Relocation of us embassy

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such.
The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017
announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its
embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought
a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018.
The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes
(Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused
mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.

Facts of the case

Since the election campaign, President Donald Trump promised to apply the relocation
the embassy of the United States US from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. After one year in the
presidency, Trump declared that US “would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move its
embassy there”.1 Israeli official expresses regularly their frustration that there is no recognition
of full Israeli sovereignty over both side of Jerusalem as capital of the state, so that almost the
embassies in Israel are site in or close to Tel Aviv. The going for a relocation of the US Embassy
to Jerusalem indicates that the US recognizes Israel’s sovereignty over the city.2

This case is the Palestinian people’s first case filing in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it
requests that the Court resolve its dispute with the U.S. and find that the relocation breached the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).[3]

The Palestinian people instituted proceedings on September 28, 2018 claiming that the U.S.
transfer of its Embassy to Jerusalem seeks to fulfill the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995

1
Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-
Palestinian Relations. (2019). American Journal of International Law, 113(1), 143-149. doi:10.1017/ajil.2018.112,
page: 143
2
Moten, Abdul Rashid, US Embassy in Jerusalem: Reasons, Implications and Consequences, Intellectual Discourse,
26:1 (2018), page: 10
 In its embassy relocation, US step behaves as breaching its obligations to Palestine, US
was signing the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol) VCDR. In addition, US
bore witness to the Oslo agreements signature that explained clearly that Jerusalem final status
will be a matter for Israel and Palestine negotiations, and US obligated that it would not relocate
its embassy to the holy city until a final agreement had been settled between them.3

Under the claiming about the relocation of the embassy violates international law, especially the
mentioned optional protocol of VCDR, in September 2018, Palestine submitted a case against
the US in the ICJ. US withdraw from VCDR as reaction to the case.

Reaction of the US

As mentioned previously, the first response by US was escaping from optional protocol,

the shared treaties with Palestine, in order to cancel any contract between them and Palestine. In

addition, the US responded of the legal appealing by justifications the relocation mainly by

another three arguments. At first, US claimed that ICJ decision has invoked its sovereign right to

determine where to place its embassies; secondly, it refuses to accept the UNSC resolution 478

as binding; final, US assured that Embassy relocation was approved by the Congress in 1995. 4

These arguments are crossing with what mentioned in the previous section about the

international law perspectives regarding the case especially about the sovereignty in Jerusalem

and third state responsibility.

Position of the case

The main issue to be discussed regarding the case, is whether Palestine, is a state or not?

3
Kattan, Victor, Article: It’s Time to Take Palestine v. United States of America Seriously, Link:
http://opiniojuris.org/2018/10/16/its-time-to-take-palestine-v-united-states-of-america-seriously/
4
Martins, Sofia, The possible legal consequences of the move of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem under
International Law , Master Thesis, Tilburg University, 2019, page: 37
Since that the ICJ cannot consider the case valid if not submitted from the state as mentioned in

the previous section, which denied from some major state like US. The joining of the optional

protocol of VCDR is limited to states; whenever Palestine joined it before so it ICJ may accept to

study the case. Additionally, Victor Kattan,a Senior Research Fellow, concluded that the ICJ

could determine that Palestine is a state based on the purposes of Article 35(2) of ICJ Statute, but

then also achieve that the provision in this article does not “provide an avenue for Palestine to

have access to the Court because the phrase “treaties in force” in Article 35(2) only refers to pre-

1945 treaties”.5That made the discussion of state acceptance has two face coins, it Palestine’s

case could be rejected if not accomplish the ICJ conditions of state or it can get them acceptance

based on Article 35(2) provisions but that will end the case from another side as mentioned.

Meanwhile, the US withdrawal from the Optional Protocol not effect on the case as mentioned in

the previous section, since such jurisdiction existed prior to withdrawal.6

5
Kattan, Victor, Article: It’s Time to Take Palestine v. United States of America Seriously, Link:
http://opiniojuris.org/2018/10/16/its-time-to-take-palestine-v-united-states-of-america-seriously/
6
Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-
Palestinian Relations. (2019). American Journal of International Law, 113(1), 143-149. doi:10.1017/ajil.2018.112,
page: 146