Blast 2: January 3, 2017 - Legal Opinion on UN resolution 2334 – Mischievous, but Not Binding!
UN Resolution 2334
“Security Council resolutions can be passed only in accordance with the specific provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (the “Charter”).
Such resolutions are passed only under either Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter. Each of those two Chapters addresses a different purpose and a resolution passed under one or the other Chapter has a different result and effect.
Chapter VII resolutions are referred to in the Charter as dealing with “Action With Respect To Threats to The Peace, Breaches of The Peace, and Acts of Aggression”. They are passed when there is an imminent threat that must be addressed – such as the 1990 resolution when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or that which was passed against Iran’s overt attempt to develop nuclear weapons. No room is left for negotiation or settlement of disputes. Such resolutions are legally binding and specific action follows.
On the other hand, Chapter VI, is headed “Pacific Settlement of Disputes”. A resolution passed under Chapter VI is not binding in and of itself. It cannot lead directly to the implementation of such things as penalties, sanctions or indictment in the International Criminal Court. Such a resolution is intended to encourage named states to adhere to the declarations in the resolution. While such a resolution may be of great significance for political and propaganda purposes, it cannot compel cited states to do what is contained in the resolution. To be of a binding nature, the Security Council must pass a further resolution or resolutions, clearly under Chapter VII of the Charter.
Resolution 2334 has been passed under Chapter VI - “Pacific Resolution of Disputes” - and not under Chapter VII.
Thus, regardless of the sweeping language in Resolution 2334, its import, as indicated above, is to encourage Israel to do certain things, or refrain from doing certain things. For the Security Council to enforce anything, a further resolution – clearly under Chapter VII of the Charter – is necessary. The likelihood of such a resolution or resolutions being passed, after the end of President Obama’s tenure, is considered to be remote.” Donald Carr, O. Ont., Q.C., J.D., L.H.D..
The latest legal piece of “lawfare” against the Jewish State is U.N. Security Council resolution 2334. It calls on Israel to accept the 1949 armistice lines. This means that the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem is somehow no longer Jewish and the Kotel, the Wailing Wall, that is the Western Wall of the foundation of Jewish the Temple is also somehow not Jewish (translate: not Israeli).
As most Canadians have been educated to be and are avid supporters of the UN, and very often assume that its “laws” or resolutions supersede those of Canada, it is important to understand just what international law is. First and foremost, it is about treaties made between independent states. Some of these treaties are connected to the UN, some are not. So we went to a trustworthy legal expert to discover that “Resolution 2334, under UN Charter Article VI is not Binding.”
Please read the legal opinion written by Canadians for Balfour 100’s Founding Member, Donald Carr.
Clearly, for those who are not politically naïve, 2334 is President Obama’s way of giving the Arabs the upper hand. The result is that it will make it that much harder to persuade Arabs to negotiate a final settlement with Israel. For according to this resolution, Israelis only have obligations, while Arabs seem to only have “rights”. Obama’s ultimate goal seems to have been to make it more difficult for incoming President Trump’s Middle East team to stop anti-Israeli incitement in the UN and in the world.
Is 2334 legally binding? NO, even though Israel’s enemies will construe it as such! Does it muddy the waters? Yes! Is it mischievous and counter-productive, and blatantly anti-Semitic? Very much so!
Goldi Steiner and Irving Weisdorf, Co-chairs
Canadians For Balfour 100