League of Nations mandate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from League of Nations Mandate)
Jump to: navigation, search
Mandates in the Middle East and Africa, which included: 1. Syria, 2. Lebanon, 3. Palestine, 4. Transjordan, 5. Mesopotamia, 6. British Togoland, 7. French Togoland, 8. British Cameroons, 9. French Cameroun, 10. Ruanda-Urundi, 11. Tanganyika and 12. South West Africa
Mandates in the Pacific. 1. South Pacific Mandate, 2. Territory of New Guinea, 3. Nauru and 4. Western Samoa

A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League. These were of the nature of both a treaty and a constitution, which contained minority rights clauses that provided for the rights of petition and adjudication by the International Court.[1] The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories.

Generalities[edit]

All of the territories subject to League of Nations mandates were previously controlled by states defeated in World War I, principally Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The mandates were fundamentally different from the protectorates in that the Mandatory power undertook obligations to the inhabitants of the territory and to the League of Nations.

The process of establishing the mandates consisted of two phases:

  1. The formal removal of sovereignty of the state previously controlling the territory.
  2. The transfer of mandatory powers to individual states among the Allied Powers.

Treaties[edit]

The divestiture of Germany's overseas colonies, along with three territories disentangled from its European homeland area (the Free City of Danzig, Memel Territory, and Saar), was accomplished in the Treaty of Versailles (1919), with the territories being allotted among the Allies on May 7 of that year. Ottoman territorial claims were first addressed in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and finalized in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). The Turkish territories were allotted among the Allied Powers at the San Remo conference in 1920.

Hidden agendas and objections[edit]

Peace treaties have played an important role in the formation of the modern law of nations.[2] Many rules that govern the relations between states have been introduced and codified in the terms of peace treaties.[3] The first twenty-six articles of the Versailles Treaty of 28 June 1919 contained the Covenant of the League of Nations. It contained the international machinery for the enforcement of the terms of the treaty. Article 22 established a system of Mandates to administer former colonies and territories.

Legitimacy of the allocations[edit]

Article 22 was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty, before it was known what "communities", "peoples", or "territories" were related to sub-paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. The treaty was signed, and the peace conference had been adjourned, before a formal decision was made.[citation needed] The mandates were arrangements guaranteed by, or arising out of the general treaty which stipulated that mandates were to be exercised on behalf of the League.

The treaty contained no provision for the mandates to be allocated on the basis of decisions taken by four members of the League acting in the name of the so-called "Principal Allied and Associated Powers". The decisions taken at the conferences of the Council of Four were not made on the basis of consultation or League unanimity as stipulated by the Covenant. As a result, the actions of the conferees were viewed by some as having no legitimacy.[4]

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a former US State Department official who had been a member of the American Commission at Paris, testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. He pointed out that the League of Nations could do nothing to alter their arrangements, since the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members - including the UK and France.[5]

United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919. He explained that the system of mandates was a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war under the color of international law. If the former German and Ottoman territories had been ceded to the victorious powers directly, their economic value would have been credited to offset the Allies' claims for war reparations.[6] Article 243 of the treaty instructed the Reparations Commission that non-mandate areas of the Saar Valley and Alsace-Lorraine were to be reckoned as credits to Germany in respect of its reparation obligations.[7]

Legitimacy of the provisions[edit]

Under the plan of the US Constitution the Congress was delegated the power to declare or define the Law of Nations in cases where its terms might be vague or indefinite. The US Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations.[citation needed] The legal issues surrounding the rule by force and the lack of self-determination under the system of mandates were cited by the Senators who withheld their consent.[8][9] The US government subsequently entered into individual treaties to secure legal rights for its citizens, to protect property rights and businesses interests in the mandates, and to preclude the mandatory administration from altering the terms of the mandates without prior US approval.[10]

The United States filed a formal protest because the preamble of the mandates indicated to the League that they had been approved by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, when, in fact, that was not the case.[11]

The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, contained a statement by Lord Balfour (UK) in which he explained that the League's authority was strictly limited. The article related that the 'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'[12]

Types of mandates[edit]

The League of Nations decided the exact level of control by the Mandatory power over each mandate on an individual basis. However, in every case the Mandatory power was forbidden to construct fortifications or raise an army within the territory of the mandate, and was required to present an annual report on the territory to the League of Nations.

