sign in sign up
<<
Home , Hebron, Jerusalem Embassy Act, Status of Jerusalem

Model International Court of Justice (MICJ)

Case #2

Palestine (Applicant)

Relocation of the Embassy to ( v. United States of America)

Arkansas Model (AMUN) November 20-21, 2020

1

Palestine’s Complaint

The (Palestine) respectfully requests that the International

Court of Justice (ICJ) declare the relocation of the United States of America’s (United

States) embassy to Jerusalem in defiance of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations of 18 April 1961 (Vienna Convention) and to order the United States to withdraw their embassy from the disputed city of Jerusalem and confine to international standards set by the Vienna Convention.

Palestine believes that the United States has violated its obligations to the

Vienna Convention and wishes for the United States to fulfill its obligations in a timely and effective manner as to eventually allow for strong diplomatic relations to resume between the two parties.

Palestine firmly argues that the United States had the obligation to establish their embassy on the territory of the state of (Israel) and did not comply with this obligation as imposed onto signatories to the Vienna Conventioni.

Palestine states that the Court has jurisdiction over this case by invoking Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention concerning the Compulsory

Settlement of Disputes, to which both Palestine and the United States are parties to.

The Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention concerning the Compulsory

Settlement of Disputes states that disputes arising out of interpretation of the

Convention lies “within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” and that disputes may be brought before the Court by an application made by “any party” to the dispute “being a Party to the present Protocol”ii.

2

Palestine commends the Court for their decision on September 28, 2018 to grant jurisdiction for the ICJ hear this dispute.

Historical Background

The area surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict has been under constant warfare by both parties since the end of World War 2, in which the allied powers believed the Jewish people deserved their own state in their homeland, Israel, after the atrocities they endured by the Nazis in and thus provided the Jewish people with land in the . In order to solve this issue, the newly formed United

Nations decided in 1947 to divide the land of , a land that was occupied by Palestinian Muslims for generations, between the Jewish people and the

Palestinian Muslims occupying the area. According to this treaty, the of

Israel would gain the area surrounding the major cities of Haifa and along with the Desert and land to the west of the Sea of , while the Arab state of

Palestine would receive the area surrounding the Jerusalem enclave, Hebron, , the , and land surrounding the northern city of Akko (Map A). In this partition plan, the international community designated the City of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum and thus “administrated by the United Nations”iii so that the special city may not be claimed by either side of the conflict.

After this plan was announced, some critics began to voice concerns that this partition was not equal and fair to the people of Palestine and the Arab delegation to the

UN at the time of this plan requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ on its opinion on the following subjects as it related to the partition plan. The ICJ was asked to decide if

3

the were promised independence by Britain following World War 2, whether the plan was “consistent with the objectives and provisions” of the mandate, whether the partition was consistent with the UN Charter’s principles (referring to the right to self-determination), whether the UN had jurisdiction to “adopt and execute” this plan, and whether the UN or any international committee had the power to implement a partition plan without the consent of the majority of the people living in the territoryiv. The

ICJ ultimately agreed that the UN had the right to enforce this plan and thus it was voted on again by the general assembly and passed on November 29, 1947, by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentionsv.

Soon after the United Nations announced the passing of the plan, a fierce civil war broke out in which Jewish forces clashed with Palestinian Muslims and destroyed much of the Palestinian way of life. In this civil war, Jewish forces “destroyed the fabric” of Palestinian society, triggered the “Palestinian exodus”, took control of many Arab cities and towns and cemented their power well beyond the area permitted to them in the partition planvi.

After the civil war continued for some time it grew into a larger conflict after the partition plan expired on May 14, 1948, and the British authorities controlling security in the region left due to the inability for the mandate to be implementedvii. It was on this day that the Israeli people formally declared themselves an independent nation and cited the partition plan as “irrevocable” proof that they have an international right to establish their own stateviii. This war led to an armistice which were signed in 1949 by

Israel, , , , and Lebanon under the supervision of the United Nationsix.

In this armistice, a temporary armistice line was created (Map B) to supervise Israel

4

territory and Jordanian territory at the time. It was agreed upon all parties at this time that this agreement would only be temporary until a permanent peace treaty could be signedx and the line that was established, known as The , became a focusing point for future negotiations that call for Israel’s borders to return to “pre-1967 borders”.

