1 Resolutions 233 (1967), 234 (1967), 235 (1967).

2 U.N. Doc. S/8226, of 7 November 1967.

3 Security Council, Official Records, (SCOR), 22nd year, 1373rd, 1375th, 1377th, 1379th, 1380th, 1381st and 1382nd meetings. For the legislative history of the Resolution, see Lall, Arthur, The U.N. and the Middle East Crisis, 1967 (New York and London, Colum. U. P., 1968)Google Scholar; Bailey, Sydney D., The Making of Resolution 242 (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1985)Google Scholar; Rafael, Gideon, “Resolution 242 is Five Years Old”, Ma'ariv, 24 November 1972 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Caradon, Lord, Goldberg, Arthur J., El-Zayyat, Mohamed H., Eban, Abba, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity, Introduction by Sisko, Joseph J. (Washington D.C., Institute for the Study of Democracy, Georgetown University, 1981)Google Scholar.

4 U.N. Doc. S/8227, of 7 November 1967.

5 U.N. Doc. S/8229, of 7 November 1967.

6 U.N. Doc. S/8247, of 16 November 1967.

7 U.N. Doc. S/8253, of 20 November, 1967.

8 The French version reads: “retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit”.

9 U.N. Press Release, SG/SM/4718, of 19 March 1992, p. 11, and clarification, DPI, 20 March 1992.

10 Lord Caradon, the Representative of Great Britain, SCOR, 22nd year, 1373rd meeting, 9 November 1967, p. 18, sec. 164; Ambassador A. Goldberg of the U.S.A., ibid., 1377th meeting, 15 November 1967, p. 6, sec. 54; the Representative of Denmark, Mr. Borch at the 1373rd meeting, 9/10 November 1967, p. 24, sec. 235; the Representative of Canada, Mr. Ignatieff, at the 1373rd meeting, p. 22, sec. 212, and at the 1377th meeting, p. 9, sec. 86; Mr. Adebo, the Representative of Nigeria, 1373rd meeting, 9/10 November 1967, p. 12, sec. 107.

It is true that in 1971 the International Court of Justice decided that a resolution taken in accordance with Chapter VI can also be a binding decision: “It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter [on binding decisions] applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view … The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect. In view of the nature of the powers under Article 25, the question whether they have been in fact exercised is to be determined in each case, having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences of the resolution of the Security Council”. (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) International Court of Justice, Reports 1971, p. 16Google Scholar, secs. 113 and 114). But this was not the prevalent view in 1967, when the discussions on Resolution 242 took place in the Council. See Halderman, John W., The United Nations and the Rule of Law (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceania, 1967) 65–89Google Scholar. See also: Stone, Julius, No Peace-No War in the Middle East (Sydney, Maitland Publications for the International Law Assn., 1969) 23 and 24Google Scholar; Dehaussy, J., “La crise du Moyen-Orient et l'O.N.U.” (1968) 95 Journal du droit international (Clunet) 853–88Google Scholar; Rosenne, Sh., “Directions for a Middle East Settlement—Some Underlying Legal Problems” (1968) 33 L. and Contemp. Problems 44–67, at 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blum, Yehuda Z., Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace in the Light of International Law and Practice (Jerusalem, Hebrew University, 1971) 63–64, n. 127Google Scholar; Dinstein, Yoram, “The Legal Issues of ‘Para-War’ and Peace in the Middle East” (1970) 44 St. John's L.R. 477Google Scholar; Shapira, Amos, “The Security Council Resolution of November 1967—Its Legal Nature and Implications” (1969) 4 Is.L.R. 229–41Google Scholar; Manin, Ph., “Les efforts de l'Organisation des Nations Unies et des Grandes Puissances en vue d'un règlement de la crise au Moyen-Orient” (1969) 15 Annuaire Français de Droit International 154-82, at 158–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Pierre-Marie, Le conflit israélo-arabe: recherches sur l'emploi de la force en droit international public positif (Paris, L.G.D.J., 1973) 232–34Google Scholar.

