If the UK recognises Palestine does it risk breaking international law?
It is a treaty signed in the Uruguayan capital in 1933 by 19 states, all from the Americas, including the US, that set four criteria for recognition of a state. They were: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into international relations. The fact that the UK did not sign does not mean that it would not apply to it, as it can be recognised as part of customary international law.
According to the Times, which has seen the letter, it says that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state and 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.
The signatories also reportedly point to the fact that there is no functioning single government – Hamas controls Gaza and Fatah the West Bank – and claim that it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations (although it does have embassies and is party to international treaties).
The state of Palestine has been recognised by 147 other countries, which suggests they disagree.
Philippe Sands KC, a professor of law at UCL, pointed out that in its advisory opinion last year the UN's top court, the international court of justice (ICJ), recognised 'the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign state'.
Sands said: 'I have no doubt whatsoever that if it were asked, the ICJ would reject the argument that it is somehow unlawful to recognise the existence of Palestinian statehood. Palestine meets all the legal criteria of statehood; all that remains is a political consideration, namely whether to recognise or not that those criteria are met. The court's language makes clear that that right exists now, and it exists because all the criteria for statehood are met.'
Victor Kattan, assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham, said that the Montevideo convention was a 'starting point' but that other rules of international law had emerged since, including the right of self-determination.
He said that many states had or had previously had border disputes and governance issues. 'Of course the Palestinian Authority is not able to exercise all elements of government authority but that's because of an occupation which the ICJ last year declared was unlawful,' he said.
It was reportedly signed by 40 peers, including many senior lawyers, among them Lord Pannick KC and Lady Deech. They are both patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), whose chief executive, Jonathan Turner, has said that neither Israel's occupation nor its settlements are illegal.
Another signatory, Lord Verdirame, unsuccessfully argued alongside Pannick, in a submission to the international criminal court, that it had no jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed in the occupied Palestinian territories. The former supreme court judge Lord Collins also signed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Killers must reveal where victims are before they are released, say devastated families
Killers must be locked up for life if they refuse to disclose the location of the body, the families of two high-profile murder victims have said. Relatives of Arlene Fraser, whose husband Nat Fraser has twice been convicted of her murder following her 1998 disappearance in Elgin, spoke of the 'mental torture' they are having to endure because no trace of her has ever been found. The family of Suzanne Pilley, who was murdered in 2010 by her work colleague David Gilroy, who was given a life sentence for murder, also condemned his lack of remorse or rehabilitation as he continues to refuse to disclose the location of her remains. They both welcomed a commitment secured from Justice Secretary Angela Constance that this 'must' be taken into account by the Parole Board when making decisions about release and that this will be delivered before next year's election. But they are now pushing her to go further still and introduce a 'no body no parole' rule which means killers who don't disclose the remains can never be released on parole. Ministers will consider whether to go further on 'Suzanne's Law' as part of a consultation on parole which will be published imminently. Gail Fairgrieve, Suzanne Pilley's sister, said: 'I think that people need to understand, the Parole Board need to understand, that this crime was still continuing. It is perpetrating the crime against us. We are still dealing with this every day. 'Everyday events - you go into a card shop and you can't buy anything for your sister. It's there constantly and he has information that could just put us at ease and bring Suzanne home. 'I feel that this ruling had to consider now that he can't possibly be rehabilitated or show remorse if he is continuing to withhold this information. This information is a full part of his crime and he needs to give us that information, otherwise life imprisonment means life imprisonment.' She added: 'They have to consider it and when they look at all the considerations that the Parole Board look at to release a prisoner, (by) withholding that information from us he is not rehabilitating, there is no remorse, there is nothing.' Carol Gillies, the sister of Arlene Fraser, said: 'I feel that he (Nat Fraser) controlled Arlene when she was alive, and he is controlling her when she's dead as well. 