The mandates were divided into three distinct groups based upon the level of development each population had achieved at that time.

Class A mandates[edit]

Palestine and Transjordan
Syria and Lebanon
Mesopotamia (draft)
Iraq treaty
The three class A mandates of Palestine and Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamia mandate was not enacted and was replaced by a treaty with the Kingdom of Iraq.

The first group, or Class A mandates, were territories formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

The Class A mandates were:

Class B mandates[edit]

The second group of mandates, or Class B mandates, were all former Schutzgebiete (German territories) in West and Central Africa which were deemed to require a greater level of control by the mandatory power: "...the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion." The mandatory power was forbidden to construct military or naval bases within the mandates.

The Class B mandates were:

  • Ruanda-Urundi (Belgium), from 20 July 1922 to 13 December 1946. Formerly two separate German protectorates, they were joined as a single mandate on 20 July 1922. From 1 March 1926 to 30 June 1960, Ruanda-Urundi was in administrative union with the neighbouring colony of Belgian Congo. After 13 December 1946, it became a United Nations Trust Territory, remaining under Belgian administration until the separate nations of Rwanda and Burundi gained independence on 1 July 1962.
  • Tanganyika (United Kingdom), from 20 July 1922 to 11 December 1946. It became a United Nations Trust Territory on 11 December 1946, and was granted internal self-rule on 1 May 1961. On 9 December 1961, it became an independent Commonwealth realm, transforming into a republic on the same day the next year. On 26 April 1964, Tanganyika merged with the neighbouring island of Zanzibar to become the modern nation of Tanzania.
  • Kamerun was split on 20 July 1922 into British Cameroons (under a Resident) and French Cameroun (under a Commissioner until 27 August 1940, then under a Governor), on 13 December 1946 transformed into United Nations Trust Territories, again a British (successively under senior district officers officiating as Resident, a Special Resident and Commissioners) and a French Trust (under a Haut Commissaire)
  • Togoland was split into British Togoland (under an Administrator, a post filled by the colonial Governor of the British Gold Coast (present Ghana) except 30 September 1920–11 October 1923 Francis Walter Fillon Jackson) and French Togoland (under a Commissioner) (United Kingdom and France), 20 July 1922 separate Mandates, transformed on 13 December 1946 into United Nations trust territories, French Togoland (under a Commissioner till 30 August 1956, then under a High Commissioner as Autonomous Republic of Togo) and British Togoland (as before; on 13 December 1956 it ceased to exist as it became part of Ghana)

Class C mandates[edit]

The Class C mandates, including South West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, were considered to be "best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory"

The Class C mandates were former German possessions:

Sui Generis mandate[edit]

The final type of mandates concerns only the Mandate for Palestine, which was sui generis, one of a kind, in the sense that it was not officially designated an "A" mandate.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

There is much to be gained by attributing Class "A" status to the "Mandate for Palestine".[20][21] If the inhabitants of Palestine were ready for independence under a Class "A" mandate, then the Palestinian Arabs that made up the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1922[30] (589.177 Arabs vs. 83.790 Jews) could then logically claim that they were the intended beneficiaries of the "Mandate for Palestine" – provided one never reads the actual wording of the document:

  1. The "Mandate for Palestine" never mentions Class "A" status at any time for Palestinian Arabs.[21]
  2. Article 2 of the document clearly speaks of the Mandatory as being: responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.[31]