The Six Day War began in 1967 and was a short war that occurred for six days from June 5th to June 10th. In this war, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt after growing tensions in the region led to a shipping blockade at the Israeli city of Eilat along with the sudden 200,000 dispatched Egyptian troops in the Sinai peninsula, the removal of

United Nations troops from the hotly contested region, and constant verbal abuse from multiple leaders directed at Israelxi. In the short six days of the war, Israel was able to completely surprise and overrun a coalition of three Arabic nations to control three critical areas: Jerusalem and the West Bank, the , and the

Heightsxii as these were originally held by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively (Map

C).

For the United States, this war was unexpected as President Lyndon B. Johnson tried everything he could to stop a largescale conflict from occurring in this region, including recommending to Israel that they do not attack firstxiii. The United States government wanted to make sure any conflict in the region would be diplomatically solved by both parties however it was realized that Israel was not wishing to “move at

America’s pace”xiv and thus mobilized their troops and struck Egypt before Egypt could strike them. The surprise attack, nicknamed Operation Focus, nearly destroyed most of the Arab air force units on the groundxv and was extremely successful in stopping an air

5

attack by the Arab coalition before it could begin. With the air force grounded, Israel began their offensives into the three areas mentioned earlier.

A few hours after destroying the air supremacy of the Arab coalition, Israel began its assault on Jordanian troops in Jerusalem after Jordan took the first shots in the cityxvi. After five days, Jerusalem and the two other areas previously mentioned was under the control of Israel. Soon after taking Jerusalem, the Israeli government began forcefully expelling Palestinians or killing them on a smaller scale than that of the 1948 civil warxvii. The defeat of the Arab nations in this war coincidentally began the start of the Palestinian national movement after the Arab countries refused to negotiate a peace treaty with the Israeli governmentxviii.

For the United States, Israel’s win in this conflict came at a shock and made

American political leaders excited to see the Jewish nation end up victorious against its aggressors. Harry McPherson, a special envoy of President Johnson, was noted as being extremely surprised at the Israeli military command and commended the

“extraordinary combination” of military discipline and democracy between officers and their enlisted menxix. Due to their crushing defeat of a large Arabic coalition, Israel gained a new and powerful ally in the United States who then provided materials to

Israel in the War in 1973xx. Despite an accidental Israeli attack on a United

States research shipxxi, the United States and Israel remained important allies from

Israel’s independence in 1947 to the present day.

After the Six Day War concluded and no peace agreement was made between the coalition and Israel, the United Nations Security Council met and authored

Resolution 242 in which the council called on Israel to withdraw their armed forces from

6

territories they conquered in the war and now occupy”xxii which included the contested city of Jerusalem, among others. Along with this, the resolution also recognized the need for Israelis to live free from "threats or acts of force”xxiii and the acknowledgement of the "... of every State”xxiv in the region. This resolution would become the basis of future peace agreements related to the regionxxv.

Shortly after the end of the Six-Day War, the Israeli government began an internationally condemned of and the Golan Heightsxxvi which has been repeatedly denounced by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council in multiple resolutions over multiple decades. To begin their annexation, the Israeli government began building multiple neighborhoods in the occupied parts of Jerusalem they controlled after the Six Day Warxxvii. These neighborhoods were internationally denounced as illegal settlements and against international law as these neighborhoods went against the 4th Geneva Convention on the protection of civilian people in an occupied territory in times of warxxviii. The specific part of the Convention that Israel was accused of breaking was Article 49 which states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer” its population into occupied territoriesxxix. This eventually accumulated to Resolution 476 of the United Nations

Security Council, passed in 1980, which called on Israel to obey international law and to stop attempting to legislatively alter Jerusalem as doing so "constitutes a flagrant violation” of the 4th Geneva Convention and "constitutes a serious obstruction” to achieving any sort of lasting peace in the regionxxx. This resolution was passed 14 to none with the United States absentingxxxi.