11 Goldberg, Arthur J., “A Basic Mideast Document: Its Meaning Today”, address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Jewish Committee, 15 May 1969Google Scholar.

12 Sydney D. Bailey, supra n. 3, at 178-179.

13 Rostow, E.V., “The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of October 6, 1973” (1975) 69 Am.J.Int'l L. 272–289, at 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 The author wishes to express her thanks to Ambassador J. Sisco for having drawn her attention to this fact.

15 Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, in an oral presentation on 17 November 1992 at the Conference on Peacemaking One Year After Madrid: The Politics and Concepts of Negotiations, The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, Tel Aviv University; Interview of Yasir Arafat, “No! No! No!” by Kershner, Isabel, The Jerusalem Report, 3 December 1992, pp. 24–27, at 25Google Scholar.

16 See, however, U.S. letter of assurances to the Palestinians published in The Jerusalem Post, 31 October 1991.

17 General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970.

18 General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974.

19 Higgins, Rosalyn, “The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security Council” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 1–18, at 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See Julius Stone, supra n. 10, at 33; Sh. Rosenne, supra n. 10, at 59; P. M. Martin, supra n. 10, at 258-65; R. Higgins, supra n. 17, at 7-8; Blum, supra n. 10, at 80-91.

21 U.N. Doc. S/8227, of 7 November 1967.

22 See Stone, Julius, The Middle East under Cease-Fire (Sydney, 1967) 6ffGoogle Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “Legal Aspects of the Middle East Situation” (1968) 33 L. and Contemp. Problems 5–31, at 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Brien, William V., “International Law and the Outbreak of War in the Middle East” (1967) 11 Orbis 692–723, at 722-23Google Scholar; Feinberg, Nathan, The Arab-Israel Conflict in International Law: A Critical Analysis of the Colloquium of Arab Jurists in Algiers (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1970) 114–115Google Scholar; Schwebel, Stephen M., “What Weight to Conquest?” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 344–347, at 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rostow, E.V., “Legal Aspects of the Search for Peace in the Middle East”, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1970) 80Google Scholar; Cocatre-Zilgien, A., “L'imbroglio moyen-oriental et le droit” (1969) 73 Revue generale de droit international public 52–61, at 59Google Scholar; Moore, John Norton, “The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Obligation to Pursue Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes” (1971) 19 Kansas L.R. 403-40, at 425Google Scholar; Berman, S.M., “Recrudescence of the Bellum justum et pium Controversy and Israel's Conquest and Integration of Jerusalem” (1968) Revue de droit international 359-74, at 367ffGoogle Scholar; Döll, B., “Die Rechtslage des Golfes von Akaba” (1969) 14 Jahrbuch fur Internationales Recht 225-59, at 258Google Scholar; P.M. Martin, supra n. 10, at 153-73; Shapira, Amos, “The Six-Day War and the Right of Self Defence” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 65–80Google Scholar; Gerson, Allan, “Trustee-Occupant: The Legal Status of Israel's Presence in the West Bank” (1973) 14 Harv. Int'l L. J. 1-49, at 14–22Google Scholar; Franck, Th. M., “Who Killed Article 2(4)” (1970) 64 Am.J.Int'l L. 809–837, at 821CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Y. Dinstein, supra n. 10, at 466 et seq.; Dinstein, Y., War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge, Grotius Publications, 1988) 180Google Scholar; Feinstein, Barry, “Self-Defence and Israel in International Law: A Reappraisal” (1976) 11 Is.L.R. 516–562Google Scholar; Miller, Edward, “Self-Defence, International Law and the Six Day War” (1985) 20 Is.L.R. 49–73Google Scholar. Cf., however, Hargrove, J.L., “Abating the Middle East Crisis through the United Nations (and Vice Versa)” (1971) 19 Kansas L.R. 365-72, at 367Google Scholar; Bassiouni, M. Ch., “The ‘Middle East’: The Misunderstood Conflict” (1971) 19 Kansas L.R. 373–402, at 395Google Scholar; J. Quigley, quoted in Eugene Rostow, V., “The Perils of Positivism: A Response to Professor Quigley” (1992) 2 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 229–246, at 229Google Scholar.

