Content area
Full Text
Articles
This article is an enlarged version of a keynote speech given at the Conference on the Palestine Mandate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 2015. I am very grateful for the constructive comments made by the anonymous reviews of this journal, but all responsibility must rest with me.
1.
Introduction
This article seeks to consider the significance of the mandate institution - first, generally, and then with regard to the Palestine Mandate territory. Commencing with a brief review of the essential context surrounding the Versailles settlement and the creation of the mandate system, it proceeds to look at the scope and application of international legal principles in formulating the territorial settlement, focusing upon Palestine. Thereafter, we proceed to examine the particularity of the Palestine Mandate during its currency to see what this meant and to what extent its consequences persist. The relationship between the operation of the system in general and its specific manifestation in Palestine will be surveyed and the distinction between the status of a territory and the question of its boundaries will also be explored. This theme will be apparent both in the original establishment of the spatial limits of the area and in its contemporary resonance. The aim is to set the Palestine Mandate, in terms of both status and of boundaries, in context and see to what extent it may be relevant today.
2.
The Versailles Environment
The Paris Peace Conference convened in Versailles on 18 January 1919 and concluded on 21 January 1920.1By that time, five peace treaties had been signed disposing of territories in Central and Eastern Europe, creating a minorities' protection regime, establishing a mandate system for the colonies of the defeated powers and setting up the League of Nations. All in all, a remarkable achievement, if not over time an exceptionally successful one. The challenge faced by the participants was immense. The international scene, unlike 1945, was not dominated by one or two powers. Instead, a group of five powers (Britain, France, the United States, Italy and Japan) steered events and made the recommendations, which were adopted by the conference as a whole. In fact, Japan played little part and so the 'Big Four' took charge, even though over 30 countries sent...