ECHR ruling on "Right of Return" for Refugees - A blow to Palestinian demands?

Archie D Bunker

Basically, the European Court of Human Rights has passed a ruling which is also applicable to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

The ruling acknowledges that the time which passed from when people became refugees, the availability of compensation, and factual circumstances (e.g. people living in "occupied" areas for many years) are all considerations which greatly impact the rights of refugees according to international law.

I think this ruling is a blow to the Palestinians who consider their "right of return" to be indisputable, and since the "right of return" is one of the major road blocks on the way to peace in the area, hopefully the Palestinians will realize that they need to be a little more realistic in that aspect...

wrote:

The court rejected the argument that human rights includes protection of the sentimental value of "family roots" regarding a particular piece of land"

wrote:

Benvenisti suggests the Israelis and Palestinians study this ruling well. "There is a recognition here of the complexity of the refugee problem, especially that human rights are not granted only to one side," he says. "Sincere efforts on the occupier's part to arrive at a fair solution that reflects the reality can win international legal recognition. However, the injured side that decides to wait until the end of time will one day wake up to discover his rights have become obsolete. Thus, the message to both sides is: Evince good will and don't drag your feet. Or, in other words, anyone who is interested in ending the conflict and solving the refugee problem has received from the European court a very convenient ladder for climbing down from the tree.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155858.html

http://korbelsecurity.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/european-court-of-human-rights-on-right-of-return-for-refugees/

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=864000&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

wes

The ECHR isn't the same as the ICJ, I am pretty sure the ECHR doesn't have jurisdiction on International law, and it is only binding in Europe.

Also, Israel has a "Right of Return" law for Jews, whose claims is 1000s of years old. You can't really claim the Palestinians are unreasonable, when one sides land claim is 1000s of years old.

So, I don't know how important this really is, as it only effect Europe, and Israel and Palestine are outside of Europe.

**EDIT*8
It seem to me, to be wishful thinking on Israels part, that the ECHR suddendly has jurisdiction in the Middle East. Also, TBH, the Palestinian right to return isn't an obstacle to peace process, as there is no peace process, and a 2 state solution is looking more and more remote each day.

OS119

i think we all know that the ECHR doesn't have juristicion over Israel and the Occupied Territories, so its rulings and the precedent they set have no impact - however, it is common practice for jurists in one juristiction to pay attention to rulings in other juristictions that have broadly similar systems and 'ground rules', and use them to help inform their decisions.

that said, this isn't really news: if you are the decendent of Sudeten Germans you're going to get fcuk all out of the Czech Republic for the loss of your Grandparents property - likewise if your GreatGrandparents owned a factory in Konigsberg, East Prussia, now Kalingrad on Russian territory, you're going to be gravely disappointed if you go the Russian embassy looking to be compensated for the state takeover of your ancestors private property.

Cannibal Ox

wes wrote:

The ECHR isn't the same as the ICJ, I am pretty sure the ECHR doesn't have jurisdiction on International law, and it is only binding in Europe.

The ICJ only deals with states, and refugees have no state, so they wouldn't get very far with the ICJ. You're right that it only applies to Europe, but this is a ruling that follows a well worn path in international law/politics when it comes to refugees. Nobody wants to give refugees rights, because if they do, someone has to guarantee them, and nobody wants to guarantee a refugee their rights because if they do, they're opening up a whole box load of trouble. It isn't exactly precedence, but it is consistent with how refugees are treated in international law.

wes

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The ICJ only deals with states, and refugees have no state, so they wouldn't get very far with the ICJ. You're right that it only applies to Europe, but this is a ruling that follows a well worn path in international law/politics when it comes to refugees. Nobody wants to give refugees rights, because if they do, someone has to guarantee them, and nobody wants to guarantee a refugee their rights because if they do, they're opening up a whole box load of trouble. It isn't exactly precedence, but it is consistent with how refugees are treated in international law.

True enough, it was always unlikely that Palestinians would ever be allowed to return in any significant numbers, and the most they can hope for is compensation, and an end to being stateless, but they will have to fight tooth and nail to even get that much.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

True enough, it was always unlikely that Palestinians would ever be allowed to return in any significant numbers, and the most they can hope for is compensation, and an end to being stateless, but they will have to fight tooth and nail to even get that much.

The palestinian's problems are worsened by the fact that it is politically useful for their arab "brothers" to keep them stateless.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The palestinian's problems are worsened by the fact that it is politically useful for their arab "brothers" to keep them stateless.

Well, I would place more blame on the people who put them there in the 1st place, but that is neither here nor there.

Also, when it comes to the East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is enforcing statelessness on millions of Palestinians themselves. If the Palestinians had a state, maybe the other Palestinians who are refugees in other countries might have some place to go.

The Arabs states are certainly not innocent in the matter, but the biggest problem the Palestinian refugees have is that they don't have anywhere to go to, as no country is likely to give them citizenship anytime soon, then the answer is to create a state on land that is already theres, but occupied by a foreign power. Sadly, this is looking more and more unlikely with each passing day.

anymore

It is good to see an element of realism being introduced to this area.

The Saint

This seems like a non-issue to me.

First, the ECHR does not have jurisdiction over the Middle East.

Second, the petioners do not have refugee status under the UNHCR.

Third, if these people were refugees I'd imagine the outcome of the case would have been different.

Fourth, the definition of a refugee is different between the UNHCR and UNRWA. UNRWA's definition preceeds the UNHCR definition and the UNRWA definition is the one that applies to the Palestinians.

Overheal

The court rejected the argument that human rights includes protection of the sentimental value of "family roots" regarding a particular piece of land"

Erm, isnt that also applicaple to Israelites? They basically moved back into the neighbourhood on the Family Roots card.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Erm, isnt that also applicaple to Israelites? They basically moved back into the neighbourhood on the Family Roots card.

Yeah, it would, if it were applicable in there case.

Interestingly, Israel has the whole right of return thing in law themselves:
Law of Return 5710-1950

Which make it rather ironic that they would deny another people a right of return.