23 See, for example, J. N. Moore, supra n. 22, at 425; S. M. Schwebel, supra n. 22, at 344; E.V. Rostow, supra n. 13, at 276. It should be mentioned, however, that according to various authors, Israel's rights in part of the occupied territories exceed those of a military occupant because of the defectiveness of the title of the authorities who had been in control of those territories prior to the Israel occupation; the principle has been maintained mainly with regard to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the Gaza Strip: see S. M. Schwebel, supra n. 22, at 345-46; Stone, supra n. 10, at 39-40; Lauterpacht, Elihu, Jerusalem and the Holy Places (London, Anglo-Israel Assn., 1968) 46ffGoogle Scholar; A. Cocatre-Zilgien, supra n. 22, at 60; Blum, Y. Z., “The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria” (1968) 3 Is.L.R. 270–301Google Scholar; Martin, supra n. 10, at 265-79.

24 Irrespective of the rules that apply to international treaties, it is well-known that preambles to Security Council resolutions carry much less weight than the operative part.

25 On this question, see Rousseau, Charles, Droit International Public, vol. 3 (Paris, Sirey, 1977) 549–551Google Scholar; Oppenheim, L.-Lauterpacht, H., International Law—A Treatise, vol. 1 (London, Longmans, 8th ed., 1955) 147, sec. 75dGoogle Scholar.

26 See e.g., replies by Jordan (23 March 1969) and by Lebanon (21 April 1969) to questions submitted by Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, in the Report by U.N. Secretary-General U. Thant, U.N. Doc. S/10070, of 4 January 1971. See also Seelye, Talcott W., “Meaning of '67 Israel Resolution Disputed”, The New York Times, 1 April 1988Google Scholar (the writer was a U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia and Syria).

27 Statement by Ambassador Abba Eban, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, 23rd session, 1686th Plenary Meeting, 8 October 1968, pp. 9-13, at 9 (sec. 92), 11 (sec. 110).

28 S.C.O.R., 22nd year, 1382nd meeting, p. 7, sec. 61, 22 November 1967. See also Vance, Cyrus R. and Sisco, Joseph J., “Resolution 242, Crystal Clear”, The New York Times, 20 March 1988Google Scholar. See, however, Blum, Yehuda Z., “Controversial UN Resolution 242, a Quarter-Century After”, The Jerusalem Post, 20 November 1992, p. 1BGoogle Scholar.

29 E. V. Rostow, “The Perils of Positivism”, supra n. 22, at 241-242.

30 It seems that there was no other way to translate that provision into French: “When the French text appeared, the British and American Governments raised the matter at once with the United Nations Secretariat, and with the French Government, to be told that the French language offered no other solution for the problem … [N]one of the people involved could think of a more accurate French translation …”: E. V. Rostow, supra n. 13, at 285. See also Rosenne, Sh., “On Multi-Lingual Interpretation” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 360–365, at 363Google Scholar.

31 S.C.O.R., 1382nd meeting, 22 November 1967, p. 12, sec. 111.

32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 33.

