Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:24:45.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jerusalem and the Peace Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Ruth Lapidoth
Get access

Extract

It is generally thought that Jerusalem is the most difficult problem that the peace-makers have to deal with. The centrality of the issue of Jerusalem derives neither from security considerations nor from economic interests, but from emotional and religious sensitivities. The complexity of the issue is the result of three factors: the city is holy for adherents of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, namely, it is sacred for many millions of people, most of whom do not live in the city; it is the subject of conflicting national claims of two peoples — Israelis and Palestinian Arabs; and its population is very heterogeneous. A solution to the conflicts about Jerusalem is a sine qua non for the achievement of a viable and durable peace in the area.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2-3: The Peace Process , Spring–Summer 1994 , pp. 402 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A more detailed review of the legal history of Jerusalem has been published in Lapidoth, R. and Hirach, M., eds., The Jerusalem Question and Its Resolution: Selected Documents (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, and Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1994) XIX–XXIXGoogle Scholar, (henceforth: Jerusalem – Selected Documents). On the history of Jerusalem in general, see e.g., Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua, Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century—Emergence of the New City (Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, and St. Martin's Press, New York, 1986)Google Scholar, and id., Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century — The Old City (Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, Jerusalem, and St. Martin's Press, New York, 1984); Gilbert, Martin, Jerusalem: Illustrated History Atlas (New York, Macmillan, 1977)Google Scholar; Bahat, Dan, Carta's Historical Atlas of Jerusalem (Carta, Jerusalem, 1986)Google Scholar.

2 Berkovitz, Shmuel, The Legal Status of the Holy Places in Israel, Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. to The Hebrew University, March, 1978, at pp. 8–30Google Scholar.

3 On the status quo, see Shmuel Berkovits, ibid., at 36-46; Cust, L.G.A., The Status Quo in the Holy Places (1929, reproduced in 1980 by Ariel Publishing House, Jerusalem)Google Scholar.

4 Lapidoth, R. and Hirach, M., eds., The Arab-Israel Conflict and Its Resolution: Selected Documents (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1992) 20Google Scholar (henceforth: The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents).

5 Ibid., at 25-32.

6 In Articles 13 and 14.

7 Drayton, , Laws of Palestine, vol. 3, p. 2625Google Scholar.

8 General Assembly Resolution 181(II), GAOR, 2nd session 1947, pp. 131-151; reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 33-54.

9 GAOR, 2nd session 1947, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, pp. 12-19, reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 55-56.

10 GAOR, 2nd session 1947, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, pp. 5-11; ibid., Plenary Meetings, Vol. II, pp. 1425, 1426, 1427, reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 57-60.

11 1 L.S.I. 3.

12 U.N. Doc. S/3015, 25 May 1953, reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict—Documents, at 66-67.

13 Hashemite Jordan Kingdom — Israel: General Armistice Agreement, 3 April 1949, United Nations Treaty Series, 1949, Vol. 42, No. 656, pp. 304-320, reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 87-93.

14 For an analysis, see Rosenne, Shabtai, Israel's Armistice Agreements with the Arab States (Tel-Aviv, Blumstein's Bookstores, 1951)Google Scholar.

15 English translation published in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 27-29.

16 1 L.S.I. 64.

17 English translation in Medzini, Meron, ed., Israel's Foreign Relations: Selected Documents 1947-1974 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, 1976), at 223–226Google Scholar, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 81-84.

18 Ibid.

19 Whiteman, Marjorie, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C., Department of State Publications, 1963) 1164–1168Google Scholar; Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 145-147.

20 GAOR, 5th Session, 1950, Supp. 9 (A/1286), Annex 2, pp. 19-27; reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 117-134.

