Abstract

This article examines two propositions relating to the role of the right to self-determination with regard to statehood, as put forward by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its a request pursuant to Article 19(3) of the ICC Statute, for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. One proposition is that the right to self-determination can compensate for a shortfall in effective control that might otherwise bar recognition of the territory as a state. The other proposition is that when effective control is lacking because of illegal obstruction of the realization of the right to self-determination, recognition of statehood may be an appropriate response regardless of the facts. The article argues that these propositions are neither substantiated in existing law, nor can they be said to be matters of the progressive development of the law. For this, the article analyses instances where statehood was allegedly recognized prior to the consolidation of effective control and which are cited as reflecting the propositions. It shows that these instances do not support the propositions. With respect to the second proposition, the article argues that it is inadvisable as lex ferenda, nor applicable in the Palestine case.

中文翻译：

---

国际商会的巴勒斯坦国和缺乏有效控制的自决权

摘要

本条研究了国际刑事法院（ICC）检察官办公室根据《宪法》第19条第3款提出的要求中提出的与国家自决权在国家地位方面的作用有关的两个主张。 《国际刑事法院规约》，以裁定法院在巴勒斯坦的领土管辖权。一个主张是自决权可以弥补有效控制方面的不足，否则可能会阻碍承认领土为国家。另一个建议是，当由于非法阻碍实现自决权而缺乏有效控制时，不论事实如何，承认国家地位可能都是适当的回应。文章认为，这些主张在现行法律中都没有得到证实，也不能说它们与法律的逐步发展有关。为此，本文分析了据称在巩固有效控制之前承认国家地位的情况，这些情况被认为反映了这一主张。它表明这些实例不支持这些主张。关于第二个命题，该文章认为，它不宜作为法伦达法，也不适用于巴勒斯坦案。