Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

The leadership of the recognized "State of Palestine" has never attempted to define its borders by treaty or any other international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law under the [Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)].

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

The leadership of the recognized "State of Palestine" has never attempted to define its borders by treaty or any other international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law under the [Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)].

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

 

[Mindful]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

The leadership of the recognized "State of Palestine" has never attempted to define its borders by treaty or any other international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law under the [Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)].

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

When was the state of Palestine declared?

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

The leadership of the recognized "State of Palestine" has never attempted to define its borders by treaty or any other international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law under the [Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)].

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

When was the state of Palestine declared?

Never

 

[Mindful]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

The leadership of the recognized "State of Palestine" has never attempted to define its borders by treaty or any other international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law under the [Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)].

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

When was the state of Palestine declared?

Never

I thought Tinmore might know.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

The leadership of the recognized "State of Palestine" has never attempted to define its borders by treaty or any other international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law under the [Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)].

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

When was the state of Palestine declared?

Never

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

It doesn't have to. Palestine's international borders nave been uncontested since 1924.

Article 53
Treaties conflicting with
a peremptory norm of
general international law (“jus cogens”)​

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

When was the state of Palestine declared?

Never

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Unsubstantiated Pro Palestinian babble

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You're correct. They don't have to do anything. But the less they act like a government, the less the citizenry will benefit from their lazy and incompetent leadership.

(COMMENT)

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance. Under Article 16, the title and rights go to the Allied Powers. Under Article 30 the inhabitance will get a nationality (they will not be stateless).

But it must be remembered that the Arabs of the Region (including the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine) were not a party to the Treaty of Lausanne. (See Articles 2e→h and Articles 11→15 Vienna Convention Law Treaties)

Nothing → (I say again) → Nothing in the Treaty substantiates your position.

Furthermore: Under the "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (28 December 1920) set the boundaries.

Article 1

The boundaries between the territories

◈ under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand

◈ and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other
​

are determined as follows: —​

These boundaries essentially remained the same and for all practical purposes, were either incorporated or unaffected by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

When was the state of Palestine declared?

Never

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Unsubstantiated Pro Palestinian babble

There is your substantiation right there.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all misleading or inaccurate. And you are trying to imply a 1924 tie to statehood, the "Constitutive Theory of Statehood," used by the "Michigan Journal of International Law" to argue the matter of statehood mentions the Treaty of Lausanne (see pages 755 and 756), it does not use it to substantively support a viable argument. It says that the treaty "reflected an assumption" that the Class A mandate territories specifically included statehood for Palestine or any other single territory that was placed under the Mandate.

THEN: The argument jumps immediately to the famous "Judgement #5 Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)" (See Posting #7987) to make the connection to the Government of Palestine (GoP). The PCIJ Rule held that the Civil Administration created for the Mandate was, in point of fact, the GoP.

Otherwise, the association of the Treaty of Lausanne is merely a legal ruse.

The argument completely jumps over the relevant point that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty and answers the question:

◈ By what right does a non-party to an agreement have over the interpretation and enforcement of an independent treaty to which other soveriegnties are enjoined?

• I and our friend Hollie have an agreement that we will only eat Häagen-Dazs Ice Cream.
• But then I go to the Dairy Queen and have a Chocolate Blizzard.
• Hollie makes no complaint with that.
• But then you come around and want the Court to make me follow the original agreement.
⟴ By what right do you have to attempt judicial enforcement of the agreement between Holie and I, for which you are not a party?​

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of legal maxims that dates back to the early 1800s.

◈ The first (Nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali) (requirement for previous law) maxim states that there can no punish ordered for an action which was not a wrong doing (including misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feeasance), as the law existed at the moment the alleged offence occurred. A consequence of this principle is that only those penalties that had already been established for the offence in the time when it was committed can be imposed.

◈ The second (Nulla poena sine lege stricta) (requirement for previous law) maxim requires a specific law without the extension by analogy. The court cannot just say that, by today's standard, or in comparison to, → a "wrong doing" has been done.

◈ The third (Nulla poena sine lege) stipulates that "a person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute."​

The entirety of or the compilation of all the various arguments, hidden in the backdrop, is the allegation that some political body (the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the United Nations) or nation-state (the United States or Israeli), by virtue of its power (use of force - or - the threat to use force) wronged the Arab Palestinian (as a people) through intimidation or coercion. And it is these allegation that the Arab Palestinians want the 21st Century "World Opinion" to overturn diplomatic, political or military decisions that were made in the early years of the 20th Century and carried through to the present day.

It then becomes an imperative that the Arab Palestinian representatives stipulate clear and concisely:

◈ What specific wrong doing was done (including the date) that directly injured the Arab Palestinians?

◈ What specific international law (enforce at the time) applies for that wrongdoing (without analogy or interpretation)?

◈ What leader, political body, or nation-state is responsible for the wrong doing?​

Only then can we address the individual issues with any clear purpose and understanding. My "THEORY" is that the pro-Arab Palestinian movements simply cannot make their case; and jump to the political-military policy of "armed struggle (Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence). My "THEORY" as to why this as not been already done (since it is so simple of a necessary first step) is because the majority of the allegations are based on an attempt to persuade "World Opinion," under the color of law; and, through a tearful appeal to the global emotion rather than using a step by step approach as to the evidence and the events at the heart of the individual issues.

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all misleading or inaccurate. And you are trying to imply a 1924 tie to statehood, the "Constitutive Theory of Statehood," used by the "Michigan Journal of International Law" to argue the matter of statehood mentions the Treaty of Lausanne (see pages 755 and 756), it does not use it to substantively support a viable argument. It says that the treaty "reflected an assumption" that the Class A mandate territories specifically included statehood for Palestine or any other single territory that was placed under the Mandate.

THEN: The argument jumps immediately to the famous "Judgement #5 Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)" (See Posting #7987) to make the connection to the Government of Palestine (GoP). The PCIJ Rule held that the Civil Administration created for the Mandate was, in point of fact, the GoP.

Otherwise, the association of the Treaty of Lausanne is merely a legal ruse.

The argument completely jumps over the relevant point that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty and answers the question:

◈ By what right does a non-party to an agreement have over the interpretation and enforcement of an independent treaty to which other soveriegnties are enjoined?

• I and our friend Hollie have an agreement that we will only eat Häagen-Dazs Ice Cream.
• But then I go to the Dairy Queen and have a Chocolate Blizzard.
• Hollie makes no complaint with that.
• But then you come around and want the Court to make me follow the original agreement.
⟴ By what right do you have to attempt judicial enforcement of the agreement between Holie and I, for which you are not a party?​

The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not address Palestine directly and promises nothing in terms of territory to the inhabitance.

Very misleading statement. None of the new states in that region were mentioned by name. However, every territory broken off of the Turkish Empire was defined by international borders and became a state. All of the people who lived in those territories became nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

(COMMENT)

There are a couple of legal maxims that dates back to the early 1800s.

◈ The first (Nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali) (requirement for previous law) maxim states that there can no punish ordered for an action which was not a wrong doing (including misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feeasance), as the law existed at the moment the alleged offence occurred. A consequence of this principle is that only those penalties that had already been established for the offence in the time when it was committed can be imposed.

◈ The second (Nulla poena sine lege stricta) (requirement for previous law) maxim requires a specific law without the extension by analogy. The court cannot just say that, by today's standard, or in comparison to, → a "wrong doing" has been done.

◈ The third (Nulla poena sine lege) stipulates that "a person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute."​

The entirety of or the compilation of all the various arguments, hidden in the backdrop, is the allegation that some political body (the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, the United Nations) or nation-state (the United States or Israeli), by virtue of its power (use of force - or - the threat to use force) wronged the Arab Palestinian (as a people) through intimidation or coercion. And it is these allegation that the Arab Palestinians want the 21st Century "World Opinion" to overturn diplomatic, political or military decisions that were made in the early years of the 20th Century and carried through to the present day.

It then becomes an imperative that the Arab Palestinian representatives stipulate clear and concisely:

◈ What specific wrong doing was done (including the date) that directly injured the Arab Palestinians?

◈ What specific international law (enforce at the time) applies for that wrongdoing (without analogy or interpretation)?

◈ What leader, political body, or nation-state is responsible for the wrong doing?​

Only then can we address the individual issues with any clear purpose and understanding. My "THEORY" is that the pro-Arab Palestinian movements simply cannot make their case; and jump to the political-military policy of "armed struggle (Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence). My "THEORY" as to why this as not been already done (since it is so simple of a necessary first step) is because the majority of the allegations are based on an attempt to persuade "World Opinion," under the color of law; and, through a tearful appeal to the global emotion rather than using a step by step approach as to the evidence and the events at the heart of the individual issues.

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

The argument completely jumps over the relevant point that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty and answers the question:

◈ By what right does a non-party to an agreement have over the interpretation and enforcement of an independent treaty to which other soveriegnties are enjoined?

You are trying to confuse the issue. As I have posted before, a treaty is void if it conflicts with international law. On the flip side, treaties define how international law applies to a certain circumstance. The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

 

[Shusha]

The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

Oh wow. You have a SERIOUS misunderstanding of what a treaty is. A treaty is a contract, an agreement between States. By definition it requires signatories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

Oh wow. You have a SERIOUS misunderstanding of what a treaty is. A treaty is a contract, an agreement between States. By definition it requires signatories.

I never said otherwise.

Don't blame me for your reading comprehension problem.

 

[Shusha]

The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

Oh wow. You have a SERIOUS misunderstanding of what a treaty is. A treaty is a contract, an agreement between States. By definition it requires signatories.

I never said otherwise.

Don't blame me for your reading comprehension problem.

You are conflating laws which apply to everyone (like laws against speeding) with treaties. Treaties only bind the people who agree to be bound and only by the requirements of the treaty. The point Rocco made was that parties who are not parties to an agreement have NO SAY in the agreement. The Arab Palestinians have no say in agreements to which they are not a party.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

Oh wow. You have a SERIOUS misunderstanding of what a treaty is. A treaty is a contract, an agreement between States. By definition it requires signatories.

I never said otherwise.

Don't blame me for your reading comprehension problem.

You are conflating laws which apply to everyone (like laws against speeding) with treaties. Treaties only bind the people who agree to be bound and only by the requirements of the treaty. The point Rocco made was that parties who are not parties to an agreement have NO SAY in the agreement. The Arab Palestinians have no say in agreements to which they are not a party.

OK, but following international law, they became citizens of their own state.

So who is going to complain?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

Oh wow. You have a SERIOUS misunderstanding of what a treaty is. A treaty is a contract, an agreement between States. By definition it requires signatories.

I never said otherwise.

Don't blame me for your reading comprehension problem.

You are conflating laws which apply to everyone (like laws against speeding) with treaties. Treaties only bind the people who agree to be bound and only by the requirements of the treaty. The point Rocco made was that parties who are not parties to an agreement have NO SAY in the agreement. The Arab Palestinians have no say in agreements to which they are not a party.

OK, but following international law, they became citizens of their own state.

So who is going to complain?

They became citizens of the State built for the reconstitution of the Jewish Nation Homeland.

They were hostile to being citizens of that government. Legally, in your opinion, what are the repercussions or consequences to being hostile to the legal government of a given sovereign nation?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I would not dare to try and confuse the issue.

The argument completely jumps over the relevant point that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty and answers the question:

◈ By what right does a non-party to an agreement have over the interpretation and enforcement of an independent treaty to which other soveriegnties are enjoined?​

​

You are trying to confuse the issue. As I have posted before, a treaty is void if it conflicts with international law. On the flip side, treaties define how international law applies to a certain circumstance. The treaty does not have to name anybody. It merely defines how laws are universally applied to everyone in that circumstance.

In the laws against speeding, my name is nowhere to be found. Does that mean that they do not apply to me?

(COMMENT)

A law relative to "speeding" is an actually enforced by a piece of legislation relative to jurisdiction and enacted by a governing body. (It does not need your name to be applicable.) Whereas treaties and conventions must a "consent to be bound" by the parties involved.

A "Treaty" or "Convention" is an agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation (Article 2 of the Vienna Convention). But it must also be understood that there are agreements concluded between entities that are outside the Vienna Convention.

To my knowledge, → there is no conflict in law relative to our discussion. Just as laws evolve or can be changed in almost every country [(most things change over time)(∆t)] your basic interpretation and implication that agreements between states cannot be altered, dissolved or replaced → is not correct.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Khaled Barakat on Negotiations in Palestine: Why are they happening? Why do we oppose them?