The "Mandate" calls for steps to encourage Jewish immigration and settlement throughout Palestine except east of the Jordan River. Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own[32][33] – initially referred to by the British as a "special regime":

Meantime the "Special Regime" under which Palestine was to be governed had not yet taken precise and legal form.[34]

Many assume that the "Mandate for Palestine" is a Class "A" mandate, a common but inaccurate assertion that can be found in many dictionaries and encyclopedias,[35] and is frequently used by the pro-Palestinian media and lately by the ICJ.[20] In the Court Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004, in the matter of the construction of a wall in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory", the Bench erroneously stated:

Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class [type] "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant...[36][37]

Indeed, Class "A" status was granted to a number of Arab peoples who were ready for independence in the former Ottoman Empire, and only to Arab entities.[38][39] Palestinian Arabs were not one of these Arab peoples.[38][40] The "Palestine Royal Report"[41] clarifies this point:

The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience "A" Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 [of the Covenant[42]]. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted "to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States". The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis.[43]

Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests "full powers of legislation and of administration", within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.[44]

The Palestine Royal Report explains that the Palestine Mandate does not violate Article 22 of the Covenant[45] because it would not in accordance with paragraph 4:[46][47][48]

The provisional recognition of "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as independent nations is permissive; the words are "can be provisionally recognised", not "will" or "shall"

The penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League

The acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sèvres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning Mandate

Furthermore, the Treaty of Sèvres[49] makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 applies only to Syria and Mesopotamia, but not to Palestine.[22][50][51] This was then made perfectly clear in articles 94[52] and 95[53] of the Treaty of Sèvres which specifically differentiated the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia, on the one hand, based on paragraph 4 of Article 22, from the Mandate for Palestine, on the other hand, based on Article 22 treated as a whole. In this sense, the Mandate for Palestine was sui generis, one of a kind, containing elements from all of the provisions of Article 22, but without falling within any specific category as set out in paragraphs 4-6 of Article 22.

The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences between the Mandates:[54]

Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.[55][56]

Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency "as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration" on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.[55][57]

But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic national home of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or Iraq.[58]

Rules of establishment[edit]

According to the Council of the League of Nations, meeting of August 1920:[59] "draft mandates adopted by the Allied and Associated Powers would not be definitive until they had been considered and approved by the League ... the legal title held by the mandatory Power must be a double one: one conferred by the Principal Powers and the other conferred by the League of Nations,"[60]

Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law: (1) The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer a mandate on one of their number or on a third power; (2) the principal powers officially notify the council of the League of Nations that a certain power has been appointed mandatory for such a certain defined territory; and (3) the council of the League of Nations takes official cognisance of the appointment of the mandatory power and informs the latter that it [the council] considers it as invested with the mandate, and at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate, after assertaining whether they are in conformance with the provisions of the covenant."[60][61]

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[62] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[63] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[64] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.[64]

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[65]

Later history[edit]

After the United Nations was founded in 1945 and the League of Nations was disbanded, all but one of the mandated territories that remained under the control of the mandatory power became United Nations trust territories, a roughly equivalent status. In each case, the colonial power that held the mandate on each territory became the administering power of the trusteeship, except that Japan, which had been defeated in World War II, lost its mandate over the South Pacific islands, which became a "strategic trust territory" known as the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under United States administration.

The sole exception to the transformation of League of Nations mandates into UN trusteeships was that South Africa refused to place South-West Africa under trusteeship. Instead, South Africa proposed that it be allowed to annex South-West Africa, a proposal rejected by the United Nations General Assembly. The International Court of Justice held that South Africa continued to have international obligations under the mandate for South-West Africa. The territory finally attained independence in 1990 as Namibia, after a long guerrilla war of independence against the apartheid regime.