'If the Parole Board can almost give them a choice - tell us more information or stay in jail - so he needs to make a choice, it's his choice what he does.' On the emotional impact of Arlene's body never being discovered, she said: 'It is a form of mental torture for us, it really is. I don't like using dramatic words but it is. He has that information, there is no doubt about it.' The families of the two victims yesterday spoke to journalists at an event organised by Victim Support Scotland following a meeting with Ms Constance. During the talks, Ms Constance gave a firm commitment that an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill, which was added at stage two and ensures the Parole Board 'must' take into account when killers don't disclose the location of their victim's remains when making decisions, will be delivered. Choking back tears yesterday, Ms Fairgrieve described the difficulty of family events like birthdays, Christmases and weddings, and went on: 'It's the same with my kids, she had a niece and a nephew... and she wasn't there for it. He denied her that. 'I think I sometimes feel guilty that I have a life. She was only 33 when she was taken. She wouldn't want me to feel guilty, she would want me to live my life. But she has missed out on so much.' Sylvia Pilley, mother of Suzanne: 'I know Suzanne had justice when he was put in prison but her life has been cut short. She really wanted a family and she has never been given that, and we miss her. That's really why we are doing this.' Under current legislation, Gilroy will be eligible to be considered for parole in March 2030, while Nat Fraser - who was found guilty of killing his wife Arlene - will be eligible in October 2028. Describing why the families are fighting to deliver 'Suzanne's Law, Ms Fairgrieve said: 'We may never find where she is, and he may get out of prison and that is something we will have to learn to live with. But we can challenge the rules and the regulations now and we've got people that are committed to changing those. We will just hopefully improve the life for people if it happens to them.' Now the families are pushing alongside Victim Support Scotland for a 'no body no parole' rule to be introduced as part of an upcoming consultation on parole. Ms Fairgrieve said: 'Parole regulations are something that will effect the perpetrators in these cases but we would like to see the law changed initially so that when they come to trial they are well aware that if they never disclose where their remains or a body is there is no chance of parole. That is where the law needs to stand, we need to move towards that.' During yesterday's talks, Ms Constance is said to have pledged to consider the idea, similar to a system currently in place in Australia. Ms Gillies said: 'I think it should happen because when Nat was sentenced Lord Bracadale said 'you instigated this, you instructed this' and he obviously knows what happened: he disposed of Arlene in a very ruthless, efficient way. To just have Nat Fraser in front of the Parole Board and all they are considering is the risk or how he behaved in jail is just not enough. 'If he was to get out then it would be gone forever.' Ms Constance said: 'I am grateful to the families of Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser for meeting with me today. They have suffered heartbreaking losses, compounded by not knowing the final resting place of their loved ones. My deepest sympathies remain with them. 'In March, I supported an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill that will mean the Parole Board, when making decisions about release, must take account of whether a prisoner has information about the disposal of a victim's remains, but has not disclosed it. 'At today's meeting, I reiterated my firm commitment to this change, which will become law if the Bill is passed in Parliament.'
Economist
an hour ago
- Economist
The long-term effects of hunger in Gaza
FOR two weeks, the world has claimed it is working to end the widespread hunger in Gaza. The UN is pleading with Israel to allow more lorries of aid into the territory. Arab and Western states are airdropping food. On August 5th Donald Trump said America would take a larger role in distributing aid, though he was vague about the details. 'I know Israel is going to help us with that in terms of distribution, and also money,' he said. Yet on the ground, Gazans say little has changed. There is not enough food entering Gaza, nor is there law and order to allow its distribution. Airdrops are hard to reach. Convoys are looted soon after they cross the border. Finding food often requires making a risky trip to an aid centre, where hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in recent months, or paying exorbitant sums on the black market. This is a calamity in its own right, one that will have long-term consequences for many Gazans, particularly children. But it is also a glimpse of Gaza's future. Even after the war ends, it will remain at the mercy of others for years to come. Wedged between Israel and Egypt, the tiny territory was never self-sufficient. Its neighbours imposed an embargo after Hamas, a militant group, took power in 2007. The economy withered. Half of the workforce in the strip was unemployed and more than 60% of the population relied on some form of foreign aid to survive. The UN doled out cash assistance, ran a network of clinics that offered 3.5m consultations a year and operated schools that educated some 300,000 children. Still, Gaza could meet at least some basic needs by itself. Two-fifths of its territory was farmland that supplied enough dairy, poultry, eggs and fruits and vegetables to meet most local demand. Small factories produced everything from packaged food to furniture. The Hamas-run government was inept, but it provided law and order. After nearly two years of war, almost none of that remains. The UN's World Food Programme (WFP) says that Gaza's 2m people need 62,000 tonnes of food a month. That is a bare-bones calculation: it would provide enough staple foods but no meat, fruits and vegetables or other perishables. By its own tally, Israel