UN resolutions. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on the Boeing crash in Ukraine. UN Security Council resolution a legal act of the Security Council, one of the main organs of the United Nations

A document initiated on August 20, 1980 at the 2245th meeting of the UN Security Council, due to the fact that on July 30, 1980, Israel declared Jerusalem its unified and indivisible capital. The resolution was adopted by votes of 14 council members, with... ... Wikipedia

UN Security Council Resolution No. 1970 is a resolution adopted by all fifteen member states of the UN Security Council on February 26, 2011 in connection with the uprising in Libya and concerning sanctions against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, as well as assistance ... Wikipedia

UN Security Council Resolution 292 is a UN Security Council resolution adopted in connection with Bhutan's application for membership of the UN, in which the Security Council unanimously recommended that the UN General Assembly accept Bhutan as a member... ... Wikipedia

Resolution No. 60/285. The sixth UN resolution adopted since the beginning of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It was adopted at the 60th Session of the UN General Assembly on September 7, 2006 under the title: “The situation in the occupied territories... ... Wikipedia

Resolution No. 874. The third resolution of the UN Security Council adopted since the beginning of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on October 14, 1993 at its 3292nd meeting. Text of the Resolution Council... ... Wikipedia

UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was adopted at its 4011th meeting, June 10, 1999. Republic of Kosovo ... Wikipedia

Resolution adopted by all fifteen member states of the UN Security Council on October 27, 2011. Recognizing "positive changes" in Libya since the end of the Libyan civil war and the death of Muammar Gaddafi, she set the date... ... Wikipedia

UN Security Council Resolution No. 497 is a document initiated on December 17, 1981 at the 2319th meeting of the UN Security Council in connection with the adoption by Israel of the Golan Heights Law. The resolution was adopted unanimously. Text... ...Wikipedia

UN Security Council Resolution 1967 is a resolution adopted by all fifteen member states of the UN Security Council on January 19, 2011 in connection with the situation in Ivory Coast. The resolution increased the number of military personnel participating in... ... Wikipedia

A resolution adopted by all fifteen member states of the UN Security Council on September 25, 1991 in connection with the beginning of the disintegration and wars in Yugoslavia and imposing an embargo on arms supplies to Yugoslavia. In addition, the Council highly appreciated the efforts... Wikipedia

Books

• Syrian Armageddon. ISIS, Oil, Russia. Battle for the East, Alexander Prokhanov, Leonid Ivashov, Vladislav Shurygin. Will the conflict in Syria become the gateway to the Armageddon of World War III? Is it a consequence of a “conflict of civilizations” or inspired by the “collective West” led by the USA for...
• Syrian Armageddon. ISIS, oil, Russia. Battle for the East, Alexander Prokhanov. Will the conflict in Syria become the gateway to the Armageddon of World War III? Is it a consequence of a “conflict of civilizations” or inspired by the “collective West” led by the USA to overcome... eBook

Everyone has heard that Zionism was defined by the UN Security Council as a form of racism and racial discrimination. Let's look at this in more detail.

In 1975, the UN General Assembly made a fundamental decision to condemn Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. The basis for the adoption of Resolution No. 3379 of November 9, 1975 was the daily inhumane and repressive practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. Then the UN, and before others international organizations and conferences, condemned the criminal alliance of Zionism and the South African apartheid regime, the racist policies of Israel in the occupied Arab territories, identified Zionism as a threat to all humanity and called on all peoples of the world to resist this misanthropic ideology.

UN Resolution 3379, which classifies Zionism as a form of racism, was not built from scratch, but is the result of a whole series of resolutions adopted by the UN itself. General Assembly. All of these resolutions condemned Israel's actions as racist, starting with GA Resolution 2546 of 1969, as well as other resolutions - 2727 of 1970, Resolution 3005 of 1972, Resolution 3092 of 1973 and Resolution 3246 of 1974 All of these resolutions condemn Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories. The matter does not end there, as many other resolutions were passed condemning racism in Israel right up to the present day.

After the collapse of the USSR, in 1991, under pressure from Israel and the United States (in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush), the UN withdrew this resolution without any explanation : Resolution 4686 of December 16, 1991 repeals Resolution 3379. Pay attention to how quickly Resolution 3379 was canceled - literally a week after the USSR was officially destroyed.