Nearly all the former League of Nations mandates had become sovereign states by 1990, including all of the former United Nations Trust Territories with the exception of a few successor entities of the gradually dismembered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (formerly Japan's South Pacific Trust Mandate). These exceptions include the Northern Mariana Islands which is a commonwealth in political union with the United States with the status of unincorporated organized territory. The Northern Mariana Islands does elect its own governor to serve as territorial head of government, but it remains a U.S. territory with its head of state being the President of the United States and federal funds to the Commonwealth administered by the Office of Insular Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior.

Remnant Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, the heirs of the last territories of the Trust, attained final independence on 22 December 1990. (The UN Security Council ratified termination of trusteeship, effectively dissolving trusteeship status, on 10 July 1987). The Republic of Palau, split off from the Federated States of Micronesia, became the last to get its independence effectively on 1 October 1994.

Sources and references[edit]

  • Tamburini, Francesco "I mandati della Società delle Nazioni", in «Africana, Rivista di Studi Extraeuropei», n.XV - 2009, pp. 99–122.
  • Anghie, Antony "Colonialism and the Birth of International Institutions: Sovereignty, Economy, and the Mandate System of the League of Nations" 34(3) New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 513 (2002)
  • WorldStatesmen - links to each present nation

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)". International Court of Justice: 28–32. 21 June 1971. Retrieved 28 August 2010. 
  2. ^ Peace Treaties and International Law in European History, From the Late Middle Ages to World War One
  3. ^ See 'The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law', Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, Book IV: Of The Restoration of Peace: And of Embassies, Chapter 2: Treaties of Peace.
  4. ^ see for example The Century, The San Remo Conference, By Herbert Gibbons
  5. ^ Project Gutenberg: The Peace Negotiations by Robert Lansing, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1921, Chapter XIX. 'THE BULLITT AFFAIR'
  6. ^ "Thus under the mandatory system Germany lost her territorial assets, which might have greatly reduced her financial debt to the Allies, while the latter obtained the German colonial possessions without the loss of any of their claims for indemnity. In actual operation the apparent altruism of the mandatory system worked in favor of the selfish and material interests of the Powers which accepted the mandates. And the same may be said of the dismemberment of Turkey.
    ...The truth of this was very apparent at Paris. In the tentative distribution of mandates among the Powers, which took place on the strong presumption that the mandatory system would be adopted, the principal European Powers appeared to be willing and even eager to become mandatories over territories possessing natural resources which could be profitably developed and showed an unwillingness to accept mandates for territories which, barren of mineral or agricultural wealth, would be continuing liabilities rather than assets. This is not stated by way of criticism, but only in explanation of what took place.Project Gutenberg: The Peace Negotiations by Robert Lansing, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1921, Chapter XIII 'THE SYSTEM OF MANDATES'
  7. ^ Peace Treaty of Versailles, Articles 231-247 and Annexes, Reparations
  8. ^ Senator Lodge, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had attached a reservation which read: 'No mandate shall be accepted by the United States under Article 22, Part 1, or any other provision of the treaty of peace with Germany, except by action of the Congress of the United States.'Henry Cabot Lodge: Reservations with Regard to the Treaty and the League of Nations
  9. ^ Senator Borah, speaking on behalf on the 'Irreconcilables' stated 'My reservations have not been answered.' He completely rejected the proposed system of Mandates as an illegitimate rule by brute force. Classic Senate Speeches and the Denunciation of the Mandate System, starting on page 7, col. 1
  10. ^ see for example DELAY IN EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE CONVENTION PENDING ADJUSTMENT OF CASES INVOLVING THE CAPITULATORY RIGHTS OF AMERICANS, 1925
  11. ^ see the text of the American note to the Council of the League of Nations, dated February 1, 1921
  12. ^ Excerpts from League of Nations Official Journal dated June 1922, pp. 546-549
  13. ^ This Land is My Land - The "Mandate for Palestine" p. 19 (Eli E. Hertz): Myth: The "Mandate For Palestine" is a Class "A" Mandate.