has allowed far less in. It imposed a total siege on the territory from March 2nd until May 19th, with no food permitted to enter. Then Israel allowed the UN to resume limited aid deliveries to northern Gaza. It also helped establish the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a shadowy outfit that distributes food at four points in southern and central Gaza. In more than two months of operation, it has handed out less than 0.7 meals per Gazan per day—and that assumes each box of aid, stocked with a hotch-potch of dried and canned goods, really provides as many meals as the GHF claims it does. All told, Israel permitted 98,674 tonnes of food aid to cross the border in the five months through July, an average of 19,734 tonnes a month—just 32% of what the WFP says is necessary. Although the volume of aid has increased in recent days, it is still insufficient. 'We're trying to get 80 to 100 trucks in, every single day,' says Valerie Guarnieri of the WFP. 'It's not a high bar, but a realistic bar of what we can achieve.' On August 4th, though, Israel allowed only 41 of the agency's lorries to enter a staging area on the Gaza border, and it let drivers collect just 29 of them. Getting into Gaza is only the first challenge. Distribution is a nightmare. Since May 19th the UN has collected 2,604 lorryloads of aid from Gaza's borders. Just 300 reached their intended destination. The rest were intercepted en route, either by desperate civilians or by armed men. Aid workers are nonchalant about civilians raiding aid lorries, which they euphemistically call 'self-distribution': they reckon the food still reaches people who need it. 'There's a real crescendo of desperation,' says Ms Guarnieri. 'People have no confidence food is going to come the next day.' But the roaring black market suggests that much of it is stolen. Gaza's chamber of commerce publishes a regular survey of food prices (see chart). A 25kg sack of flour, which cost 35 shekels ($10) before the war, went for 625 shekels on August 5th. A kilo of tomatoes fetched 100 shekels, 50 times its pre-war value. Such prices are far beyond the reach of most Gazans. Those with a bit of money often haggle for tiny quantities: a shopper might bring home a single potato for his family, for example. Israel's ostensible goal in throttling the supply of aid was to prevent Hamas from pilfering any of it. Earlier this month the group released a propaganda video of Evyatar David, an Israeli hostage still held in Gaza. He was emaciated, and spent much of the video recounting how little he had to eat: a few lentils or beans one day, nothing the next. At one point a militant handed Mr David a can of beans from behind the camera. Many viewers noted that the captor's hand looked rather chubby. As much of Gaza starves, Hamas, it seems, is still managing to feed its fighters. The consequences of Israel's policy instead fall hardest on children—sometimes even before birth. 'One in three pregnancies are now high-risk. One in five babies that we've seen are born premature or underweight,' says Leila Baker of the UN's family-planning agency. Compare that with before the war, when 8% of Gazan babies were born underweight (at less than 2.5kg). There were 222 stillbirths between January and June, a ten-fold increase from levels seen before the war. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a UN-backed outfit that tracks hunger, said last month that 20,000 children were hospitalised for acute malnutrition between April and mid-July. Even before they reach that point, their immune systems crumble. Moderately malnourished children catch infections far more easily than well-fed ones, and become more seriously ill when they do, rapidly losing body weight. The body takes a 'big hit' when food intake falls to just 70-80% of normal, says Marko Kerac, a paediatrician at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who has treated children in famine-stricken places. Most children in Gaza are eating a lot less than that. In July the World Health Organisation reported an outbreak of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare autoimmune disease that may have links to hunger. Gaza's health ministry says cases are multiplying, including among children. Give us our daily bread Nor is calorie intake the only concern. Although flour and salt in Gaza are fortified with some vitamins and minerals, such as iodine, they are consumed in limited amounts—especially now, since many bakeries have been closed for months, owing to a lack of flour and fuel. In February, during the ceasefire, Israel allowed 15,000 tonnes of fruits and vegetables and 11,000 tonnes of meat and fish into Gaza. Since March it has allowed just 136 tonnes of meat. All of this means there is widespread deficiency of essential nutrients that help children's brains develop. Every child in Gaza, in other words, will remain at lifelong risk of poor health because of today's malnutrition. There is consistent evidence for this from studies of populations that have lived through famine: during the second world war, the 1960s famine in China and, more recently, places like Ethiopia. Children who have suffered acute malnourishment have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases as adults. They are also at risk of worse cognitive development. A flood of aid cannot undo the damage, but it can prevent it from getting worse. It will have to be sustained. The devastation wrought by Israel's war has left Gazans with no alternative but to rely on aid. In February the UN estimated that the war had caused $30bn in physical damage and $19bn in economic disruption, including lost labour, forgone income and increased costs. Reconstruction would