15 Fall 2025 arrangements, and recognitions.35 Although the VCLT does not cover agreements between a State and a nonState subject on a conventional basis, it can definitely inform us as to the legal standing of such agreements and supports the conclusion that the Oslo Accords are still in legal force and effect.36 28. The continued legal relevance of the Oslo Accords as the applicable legal framework is also illustrated by the parties’ continued reaffirmation of their principles. These were reaffirmed by the Parties in the 1998 Wye River Memorandum,37 the 1999 Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum,38 as well as inter alia in the 2003 Road Map,39 which was reaffirmed in Security Council Resolution 2334, as well as recently in 2023’s joint communiqué agreed in Aqaba.40 As put by Shaw, the arrangements established through Oslo are “still in force and define the legal situation as between the parties until such time as a final agreed settlement has been concluded.”41 29. In Israel, numerous judicial decisions support the view that Israeli courts recognise the continuing legal effect of the Oslo Accords.42 In areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority,43 Courts have also confirmed their legal 35. G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur, Law of Treaties – Second Report, Document A/CN.4/107, ILC Yearbook, Vol II (1957) 16, 67. Similarly, Article 54(b) of the VCLT shows that States cannot simply release themselves at will from binding treaty obligations. 36. VCLT, Article 56(1)(b). See Y. le Bouthillier and J.F. Bonin, ‘Art.3 1969 Vienna Convention’ in O. Corten and P. Klein (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (2011), p. 74, para. 25 (With respect to inter alia national liberation movements, territorial entities dependent on States, and entities created to administer territories, ‘[t]here is a strong consensus that the entities listed supra have the capacity to conclude treaties.’), para. 30 (‘While international agreements involving the entities discussed supra do not fall within the scope of the Convention, it is worth repeating that the purpose of Article 3 was to ensure that their legal validity was not questioned by the Convention. In fact, many of the rules of the Convention that have since then acquired customary status can be transposed to these agreements. As a result, the Convention has indirectly contributed to the clarification of rules applicable to agreements excluded from its scope’). 37. Israel-Palestinian Liberation Organization, Wye River Memorandum, 1998, 37 ILM 1251 (1998). 38. Sharm-el-Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timeline of Outstanding Commitments of Agreements Signed and the Resumption of Permanent Status Negotiations, 1999, 38 ILM 1465 (1999). 39. Letter Dated 7 May 2003 from the Secretary-General addressed to the Security Council, Annex: A Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, U.N. Doc. S/2003/529, 30 April 2003. 40. Aqaba Joint Communique, 26 February 2023, available at https://www.state.gov/aqaba-joint-communique/. 41. M.N. Shaw, The Article 12(3) Declaration of the Palestinian Authority, the International Criminal Court and International Law, JICJ 9 (2011), 301-324, 308. See also, e.g., M. Rabbani, ‘Twenty Years of Oslo and the Future of the Two-State Paradigm’, in 20 Years Since Oslo: Palestinian Perspectives, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (2013), p. 29. 42. Jamil Hossein Hamdan Abu Sarhan v Commander of the IDF in the West Bank, 31 August 2023, HCJ 5585/21; The Association of the Conference of Islamic Sciences and Education v. Jerusalem Assessing Officer, 27 October 2021, HCJ 2079/20; Silwad Municipality v. Knesset, 9 June 2020, HCJ 1308/17; Hevron Municipality v. State of Israel, 30 June 2019, HCJ 358/18; Yesh Din v. IDF Commander in the West Bank, 26 December 2011, Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) 2164/09; Hof Aza Regional Council v. The Knesset, 9 June, 2005, HCJ 1661/05; International Legality of the Security Fence and Sections near Alfei Menashe, 15 September 2005, HCJ 7957/04; Zinbakh v. IDF Commander in Gaza, Judgment, 28 May 2002, HCJ 4363/02; Gusin v. IDF Commander in Gaza, HCJ 4219/02, 56(4) P.D. 608 (2002); Dr. Ahmed Tibi v. The Government of Israel and Others, Judgment, 18 October 1995, HCJ 6230/95 (unpublished) (analysed in R. M. Giladi, ‘The Practice and Case Law of Israel in Matters Related to International Law’ in 29 Israel Law Review 506 (1995), p. 535, n. 148). See D. Kretzmer, ‘The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel’, 94 International Review of the Red Cross 207 (2012), n. 83. See Kovaćs, para. 292. 43. ‘In the Name of the Palestinian People: Court Abrogates Oslo Accords’, The Legal Agenda (24 February 2015), available at https://www.legal-agenda.com/en/article.php?id=3062
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=