Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation

La définition des frontières de l'Etat d'Israël dans le cadre du processus de paix au Proche-Orient

Abstract : The question of the determination of the Hebrew State's boundaries is central in the arab-israeli conflict since 1947, when the partition plan for Palestine was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It leads to the surfaces definition of military control areas in the Near-East between the different protagonists. Indeed, the land dividing appears to be the product of diverse armed actions of which the both principal are the Israel-Arab war of 1948-49 and the Six Days War of 1967. The contradiction between the terms of the United Nations act and the effective cutting up on the ground affects the international public law at various stages. First of all, we have to determine the binding ability (or non-ability) of the United Nations General Assembly act, this one just having on principle a recommendatory power. However, the specific framework of the mandates and the issue of boundaries delimitation of a former territory under tutelage are going to confer an erga omnes opposability to the partition plan. So the discordance between the partition plan frontiers and the existing demarcations has to be analyzed through the distinction between military occupation and annexation. It brings out that spaces controlled by Israeli State in addition to the terms of the General Assembly resolution reveal two different regimes: one part of lands having been juridically annexed and the other being subdued to a military regime and then differentiated from the internal israeli order. This new cutting up imposed by facts sees itself validated by United Nations in 1967 with the adoption of the resolution 242. By this act, the Security Council transforms front lines into international boundaries, which belies the principle of ?the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war?, and demonstrates its incapacity to assume his specific responsibility in the matter of maintaining international peace and security. Then the borrowed solution seems to be counterproductive since it has not even contributed to forge the boundaries definitely on the former mandatory Palestine territory. The juridical regime applying on the zones subdued to the Israeli military control -assigned to serve as bases for the future Palestinian State, is different from the regime applied on the Israeli internal order, but it leads also to catch sight of a possible additional absorption of lands by Israel, East-Jerusalem being the significative symbol of this risk. The peace process of the nineties has stumbled on this specific question. Then, the current Near-East position leads the international order to a contradiction which appears still difficulty surmountable until now.
Document type :
Complete list of metadata
Contributor : Administrateur Du Ccsd Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - 4:16:57 PM
Last modification on : Monday, October 19, 2020 - 10:54:45 AM
Long-term archiving on: : Wednesday, September 19, 2018 - 2:16:29 PM


Files produced by the author(s)


  • HAL Id : tel-01777296, version 1



Sylvain Thiébaut. La définition des frontières de l'Etat d'Israël dans le cadre du processus de paix au Proche-Orient. Droit. Université Nancy 2, 2010. Français. ⟨NNT : 2010NAN20005⟩. ⟨tel-01777296⟩



Record views


Files downloads