{"id":4498,"date":"2015-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-03-02T07:11:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.voelkerrechtsblog.org\/articles\/palestine-do-the-recognitions-of-its-statehood-by-european-national-parliaments-matter\/"},"modified":"2020-12-09T13:54:46","modified_gmt":"2020-12-09T12:54:46","slug":"palestine-do-the-recognitions-of-its-statehood-by-european-national-parliaments-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/palestine-do-the-recognitions-of-its-statehood-by-european-national-parliaments-matter\/","title":{"rendered":"Palestine: do the recognitions of its statehood by European national parliaments matter?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 17th<\/sup> December 2014, the European Parliament passed a resolution<\/a> in favour of the recognition of Palestinian statehood. Since the beginning of Autumn 2014, many national Parliaments of the European Union (Spain, United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Portugal, Luxembourg) have passed resolutions inviting their executives to officially recognize Palestine as an independent State. The symbolic value of theses resolutions has often been emphasized<\/a>. They constitute a further step in the progressive change of many European Union member States\u2019 policy. In this post, I will pay particular attention to the potential role of the national Parliaments in the implementation of international law. The short period of time in which so many EU member States have adopted these resolutions is relevant for the political and legal discussion on the status of the Palestine.<\/p>\n

Although the texts of the resolutions are sometimes quite different, they present similarities and have both a political and legal meaning, which deserves an analysis. They constitute a further step to the full legal recognition of the Palestinian Statehood by the States\u2019 executives.<\/p>\n

Resolutions with political goals based on international law<\/strong><\/p>\n

The resolutions were passed by wide margins: in the English House of Commons, the resolution was adopted by 274 votes in favour and only 12 against; in France by 339 to 151 votes; in Portugal by 203 to 9 votes; and in Spain even by 319 to 2 votes. In Ireland, both chambers of the Parliament unanimously adopted the motion. In addition, the European deputies passed the text by 498 votes in favour, 88 against and 11 abstentions. The resolutions were thus all adopted by a broad consensus, from the progressive to the conservative political parties.<\/p>\n

The resolutions emphasize the importance of a negotiated solution between both parties, and the EU Parliament \u201cstresses that the only possible solution to the conflict is the coexistence of two States, Palestine and Israel<\/em>\u201d<\/a>. References are made to Israel\u2019s right to security during the debates preceding the adoption of these resolutions or in their wording. Many of the resolutions refer to the construction of settlements in Palestinian territories as \u201cillegal\u201d under international law. Moreover, some resolutions provide a clear definition of both future States and their borders. The resolutions of the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish Parliaments require the recognition of Palestine within the 1967 borders. Furthermore, the Irish, the French, the EU Parliament and the latest Luxembourg resolutions all refer to Jerusalem as the capital of both states, the Irish referring to \u201cEast Jerusalem\u201d as the capital of Palestine. These positions reflect UNSC resolutions 242<\/a> and 338<\/a>, which are often explicitly mentioned in the Parliaments\u2019 resolutions. It seems that their objective is to call for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on international law.<\/p>\n

Given that the decision to recognize a territorial entity as a State falls within the exclusive domain of the government, and given that most of these texts are even officially entitled \u201cresolutions\u201d. As such they are not internationally legally binding and the respective Governments are not bound by them. Consequently, they do not lead per se<\/em> to the recognition of a Palestinian State. The goal of the resolutions is to increase political pressure on both sides to find a solution. The only EU member state whose executive has recently recognized Palestine as an independent State is Sweden. Cyprus, the Czech Republic (although the latter was the sole European State to vote against its recognition by the UN<\/a>), Slovakia, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania had already recognized Palestine before their adherences to the EU.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Influence of the United Nations General Assembly <\/strong><\/p>\n

Slightly more than two years ago, the United Nations General Assembly had recognized<\/a> Palestine as a State and upgraded to the status of official non-member observer state. This vote has had a direct influence on the Parliaments\u2019 resolutions. In fact, the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly explicitly calls upon all UN member States to support the two-States solution within the borders of 1967. Moreover, the resolutions passed by the French Senate, the Portuguese Assembly and the European Parliament, for example, expressly refer to this vote and to the present status of Palestine in the United Nations.<\/p>\n

However, this influence should be put into perspective. Indeed, these new resolutions are consistent with the voting behavior in the United Nations General Assembly: with the exception of the United Kingdom, which decided to abstain, most of the executive powers of the recognizing parliaments voted in favour of recognition in the General Assembly, although officially still not recognizing Palestine as a State until today. The abstention by the United Kingdom during the 2012 vote also means that the British resolution is not in contradiction with the position of the executive, as was emphasized in the House of Commons in September 2014. Thus, the resolutions can be considered to be an invitation to the executives either to clarify their positions, like in the case of the United Kingdom, or to assume the policy adopted and their vote within the framework of the United Nations, in the cases of Portugal, Spain, Ireland, France and Luxembourg. The legislative powers therefore acted in accordance with the position adopted by their governments two years ago.<\/p>\n

Thus, the resolutions of the European Union member states reflect the growing role of United Nations General Assembly resolutions in the context of the recognition of States, although the act of recognition remains at the discretion of each State\u2019s executive. The executives decided first to vote in favour of the recognition of a Palestinian State in the United Nations General Assembly with a view to recognize it officially at a later stage. The invitation by the national parliaments to recognize Palestinian statehood represents then a further legal step on the way to the full recognition by the executive. In this particular case, the recognition is no more only a discretionary act emitted by the executive, but a long political and legal process in which the United Nations and the national parliaments are associated.<\/p>\n

Will for a coordinated European foreign policy<\/strong><\/p>\n

The vote at the General Assembly also reflected the inconsistency of the foreign policies of the European Union member States. Although some countries, like Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, voted in favour of recognition, Germany and the United Kingdom decided to abstain, and the Czech Republic even voted against it. However, the votes were not coordinated at the European level. The resolution by the European Parliament occurred on the 17 December 2014, after the resolutions of the Spanish, French, English, Portuguese and Irish parliaments. Nonetheless, the need for a coordinated European policy has been affirmed in almost all the resolutions, or in the parliamentary discussions preceding its adoption in the case of United Kingdom, as the Portuguese<\/a>, Spanish<\/a> and French<\/a> resolutions indicate. These references to the European Union clearly reflect the will to develop a coordinated foreign policy in favour of the recognition of Palestine as a state after years of uncoordinated recognition policies, symbolized by the case of Kosovo<\/a>. The resolutions passed ultimately reflect the coordination between the European and national parliaments, and constitute a further step for European integration.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The resolutions adopted by the national parliaments are not binding for the State\u2019s executive. They do not have the legal effect of an act of recognition of a State in international law, as this recognition remains at the discretion of the executive power. Nevertheless, they reflect the important role played by the United Nations and the national Parliaments in the long process leading to the legal recognition. These resolutions shall thus be considered as a part of this future legal act. They also reveal the gradual coordination of foreign policies at the European level, after years of discordance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0Robin Caballero <\/em>is PhD Candidate at the <\/em>Humboldt Universit\u00e4t Berlin<\/em><\/a> and the <\/em>Ecole de Droit International et Europ\u00e9en der Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne<\/em><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Cite as: Robin Caballero, \u201cPalestine: Do the Recognitions of its Statehood by European National Parliaments matter?\u201d,\u00a0V\u00f6lkerrechtsblog<\/span><\/em>, 2 March 2015, doi: 10.17176\/20170203-142802.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 17th December 2014, the European Parliament passed a resolution in favour of the recognition of Palestinian statehood. Since the beginning of Autumn 2014, many national Parliaments of the European Union (Spain, United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Portugal, Luxembourg) have passed resolutions inviting their executives to officially recognize Palestine as an independent State. The symbolic value […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[],"authors":[3813],"article-categories":[6000],"doi":[3814],"class_list":["post-4498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","authors-robin-caballero","article-categories-article","doi-10-17176-20170203-142802"],"acf":{"subline":""},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20170203-142802"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4498","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4498"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=4498"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=4498"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=4498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}