Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer

Times

3 days ago

Some of Britain's most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law.
Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933.
The letter, seen by The Times, was sent to Lord Hermer, the attorney-general and the government's top legal adviser.
The signatories point out that Starmer's pledge risked undermining the government's commitment that international law goes 'absolutely to the heart' of its foreign policy.
Among those who signed the letter were seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, one of the UK's most respected lawyers. Pannick represented the government in its Supreme Court battle over the Rwanda relocation scheme.
The peers, including some of parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, wrote to Hermer: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law.
'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy.
'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.
'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.'
The 1933 treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital, laid out the four key criteria for statehood in international law. The treaty says a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
The letter added that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state, while the government would face difficulty continuing to recognise millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'refugees', given recognition of statehood would mean they were in their own territory.
They also argued that there is no functioning single government, and it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. Hamas is a proscribed terror group in the UK.
Among the 40 peers to sign the letter were prominent legal figures including Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, Lord Verdirame KC, a leading barrister and professor in international law, Lord Faulks KC, a leading human rights lawyer, and Lord Banner KC, whose report on radical planning reforms are being accepted by Starmer to speed up major infrastructure projects.
Labour signatories include Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Turnberg, Lord Shamash and Lord Winston, while Lord Harrington of Watford, the former refugee minister, and Lord Walney, the government's former adviser on political violence and disruption, also signed the letter.
Former cabinet ministers include Lord Pickles, Lord Lansley, Lord Ellis KC, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Baroness Foster of Oxton.
Several former Labour attorney-generals are also said to be supportive of the letter.
Starmer insisted on Wednesday that Britain's recognition of Palestinian statehood is 'not a gesture' but will secure a viable two-state solution as he embarked on a diplomatic push to secure support for his Middle East peace plan.
In a round of calls with world leaders, Starmer said 'recognition needed to be rooted in a process of change that made a material difference to the situation on the ground'.
He told his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, that 'recognition was not a gesture, but a driver for real change that ensured a viable two-state solution', Downing Street said.
Starmer also stressed the need for a ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the acceleration of aid and ensuring Hamas played no role in a future state.
Starmer's announcement has been widely criticised by both Jewish groups and the families of Britons who were held captive, and who have accused the government of reducing hostages to a 'bargaining chip'.
On Wednesday evening, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi, accused Starmer of fundamentally undermining the peace and security of both Israelis and Palestinians and said that the announcement at a time when hostages remain captive can 'only disincentivise Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire'.
Writing in The Times, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, warned that Starmer's 'knee-jerk recognition of Palestinian statehood will embolden our enemies at abroad and at home'.
The letter was announced after Palestine Action won permission to challenge its ban by the UK government.
The High Court ruled that the decision by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation should be reviewed in the courts.
Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, lodged a bid to challenge the proscription, which was made under anti-terror legislation. The proscription was announced by Cooper after the group claimed responsibility for breaking into RAF Brize Norton on June 20 and inflicting millions of pounds of damage to two Voyager aircraft.
In a major ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'reasonably arguable' that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
He concluded that a substantive hearing at the High Court should be held in order to decide the legality of the decision to proscribe the group.
Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said: 'The court has confirmed the continuation of the proscription order against Palestine Action Group in line with its previous judgement, while allowing permission for a further hearing under the normal judicial review procedures.
'The decision to proscribe was based on strong security advice and the unanimous recommendation by the expert cross-government Proscription Review Group. This followed serious attacks the group has committed, involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.'
She added: 'Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation. But people should be under no illusion — this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.'