21 Among those who considered it a war of self-defence on the part of Israel, see e.g., Stone, Julius, The Middle East under Cease-Fire (Sydney, 1967) 6ffGoogle Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “Legal Aspects of the Middle East Situation” (1968) 33 L. and Contemp. Problems, 5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 27; O'Brien, William V., “International Law and the Outbreak of War in the Middle East” (1967) 11 Orbis 692–723Google Scholar, at 722-23; Feinberg, Nathan, The Arab-Israel Conflict in International Law: A Critical Analysis of the Colloquium of Arab Jurists in Algiers (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1970) 114–115Google Scholar; Schwebel, Stephen M., “What Weight to Conquest?” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 346; Rostow, Eugene V., “Legal Aspects of the Search for Peace in the Middle East”, in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1970) 80Google Scholar; Cocatre-Zilgien, A., “L'imbroglio moyen-oriental et le droit” (1969) 73 Revue générale de droit international public 52–61Google Scholar, at 59; Moore, John Norton, “The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Obligation to Pursue Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes” (1971) 19 Kansas L.R. 403–40, at 425Google Scholar; Berman, S.M., “Recrudescence of the Bellum justum et pium Controversy and Israel's Conquest and Integration of Jerusalem” (1968) Revue de droit international 359–74, at 367ffGoogle Scholar; Doell, B., “Die Rechtslage des Golfes von Akaba” (1969) 14 Jahrbuch fuer Internationales Recht 225–59, at 258Google Scholar; Martin, Pierre-Marie, Le Conflit Israélo-Arabe: Recherches sur l'emploi de la force en droit international public positif (Paris, L.G.D.J., 1973) 153–73Google Scholar; Shapira, Amos, “The Six-Day War and the Right of Self-Defence” (1971) 6 Is. L. R. 66–80Google Scholar; Gerson, Allan, “Trustee-Occupant: The Legal Status of Israel's Presence in the West Bank” (1973) 14 Harv. Int'l L. J. 1–49Google Scholar, at 14-22; Franck, Thomas M., “Who Killed Article 2(4)?” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 809–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 821; Dinstein, Yoram, “The Legal Issues of ‘Para-War’ and Peace in the Middle East” (1970) 44 St. John's L.R. 466Google Scholaret seq.; Dinstein, Y., War, Aggression and Self-Defence, (Cambridge University Press, Grotius Publications, 2nd ed., 1994) 190–191Google Scholar; Feinstein, Barry, “Self-Defence and Israel in International Law: A Reappraisal” (1976) 11 Is. L. R. 516–662Google Scholar; Miller, Edward, “Self-Defence, International Law and the Six-Day War” (1985) 20 Is. L. R. 49–73Google Scholar.

Among those who considered it to be an act of aggression on the part of Israel, see e.g., Hargrove, John Lawrence, “Abating the Middle East Crisis through the United Nations (and Vice Versa)” (1971) 19 Kansas L. R. 366-72, at 367Google Scholar; Bassiouni, M. Cheriff, “The ‘Middle East’: The Misunderstood Conflict” (1971) 19 Kansas L. R. 373-402, at 396Google Scholar; Quigley, John, quoted inRostow, Eugene V., “The Perils of Positivism: A Response to Professor Quigley” (1992) 2 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 229–246Google Scholar, at 229; Colloque de Juristes Arabes sur la Palestine — La Question Palestinienne, Alger, 22-23 juillet 1967 (Alger, 1968) 204Google Scholar.

22 21 L.S.I. 76, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 167.

23 21 L.S.I. 75; The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 130.

24 Law and Administration (No. 1) Order, of 28 June 1967, K.T. (1966/67) 2690.

25 24 L.S.I. 144-162, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 242-251.

26 See e.g., General Assembly Resolution 2253(ES-V), of 4 July 1967, GAOR, 5th Emergency Special Session, 1967, Resolutions, Supp. 1 (A/6978), p. 4, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 170.

27 Letter of 10 July 1967, GAOR, 5th Emergency Special Sess., 1967, p. 1(A/6753 — S/8052), reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 171-173.

28 Infra, text accompanying n. 65.

29 Address of 7 June 1967, Meron Medzini, ed., supra n. 17, at 244-245, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 163-164.