The text of Resolution No. 3379 can be found by downloading a pdf file from the page of the 30th UN General Assembly on the official UN website. This file contains a scanned document in image form and not in text form, so below is the full text of Resolution No. 3379 in Russian and English.

Finally, a video clip (1.1MB) in which Israeli Ambassador to the United States Isaac Herzog tears the text of Resolution 3379 in half (the video was filmed on the day of the adoption of Resolution 3379 - November 10, 1975).

21.02.2017

The report provides a rationale for the illegality of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016.

The arguments presented in the work provide grounds for exposing the inconsistency of almost all UN Security Council resolutions adopted in relation to Israel.

International legal formalization and further implementation of the facts and evidence set out in the report will intensify the collapse of the entire UN anti-Israeli dossier.

Abbreviations adopted in the report:

Charter – UN Charter

SB – UN Security Council

GA – UN General Assembly

A striking example of hostility towards Israel was the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016, the content of which is aimed at harming the security of the State of Israel.

This decision was condemned by a number of reputable politicians, including the current US President Donald Trump. But despite this, today it continues to remain in force, and on its basis the next anti-Israeli attacks are being prepared.

Of particular concern is the lack of a legal mechanism for revoking such a resolution. Any initiative aimed at adopting a new resolution ( repealing Resolution 2334), is predicted to be blocked in the UN Security Council.

The current foreign policy situation requires the search for a non-standard solution that can break the growing negativity.

The presented report contains a solution option, the implementation of which will not only completely nullify the entire anti-Israeli “legacy” of the UN, but will also initiate a review of other UN decisions by states whose interests were in any way infringed upon in this organization.

The report provides a rationale for the illegality of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334. The arguments presented in the work provide grounds for exposing the inconsistency of almost all Security Council resolutions adopted in relation to Israel.

International legal formalization and further implementation of the facts and evidence set out in the report will intensify the collapse of the entire UN anti-Israeli dossier. The given justification for the illegality of Security Council decisions, like a domino principle, will also launch the process of delegitimizing anti-Israeli GA resolutions, which in most cases were adopted based on previously adopted Security Council documents.

The idea proposed in the report will undoubtedly receive political development. The demonstrated mechanism for delegitimizing Security Council resolutions will undoubtedly be of interest to other states that experience bias on the part of the UN. And this process will only increase.

The basis for the illegality of the UN Security Council Resolution

UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016 is obviously illegal, since its adoption was carried out in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter.

The requirements of the UN Charter are such that a Security Council resolution can be considered adopted only if all five permanent members of the Security Council vote for its adoption.

If at least one of the five permanent members of the Security Council abstained from voting (as well as voted against or was absent from the meeting), then, regardless of the number of votes cast for the resolution by non-permanent members of the Security Council, the adoption of such a resolution becomes impossible.

However, the Security Council announced its adoption. This happened because for many years the Security Council has been interpreting the conditions for the adoption of resolutions in its own way, and based this illegal interpretation on a norm distorted as a result of official forgery.

This practice of Security Council has been going on for decades and has already become a kind of “established tradition.” Now, when it has begun to go beyond what is permitted, it must be stopped, and all the anti-Israeli legacy of the UN that has accumulated as a result of such activities must be delegitimized and collapsed.

The origins of the illegality of the UN Security Council Resolution

About half of all UN Security Council resolutions are invalid from the moment of their adoption.

At any time and any state can refuse to implement decisions of the Security Council due to their inconsistency with the UN Charter.

It is immediately necessary to clarify that the justification for the illegality of the resolutions mentioned above can only be carried out on the basis of the Russian, French and Spanish texts of the UN Charter, which among themselves, as well as with the English text, are authentic.

The inconsistency and insignificance of these resolutions comes from the results of voting on them in the Security Council, the results of which do not meet the conditions that apply to the adoption of such decisions.

The use of the English text is not possible, since it contains a very significant discrepancy with other texts of the UN Charter. Particularly alarming is the fact that such a discrepancy is present precisely in that article of the UN Charter, the content of which was called the basis, the foundation of the UN, and its inclusion in the UN Charter was preceded by colossal expert and explanatory work.

Given such close attention to the content of the article on the part of the organizers of the 1945 San Francisco Conference, it is unlikely that the error could have been a consequence of the negligence of the performers.

A comparison of Article 27 of the UN Charter in all four texts shows that in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the English text the word “all” is missing. While this word is present in texts in other languages.

In the Russian, French and Spanish texts of the Charter, the phrase in paragraph 3 of Article 27 has the following meaning: “ including matching votes everyone permanent members of the Security Council", in the English text, due to the absence of the word "all", the phrase takes on a different meaning - " including concurring votes of permanent members”, that is, not all permanent members, but, for example, two.

It is important to note that in other articles of the English text of the UN Charter (which will be discussed below), where the drafters obviously really wanted a certain phrase to mean all the permanent members of the Security Council, the word “all” is present and completely coincides with the texts UN Charter in other languages.

Was there any official fraud, and also why the word “all” should have been in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter and what was the meaning of this article during the formation of the UN Charter, during the San Francisco Peace Conference of 1945 year will become clear as you read this Report.

It should be pointed out that the presence in the English text of a discrepancy with the texts of the Charter in other languages ​​does not in the least complicate the process of exposing the illegality of a number of Security Council resolutions. Since, in accordance with Article 111 of the Charter, all its texts are authentic, the evidence will be given on the basis of French, Russian and Spanish texts.

Any attempts by opponents to claim the priority of the English text of the Charter in relation to texts in other languages ​​will be obviously null and void.

Conditions giving grounds to consider a UN Security Council resolution adopted

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter, a decision of the Security Council (except for procedural matters) is considered adopted if nine members of the Council, including Council.

It is very important to pay attention to the phrase “ concurring votes of all permanent members ", since it is key in this norm, and it is it that determines the most important condition, compliance with which gives the Security Council the right to consider that the resolution has been adopted.

First, the resolution must be submitted at least nine votes of members of the Security Council.

Second of these nine votes, five the votes must be from the permanent members of the Security Council and, as stated in the UN Charter, the votes of these permanent members must be “ matching" That is, all five permanent members of the Security Council must participate in the voting and all five must vote for the resolution.

But despite the requirement clearly formulated by the UN Charter, the Security Council interprets this norm in its own way.

Under such circumstances, it is not particularly surprising that a discrepancy in the texts of the UN Charter appears in this article.

The SC's interpretation is illegal and absurd for two reasons, all of which are set out in the UN Charter.

Firstly, if the UN Charter implied that when voting in the Security Council, the positions of only the permanent members participating in the vote are taken into account, then its norms would have stated this unambiguously, just as it was done in relation to the GA.

Thus, Article 18 of the UN Charter, which describes the voting procedure in the GA, clearly indicates a different option for making decisions based on the voting results, namely, the basis for the calculation is not taken total members of the GA, but only “ present and voting ».

In relation to decisions of the Security Council, such a procedure is not established in the UN Charter, but it is clearly stated that when voting, the votes of all permanent members of the Security Council must coincide.

Secondly, what under the phrase “ all permanent members “means all five permanent members of the Security Council (and not just those participating in voting), as evidenced by the norm set out in Chapter 13 of the UN Charter.

Article 108 states that “ amendments to this Charter shall enter into force for all Members of the Organization after they have been adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and ratified, in accordance with their constitutional procedure, by two-thirds of the Members of the Organization, ».

Also, paragraph 2 of Article 109 states, “ any change to this Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the Conference will come into force upon ratification, in accordance with their constitutional procedure, by two-thirds of the Members of the Organization, including ».

In terms of content, Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter have a similar context. They explain the role of permanent members of the Security Council in procedures requiring their participation in voting. Article 27 describes the actions of permanent members when voting in the Security Council, and Articles 108 and 109 set out the role of permanent members in voting in the General Assembly when amending the UN Charter.

All of these articles (27, 108 and 109) contain the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council ", which, being in the text of one normative act, can have only one, unique, meaning that applies to all articles of the document.

In Articles 108 and 109, under the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council " means all five permanent members. This was clearly demonstrated during events aimed at amending the UN Charter.

On December 17, 1963, the GA adopted Resolution No. 1991, which amended Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the UN Charter. The voting results showed that of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only China supported these changes, the USSR and France voted against, and the USA and Great Britain abstained.

However, despite the fact that only one permanent member of the Security Council supported the changes introduced by the resolution, in order for these amendments to come into force, the UN had to wait until all five permanent members ratify these changes. That is, wait until the conditions set out in Articles 108 and 109 are met, namely ratification “ all permanent members of the Security Council ».

Despite two-thirds of the ratifications, the changes to the UN Charter came into force only on the day when the United States, the last of the five permanent members of the Security Council, ratified the amendments.

With the described fact, making changes to its Charter, the UN confirmed that the phrase “ including all permanent members of the Security Council » , means only all five permanent members.

If this phrase had a different interpretation, for example, the one with which the Security Council illegally exposes paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter (implying not all five permanent members, but only the permanent members who voted “FOR”), then the UN would not require ratification of the amendments by the permanent members of the Security Council - the USA and Great Britain - abstained. After all, it is the votes of permanent members who abstain that are removed from the concept of “ all permanent members"When voting in the Security Council.

In order to finally expose the illegality and absurdity of the interpretation of paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter applied by the Security Council, it is necessary to simply compare the context of Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter.

Having studied comparison table, there remains no doubt that, existing in Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter, the phrase “ including all permanent members of the Security Council" in its meaning, it is absolutely no different from the phrase “ including matching votes all permanent members of the Council" written in Article 27 of the UN Charter.

But even against the backdrop of such objective disarming evidence, the Security Council continues to interpret the same phrase differently in the articles of the same normative act.

Perhaps the phrase “coinciding votes” contained in Article 27, but absent in Articles 108, 109, gives the Security Council some basis?

But even here, legal and historical documents do not leave the Security Council any opportunity to justify their illegal interpretation of the Charter.

The meaning and significance that was put into paragraph 3 of Article 27 when the UN Charter was signed is clearly visible in the content of the documents of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco, held from April 25 to June 26, 1945, as a result of which the UN was created.

On June 7, 1945, as part of the Conference, it was published Statement by the delegations of the four inviting governments on voting procedures in the Security Council (Statement). The content of this Statement formed the so-called “Yalta voting formula in the Security Council” and was included in Article 27 of the UN Charter.

This Statement was prepared by the USSR, USA, Great Britain and China, for all other founding states of the UN. It was an official commentary on the content and meaning of Article 27 of the UN Charter.

This document finally clarifies and proves that a Security Council resolution can be considered adopted only when all five permanent members of the Security Council vote for its adoption.

In the very first paragraph of this Statement, after a description of what should be understood by the first group of decisions, there follows an explanation of the voting procedure in the Security Council necessary for making such decisions.

In paragraph 1 of this document, it is written: « The Yalta formula provides that the first group of decisions will be made by qualified voting, that is, by the votes of seven members including the concurring votes of the five permanent members ».

Comparing this explanation and the wording on voting set out in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter...

... there remains no doubt that in 1945, when drafting Article 27 of the UN Charter, the phrase “ including the concurring votes of all permanent members ", the founding states understood it as set out in paragraph 1 of the Statement, that is, " including the concurring votes of the five permanent members».

Finally, this statement is proven by paragraph 9 of the Statement, which specifies the content of the wording set out in paragraph 1. It says:

«… In order for Security Council decisions by majority vote to be possible, the only practical method would be to provide for non-procedural decisions plus the concurring votes of at least two non-permanent members.”

That is, this paragraph, developing the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Statement, confirms that the phrase “ the concurring votes of the five permanent members" stands for " unanimity of permanent members ».

Consequently, any non-procedural decision of the UN Security Council can be adopted only on the condition that its adoption all five permanent members will vote unanimously.

The UN Charter provides ( and this was explained in the Statement) only the only case when a permanent member abstaining from voting in the Security Council does not violate the unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council.

This option is allowed when a permanent member of the Security Council is itself a party to the dispute on which a decision is being made. It becomes his responsibility to abstain from voting.

In all other cases, for a resolution to be adopted, there must be unanimity during voting ( that is, all five) permanent members.

The old state of affairs will no longer exist

The international legal formalization and subsequent implementation of the arguments set out in the report will predictably give rise to a statement in the Security Council about seventy years of practice in applying the existing procedure for adopting resolutions. In order to maintain the status quo, interested parties will rush to invent arguments about the “uniqueness and immutability” of existing “traditions” in the activities of the Security Council.

But the selected facts and presented evidence will not only block such arguments, but will also put the Security Council in a “zugzwang” position, that is, in a situation where any of its actions aimed at justifying the ongoing arbitrariness will lead to a deterioration of its current positions.

The UN Charter is international treaty. And as mentioned above, the term used in the document can only have a single term that applies to the entire normative act, meaning.

The report highlights the facts of different interpretations by the Security Council of the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council ».

This circumstance requires the Security Council to give a precise answer about which interpretation of the phrase is correct: in Article 27 ( where the Security Council understands by this term only permanent members of the Security Council participating in voting) or in articles 108 and 109 ( where the Security Council agrees that this term means all five permanent members of the Security Council).

If the Security Council insists that the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council” means only the votes of permanent members voting, as is illegally done when applying Article 27 of the UN Charter, then the same interpretation will have to extend to Articles 108 and 109 of the Charter. This means that from now on it will be possible to make changes to the UN Charter without the mandatory ratification of such amendments by the five permanent members of the Security Council. That is, the Security Council will no longer be able to block amendments to the UN Charter.

If the Security Council agrees that the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council ” means all five permanent members of the Security Council, as follows from the practice of applying Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter, then by this circumstance he recognizes that the results of voting in the Security Council are summed up in violation of the UN Charter. This consent will mean that any resolution that does not receive unanimous approval by all five permanent members of the Security Council ( all five must vote YES), will be considered illegal from the moment of its adoption.

Whatever the reaction of the Security Council to the arguments set out in the report, the previous state of affairs will no longer be the same.

Sooner or later, the questions raised in the report will launch reform processes and force the Security Council to make a decision on the further application of Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter. He will have to make a choice in favor of one or another interpretation of the term « all permanent members of the Security Council» . And by making such a choice, the Security Council will be forced to sacrifice something: the past or the future.

A sacrifice to the past, and therefore a bet on the future, will be the agreement that the term under discussion means all five permanent members of the Security Council. Such recognition will mean that about half of the Security Council resolutions lose their legitimacy and a colossal part of the international legal dossier is nullified. But the Security Council will retain control over the process of amending the UN Charter. The past collapses, but a powerful future endures.

If the Security Council continues to defend the position that the phrase « all permanent members of the Security Council» does not mean the unanimity of the five permanent members when voting, then interested actors in world politics will demand that this understanding of the term be extended to Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter. This will mark the loss of influence of the permanent members of the Security Council on the procedure for amending the UN Charter, which will inevitably, by introducing significant changes to the UN Charter, lead to a revision of the status of permanent members of the Security Council. This development of events will deprive the Security Council of its future, but will preserve the array of documents accumulated in the past.

Ignoring the facts set out in the report will give rise to a situation where any state demanding revenge on the international stage and not being satisfied with the result achieved at the UN will raise this topic every time, appealing to the circumstances indicated in the report.

The seeds of the UN reformation have already been planted in the soil and shoots will undoubtedly sprout.

Promotion of the initiative

The presented report contains grounds that make it possible to initiate the procedure for the repeal of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and the subsequent delegitimization of the entire anti-Israeli dossier of the UN Security Council.

Initially it was assumed that Israeli government agencies would do this. But officials The Israeli Foreign Ministry ignored this report without even familiarizing itself with its contents. Obviously, the possible repeal of Resolution 2334 violates someone's personal agreements.

In such circumstances, it is only possible to promote this initiative within the framework of public diplomacy. The laws of democratic states allow public structures initiate consideration of issues foreign policy in organs state power these countries.

It is possible to promote such an initiative only through non-standard methods, step by step reducing the room for maneuver for groups interested in maintaining the anti-Israeli status quo. Non-standard actions will block the legal possibilities of such groups, since their arguments are built mainly on ordinary international legal clichés that are not able to withstand real arguments.

In order to launch this process, it is necessary to carry out colossal work on the international legal registration of the corresponding package of documents.

Promoting an initiative on your own will require a lot of effort and some expenses: professional translation of prepared documentation into the appropriate languages, payment of fees, postal items and various legal support.

e-mail: [email protected]

In contact with

Historical background

In the late 1970s, political pressure on Israel increased sharply. 90 states out of 138 represented at the UN at that time almost unquestioningly supported any Arab proposal.

This was the policy of the bloc of non-aligned countries, which united a number of third world states, in which Arab states and Muslim countries had serious weight and powerful influence. The “non-aligned” were traditionally supported by the states of the socialist bloc and countries of socialist orientation.

Based on the automatic majority, Arab countries easily promoted anti-Israel resolutions in various UN bodies. Thus, in 1979, the UN Security Council adopted 7 anti-Israeli resolutions, and in the first six months of 1980, already 8.

The last straw for Israel's patience was Annex A/ES-7/8 to the protocol of the decision of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries on July 22, 1980, which declared a number of basic principles of a comprehensive settlement, and directly stated in paragraph 102, paragraph (d) ):

“The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be completely abandoned and unconditionally handed over to Arab sovereignty."

Original text (English)

The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be evacuated in its entirety and restored unconditionally to Arab sovereignty;

Israel's reaction was immediate.

On July 30, 1980, the Knesset adopted the so-called “Basic Law” for Jerusalem, in which it declared that:

1. Jerusalem, one and indivisible, is the capital of Israel.

2. The president of the state, the Knesset, the government and the Supreme Court are located in Jerusalem.

Original text (Hebrew)

1. ירושלים השלמה והמאוחדת היא בירת ישראל.

2. ירושלים היא מקום מושבם של נשיא המדינה, הכנסת, הממשלה ובית המשפט העליון.

The law also provided for the protection of holy places from desecration and from anything that could interfere with the freedom of access to them by representatives of various religions or offend their feelings.

In addition, the law contained provisions regarding the development of the city in economic and other areas.

Meanwhile, Jerusalem has always been given great importance in Israel.

In September 1948, the Israeli authorities established the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, and already on February 17, 1949, a meeting of the Knesset was held in Jerusalem, at which Chaim Weizmann took the oath of office as president of the country.

It should also be noted that back on January 23, 1950, the Knesset proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel and continued the transfer to the city government agencies, when Jordan took steps to extend its jurisdiction to East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

At the end of the Six-Day War, on June 27, 1967, the Knesset passed the Law for the Protection of Holy Places, under which the laws, jurisdiction and administrative regulations existing in Israel come into force in East Jerusalem and some surrounding areas that were previously were under Jordanian control.

By the same decree, the united city was proclaimed the single and indivisible capital of the country. It was this status of the city that was recorded in the first article of the “Basic Law” on Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, adopted on July 30, 1980.

The essence of the resolution

Israel's decision to pass legislation that formally annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city the capital of Israel was rejected by the Security Council and the General Assembly.

The Council condemned Israel's adoption of the Basic Law on Jerusalem and its refusal to implement relevant Security Council resolutions.

He confirmed that the adoption of this law constitutes a violation international law and does not affect the application in the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of civilian population during the war from August 12, 1949

Interpretation

In Resolution 478, the UN Security Council actually repeated its position on Jerusalem, which had already been established over decades, expressed in resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969), 298 (1971), 465 (1980) .) and 476 (1980).

Text of the resolution

UN Security Council Resolution No. 478 dated 08/20/1980

Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 476 (1980), reaffirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory through the use of force,

Deeply concerned by the adoption in the Israeli Knesset of the “Basic Law” proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,

Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

Reaffirming its determination to explore practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980) in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms Israel's adoption of the "Basic Law" for Jerusalem and its refusal to implement the relevant Security Council resolutions;

2. Confirms that the adoption by Israel of the “Basic Law” constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Declares that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have changed or are intended to change the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "Basic Law" of Jerusalem, are null and void and must be immediately cancelled;

4. Also reaffirms that these measures and actions constitute a serious obstacle to the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Decides not to recognize the "Basic Law" and such other actions of Israel which, as a result of this law, are aimed at changing the character and status of Jerusalem, and calls:

a) all Member States comply with this decision;

b) those states that have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to it, by 15 November 1980, a report on the implementation of this resolution;

7. Decides to keep this serious situation under review.

• China China
• France France
• Great Britain Great Britain
• USA USA
• USSR USSR

• Bangladesh Bangladesh
• GDR GDR
• Jamaica Jamaica
• Mexico Mexico
• Niger Niger
• Norway Norway
• Philippines Philippines
• Portugal Portugal
• Tunisia Tunisia
• Zambia Zambia

UN Security Council Resolution 478- a document initiated on August 20, 1980 at the 2245th meeting of the UN Security Council in connection with the fact that on July 30, 1980, Israel declared Jerusalem its unified and indivisible capital.

The resolution was adopted by votes of 14 council members with one abstention (United States of America).

Historical background

In the late 1970s, political pressure on Israel increased sharply. 90 states out of 138 represented at the UN at that time almost unquestioningly supported any Arab proposal. This was the policy of the bloc of non-aligned countries, which also united a number of third world states, in which Arab states and Muslim countries had serious weight and powerful influence. The "non-aligned" were traditionally supported by the states of the socialist bloc and countries of socialist orientation. According to a number of sources, “relying on an automatic majority, Arab countries easily promoted anti-Israeli resolutions in various UN bodies.” Thus, in 1979, the UN Security Council adopted 7 resolutions condemning the actions of Israel, and in the first six months of 1980 there were already 8.

The Havana Declaration (Political Declaration of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries, Havana, September 3-9, 1979), which declared a number of basic principles for a comprehensive settlement, explicitly stated in paragraph 102, paragraph (d):

The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be completely abandoned and unconditionally handed over to Arab sovereignty.

Original text (English)

The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be evacuated in its entirety and restored unconditionally to Arab sovereignty;

On July 22, 1980, it was convened Seventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, which is entirely dedicated to “Israeli’s illegal actions in occupied East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.” On the same day, the representative of Cuba (the chairing country of the Movement in 1979-1983) presented the position of the Movement to the UN Secretary General as an official document of the Session.

On July 29, 1980, the Seventh Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in which, in particular, it demanded:

7. Calls upon Israel to withdraw completely and unconditionally from all Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem, with all property and services intact, and urges that such withdrawal from all occupied territories begin before 15 November 1980;

8. Demands that Israel fully comply with the provisions of resolution 465 (1980), adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 1 March 1980;

9. Further demands that Israel comply fully with all United Nations resolutions relating to the historical character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular Security Council resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980;

Original text (English)

7. Calls upon Israel to withdraw completely and unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem, with all property and services intact, and urges that such withdrawal from all the occupied territories should start before 15 November 1980;

8. Demands that Israel should fully comply with the provisions of resolution 465 (1980) adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 1 March 1980;

9. Further demands that Israel should fully comply with all United Nations resolutions relevant to the historic character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular Security Council resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980;

Video on the topic

Israel's decision to pass a law that formally annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city the capital of Israel was rejected by the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Council condemned Israel's adoption of the Basic Law on Jerusalem and its refusal to implement relevant Security Council resolutions. He confirmed that the adoption of this law constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the application in the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949.

Text of the resolution

UN Security Council Resolution No. 478

Resolution No. 478 of the UN Security Council of 08/20/1980.

Security Council,
referring on its resolution 476 (1980), reaffirming inadmissibility of acquiring territories through the use of force,

being deeply concerned the adoption in the Israeli Knesset of a “Basic Law” proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its consequences for peace and security,

noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

confirming its determination to explore practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980) in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

1. condemns the most decisive acceptance by Israel of the “Basic Law” regarding Jerusalem and refusal to implement the relevant Security Council resolutions;

2. confirms that Israel's adoption of the "Basic Law" constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. declares that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel - the occupying Power - which have changed or are intended to change the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "Basic Law" of Jerusalem, are null and void and must be immediately repealed;

4. also confirms that these measures and actions constitute a serious obstacle to the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. decides not to recognize the “Basic Law” and such other actions of Israel which, as a result of this law, are aimed at changing the character and status of Jerusalem, and calls:

a) all Member States comply with this decision;

b) those states that have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

6. asks the Secretary-General to submit to him, by November 15, 1980, a report on the implementation of this resolution;

7. decides keep this serious situation under review.

Adopted at the 2245th meeting

Interpretation

In Resolution 478, the UN Security Council actually repeated its decades-old position on Jerusalem, expressed in resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969), 298 (1971), 465 (1980) and 476 (1980). It was also based on resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, which demanded the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territories occupied as a result of the Six-Day War, which, according to the UN interpretation, includes the territory of East Jerusalem.

However, Israel's position remains unchanged:

In response to Israel's condemnation and after 13 countries moved their embassies from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, "fearing the Arab threat to impose an oil embargo on them", 1,400 Christians from 40 countries opened their International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem:

• “This was an act of solidarity with the Jewish people and their connection with the holy city for three thousand years.”

According to a survey conducted in May 2011:

66% of Israelis strongly object to the division of Jerusalem in any form and the transfer of part of it to the Palestinians. […] 23% are ready to give up part of East Jerusalem and 6% are ready to give up the entire eastern part of the city.
73% of respondents said Israel should retain full sovereignty over the holy sites in Jerusalem. […] 67% of respondents said that it is necessary to continue construction in areas of the capital located outside the so-called “green line”, and 23% demanded that construction there be frozen.
91% called Jerusalem the historical and spiritual capital of the Jewish people, and 4% called Tel Aviv the economic and cultural center resurgent Israel.