any right, obligation or “legal situation” of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to termination.34 Examples of such “legal situations” are the delimitations of borders, territorial 26. See, for example, G.A. Res. 73/19, U.N. Doc. A/RES/73/19, preambular para. 25 and operative paras. 16 and 19 (23 Jan. 2019); G.A. Res. 73/256, U.N. Doc. A/RES/73/256, preambular para. 2 (5 Dec. 2018); S.C. Res. 2334, U.N. Doc. S/RES/2334, para 8 (23 Dec. 2016); G.A. Res. 67/19, U.N. Doc. A/RES/67/19, at para. 5. 27. Israel and the PLO specifically reserved their rights, claims and positions regarding, inter alia, borders pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. Interim Agreement, Art. XXXI.6. See also J. Stone, Of Law and Nations (London 1974), p. 79 and pp. 90-95. 28. Declaration of Principles, Art. V(3). 29. Interim Agreement. See also Letter from Rabin to Arafat, 9 September 1993. 30. See G. R. Watson, The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements (Oxford 2000), Chapter 5; E. Benvenisti, Forum: Towards Peace in the Middle East? The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles: A Framework for Future Settlement, 4 EJIL (1993) 542, 545 (hereinafter “Benvenisti – Forum”); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 3; Article 10 of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001. See also International Law Commission, First report on succession of States in respect of State responsibility, A/CN.4/708, Sixty ninth session, 31 May 2017, para. 92. But see Croatia v Serbia (2015), para. 105 (declining to consider whether Article 10(2) expresses a principle that formed part of customary international law in 1991-1992 (or, indeed, at any time thereafter). See also Situation in the State of Palestine, Decision on the ‘Prosecution request pursuant to article 19(3) for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine’, ICC-01/18-143 05-02-2021 1/60 EC PT, 5 February 2021, Judge Péter Kovács’ Partly Dissenting Opinion (hereinafter “Kovaćs”), paras. 286-288. 31. See Security Council, Resolution 1850, pp. 1-2; Security Council Resolution 2334, p. 2. 32. G.A. Res 67/19. 33. See Kovaćs, paras. 289-291. 34. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter “VCLT”), Article 70(1)(b) and Article 71(2)(b).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=