require $53bn. At this point, that is little more than a guess. The real cost is impossible to calculate. But it will be enormous. The first task will be simply clearing the rubble. A UN assessment in April, based on satellite imagery, estimated that there were 53m tonnes of rubble strewn across Gaza—30 times as much debris as was removed from Manhattan after the September 11th attacks. Clearing it could be the work of decades. The seven-week war between Israel and Hamas in 2014, the longest and deadliest before the current one, produced 2.5m tonnes of debris. It took two years to remove. Rebuilding a productive economy will be no less difficult. Take agriculture. The UN's agriculture agency says that 80% of Gaza's farmland and 84% of its greenhouses have been damaged in the war. Livestock have been all but wiped out. A satellite assessment last summer found that 68% of Gaza's roads had been damaged (that figure is no doubt higher today). The two main north-south roads—one along the coast, the other farther inland—are both impassable in places. Even if farmers can start planting crops for small harvests after the war, it will be hard to bring their produce to market. The picture is equally bleak in other sectors: schools, hospitals and factories have all been largely reduced to rubble. The Geneva Conventions are clear that civilians have the right to flee a war zone. Exercising that right in Gaza is fraught: Palestinians have a well-grounded fear that Israel will never allow them to return. Powerful members of Binyamin Netanyahu's government do not hide their desire to ethnically cleanse the territory and rebuild the Jewish settlements dismantled in 2005. Still, the dire conditions have led some people to think the unthinkable: a survey conducted in May by a leading Palestinian pollster found that 43% of Gazans are willing to emigrate at the end of the war. Mr Netanyahu may not follow through on his talk of reoccupying Gaza, which he hinted at in media leaks earlier this month. His far-right allies may not fulfil their dream of rebuilding the Jewish settlements dismantled in 2005. In a sense, though, the ideologues in his cabinet have already achieved their goal. Israel's conduct of the war has left Gazans with a grim choice: leave the territory, or remain in a place rendered all but uninhabitable. ■
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer urged to drop 'toxic' NIMBY term by Labour MPs
In recent months Keir Startmer has vowed to take on 'the NIMBYs' to get spades in the ground of major infastructure projects and deliver on promise to build 1.5million new homes Keir Starmer should drop the "toxic" term NIMBY for those who rally against developments in their own area, a group of Labour MPs have suggested. In recent months the PM has vowed to take on "the NIMBYs" - an acronym which stands for 'not in my back yard' - to get spades in the ground of major infrastructure projects. But Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, the Labour MP who chairs the Labour Rural Research Group, told The Mirror"many people rightly despise the term". "The term NIMBY isn't just toxic, it's politically pointless. We win nothing by labelling people 'anti development' or 'anti growth'," she added. It comes after The Mirror's Kevin Maguire wrote: 'Labour must find engaging story for the UK - or face election wipeout'. The group of 26 Labour backbenchers Labour Rural Research Group - set up to champion rural issues - have published their first report today on the attitudes of their countryside constituents. Their survey of 1,412 people found 56% "firmly do not see themselves as NIMBYs". Over 60% also agreed developments in their areas should go ahead "as long as it is delivered thoughtfully, and with consideration for local needs and identity". The report says: "The rhetoric in today's political world and media, which tends to focus on dividing lines, often pits rural against urban, and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) against YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard). YIMBYs are often presented (in the media at least) as proud urban voters, whilst NIMBYs are seen as people living in rural or semi-rural communities." It also found almost three quarters believe rural communities have been overlooked over the past 15 years. And three in five feel their communities are in decline. The MPs' report said: "We must ensure that rural communities, left behind by successive Conservative governments, are front and centre of the Labour government's mission for inclusive growth and opportunity." Ms Riddell-Carpenter, who overturned ex-Tory Deputy PM Therese Coffey's massive majority in the Suffolk Coastal constituency last year, added: "Our report shows – in black and white – rural voters do not see themselves as NIMBYs, in fact many people rightly despise the term." She added: "They are rightly proud of, and ambitious for, their local area - they want to see new jobs, more affordable homes, and better opportunities for young people. We need to make sure that growth and development in rural areas matches this strong local identity, and that we put forward proposals that local people can be proud of in their back yard." A Labour source told The Mirror: 'Labour was elected to deliver change. We are proud of our ambition to create a fairer Britain. Working families don't feel that sense of fairness yet. People work hard and deserve a secure place to call home for them and their loved ones. 'Through our Plan for Change, Labour will unashamedly deliver on that promise. We'll build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, and create the infrastructure that gets them to work more quickly and seen by a doctor more swiftly.'