30 21 L.S.I. 76, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 169.

31 This resolution has been the subject of differing interpretations by the parties, and of a great number of scholarly articles. Among the more recent ones are: Odeh, Adnan Abu, Elaraby, Nabil, Rosenne, Meir, Ross, Dennis, Rostow, Eugene, Turner, Vernon, UN Security Council Resolution 242: The Building Block of Peacemaking (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1993)Google Scholar; Lapidoth, Ruth, “Security Council Resolution 242 at Twenty Five”, (1992) 26 Is. L.R. 295–318Google Scholar.

32 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1138, pp. 39-56, reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 195-201.

33 Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 299-300.

34 The contents of the letter by the U.S. President will be analyzed in the following chapter — text accompanying n. 61.

35 34 L.S.I. 209, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 322.

36 On basic laws, see Rubinstein, Amnon, The Constitutional Law of the State of Israel, (Tel-Aviv, Schocken, 4th ed., 1991, in Hebrew), Vol. 1, pp. 450–464Google Scholar; Barak, Aharon, Interpretation in Law, Vol. III: Constitutional Interpretation (Jerusalem, Nevo Publishing House, 1994) 35–58Google Scholar; Klein, Claude, “A New Era in Israel's Constitutional Law”, (1971) 6 Is. L.R. 376Google Scholar; id., “Constitutional Law of Israel”, in R. Blanpain, ed., International Encyclopaedia of Laws (The Netherlands, Kluwer, 1992) 24; id., “La nouvelle législation constitutionnelle d'Israël”, (1994) 42 Jahrbuch des oeffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 553-670, at 555-556.

37 Security Council resolution 478, of 20 August 1980, SCOR, 35th year, 1980, Resolutions, p. 14, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 351.

38 M. Medzini, supra n. 17, Vol. 8 (1982-1984), pp. 164-170, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 364-371.

39 The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 339-343.

40 Ibid., at 344-356.

41 Lapidoth, Ruth and Calvo-Goller, N. Karin, “Lea éléments constitutifs de l'Etat et la déclaration du Conseil National Palestinien du 15 Novembre 1988”, (1992) Revue générale de droit international public 777–809Google Scholar. See also the U.S. case of Klinghoffer v. Achille Lauro, 937 F.2D 44-54, at 47 (2nd Cir., 1991), discussed in Joel Singer, “Aspects of Foreign Relations under the Israeli-Palestinian Agreements on Interim Self-Government Arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza”, in this issue, p. 268, text accompanying nn. 7-11.

42 For a concise overview of the various opinions, see Hirsch, Moshe, in Lapidoth, Ruth and Hirsch, Moshe, Jerusalem — Political and Legal Aspects (The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1994, in Hebrew), at 11–15Google Scholar, and in Hirsch, Moshe and Housen-Couriel, Debra, The Jerusalem Question—Proposals for Its Resolution (The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2nd ed., 1994, in Hebrew) 12–18Google Scholar. In the present article only opinions on the lex lata are reproduced. For a summary of the various proposals de lege ferenda, see M. Hirsch and D. Housen-Couriel, op. cit., at 21-117, and Chazan, Naomi, Negotiating the Non-Negotiable: Jerusalem in the Framework of an Israeli-Palestinian Settlement (International Security Studies Program, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, Occasional Paper No. 7, March 1991)Google Scholar.

43 See e.g., Lauterpacht, Elihu, Jerusalem and the Holy Placet (London, The Anglo-Israel Association, 1968, reprinted 1980)Google Scholar; Stone, Julius, Israel and Palestine — Assault on the Law of Nations (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981) 116–118Google Scholar; Schwebel, Stephen, “What Weight to Conquest?” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 344CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a similar but not quite identical opinion, see Gruhin, M.I., “Jerusalem: Legal and Political Dimensions in a Search for Peace”, (1980) 12 Case Western J. Int'l L. 169Google Scholar.

