1 See documents relating to the Madrid Conference in 6 Palestine Y. B. Int'l L. 277 (1990/91). 2 Text reproduced in 7 Palestine Y. B. Int'l L. 232 (1992/94).

3 Id., at 243. ^** See text infra at 315 Ed., ^*** See text infra at 353 Ed., 4 For this consistent concept see the earlier Israeli proposal submitted to the Palestinian delegation during the Washington phase of the negotiations, Id., at 219, in particular Section "B" thereof. 5 Although UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 do not directly address the issue of Palestinian independence, they call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories and acknowledg- ment of the territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the area, both of which are prc- requisites for Palestinian sovereignty. 6 See, for example, Said, The Politics of the Dispossession: The Struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination, 1969-1994 (1994).

7 When Queen Margrethe I of Denmark was married to Norway's King Hokon VI in 1363, the Danish-Nor- wegian Union was established. Upon King Hokon's death in 1380, their son, King Olav, succeeded to the thrones of both realms, which included Denmark, Norway, parts of Sweden, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland (as well as the Shetland & Orkney Islands until 1469). The Danish-Norwegian Union was governed from Copenhagen and lasted for more than four centuries until 1814, when Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden after the Napoleonic Wars. The North Atlantic possessions, however, including Green- land, remained Danish. Iceland gained full independence in 1918, and the Faroe Islands achieved Home Rule by Danish legislation in 1948. Thirty years later, Greenland gained Home Rule along similar lines.

8 The areas are the following: internal government; municipal authority; taxes and levies; the Church and religious communities; fishing in territorial waters, hunting and reindeer herding; conservation; area plan- ning ; business and competition; social affairs; labor market relations; education and culture; industry; pub- lic health; housing; supply of goods; internal transportation of goods and persons; and environmental pro- tection. 9 See Annex II, Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs.

10 This was mainly due to the fact that the Faroe Islands' Home Rule, which was established prior to the present Constitution of 1953, was then believed to be in conformity with the old Constitution (of 1915) because the Danish Government feared that the Faroe Islands would have seceded from Denmark in 1948 if the parties had been forced to wait for a proper amendment of the Danish Constitution! The two Home Rule Acts are now believed to alter the constitution by customary practice and thus to be in excess of the constitution, but that was not the predominant view in 1948 or in 1978 (when the Greenlandic Home Rule was introduced). The Greenlandic Home Rule Commission therefore assumed that the Home Rule Act was in conformity with the Danish Constitution of 1953.

11 Section 19 of the Danish Constitution and Section 10 of the Home Rule Act.

12 This is the basic reason for the distinction between indigenous peoples (who may enjoy the right of self- determination) and minorities (who may not). Both indigenous peoples and minorities, not surprisingly, have rejected this distinction and suggested that self-identification and historical relationship with the terri- tory be established instead as the fundamental criteria for title to self-determination. This view now seems to be open for general acceptance. See, e.g., ILO-Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples, Art. 1, par. 2.

13 See, e.g., Principle V of the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Rela- tions and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. UN Resolu- tion 2625 (XXV) of the General Assembly, October 24, 1970, reproduced in 65 Am. J. Int'l L. 243 (1971).

14 See Article VII of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement and the complicated procedures that are to be pursued in case the Palestinian Authority enacts a given legislation. 15 Mr. Yossi Sarid, Israel's minister of environment and a prominent figure in the Israeli government, had ear- lier expressed the view that the forthcoming elections for the Palestinian Council would "create an irrever- sible situation [in the Palestinian territoriesl". He added: "Officially there will not be a Palestinian state, but in all practical respects there will be a Palestinian state." Jerusalem Post Int'l, June 24, 1995, p. 6, cols. 1-3. ^* See the article of Professor de Waart at 35 Ed..

16 From a strictly formal and systematic point of view, it could be argued that secession is not in question in cases of modern belligerent occupation because forcefully occupied territories, in most instances, never have come to belong rightfully to the occupying power. Since one can only secede from proper ownership, the question is one of liberation rather than of secession. Tibet, Palestine, Western Irian, etc. are examples of this. 17 For the growing support of the world community to the Palestinians' plight, see, Radley, The Palestinian Refugees: The Right to Return in lnternational Law, 72 Am. J. Int'l L. 586 at 604-608 (1978). 18 See, e.g., Resolutions nos. 694 (1991); 681 (1990); 672 (1990); 641 (1989); 636 (1989); 607 (1988); 605 (1987); 592 (1986) and 484 (1980).

19 U.N. Treaty Series, Vol. 75, No. 973, at 287. 20 See Commentary to the IV Geneva Convention, Pictet (ed. 1958), at 283. 21 On the U.S. legal position, see the letter of Herbert J. Hansell, Legal Advisor of the Department of State, to the Chairman of the Sub-eommittee on International Organizations, and to the Chairman of the Sub- committee on Europe and the Middle East of the U.S. Congress (House of Representatives), in 72 Am. J. Int'l L. 908 (1978). 22 Shamgar, The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories, Isr. Y. B. H. R., 262 at 266 (1971). See also the judgment of Israel's High Court of Justice on the Beit - El case in 2 Palestine Y. B. Int'l L. 134 (1985).

23 Apartheid proper is not in question here, as apartheid is characterized by the racial distinction in laws and regulations issued by the same authorities within the same legal regime; in Palestine, the distinction fol- lows from two legal regimes each comprising their own subjects. Nor are federalist structures comparable because federalism implies that the two different legal regimes (federal and state) are equally applicable to all citizens.

24 See Art. IV of the DOP and the Agreed Minutes to this provision, and Art. V of the Cairo Agreement. 25 Article IV of the 1995 Washington Agreement. 26 Article III, para 3 of the 1995 Washington Agreement.

27 The Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p. 1, cols. 2-5; p. 17, cols. 3-6. 28 See UN Security Council Resolution 242 which constitutes the basis of the peace process in the Middle East. 29 This is in fact one of a long series of resolutions (over sixty resolutions) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council, all of which confirm that Israel is an "occupying power" and is bound to apply the IV Geneva Convention, 1949.

30 Mallison & Mallison, The Juridical Bases for Palestinian Self Determination, 1 Palestine Y.B. Int'l L. 36 (1984). 31 Shihata et al, Legal Aspects of the World Bank's Assistance to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 7 Pales- tine Y. B. Int'l L.19 (1992/94).