Rather than within the UN system itself, the origins of Palestines international legal subalternity are located in British secret treaty-making and diplomacy between 1915 and 1947, particularly as institutionalized within the League of Nations system. Although the literature on the history of Palestine in this period tends to focus on political themes, this chapter examines this period through the cross-cutting theme of the Eurocentricity of international law and organization then prevailing. It is set against the backdrop of the global paradigm shift then occurring in the international system, from one based on the norms and values of the late-imperial age grounded in an international rule by law, to one based on those of an emerging liberal western rights-based discourse, ostensibly based on an international rule of law. The main systemic issue that emerges for Palestine at this time is its contingent and subaltern status in the international legal order, a status that was eventually placed before the UN in 1947.

Part 1 of the book concludes by considering the paradoxical effects of two World Wars, at once harnessing an unprecedentedly vast emotional and material reservoir in the service of a common cause while at the same time ushering in a new era of ‘internationalism’ that would ultimately strip the British world-system of its effectiveness and fundamental rationale. Reformers in the interwar years sought to breathe new life into imperial Britishness ‘with a small “b”’ (in the words of Australia’s Keith Hancock) alluding to a more inclusive concept embracing a ‘diverse family of many kindreds and languages’ . By tracing interwar developments across three key interfaces - political thought, economic cooperation, and Indigenous rights advocacy - the shortcomings of this aspirational new Commonwealth are laid bare. Such was the long ascendancy of race in the hierarchy of Greater Britain that it could not easily be cast to one side.

The beginning of the twentieth century saw the end of Ottoman rule in Palestine. It was also a period of urbanization and modernization cut for a while by the outbreak of the war. The war caused famine, expulsion by the Turkish governor but also brought hope for a different future under the new rulers. These hopes were shattered when the British gave the Balfour Declaration in November 1917. Such clear support gave a new focus to the already existing Palestinian national movement.

In the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain recognised the Jews as a people and promised them a national home in Palestine. Although not legally binding in 1917, the Balfour Declaration was of cardinal importance in providing international political support for the idea of recreating a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Declaration was at first a conditional promise, but subsequent to the Declaration, Turkey renounced its claim to Palestine and Britain took control of the whole of Palestine and was in a position to implement it. The Declaration subsequently obtained binding international legal status in the San Remo Resolution and in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The Balfour Declaration obliged the British Government to preserve the individual rights of the Arab population of Palestine but did not recognise them as a people or promise them national rights, although they constituted a majority of the population at the time. This caused anger amongst the Arab population of Palestine and contradicted the Arab interpretation of the McMahon Hussein correspondence, whereby Palestine was to be part of an independent Arab State.

According to the covenant of the League of Nations, the outside state in control of Arab territories was to shepherd it along to independence. Britain took Palestine on the understanding that it would promote a Jewish national home there. This commitment was viewed on the Arab side as inconsistent with the obligation to foster independence. The concern was that Britain would allow a major inflow of Jewish population from Europe that would erode the Arab majority. This was regarded as a new form of colonialism. On Britain’s side, it was argued that independence for Palestine and a Jewish national home were compatible.

This chapter looks at the effects of World War I on Palestine and the Zionist movement. During the war, the entente powers viewed Ottoman territories as spoils of war, although they differed on who would get what. This was because the secret treaties they signed with each other and pledges to others were mutually contradictory and/or ambiguous. One pledge, the Balfour Declaration, promised the Zionist movement a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, thereby giving political Zionism the victory it needed to ensure the survival of the movement. After the war, the entente met to decide the future of Ottoman territory and came up with the “mandates system,” which created a new political form comparable to a temporary colony. Britain received the mandate for Palestine. The Jewish community there cooperated with the British and established structures compatible with the mandate. The indigenous community rejected both the Balfour Declaration and the mandate. As a result, it lacked the structures that might have prevented the nakba (catastrophe) of 1948.

It begins with preliminary matters: an opening section dealing with policy context and related guiding principles, then an outline of the governing legal framework, international and domestic legislation, courts and regulatory bodies, with some references to international reports. This leads into the first of two contemporary case law sections, which examines the state–religion relationship in relation to the most relevant fundamental human rights: the freedoms of religion, assembly/association and expression. The second and largest considers the church–state relationship as it intersects with equality rights in relation to: marriage, family life, divorce and death; healthcare; education; employment; service provision; and security.