(Al Jazeera) A legal opinion written by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of public international law at Oxford University and a legal advisor to the Jordanian government and Palestinian Authority (PA), tackles the issues of Palestinian rights, representation, and the right of return, which may all be seriously affected by the outcome of the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN next month. Question: How will the transfer of representation from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to a state terminate/lose the authority to represent the Palestinian people? What we have here is a moment in which certain matters have just not been thought through. Historically, the PLO has been the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, internationally and within the United Nations. Now it is to be the state. Who, though, is the state, and what are the democratic links between those who will represent the state in the UN and the people of Palestine? An abstract entity - a state - is proposed, but where are the people? Question: Why would the creation of a state not represent Palestinian rights? Traditionally, a state for the purposes of international law presupposes territory, population, government and the capacity to enter into international relations. But we have moved beyond that, particularly where representation in the UN is concerned. Today's world expects more - that a state should be representative of the people for whom it speaks and directly accountable to them. One way to establish representative democracy is by elections, though elections also should meet certain international standards. But states which are imposed, top-down, or which are crated without an exercise of the popular will are, by definition, not representative. And as recent events remind us, the lack of representative and accountable government is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. Question: If the 'state of Palestine' is meant to replace the 'PLO,' does this not just mean a transfer of authorities from one to the other? Similar to an official name-change? As I understand the present proposal, the state of Palestine may replace the PLO as the representative of the people of Palestine at the United Nations. But we need to ask, what is the legitimate basis for such representation? I am not saying that it cannot be done, for of course it can. But only that I do not see the hallmarks of democratic, representative and accountable statehood - something in turn which depends on an exercise of the popular will. Shouldn't this come first? Does the PA have the power to move the issue of statehood ahead, and if so, what are the origins and parameters of that power? Have the people of Palestine, through their representative - the PLO - granted such power? I recognize that there is an urgent, pressing need for statehood, particularly in the face of the intransigence of other parties, but I am also concerned that the essentials of modern statehood - democracy, representative government and accountability - may be sidelined, if not sacrificed, perhaps to the long-term disadvantage of the people at large. One issue here is that the majority of Palestinians are refugees living outside of historic Palestine, and they have an equal claim to be represented, particularly given the recognition of their rights in General Assembly resolution 194 (III), among others. It is not clear that they will be enfranchised through the creation of a state, in which case the PLO must continue to speak for their rights in the UN until they are implemented.
2011-08-26 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive