PIPISTRO

just something to say

UNSC Resolution 242

leave a comment »

A norm must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be absurd. Moreover, a norm must have a practical meaning, otherwise it would be void and useless. In this respect, it is obvious and necessary, firstly, to confer a meaning to the norm, even if its litteral content is ambiguous, instead of assessing that the norm has no meaning at all. Or, worse, conferring to it a meaning at will.
Insofar as UNSC Resolution 242 must have a meaning, otherwise being it absurd/useless, saying it requires an indeterminate withdrawal from (…) occupied territories would mean nothing, leaving undecided the rule dictated by the norm itself. And this is impossible.
A simple application of this principle is that Security Council Resolution 242 has a sole possible and almost litteral meaning. It requires Israel to withdraw from 100% of the territories occupied in the Six Day War. The goal of different interpretations whatsoever (as the one which claims that its extent is set on the necessity of subsequent direct negotiations between the parties) is aimed at devoiding the norm of any actual meaning. And that’s absurd and unlawful as well.
The try of depriving it of any meaning is unlawful and ineffective even if it’s endorsed by the very persons who, for opportunism, politics, or any other reason, purposedly gave it an ambiguous formulation.
In this respect, any interpretations aimed at sinking that norm, all the more if coming from Lord Caradon or others who purposedly have tried to take off any meaning from it, is ineffective and illegitimate, as the norm, once it has taken life, is in any case subordinated to the International Law, no more to political pressures, nor to the fancy of those who may have drafted it in bad faith and/or with reservations.
Moreover, insofar as the Resolution stated the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, and the relevant territories were undoubtely the whole of West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Golan and Sinai, any different understanding would be illogical, before being unlawful.

Advertisements

Written by pipistro

December 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: