The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: Developing International Law Without Solving the Conflict

The article analyses whether the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has served as a catalyst for the development of international law, as well as whether international law has been instrumental in attempting to find solutions for the said conflict. In several ways, this conflict has made a significant contribution to understanding and interpreting the UN Charter. It also brought along important developments about the role of third parties, both under the Geneva Conventions and under the law of state responsibility, which provides for an obligation of not recognizing as legal, or not rendering aid or assistance to situations caused by serious violations of jus cogens. International judicial institutions (and also domestic ones) play a rather limited role in this respect, due both to a lack of courage to address fundamental questions, and/or a disregard of the outcome of the proceedings by at least one of the parties to the conflict. Other reasons are Israel's reluctance of accepting the jurisdiction of either the ICJ or the ICC, and its view on the non-applicability of human rights treaties outside of its territory, as well as Palestine's uncertain status in the international community limiting its access to international courts. However, the ICJ's 2004 (formally non-binding) advisory opinion on the Israeli Wall provided answers to some of the most fundamental questions related to the conflict, unfortunately without having any immediate impact on the situation on the ground. Given Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute in early 2015, time has yet to show which role in the process will be played by the ICC. Other issues arising from the conflict, and examined by this article, are that of (Palestinian) statehood, going beyond the traditional concept of statehood and including the consequences of the jus cogens-character of the right of self-determination, as well as questions of treaty succession and succession in matters of State responsibility with regard to acts committed by the PLO.