7

Despite being essentially condemned by the international community for its flagrant abuse of international law, the Israeli government continued their annexation of

Jerusalem with the passing of the so-called “Basic Law” by the Israeli on July

30, 1980xxxii, a month after Resolution 476 was passed by the Security Council. In this new law, the Israeli government called Jerusalem the “complete and united” capital of their statexxxiii along with defining the borders of the city as it was permitted in a city ordinance. Furthermore, the Israeli government made clear their intent to not negotiate on the “sharing of sovereignty” of Jerusalem with a future Palestinian statexxxiv. While this law was symbolic in nature, it played a major role in the United States’ decision to move their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalemxxxv. After its passing, this new law was once again criticized by the United Nations Security Council who then passed

Resolution 478 a month later. In Resolution 478, the Council noted that the Basic Law was an attempt by the Israeli government to change the status of the city and thus went directly against the wishes of the Council in Resolution 476xxxvi. Along with this, the

Council declared that they did not recognize the law and called on member states of the

United Nations to “withdraw their missions” from Jerusalem if they have not already done soxxxvii. As with Resolution 476, this resolution was passed 14 to none with the

United States abstaining once morexxxviii.

It should be noted that the Israeli government refuses to call their annexation of

Jerusalem just that, instead they refer to this process as “administered territories”xxxix.

Despite this subtle euphemism by the Israeli government, the United Nations has referred to these territories, including East Jerusalem, as “Occupied Palestinian

Territory”xl and even this international court of which Palestine brings its case today has

8

referred to the territory as “Occupied Palestinian Territory” in the 2004 advisory case regarding the Jerusalem border wall constructed by the Israeli governmentxli. It therefore should be noted that most of the international community agrees that these lands are occupied under the threat of annexation of its occupier, Israel.

Another attempt by the Israeli government to solidify their control of East

Jerusalem began its process in 2002 with the construction of the so-called “security fence” on the West Bank along the Green Line (Map D). According to the Israeli government, this fence was created to “prevent Palestinian would-be suicide bombers” who were active during the second Palestinian intifadaxlii however, critics have noted that this border wall “epitomizes everything that is wrong” with Israel’s occupation and their approach to securing peace in the regionxliii. Despite claiming this fence was built for security purpose and is “definitely not a part of a future border”xliv, the fence cuts through hundreds of Palestinian farmers’ lands and imposes “unilateral solutions” xlvwhich then become automatically included in future peace deals. As was noted earlier, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion in 2004 on the construction of this security fence and found that the construction of this barrier in occupied Palestinian territory was illegal under international law and “must stop immediately”xlvi. The Court declared that the barrier breaches principles outlined in the UN charter and would be “tantamount to annexation”xlvii and thus, the Israeli government is bonded to international law and must “stop construction immediately”xlviii on the wall. The court also recommended that all member states of the UN should not recognize the Israeli government’s attempt to construct the wall and to not give aid for the construction of the barrierxlix.

9

After the court announced this advisory opinion, the United States remained in support of the Israeli efforts to build this fence as President Bush declared that the barrier should only be used for security purposes and be “temporary rather than permanent”l so that it does not infringe on the rights of non-combatant Palestinians. In a study completed by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2005, the office found that only 20% of the barrier followed that of the Green Lineli and access to services for those Palestinians living in the “closed areas” is highly restrictedlii. Along with being restricted to these many services, the wall also caused significant damage to

Palestinian farms that will take “many years” to recover and developliii. The Israeli government also issued orders for “no-construction zones” for up to 200 meters on the

Palestinian side of the barrier for the parts that have not been builtliv and has forced

5,000 Palestinians living in the “closed areas” to apply for a permit to continue living in their residencelv. Along with Palestinian complaints of abuse of power by the Israeli government, international organizations such as the Red Cross have also denounced the border wall as going against Israel’s moral responsibility to ensure the health and safety of those living in their occupied territory and called on Israel to stop construction of the security barrier in the occupied territories immediatelylvi.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961

On December 6, 2017, the United States announced their intent to relocate their

Israel embassy from Tel Aviv to the Israeli declared capital of Jerusalemlvii. In 1989,

Israel and the United States agreed to a lease for a plot of land in which was to be used for any future embassy in the citylviii however, none of the United

10

States presidents have wanted to move the embassy from Tel Aviv and thus exercised their wavier granted to them in the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Actlix.

President , on the other hand, had declared during his election campaign that he wished to move the United States embassy to Jerusalemlx and thus, it should be no surprise that he did so after he was elected.

Palestine maintains the belief that the land allocated to the United States by the

Israeli government for their embassy violates the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations of 18 April 1961. Palestine wishes to inform the Court that the United States has been a party to the Convention since June 29, 1961, and Palestine has been a party to the Convention since April 2, 2014lxi, therefore the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case brought forth in Article 1 of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory

Settlement of Disputes which states “disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the

International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol”lxii.

Palestine proclaims that the land of which the United States embassy is to be located on contradicts many Articles of the Vienna Convention, specifically the first paragraph of Article 21 which states: “The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way.”lxiii Palestine argues that the location of the United States embassy in Jerusalem

(Map E), which straddles the agreed upon armistice line of 1967 and the so-called “No

Man’s Land”, is not on Israeli land as defined by international law. Despite the Israeli

11

government’s attempt to annex the city of Jerusalem with the “Basic Laws” as mentioned earlier, the UN Security Council and its member states already declared, in

Resolution 478lxiv, that any attempt by Israel to change the status of Israel goes against international law as defined in the 4th Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of

Civilian Persons in Times of Warlxv. As defined in Resolution 478, the United Nations has declared Jerusalem a part of “Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since

June 1967”lxvi.

The location of this new United States embassy is located in what is known as

“no-man’s land”, a 750-acre piece of land which was created in the 1949 Armistice

Agreement between Israel and Jordan as a temporary demilitarized zone not meant to be permanentlxvii. After a few years, both nations began to develop different meanings on what constituted a border line for the demilitarized zone and thus went to the

Security Council for another opinion. In Resolution 127, adopted on January 22, 1958, the Council announced that neither Israel nor Jordan possessed any claim of sovereignty over the area designated as “no-man's land”lxviii.

The United States, on the other hand, has continuously argued that the zone has been operated and controlled by Israel and thus its continuous use allows for the hosting of the embassy in the arealxix. Israel has indeed operated and controlled this area, known as East , as it is now one of the internationally condemned “Ring

Neighborhoods”lxx as mentioned earlier. Along with this, the United States has argued that it was only “common sense” to locate the embassy in the of Israel, as they have done so for every country they have an embassy located inlxxi.

12

Besides Article 21, many other articles of the Convention make clear that an embassy must be in the territory of the host state. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 which states that: “The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in: (a) Representing the sending State in the receiving State”lxxii specifically mention that a representing embassy must be in the territory of the receiving state. In this case, the United States embassy located in the “no-man’s land” does not constitute the internationally recognized definition of land legally held by the Israeli government.

Another Article in the convention, Article 21, mentions in paragraph 1 that “The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way”lxxiii. Despite United States claims that

Israel controls the “no-man's land” of which the embassy is to be located, the international community has deemed this annexation of land by the Israeli government to have violated international law as pertained in the 4th Geneva Convention.

Paragraph 3 of Article 41 which states that “the premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State”lxxiv clarifies that “other rules of general international law” must also be followed along with the articles of this

Convention by the embassy in question.

Palestine wishes to refer to Security Council Resolutions 127, 242, 476, 478, and the 4th Geneva Convention as treaties that Israel, and by effect the United States, have

13

not followed by allowing this embassy to open in land not internationally recognized as being Israeli territory.

Palestine thus implores that due to the multiple Articles of the Convention that mention that a receiving embassy must be located in the territory of the host state, the internationally recognized fact that the Israeli government does not have any sovereign right to claim the “no-man’s land” of which the United States embassy was moved to, and the multiple Security Council resolutions which declare Jerusalem’s annexation of

Jerusalem to be in opposition to international law, the Court should recognize the international laws and customs that the United States has disregarded by relocating their embassy to a contested area of the city of Jerusalem.

Recent Developments

Since 2017, when court proceedings began for this case, there has been a few recent developments that have occurred regarding the United States embassy in

Jerusalem. To begin, the United States officially opened the embassy in Jerusalem on

May 14, 2018, amid protests by Palestinian civilians living in Jerusalemlxxv and after another use of the 6-month waiver granted from the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Actlxxvi.

