چکیده:
Jerusalem is a holy city for the great divine religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and there has been very little period in history without conflict occurring there. In the peace process between Palestine and Israel, the United States, with the passage of the Embassy Act in 1995, emphasized the transfer of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; however, US governments resisted its implementation through repeated suspensions until Trump issued the order to implement this law in December 2017. The status of Jerusalem has been scrutinized by many international documents and authorities, most of which emphasize the occupation of these territories since 1967, meaning that East Jerusalem is now considered by the international community to be under illegitimate and occupying power. Considering these matters, the present article seeks a legal analysis around the question: what are the effects of transferring the US embassy to the occupied Palestinian territories from the perspective of international law? The findings of the present research show that this action is contrary to the norms of international law, including the law of holy sites, customary international law, the legal regime of occupation, the obligation of non-recognition of illegal situations, and the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The findings of the present research indicate that this action is contrary to the norms of international law, including the rights of holy sites, customary international law, the legal regime of occupation, the obligation of non-recognition of illegal situations, and the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
General Assembly demands all States comply with UN resolutions regarding status ”of Jerusalem Palestine, in its latest legal action regarding the transfer of the United States embassy to Jerusalem, has initiated a lawsuit against America in the International Court of Justice, claiming on this basis that the transfer of the embassy is contrary to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which stipulates that the diplomatic mission headquarters must be located in the territory of the host country (The State of Palestine institutes ”September 28, 2018, ICJ).
In response to this law, the Security Council issued Resolution 478, declaring this law inconsistent with international law, calling the acquisition of territory by force unacceptable, and requesting United Nations members to withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem, adding that actions to be taken by Israel as a result of this law, including changing the character and status of Jerusalem, should not be recognized2 (S/Res 478, Paras 2, 4-5).
Although we believe that all of Israel's actions in Palestine have been occupational, illegal, and usurping from the beginning, the international community, as stated in documents such as the resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice, considers territories occupied after 1967 AD to be occupied, and with these descriptions, East Jerusalem can be considered as occupied territory under the law of occupation.
(
, 
, 
)
