The one quoted in the message.
I understand your reference to the event. I asked what the precedent actually is.
Example:
"X vs Y trial" is the event.
"Parking on the sidewalk is now legal" is the essence of the precedent, and the part I am asking about.
My question was quite clear. I do not understand the general refusal to elaborate here.
'Inheritance' was created to prevent any outside power claiming territories of former state were 'terra nullius'. Actually, whole concept works against you here, as it means that West Bank and Gaza are not 'terra nullius' and thus not open to annexation and exploitation by an outside power, such as Israel.
If Israel is the outside power:
1. Who is the inheritor? Who was its first leader, and when is its date of foundation? Within what territories?
2. Why did Britain designate Israel specifically as an inheritor (Balfour declaration serving as declaration of intent)?
3. When and where did Britain designate Gaza and J&S as terra nullius that would not be inherited?
Fact is Britain left the entire area now considered Israel, J&S, and Gaza, minus Golan. It deferred diplomatic settlement between ethnic groups to the UN, which ultimately failed because its proposal was rejected.
The Arab nations, being the foreign power you referenced, invaded and occupied Gaza and J&S. Your "Terra Nullius" refers to them (Egypt and Jordan) as occupiers, not Israel.
In 1947-1948 there was no single Palestinian leadership or identity, and even by 1967 they had no intent for statehood. They were much more active in that front in Jordan.
So why would international law account for Palestinian statehood when there was no such thing in 1948, and even in 2025 there is no Palestinian intent for statehood?
Fact is that if Israel succeeded in 1948 to defend Gaza and J&S from the Arab nations, none would treat these any differently from other Israeli territory.
Finally, international law is by far the most "in spirit, not word" legal system out there.
So if the spirit of Uti Possidetis Juris is to discourage territorial conflicts against secessionists, then designating Gaza and J&S as separate stateless unclaimable territories, is exactly in opposition to the spirit, as it encourages, not discourages conflict.
EDIT: Note for
@Feanor . The elevated status of spirit is particularly important to our debate. I should have raised it earlier. Although you haven't found any Israeli violation of the UN charter in regards to Gaza and J&S, you invoke it frequently and say it is binding. While some of its articles say that some of its resolutions may be binding, the legitimacy of the entire charter is tarred by the fact that the one charter's most frequent violators is the UN itself. It actively takes part in military actions against members and aggressively violates IHL, even right now by refusing to provide appropriate care for its hostages, and previously by knowingly employing Hamas and Hezbollah, including those who took part in the invasion, and refusing to acknowledge the fact.
There are more violations than that of course.
Much like the ICC which recently lost its jurisdiction by acting against international conventions in spirit and word alike, so did the UN many years ago.
UN membership is retained for purposes other than peacekeeping, e.g. diplomatic options. But as far as being a peacekeeper, it lost that title many, many years ago and gives no reason for members to apply relevance to its charter and laws.
An example for that is the League of Nations. As soon as it was deemed irrelevant for its task, it was replaced. The UN has had its League of Nations moment a long time ago. But it grew too big, so it's just slowly rotting until it's replaced.
EDIT 2:
Final note. I will not be commenting here on international law and legality of things discussed, unless specifically asked in a non-argumentative way.
I will respond in DMs though. Just want to keep this place cleaner.