Along with this, the United States also closed the office of the General Delegation of the

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in their capital, Washington D.C, after claiming the PLO “has not taken steps” to progress the peace process in the Middle

East regionlxxvii. Along with closing this embassy, the Trump administration also decreased funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which helps

Palestinian refugees who lost their property during the civil war of 1949lxxviii.

14

Summary

The State of Palestine asks the ICJ to declare the relocation of the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to be contrary to international law and in defiance of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

Palestine requests for the ICJ to order the United States to remove their embassy from the contested city of Jerusalem and to abide by international law as set by the Convention.

Palestine requests for the ICJ to rule that the United States must remove their embassy and declare they will not breach international law again.

Palestine urges to make clear that diplomatic missions between the two parties to this case could once again be resumed so long as the defendant follows the international laws that they have agreed to be a party to.

15

Map A: United Nations Partition Plan of 1947

16

Map B: 1949-1967 Armistice Line

17

Map C: Israeli Held Territories After the Six Day War (1967)

18

Map D: Construction of the Israeli Security Fence on the West Bank

19

Map E: Location of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem

20

Endnotes

i United Nations, “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations” UN, April 18, 1961, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf) ii United Nations, “Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes”, UN, April 24, 1963, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963_disputes.pdf) iii United Nations, Resolution Adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, UN, 29 November 1947, https://undocs.org/A/RES/181(II)) iv Khalidi, Walid. “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 27, no. 1, 1997, pp. 5–21. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2537806. v Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR). “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem Part II: 1947-1977 - Study (30 June 1979).” United Nations, United Nations, 30 June 1979, unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d442111e70e417e3 802564740045a309?OpenDocument. vi Khalidi, Walid. “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine: From the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution to the First Zionist Congress of 1897.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, 2009, pp. 24–42. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jps.2010.xxxix.1.24. Accessed 16 Oct. 2020. vii Shlaim, Avi. “Britain and the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 1987, pp. 50–76. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2536720. Accessed 16 Oct. 2020. viii Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1948, May 14). Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20 of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx ix Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Armistice Lines (1949-1967)”. 2013. Mfa.gov.il, https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/1949-1967%20Armistice%20Lines.aspx x (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013) xi Center for Israel Education. “1967 War.” CIE, July 9, 2020. https://israeled.org/themes/june- 1967-war/. xii (CIE, 2020) xiii Bowen, Jeremy. “1967 War: Six Days That Changed the Middle East.” BBC News. BBC, June 4, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39960461. xiv (Bowen, 2017) xv (Bowen, 2017) xvi (Bowen, 2017) xvii (Bowen, 2017) xviii (Bowen, 2017) xix (Bowen, 2017) xx (Bowen, 2017) xxi Crewdson, John. “New Revelations in Attack on American Spy Ship.” Chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune, 18 June 2018, www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html. xxii United Nations, “Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967), UN, November 22, 1967, https://unispal.un.org/dpa/dpr/unispal.nsf/0/7d35e1f729df491c85256ee700686136)

