No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
1 Lord Geohge-Bhown, In My Way 226–27 (1971, Penguin ed., 1972); Rostow, , Legal Aspects of the Search for Peace in the Middle East , [1970] Proc. ASIL, 64 AJIL (no. 4) 64 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Statement by the Rt. Hon. Michael Stewart, H. C. (5th ser.), 791 Parl. Deb. 844–45 and 793 Parl. Deb. 253, 261 (1969); Lall, , The United Nations and the Middle East Crisis, 1967, at 252–66 (1968)Google Scholar; Blum, , Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace 71–79 (1971)Google Scholar.
2 On p. 42, Mr. Van Dusen misstates the burden of a General Assembly Resolution of July 4, 1967. It did not declare the administrative unification of Jerusalem invalid, but declared against measures which might “change the Status of the City.” GA Res. 2253, July 4, 1967. The same theme dominates GA RES. 2254, July 14, 1967.
3 In a letter to the Secretary-General by Foreign Minister Eban, the Israeli Government said “[t]he resolution presented on July 4 by Pakistan and adopted on the same date evidently refers to measures taken by the Government of Israel on 27 July 1967. The term ‘annexation’ used by supporters of the resolution is out of place. The measures adopted relate to the integration of Jerusalem in the administrative and municipal spheres, and furnish a legal basis for the protection of the Holy Places in Jerusalem.” Official Records Security Council, Suppl. for July, Aug. and Sept., 1967, at 75. See also Official Records General Assembly, 1554th Plen. Meeting, July 14, 1967, paras. 74–78.