A GROUP of legal figures in the House of Lords has claimed that the UK Government’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state may not be compatible with international law.
In a letter addressed to Attorney General Richard Hermer, the [[UK Government]]’s top legal adviser, 40 peers – including seven KCs – argued that the criteria for recognising Palestine as a state have not been met under the Montevideo Convention.
The treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital in 1933, laid out the four key criteria for statehood: a state must possess a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
The Montevideo Convention has 17 states parties – all of which are in the Americas and many of which, including Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, have already recognised the Palestinian state.
However, the letter, which was reported by The Times, urges the UK Government to reconsider its position based on the 1933 treaty.
Keir Starmer has committed to recognising Palestine in September, if Israel does not meet a list of conditions including signing up to a peace process resulting in a two-state solution.
The letter calls on Hermer to advise Starmer “that this would be contrary to international law”.
It goes on: “You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy.
“You have said that a selective ‘pick and mix’ approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.
“Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.”
Among the signatories from the House of Lords are David Pannick KC, Guglielmo Verdirame KC, Edward Faulks KC, and Lawrence Collins, a former judge on the Supreme Court.
The peers, many of whom have longstanding ties to the Conservative Party, warned that recognising a Palestinian state now would represent a “selective” application of international law and risked politicising legal principles.
Their intervention comes as Starmer announced the UK Government would follow France’s lead and officially recognise Palestinian statehood in September if Israel and Hamas do not agree to a ceasefire.
Starmer was fiercely criticised for the conditions of recognition, with the SNP saying that recognising [[Palestine]] must be “irreversible”.
Canada has since indicated it will recognise a Palestinian state, provided the Palestinian Authority commits to elections and other democratic reforms with no involvement from Hamas.
More than 250 MPs, including Labour’s foreign affairs committee chair Emily Thornberry, have called for the recognition of the Palestinian state.
Meanwhile, in a separate legal development, the High Court ruled this week that the Home Office’s proscription of the protest group Palestine Action should be reviewed.
The group is accused of damaging military infrastructure, but the court found it “reasonably arguable” that the ban infringes on rights to protest. A full hearing will now go ahead.
