As Europe urges Washington to honour its UN obligations over Palestinian visas, RFI spoke to international law professor François Dubuisson about the wider implications of the US administration's move to block the entry of Palestinian delegates onto American soil.
The European Union has urged Washington to rethink its decision to block visas for Palestinian officials hoping to attend next month’s UN General Assembly in New York, warning that the move breaches international obligations.
“In the light of the existing agreements between the UN and its host state, we all urge for this decision to be reconsidered,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said after a meeting of foreign ministers in Copenhagen at the weekend.
Kallas invoked international law in pressing the US to reverse what she called an “extraordinary step”, one that further aligns President Donald Trump’s administration with Israel as its war in Gaza rages on.
France says US should not refuse Palestinians access to UN summit
'No restrictions'
The visa dispute threatens to overshadow France’s initiative to push for broader recognition of a Palestinian state at the gathering of world leaders.
French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot was among the first to denounce the move, insisting that “a UN General Assembly meeting ... should not be subject to any restrictions on access”.
Several ministers in Copenhagen echoed France’s stance, underlining that the United States, as host nation of the United Nations, is obliged not to obstruct the participation of invited delegations.
Why is France recognising Palestinian statehood and will it change anything?
Breach of international law
Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas had been due to attend in person, a symbolic moment given his long if fraught history of engagement with Washington.
The Palestinian Authority condemned the decision as a “clear contradiction of international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement”. That agreement stipulates that the United States cannot deny entry to officials invited to UN sessions, regardless of the state of bilateral relations.
Against this backdrop of mounting criticism, legal experts have been weighing in.
François Dubuisson, professor of international law at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, spoke to RFI about why he believes the US move represents a breach of binding international commitments.
RFI: What does the agreement between the United Nations and the United States say regarding access to the UN HQ?
The United States is bound by a headquarters agreement with the UN, covering the holding of its sessions in New York. This agreement sets out a number of obligations – in particular, the duty not to obstruct the arrival of people invited to take part in UN sessions. That includes the obligation to grant the necessary visas to those invited by the UN.
Crucially, these obligations apply regardless of the US’s bilateral relations with the governments concerned. The aim is precisely to avoid situations where diplomatic tensions or non-recognition of certain states would lead to obstacles. This protection extends not only to state representatives but also to NGOs or media accredited by the UN.
So yes, the US decision is a breach of its obligations under the headquarters agreement.
RFI: Does this amount to a violation of international law?
Yes, because the headquarters agreement is part of international law and creates binding obligations for the United States.
Preventing Palestinian representatives from attending the General Assembly in September is therefore clearly a violation of international law.
RFI: In 1988, the Reagan administration refused to issue a visa for Yasser Arafat. Is this situation comparable?
There are similarities but also key differences. In 1988, a US law prevented members of the PLO mission in New York from attending the session, because of anti-terrorism legislation that led to the mission’s closure.
That provoked strong protests from the UN and even triggered legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice.
Ultimately, a US judge ruled that the headquarters agreement prevailed over domestic legislation, forcing Washington to comply. But in the meantime, the General Assembly had to decamp to Geneva to allow Arafat to address world leaders.
Today, the situation is even clearer: Palestine now holds observer state status at the UN. This means it is fully covered by the headquarters agreement. Blocking its representatives is therefore a direct violation.
RFI: Could the same outcome be expected today?
Perhaps, but things may prove more complicated. The Trump administration has shown little inclination to abide by judicial rulings, domestic or international. That could drag out any dispute.
RFI: The US justification is that the Palestinian Authority has failed to uphold its peace commitments. Isn’t that more political than legal?
Absolutely. If we look at the reality, Israel has also obstructed the peace process through its occupation and settlement policies, not to mention events in Gaza.
To single out the Palestinians is clearly political and shows the bias of President Trump.
But such considerations are irrelevant when it comes to granting visas for UN sessions. If the host country started issuing or withholding visas depending on whether it approved of a government’s policies, it would undermine the very principle of the United Nations: to bring all states together, irrespective of political disagreements.
This interview is based on the original French version by RFI's Guilhel Delteil and has been slightly edited for clarity.