  14. ^ Reply p. 32 (Eli E. Hertz): Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sevres completely undermines the ICJ’s argument that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate.
  15. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 134 (Howard Grief): In this sense, the Mandate for Palestine was sui generis, one of a kind.
  16. ^ Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People & the State of Israel p. 7 (Cynthia Day Wallace): The Mandate for Palestine was thus quite different from the others, and set out how the Land was to be settled by Jews in preparation for their forming a viable nation within the entire territory then known as "Palestine". The unique obligations of the Mandatory to the Jewish People in respect of the establishment of their national home in Palestine thus gave a sui generis (unique, one of a kind) character to the Mandate for Palestine.
  17. ^ European Journal of International Law, Volume 21, Issue 4 (Robbie Sabel): The Palestine mandate was sui generis in the sense that it was not officially designated an "A" mandate.
  18. ^ Palestine – Jews and Arabs, the Mandate and the Law (David Singer): The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2004 decision on the legality of Israel's security barrier – gave an air of legal respectability to the irrelevance of the Mandate – referring to it only once in the following statement [that] Palestine was [...] a class A [mandate]. That this statement was demonstrably wrong was made clear by the following statement in the Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937.
  19. ^ The Jewish Plan for Palestine : Memoranda and Statements p. 84 (Jewish Agency for Palestine, 1947): The preamble to the Palestine Mandate makes no reference to para. 4, while the preamble to Syria and Lebanon Mandate does, thus making it clear that Palestine was considered to be sui generis.
  20. ^ a b c This Land is My Land - The "Mandate for Palestine" p. 19 (Eli E. Hertz)
  21. ^ a b c Reply p. 32 (Eli E. Hertz)
  22. ^ a b The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 134 (Howard Grief)
  23. ^ Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People & the State of Israel p. 7 (Cynthia Day Wallace)
  24. ^ European Journal of International Law, Volume 21, Issue 4 (Robbie Sabel)
  25. ^ Palestine – Jews and Arabs, the Mandate and the Law (David Singer)
  26. ^ The Jewish Plan for Palestine : Memoranda and Statements p. 84 (Jewish Agency for Palestine, 1947)
  27. ^ The Making of Jordan: Tribes, Colonialism and the Modern State, By Yoav Alon, Published by I.B.Tauris, 2007, ISBN 1-84511-138-9, page 21
  28. ^ Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis, By Suzanne Lalonde, Published by McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 2002, ISBN 0-7735-2424-X, page 89-100
  29. ^ Edmund Jan Osmańczyk; Anthony Mango (2003). Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M. Taylor & Francis. p. 1178. ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5. Retrieved 17 November 2011. 
  30. ^ United Nations 1922 Census. See: www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80859e/80859E05.htm
  31. ^ Ibid. p. 32
  32. ^ Ibid. p. 32
  33. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 135 (Howard Grief): In this sense, the Mandate for Palestine was sui generis, one of a kind, containing elements from all of the provisions of Article 22, but without falling whithin any specfic category as set out in paragraphs 4-6 of Article 22.
  34. ^ Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, paragraph 29, p. 28
  35. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica: Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.
  36. ^ See Paragraph 70 in the ICJ Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004.
  37. ^ "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". The International Court of Justice (ICJ). 2004. p. 165. 
  38. ^ a b Reply p. 30 (Eli E. Hertz)
  39. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 134 (Howard Grief): A more specific rule in regard to Arab self-determination was paragraph 4 of Article 22 which referred to "certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, whose existence as independent nations could be provisionally recognized.
  40. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 134 (Howard Grief): This paragraph was an implied reference to Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq), but not to Palestine which has been set aside for the Jewish National Home.
  41. ^ See: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F
  42. ^ The Covenant of the League of Nations
  43. ^ Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, paragraph 42, p. 38
  44. ^ Ibid. p. 38
  45. ^ Ibid. p. 38
  46. ^ Reply p. 29 (Eli E. Hertz)