44 bin Talal, HRH Crown Prince Hassan, A Study on Jerusalem (London, Longman, 1979) 24–27Google Scholar. See also Draper, G.I.A.D., “The Status of Jerusalem as a Question of International Law”, in Koechler, Hans, ed., The Legal Aspects of the Palestine Problem with Special Regard to the Question of Jerusalem (Wien, Braumueller, 1981) 154–163Google Scholar.

45 Cattan, Henry, Jerusalem (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1981) 104 and 107Google Scholar; id., Palestine and International Law, (London, Longman, 2nd ed., 1976) 112-121; id., The Palestine Question (London, Longman, 1988) 324-326.

46 The Status of Jerusalem (New York, United Nations, 1979)Google Scholar, prepared for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; Sally V. Mallison and W. Thomas Mallison, “The Jerusalem Problem in Public International Law: Juridical Status and a Start Towards Solution”, in Hans Koechler, ed., supra n. 44, pp. 98-119, at 107; Antonio Cassese, “Legal Considerations on the International Status of Jerusalem”, ibid., pp. 144-153, at 149 and 151.

47 For a comprehensive analysis of the attitude of the United States, see Slonim, Shlomo, “The United States and the Status of Jerusalem, 1947-1984”, (1985) 19 Is. L.R. 179Google Scholar.

48 Civil Case Jerusalem 208/62, 8 P.M. (1952/1963), p. 455; Execution Case Jerusalem 157/53, 9 P.M. (1953/1954), p. 602. For an English overview of the various decisions, see (1953) International Law Reports 391-405.

49 See, e.g., Statement by the Minister of State of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons, 27 April 1960, reproduced in Jerusalem — Collection of Documents, at 147-148; letters by Janet G. Mullins, United States Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, to Lee H. Hamilton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, U.S. House of Representatives, of 29 June and 6 September 1989, reproduced ibid., at 447-449.

50 See, e.g., ibid., at 449.

51 For references, see supra n. 43.

52 For references, see supra n. 45. For somewhat similar opinions, see van Dusen, Michael, “Jerusalem, the Occupied Territories and the Refugees”, in Khadduri, Majid, ed., Major Middle Eastern Problems in International Law (Washington D.C., American Enterprise Institute, 1978) 51Google Scholar; Quigley, John, “Old Jerusalem: Whose to Govern”, (1991) 20 Denver J. Int'l L. & Policy 145, 164–166Google Scholar.

53 Dinstein, Yoram, “Autonomy”, in Dinstein, Y., ed., Models of Autonomy (New Brunswick, Transaction Books, 1981) 291–303Google Scholar, at 300. On the Jericho meeting, see supra n. 19. It is not known whether Dinstein has changed his opinion on the question of sovereignty due to Jordan's disengagement from the West Bank — see supra, text accompanying n. 39.

54 For references, see supra n. 46.

55 For references, see supra a. 43.

56 Blum, Yehuda Z., The Juridical Status of Jerusalem (Jerusalem, The Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, 1974)Google Scholar; id., “The Missing Reversioner: Reflectionss on the Status of Judea and Samaria”, (1968) 3 Is. L.R. 279-301.

57 For references, see supra n. 45.

58 For references, see supra n. 53.

59 Supra n. 54.

60 E.g., Security Council Resolution 465, of 1 March 1980, SCOR, 35th Year, 1980, Resolutions, p. 5, U.N. Doc. S/INF/36; Security Council Resolution 478, of 20 August 1980, SCOR, 35th Year, 1980, Resolutions, p. 14, both reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 311 and 351.

61 Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 300.

62 For the Statement made by Ambassador Goldberg, see GAOR, 5th Emergency Special Sess. (Plenary Meetings), 1554th meeting, 14 July 1967, pp. 9-11. For Ambassador Yost's Statement, see SCOR, 24th year, 1969, 148th meeting, 1 July 1969, pp. 11-12; both are reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 174-177 and 236-238.

63 A.G. v. Yoel Davis, (1988/1989) 3 P.M. 336-342. For a summary in English, see Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 535-539.

