| Revision as of 00:05, 11 April 2010 view sourceAmoruso (talk | contribs)13,357 edits the changes are yours. the article is not about the un, but about 478 only← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:13, 11 April 2010 view source Unomi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,989 edits We can't expect that are readers are fluent in UN custom and procedures, a bit of background is natural and of EVNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| The resolution was passed with 14 votes to none against, with the ] abstaining. | The resolution was passed with 14 votes to none against, with the ] abstaining. | ||
| Israel categorically rejected the resolution and announced that "It will not undermine the status of Jerusalem as the capital of a sovereign Israel and as a united city which will never again be torn apart". In remarks made to the Council regarding the section of the draft resolution relating to the transfer of embassies from Jerusalem, the U.S. ] said that in the judgment of the U.S. this instruction is not binding and has no validity, and the U.S. rejects it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other countries.<ref>Muskie was talking about the draft resolution before it was adopted. See S/PV.2245(OR) paragraph 106, .</ref> | Israel categorically rejected the resolution and announced that "It will not undermine the status of Jerusalem as the capital of a sovereign Israel and as a united city which will never again be torn apart". In remarks made to the Council regarding the section of the draft resolution relating to the transfer of embassies from Jerusalem, the U.S. ] said that in the judgment of the U.S. this instruction is not binding and has no validity, and the U.S. rejects it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other countries.<ref>Muskie was talking about the draft resolution before it was adopted. See S/PV.2245(OR) paragraph 106, . In the Namibia case the ICJ had said "It would be an untenable interpretation to maintain that,'' once such a declaration had been made by the Security Council under Article 24 of the Charter'', on behalf of all member States, those Members would be free to act in disregard of such illegality or even to recognize violations of law resulting from it."</ref> | ||
| The decisions were adopted by the Security Council acting on behalf of the members under Article 24. Although they were not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, they are nonetheless binding on all of the members. The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs says: "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)."<ref>The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Article 24, Supplement No 6 (1979 - 1984), volume 3 indicates the Council was acting on behalf of the members when it formally declared illegal legislative and administrative measures invalid in resolution 478. See Note 2 on Page 1 and page 19 </ref> | |||
| The decisions were adopted by the Security Council acting on behalf of the members under Article 24. They were not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. | |||
| Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem |
Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to ], ] or ] following the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of ] and ] in August 2006, no country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem, although ] and ] have theirs in nearby Jerusalem suburb ]. The subsequent advisory opinion of the ] expressed the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation in and around ].<ref>. International Court of Justice.</ref> | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 12:13, 11 April 2010
United Nations resolution adopted in 1980| UN Security Council Resolution 478 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
.svg) Middle East | ||||
| Date | 20 August 1980 | |||
| Meeting no. | 2,245 | |||
| Code | S/RES/478 (Document) | |||
| Subject | Territories occupied by Israel | |||
| Voting summary |
| |||
| Result | Adopted | |||
| Security Council composition | ||||
| Permanent members | ||||
| Non-permanent members | ||||
| ||||
United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted on August 20, 1980, declared Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law null and void and required that it be rescinded forthwith while affirming that it was a violation of international law. This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The law declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital.
The resolution was passed with 14 votes to none against, with the United States abstaining.
Israel categorically rejected the resolution and announced that "It will not undermine the status of Jerusalem as the capital of a sovereign Israel and as a united city which will never again be torn apart". In remarks made to the Council regarding the section of the draft resolution relating to the transfer of embassies from Jerusalem, the U.S. Secretary of State said that in the judgment of the U.S. this instruction is not binding and has no validity, and the U.S. rejects it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other countries.
The decisions were adopted by the Security Council acting on behalf of the members under Article 24. Although they were not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, they are nonetheless binding on all of the members. The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs says: "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)."
Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan or Herzliya following the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of Costa Rica and El Salvador in August 2006, no country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem, although Paraguay and Bolivia have theirs in nearby Jerusalem suburb Mevasseret Zion. The subsequent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice expressed the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation in and around East Jerusalem.
See also
- Jerusalem Embassy Act
- Israeli–Palestinian conflict
- List of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 401 to 500 (1976 – 1982)
- Positions on Jerusalem
Notes
- Muskie was talking about the draft resolution before it was adopted. See S/PV.2245(OR) paragraph 106, . In the Namibia case the ICJ had said "It would be an untenable interpretation to maintain that, once such a declaration had been made by the Security Council under Article 24 of the Charter, on behalf of all member States, those Members would be free to act in disregard of such illegality or even to recognize violations of law resulting from it."
- The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Article 24, Supplement No 6 (1979 - 1984), volume 3 indicates the Council was acting on behalf of the members when it formally declared illegal legislative and administrative measures invalid in resolution 478. See Note 2 on Page 1 and page 19
- Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. International Court of Justice.
External links
| United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted in 1980 | |
|---|---|