21

xxiii (United Nations, 1967) xxiv (United Nations, 1967) xxv ADL. “United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/338.” Anti-Defamation League, 2020. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/united-nations-security-council- resolution-242-338. xxvi (Bowen, 2017) xxvii BBC News. “The Geneva Convention.” BBC News, BBC, 10 Dec. 2009, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm. xxviii (BBC News, 2009) xxix (BBC News, 2009) xxx United Nations Security Council. “UN Security Council Resolution 476.” S/RES/476(1980) - E - S/RES/476(1980), 30 June 1980, undocs.org/S/RES/476(1980). xxxi (United Nations Security Council, 30 June 1980) xxxii The Knesset. “Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel.” Knesset.gov.il, The Knesset, 2009, www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm. xxxiii (The Knesset, 1980) xxxiv Zank, Michael. “The Jerusalem Basic Law (1980) and the (1995): A Comparative Investigation of Israeli and US Legislation on the .” Israel Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, 2016, pp. 20–35. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.21.3.02. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020. xxxv (Zank, 2016) xxxvi United Nations Security Council. “United Nations Security Council Resolution 478.” S/RES/478(1980) - E - S/RES/478(1980), United Nations Security Council, 20 Aug. 1980, undocs.org/S/RES/478(1980). xxxvii (United Nations Security Council, 20 August 1980) xxxviii (United Nations Security Council, 20 August 1980) xxxix (BBC News, 2017) xl United Nations General Assembly. “United Nations Official Document.” United Nations, United Nations, 30 Aug. 2016, www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2F71%2F364. xli United Nations. “ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - Full Text - Question of Palestine.” United Nations, United Nations, 4 July 2004, www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178825/. xlii BBC News. “Q&A: What Is the West Bank Barrier?” BBC News, BBC, 15 Sept. 2005, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111159.stm. xliii (BBC News, 2005) xliv (BBC News, 2005) xlv (BBC News, 2005) xlvi UN News. “International Court of Justice Finds Israeli Barrier in Palestinian Territory Is Illegal | | UN News.” United Nations, United Nations, 4 July 2004, news.un.org/en/story/2004/07/108912-international-court-justice-finds-israeli-barrier-palestinian- territory-illegal. xlvii (UN News, 2004) xlviii (UN News, 2004) xlix (UN News, 2004) l (BBC News, 2005) li Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. February 2005 Barrier Projections - Preliminary Analysis of Humanitarian Implications- OCHA Report, Maps (8 March 2005). 8 Mar. 2005, unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/659581cf3863644f85256fbf0068c624. lii (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2005) liii (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2005) liv (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2005) 22

lv (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2005) lvi BBC News. “Middle East | Red Cross Slams Israel Barrier.” BBC News, BBC, 18 Feb. 2004, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3498795.stm. lvii Pappas, Alex. “Trump Officially Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital, Orders Embassy Move for US.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 7 Dec. 2017, www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- officially-recognizes-jerusalem-as-israels-capital-orders-embassy-move-for-us. lviii Khalidi, Walid. “The Ownership of the U.S. Embassy Site in Jerusalem.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 29, no. 4, 2000, pp. 80–101. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2676563. Accessed 27 Oct. 2020. lix Jewish Virtual Library. “U.S. Policy on Jerusalem.” Presidential Waiver on Jerusalem Embassy Act, AICE, 2020, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/presidential-waiver-on-jerusalem- embassy-act. lx JTA. “Trump Pledges to Move US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.” | JPost.com, The Jerusalem Post, 20 Jan. 2016, www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Trump-pledges-to- move-US-embassy-from-Tel-Aviv-to-Jerusalem-442091. lxi United Nations Treaty Collection. “UN, United Nations, UN Treaties, Treaties.” United Nations, United Nations, 27 Oct. 2020, treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY. lxii (United Nations, 1963) lxiii United Nations. “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.” United Nations, United Nations, 2005, legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf. lxiv (United Nations Security Council, 20 August 1980) lxv (United Nations Security Council, 20 August 1980) lxvi (United Nations Security Council, 20 August 1980) lxvii Hughes, . “The United States Embassy in Jerusalem: Does Location Matter?” SSRN, 16 Oct. 2018, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3254420. lxviii (Hughes, 2018) lxix (Hughes, 2018) lxx BBC. “Jerusalem Settlement 'Extended'.” BBC News, BBC, 27 Apr. 2009, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8020825.stm. lxxi United Nations. “United Nations Position on Jerusalem Unchanged, Special Coordinator Stresses, as Security Council Debates United States Recognition of City | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” United Nations, United Nations, 8 Dec. 2017, www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13111.doc.htm. lxxii (United Nations, 1961) lxxiii (United Nations, 1961) lxxiv (United Nations, 1961) lxxv Moore, Mark. “US Embassy Officially Opens in Jerusalem.” New York Post, New York Post, 14 May 2018, nypost.com/2018/05/14/us-embassy-officially-opens-in-jerusalem/. lxxvi Shabad, . “Trump Signs Waiver, Delaying Promised Embassy Move in Israel.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 1 June 2017, www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-waiver-delaying- promised-embassy-move-in-israel/. lxxvii “Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-Palestinian Relations.” American Journal of International Law, vol. 113, no. 1, 2019, pp. 143–149., doi:10.1017/ajil.2018.112. lxxviii (American Journal of International Law, 2019)

23