2003-07-10, 14:01
  #1
Bannlyst
Fr att citera en av de frmsta auktorieterna inom internationell lag (folkrtt) Professor Julius Stone frn dennes bok "Israel och Palestina".

Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av Professor Julius Stone
By contrast, Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence. International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel's self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular, when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule...

International law, therefore, gives a triple underpinning to Israel's claim that she is under no obligation to hand back automatically the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan or anyone else.

In the first place, these lands never legally belonged to Jordan. Second, even if they had, Israel's own present control is lawful, and she is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third, international law would not in such circumstances require the automatic handing back of territory even to an aggressor who was the former sovereign. It requires the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between the parties.
klla

Fr nu grna en debatt sakligt utfrn folkrtten....
Citera

Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera

Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera

Skapa ett konto

Det är enkelt att registrera ett nytt konto

Bli medlem

Logga in

Har du redan ett konto? Logga in här

Logga in