33 Charles Rousseau, supra n. 25, vol. 1 (1970) 289-290.

34 U.N. Doc. S/8247, of 16 November 1967.

35 Ch. Rousseau, supra n. 33, at 290.

36 SirMcNair, Arnold Duncan, The Law of Treaties (London, Oxford U.P., 1961) 434Google Scholar: “Tribunals dealing with a treaty written in two or more languages of equal authority will sometimes seek to ascertain the ‘basic language’, that is, the working language in which the treaty was negotiated and drafted and regard that as the more important”. The question of the interpretation of international documents of equal authority in two or more languages in case of a discrepancy between the different texts has been dealt with chiefly with regard to treaties. Thus the Permanent Court of International Justice has favoured the language in which a treaty had initially been drawn up: “[Since] the Convention was drawn up in French … regard must be had to the meaning of the disputed term in that language” (Advisory Opinion on the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 10 p. 18)Google Scholar. For other examples, see Rousseau, Ch., Principes généraux du droit international public, vol. I (Paris, Pedone, 1944) 722–24Google Scholar; Ch. Rousseau, supra n. 33, at 290; McNair, ibid., n. 2. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, too, implicitly refers to the original text of the document since it recommends having recourse to the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion (Article 33, sec. 4). This provision is based on Article 29, sec. 3 (formerly Article 73, sec. 2) of the draft prepared by the International Law Commission. Actually, Prof. Alfred Verdross had proposed inclusion of an explicit provision in favour of the text in which the treaty had initially been drawn up (see Summary Records of the 874th meeting, sec. 5, and 884th meeting, sec. 44, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, (1966) vol. I, part 2, pp. 208 and 271)Google Scholar. But the Commission preferred not to adopt a strict rule on the subject in order not to prevent the taking into consideration of the circumstances of each case (see Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 18th Session, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966), vol. II, pp. 169–367Google Scholar, sec. 9 of the commentaries to Article 29, p. 226). However, Prof. Roberto Ago has rightly pointed out that reference to the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion inevitably lead to the language in which the treaty has initially been drawn up (See Summary Records of the 874th meeting, sec. 22, vol. I, part 2, p. 210). See also Hardy, J., “The Interpretation of Plurilingual Treaties by International Courts and Tribunals” (1961) 37 Br. Yr. Bk. Int'l L. 72–155, at 98ffGoogle Scholar; Tabory, M., Multilingualism in International Law and Institutions (Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1980) 211Google Scholar; SirSinclair, Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Manchester U. P., 2nd ed., 1984) 152Google Scholar; Weil, Prosper, “Le règlement territorial dans la résolution du 22 Novembre 1967”, Nouveaux Cahiers, No. 23 (Winter 1970)Google Scholar. For a different opinion, see the majority decision in the Young Loan arbitration (1980) 59 International Law Reports 495Google Scholar.

37 Sh. Rosenne, supra n. 30, at 365.

38 Chapter A, Section C of the Framework. The author wishes to express her thanks to Brig. Gen. Ilan Shiff for having drawn her attention to this aspect.

39 Cyrus Vance and Joseph Sisco, supra n. 28; Mr. Michael Stewart, Britain's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Hansard, Parliamentary Debates (Commons), 5th Series, Vol. 791, Col. 844-5, and 261; Mr. George Brown, who was Britain's Foreign Secretary in 1967, The Jerusalem Post, 20 January 1970.

40 E. V. Rostow, supra n. 29, at 242.

41 See, for example, Feinberg, Nathan, The Legality of a “State of War” after the Cessation of Hostilities under the Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant of the League of Nations (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1961) 42ffGoogle Scholar; Quincy Wright, supra n. 22, at 16-17; Lauterpacht, E., “The Legal Irrelevance of the ‘State of War’” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968) 58–68, at 63ffGoogle Scholar; Feinberg, supra n. 22, at 79-84; Higgins, Rosalyn, Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London, Oxford U. P., 1963) 214–15Google Scholar; Sh. Rosenne, supra n. 10, at 52-53; Gross, L., “Passage Through the Suez Canal of Israel-Bound Cargo and Israeli Ships” (1957) 51 Am.J.Int'l L. 530-68, at 566–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van der Mensbrugghe, Yves, Les garanties de la liberté de navigation dans le canal de Suez (Paris, L.G.D.J., 1964) 167 and 168–69Google Scholar; Moore, supra n. 22, at 422-43. The opposite opinion has been expressed by Baxter, R.R., “The Definition of War” (1960) 16 Revue egyptienne de droit international 1–14, at 8ffGoogle Scholar, and “The Legal Consequences of the Unlawful Use of Force under the Charter”, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968) 68–75, at 71ff.Google Scholar; Broms, Bengt, The Legal Status of the Suez Canal (1961) 138ff.Google Scholar; Khadduri, Majid, Major Middle Eastern Problems in International Law (Washington, American Enterprise Institute, 1972) 19–23Google Scholar.

