User:Tiamut/legal sources for right of return

International legal opinions on the right of return

• Vincent Chetail: The right of return is considered an inalienable and basic human right that is consecrated under international law. The first formal recognition of the applicability of this right to refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, which recognized the right of those refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors and which specified that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu.

• Michla Pomerance: Resolution 194 does not support the Palestinian right of return, since the wording says "should be permitted", rather than "must be permitted", (a desideratum, rather than a right) and it links the return to an ending of hostilities, which has yet to occur.

• David P. Forsythe: Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognized in US courts as customary law, guarantees the right of everyone to leave and return to their own country. The Clinton administration was the first American administration to no longer support its application in the case of Palestinian refugees.

• Jean Allain: Palestinian Refugees have witnessed the continuous violation of their rights under refugee law, human rights law, and humanitarian law ... The unwillingness of the international community to enforce the dictates of international law where the Palestinian Refugees are concerned means that these people are the only group effectively excluded from the legal protection regime of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

• John Strawson: International refugee law is weak and without authoritative pronouncements on the issue of refugee rights. Though there are protections afforded by Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention in that it envisages that refugees should be settled in accordance with General Assembly resolutions (such as, in the case of Palestinians, UNGAs 181 and 194), the American and Israeli positions have been to seek a negotiated settlement outside the framework of international law.

• Ruth Lapidoth: Neither international conventions, nor major UN resolutions, nor the relevant agreements between the parties, endorse a Palestinian right to return to Israel. Allowing all Palestinians refugees to return to Israeli territory, would be "an act of suicide" and "no state can be expected to destroy itself."

• Anis F. Kassim: UN resolutions reflect consensus on the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and these in turn embody international legal principles to which all states are a party. (Kassim also lists a huge body of legal literature that is useful to this debate.)

• Jean-Marie Henckaerts: The existence of a right of return has been particularly debated in the case of Palestinian refugees. In this case, the UN has constantly reaffirmed the right to return. The right of return is related to the right not to be expelled from one's homeland.

• Michael Lynk argues that even "Israel has agreed, in its 1994 peace treaty with Jordan, that the persistence of the refugee issue over the past five decades has caused massive human problems in the region, and the settlement of the issue is to be in accordance with international law." The disagreements are over whether to repatriate, resettle or compensate the refugees, with resettlement being the preferred Israeli option. As regards compensation: "Israel prefers a global collective fund that would be primarily used for refugee resettlement elsewhere and financed largely by international donors. Its contributions would be made ex-gratis , without assuming any liability. On the other hand, the Palestinians advance the compensation issue as a right recognized in international law that would obligate Israel to return, or pay for, the refugee properties expropriated or destroyed in 1948 and afterwards. As well, they argue that Israel must pay damages for pain and suffering, and for its use of Palestinian properties over the past five decades."

Regarding the figures involved in compensation: "Recent assessments by scholars and researchers range from $5-10 billion (US) by Shlomo Gazit, to $15-20 billion in a Harvard refugee project led by Joseph Alpher and Khalil Shikaki, to $271 billion by Atif Kubursi."

Additional reading

• Link to series of articles on refugees and their rights