  47. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 134 (Howard Grief): A more specific rule in regard to Arab self-determination was paragraph 4 of Article 22 which referred to "certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, whose existence as independent nations could be provisionally recognized. This paragraph was an implied reference to Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq), but not to Palestine which has been set aside for the Jewish National Home.
  48. ^ The Jewish Plan for Palestine : Memoranda and Statements p. 84 (Jewish Agency for Palestine, 1947): It is sometimes suggested by Arab spokesmen that immediate independence of Palestine is required under Art. 22(4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The answer seems clear: Para. 4 speaks of "certain communities formerly to the Turkish Empire." not of "the communities" of the Turkish Empire; That Palestine was not intended was pointed out in the correspondence attached to the British White Paper of 1922; In any event the provisions of para. 4 are permissive, not mandatory; The special treatment of Palestine was in view before para. 4 was drawn, which explains why the reference was to "certain communities" only; Art. 94 of the Treaty of Sèvres specifically referred to Art. 22(4), Art. 95, dealing with Palestine, omitted such reference; The preamble to the Palestine Mandate makes no reference to para. 4, while the preamble to Syria and Lebanon Mandate does, thus making it clear that Palestine was considered to be sui generis.
  49. ^ Treaty of Sèvres (Articles 94 and 95)
  50. ^ Reply p. 38 (Eli E. Hertz): The Treaty of Sèvres makes it clear in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was not to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the "Mandate for Palestine", but only to the Jews.
  51. ^ British Administration: Palestinian Mandate (1922-48): Here there was a clear differentiation concerning Palestine. Article 94 specified that the Mandates being created for Iraq and Syria specified that the existence of the communities living there would be provisionally recognized as independent nations. Article 95 included no such commitment for Palestine.
  52. ^ Treaty of Sèvres, Articles 94 in Section VII: The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 [...] be provisionally recognised as independent States...
  53. ^ Treaty of Sèvres, Articles 95 in Section VII: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine [...] to a Mandatory [...] will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, [...] in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...
  54. ^ This Land is My Land - The "Mandate for Palestine" p. 20 (Eli E. Hertz)
  55. ^ a b Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, paragraph 42, p. 39
  56. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 116 (Howard Grief): [The Mandate for Palestine] obliged the Mandatory to secure the establishment of a Jewish State, euphemistically called the Jewish National Home.
  57. ^ The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law p. 118 (Howard Grief): The Charter or instrument containing the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine was drafted by the Zionist Organization in unision with the British Foreign Office. There was no participation or consultation with any Arab body or representatives, which was another confirmation of the fact that no Arab self-determination or self-government on the national level was intended by the Mandate. National rights to all of Palestine were conferred only upon the Jewish People and not upon the local Arab population.
  58. ^ Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, paragraph 48, p. 40
  59. ^ (p109–110)
  60. ^ a b Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1930.
  61. ^ See also: Temperley, History of the Paris Peace Conference, Vol VI, p505–506; League of Nations, The Mandates System (official publication of 1945); Hill, Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship, p133ff.
  62. ^ See Article 22 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles
  63. ^ See Article 434 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles
  64. ^ a b Article 47, 60, and Protocol XII, Article 9 of the Treaty of Lausanne
  65. ^ See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650-652, Questia, Web, 21 Apr. 2010

Further reading[edit]

  • Anghie, Antony. "Colonialism and the Birth of International Institutions: Sovereignty, Economy, and the Mandate System of the League of Nations." NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 34 (2001): 513.
  • Bruce, Scot David, Woodrow Wilson's Colonial Emissary: Edward M. House and the Origins of the Mandate System, 1917-1919 (University of Nebraska Press, 2013).
  • Callahan, Michael D. Mandates and empire: the League of Nations and Africa, 1914-1931 (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1999)
  • Haas, Ernst B. "The reconciliation of conflicting colonial policy aims: acceptance of the League of Nations mandate system," International Organization (1952) 6#4 pp: 521-536.