It should be mentioned, incidentally, that non-recognition of a state of war with all its implications does not preclude the application to all armed conflicts of those rules of international law which are intended to alleviate the hardships of hostilities; see B. Lauterpacht, “The Legal Irrelevance”, ibid., at 63 and 65; van der Mensbrugghe, Les garanties, ibid., at 169, n. 269.

42 Rostow, E. V., Peace in the Balance: The Future of American Foreign Policy (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1972) 268Google Scholar.

43 See El-Baradei, M., “The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and Access to the Gulf of Aqaba: A New Legal Regime” (1982) 76 Am.J.Int'l L. 532–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lapidoth, R., “The Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba and the 1979 Treaty of Peace Between Egypt and Israel” (1983) 77 Am.J.Int'l L. 84–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lapidoth, R., “The Suez Canal, the Gulf of Suez, and the 1979 Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel”, in Festschrift fuer Rudolf Bindschedler (Bern, Staempfli, 1980) 617–633Google Scholar.

44 R. Lapidoth, “The Strait of Tiran …” supra n. 43, at 100.

45 On the refugee problem, see, inter alia, Radley, Kurt Rene, “The Palestine Refugees: The Right to Return in International Law” (1978) 72 Am.J.Int'l L. 586–614, at 587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gabbay, R., A Political Study of the Arab-Jewish Conflict: The Arab Refugee Problem (A Case Study) (Geneva, E. Droz, 1959)Google Scholar. For a different opinion, see Morris, Benny, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge U. P., 1987)Google Scholar.

46 On the Jewish refugees, see e.g., Roumani, Maurice M., The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue (Tel Aviv, World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, 4th ed., 1983)Google Scholar; T. Prittie and Dineen, The Double Exodus: A Study of Arab and Jewish Refugees in the Middle East. (n.d.)

47 Lapidoth, R., “The Right of Return in International Law, with Special Reference to the Palestinian Refugees” (1986) 16 Is. Yrbk Human Rights 103–125Google Scholar; Taub, Daniel, “Legal Aspects of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194(III): The Palestinian Right to Return”, Newsletter of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, No. 6 (1992) pp. 8–10Google Scholar.

48 Bar-Yaacov, Nissim, The Israel-Syrian Armistice — Problems of Implementation 1949-1966 (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Y. Z. Blum, supra n. 10, at 92-101.

49 Oppenheim, L.-Lauterpacht, H., International Law — A Treatise, Vol. II (London, Longmans, 7th ed., 1952) 605, sec. 266Google Scholar.

50 Ma'ariv, 21 October 1991. See also A. J. Goldberg, supra n. 3, at 21.

51 See J. Dehaussy, supra n. 10, at 884; Q. Wright, supra n. 22, at 24; J. Stone, supra n. 10, at 35; Rostow, E. V., “The Middle East Conflict in Perspective” Vital Speeches, Vol. 40, no. 4 (December 1973) 103–107, at 105Google Scholar; J.N. Moore, supra n. 22, at 433; Draper, T., “The Road to Geneva”, Commentary (February 1974) 23–39, at 27-28Google Scholar; Report by the Secretary-General under Security Council Resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973, U.N. Doc. S/10929, 18 May 1973, Annex 1, p. 1.

52 J. Dehaussy, supra n. 10, at 884.

53 Shultz, George P., “A Chance for Some Serious Diplomacy in the Middle East”, The Washington Post, 6 March 1990Google Scholar.