Browsing by Author "Furu, Niklas"

International legal status of Jerusalem has been controversial topic for a long time. The thesis covers the historical background for the application of legal rules. The author maintains that Israel fought a defensive war in 1948 and 1967, while propounding the pro-Arab narrative of history. secondly, the thesis expounds major views concerning the status of Jerusalem: 1) the all of former mandated territory of Palestine belongs to Palestinians 2) international legal regime applies to Jerusalem on basis of the Partition Resolution 181 3) the sovereignty of jerusalem is currently in abeyance 4) Israel holds the title to the whole of Jerusalem. The thesis evaluates the weaknesses and strenghts of these views and comes to a tentative conclusion. First, the Partition Resolution and international legal resime is not binding in international law, since UN General Assembly resolutions are generally only recommendations. Second, the view that all of Israel belongs to Palestinians is flawed because the Balfour Declaration has been generally accepted as valid and Israel fought a defensive war. Moreover, Israel has been generally recognized as a state. The question of sovereingty has to be separately considered in relation to East- and West Jerusalem. While in West Jerusalem Israel has stronger claim of sovereingty based on defensive conquest, right of self-determination and Balfour Declaration, the title is not without problems. However, it seems that Israel has strongest relative claim to West Jerusalem. With regard to East Jerusalem, the topic is even more controversial. Many Security Council Resolutions do not recognize Israeli sovereingty over East Jerusalem. Moreover, the Wall case pointed that in East Jerusalem Palestinians have stronger claim of self-determination. It is not clear however how the self-determination is to be applied to Jerusalem question: Whether Jerusalem should be seen as a one unit comprising whole of Jerusalem (where Jews have had majority since nineteenth century) or should the Armistice Demarcation Line or the Green Line considered a dividing line for the application of the right to self-determination, because the Armistice Treaty between Jordan and Israel expressly provides that the Armistice Lines are not to be treated as permanent international borders and do not settle issues of sovereingty. As a tentative conclusion, East Jerusalem is disputed territory (as it very difficult to say who hold the title). As for Security Council Resolution 242, the Resolution does not demand automatic withdrawal of Israeli troops to prewar lines. The borders are to be recognized and secure.