MondonutNice words, but none of them address the Palestinians’ inventive and ridiculous interpretation of the Vienna Treaties, which in no way prohibit the US from placing its embassy where it chooses.
The Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations explicitly reflects customary rules which require that the premises of embassies must be located “on the territory of the receiving state” [Article 21]. It also stipulates that states cannot enter into special agreements that would allow the premises to be used “in any manner incompatible with a general rule of international law” [Article 41(3)].
This particular embassy is situated in territory that was annexed in violation of a peremptory norm of international law. In accordance with Article 53 and 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties any dispute regarding the private agreement between Israel and the USA that violates Article 53 of the Law of Treaties and the customary rules reflected in the Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations is subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Article 103 of the UN Charter states that: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Article 25 of the UN Charter States that: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
Neither of those articles allow for any privately agreed upon exceptions. According to the terms of Article 106 of the UN Charter they cannot be amended without the consent of at least two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
UNSC resolution 478 cited a peremptory norm of customary international law which holds that no territory acquired through the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. The Security Council affirmed that the enactment of the Basic Law Jerusalem was a violation of international law, determined that the basic law was null and void, and stated that the Security Council:
“5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:
(a) All Member States to accept this decision;
(b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;”
Mondonut:And as to UNSC 478, which the US emphatically declared non-binding:
Secretary Muskie …
FYI, the opinion of our Secretary of State has never been considered final under US domestic law, i.e. “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” According to customary international law as expressed in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty (like the UN Charter) must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Article 53 of the Law of Treaties states that any treaty which conflicts with a peremptory norm of international law is void at the time of its conclusion.
In the ICJ Wall case both the General Assembly and the Court cited the legal relevance and legal consequences of a number of Security Council resolutions, including resolution 478. The Court decided that Israel was under a legal obligation to implement all of the relevant Security Council resolutions in good faith. It also noted that UN member states were under Charter and 4th Geneva Convention treaty obligations not to recognize the illegal situation that had been created by Israel.