50 No. 75 JUSTICE 213. For recent statements by the parties in this regard, together with Egypt, Jordan and the United States, see, e.g.: Joint Communique from the March 19 meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, U.S. Department of State, ¶ 3-5 (Mar. 19, 2023), https://www.state.gov/joint-communique-from-the-march-19-meeting-in-sharm-el-sheikh/ (“The two sides reaffirmed, in this regard, their unwavering commitment to all previous agreements between them.” and “The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to all previous agreements between them, and reaffirmed their agreement to address all outstanding issues through direct dialogue.”); Aqaba Joint Communique, U.S. Department of State, ¶ 1 (Feb. 26, 2023), https:// www.state.gov/aqaba-joint-communique/ (“The two sides (Palestinian and Israeli sides) affirmed their commitment to all previous agreements between them, and to work towards a just and lasting peace.”); see also, SABEL, supra note 21, at 280-282. of the final disposition of the West Bank. Over the years, Israel and the Palestinians have engaged in numerous efforts to negotiate a resolution to their conflict, including with respect to the permanent status of the West Bank. Unfortunately, these efforts have yet to succeed. Nonetheless, although the five-year transitional period originally envisaged by the Declaration of Principles and by the Interim Agreement has long passed, and despite the fact that both Israel and the Palestinians have leveled accusations of violations of the agreements by the other party, both sides, as well as the international community, have repeatedly acknowledged that the agreements continue to form the applicable legal framework governing their relations.213 As permanent status negotiations have not yet been concluded and the permanent status of the West Bank has yet to be determined, sovereignty over the West Bank remains in abeyance to the present day and the parties’ competing claims to the territory remain indeterminate. 13. Concluding remarks The request for the advisory opinion appears to assume that sovereign rights to the West Bank rest solely with the Palestinian people and suggests that the State of Israel has no legal claim in these areas. This is incorrect. As this paper has demonstrated, sovereign legal title over the West Bank has been indeterminate, or in abeyance, for over a century. This has been the legal position under international law since the end of the First World War, when Turkey (as the successor to the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the areas outside of its current borders. No agreement, instrument, judgment, opinion, or event with legal effect has changed this status since, as reflected – and explicitly stated – in agreements between the interested parties, and particularly in agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Under these agreements, the question of the final disposition of the West Bank shall be determined by negotiation. Until then, both sides have agreed to provisional arrangements, which continue to apply and govern the legal relationship between them today.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=