64 Bulletin of the European Communities, 6 — 1980, p. 10, reproduced in Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 314-315.

65 (1970) 24(ii) P.D. 419. For a summary in English, see Jerusalem — Selected Documents, at 502-506.

66 Supra n. 31.

67 These two resolutions have been reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 134 and 145.

68 Text accompanying n. 33.

69 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1138, No. 17855, pp. 72-163, reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 218-242.

70 Lapidoth, Ruth, “The Autonomy Negotiations: A Stocktaking”, (Spring/Summer 1983) 16 Middle East Review 35–43Google Scholar.

71 The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 287-295.

72 Ibid., at 296.

73 Ibid., at 357-360.

74 Text of the letter of invitation reproduced in The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 384-386.

75 U.N. Doc. A/48/486 — S/26560 (Annex), of 11 October 1993; (1993) 32 International Legal Materials 1525-1544. On the Declaration of Principles, see Singer, Joel, “The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements”, (1994) 1 Justice 4–21Google Scholar; Benvenisti, Eyal, “The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles: A Framework for Future Settlement”, (1993) 4 Euro. J. Int'l L. 542–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Antonio Cassese, “The Israel-PLO Agreement and Self-Determination”, ibid., at 564-571; Raja Shihadeh, “Can the Declaration of Principles Bring About a ‘Just and Lasting Peace’?”, ibid., at 555-563.

76 Articles IV and V(3), and Agreed Minutes.

77 Annex I, para. 1.

78 Reproduced in the Jerusalem Post, of 7 June 1994.

79 (1995) 34 International Legal Materials.

80 Ha'aretz, 6 November 1994, p. A-4; Ha'aretz, 13 November 1994, p. A-10.

81 Text of Palestinian Reply to the Invitation to the Peace Conference and the Letter of Assurances, CM 2510202691 Amman Al-Dustur in Arabic, 26 October 1991, English text in (November 1991) International Affairs, FBIS-NES-91-208.

82 Letter of 18 October 1991.

83 Letter of 18 October 1991, reproduced in The Jerusalem Post, 31 October 1991.

84 This conclusion can be reached by comparing these assurances with those given by the United States in 1975, in parallel with the conclusion of the 1 September Agreement between Egypt and Israel. For text, see The Arab-Israel Conflict — Documents, at 175-176. See also the discussions which took place in the U.S. Senate at that time (1975) 14 International Legal Materials 1483-1488, in particular the statement by the Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, on p. 1485.

85 See supra nn. 75, 76, 77.

86 The proposed boundaries were shown on a map, Annex B to the resolution, supra n. 8.

87 These boundaries were established by Article V of the Agreement and were delineated on maps Included In Annex 1 to the Agreement (supra n. 13). See also map in Martin Gilbert, supra n. 1, at 101, and in Dan Bahat, supra n. 1, at 77.

88 Gilbert, Martin, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps, (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 5th ed., 1992) 123Google Scholar; Dan Bahat, supra n. 1, at 81. Israel has slightly changed those borders in 1998—see map in Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch, supra n. 42, at 9. The change relates mainly to the western boundary of the city.

89 Supra, text accompanying nn. 22, 23, 24, 25, and maps mentioned in n. 88.

90 Series B, No. 10, pp. 6-28; Hudson, Manley O., ed., Worid Court Reports, Vol. I, 1922–1926 (Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1934) 422–439Google Scholar.

91 Page 11 in the publication of the Court; page 426 in Manley O. Hudson.

92 Page 21 in the publication of the Court; page 433 in Manley O. Hudson.

93 Page 20 in the publication of the Court; page 432 in Manley O. Hudson.

94 Ibid.

95 See, e.g., proposal included in Albin, Cecilia, Amirav, Moshe, and Siniora, Hanna, Jerusalem: An Undivided City as Dual Capital, Israeli- Palestinian Peace Research Project, Working Paper Series, No. 16 (Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Arab Studies Society, Jerusalem, Winter 1991/1992)Google Scholar.

96 Text accompanying n. 36.

97 In an unpublished paper of 1993, Dr. Moshe Hirsch has outlined some of the possible alternatives in this sphere. The author is grateful to him for having let her consult this manuscript.

98 Ibid.

99 Text accompanying n. 77.

100 Annex I, para 1. The second and third paragraphs read as follows:

“2. In addition, the election agreement should cover, among other things, the following issues:

a. the system of elections;

b. the mode of the agreed supervision and international observation and their personal composition; and

c. rules and regulations regarding election campaign, including agreed arrangements for the organizing of mass media, and the possibility of licensing a broadcasting and TV station.

3. The future status of displaced Palestinians who were registered on 4th June 1967 will not be prejudiced because they are unable to participate in the election process due to practical reasons”.

101 Article I.

102 Supra n. 83.

103 See Joel Singer, supra n. 75, at 5-6.

104 Housen-Couriel, Debra and Hirsch, Moshe, East Jerusalem and the Elections to be Held in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, in Accordance with the Israeli Peace Initiative of May 1989 (Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, 1992) 5–8Google Scholar. In the context of the 1989 initiative, the authors mention a possible compromise which could also be valid for the elections foreseen by the 1993 Declaration of Principles: Arab inhabitants of the eastern sectors of Jerusalem could be elected to the self-governing authority if they moved their residence from Jerusalem to a locality outside the city in the West Bank or in Gaza. They could be candidates of the area of their new residence — ibid., at 8.

105 Faisal al-Husseini, the chief representative of the PLO in Jerusalem, has, however, claimed in some TV interviews that the political activities of Orient House have not increased.

106 Law on the Implementation of the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (Restriction of Activities) 1994, S.H. no. 1497, p. 85. The Cairo Agreement itself does not deal with Jerusalem (U.N. Doc. A/49/180—S/1994/727 (Annex), of 20 June 1994). For a more detailed discussion of the problems concerning various activities of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO in east Jerusalem, see Joel Singer, supra n. 41, text preceding and accompanying nn. 47-49.

107 Reproduced in The Jerusalem Post, 7 June 1994.

108 Eastern Greenland case, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A/B, No. 53, 1933, at 53; Nuclear Test cases, (1974) International Court of Justice Reports 267, at 472; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.A.), ibid., 1986, p. 3, at 130-132; Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), ibid., 1986, p. 554, at 573-574.

109 Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), ibid.

110 It has been maintained that Y. Arafat had signed the Declaration of Principles on condition that Israel sends the above letter. Even if that was the case, the letter cannot serve to interpret the Declaration since its contents does not deal with the same subject matter.

111 According to another opinion, the letter was intended to preserve the status quo in Jerusalem — see J. Singer, supra n. 41, text preceding n. 47.

112 Article 9 of the Treaty of Peace.

113 See Article 30(4) and (5) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and SirSinclair, Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Trtaties, (Manchester University Press, 2nd ed., 1984) 93–98Google Scholar.

114 These provisions are similar though not identical with the relevant provisions in the 1979 Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel — supra n. 69, Article VI.

115 Supra, text accompanying n. 80.

116 This term has been used in the sphere of the law of the sea.

117 A term used by Prof. Amiram Gonen in one of our conversations.

118 A term used in Canadian constitutional deliberations.

119 A solution suggested by Prof.Nusseibeh, Sari, in a statement published in Jerusalem — Visions of Reconciliation (New York, United Nations Publication, 1993, Sales No. E.94.1.3) 49–53Google Scholar. This solution has, however, been analyzed and rejected as impracticable by Breger, Marshall J., “Jerusalem Now and Then: The New Battle for Jerusalem”, (December 1994) Middle East Quarterly 23–34, at 32–34Google Scholar.

120 Lapidoth, Ruth, “Sovereignty in Transition”, (1992) 46 J. Int'l Affairs 325–346Google Scholar.