United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 remains to this day, almost 36 years after it was adopted unanimously, the only internationally-agreed framework for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict. The principle of exchanging land for peace, as expressed in resolution 242, has been the foundation of US, Western and Arab peacemaking efforts.
Yet it has also been the subject of a heated debate. Notably the centrepiece of resolution 242, calling for “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”, has been interpreted in significantly different ways by the parties concerned. While to the Arabs this means the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces to the positions they held before the outbreak of hostilities – a return to the status quo ante - the proponents of the Israeli position assert that the omission of the definite article before the word “territories” is aimed at enabling territorial revisions or aggrandizement, particularly in connection with the resolution’s second operating paragraph and the mentioning of “secure and recognized boundaries” therein.
The aim of the following essay is to analyse the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 242. It will start by describing the historical context it is embedded in, namely the events surrounding the June War of 1967. In chapter three, the circumstances preceding the adoption of resolution 242, notably the diplomatic efforts prior to the voting, will be depicted. The next section deals with the differing interpretations of the withdrawal clause. In subchapter 4 c) it will be argued that the adoption of resolution 242 was only made possible due to a number of assurances, given to the Arabs in general and to King Hussein of Jordan in particular, about the intended meaning of the withdrawal clause. Finally, in the conclusions, results shall be summarised and future prospects of a successful implementation of resolution 242 outlined.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical Context: The June War of 1967
3. The Making of Resolution 242
a) Draft Resolutions
b) Weeks of Intensive Diplomacy
4. The Withdrawal Clause
a) “The” of not “The” – About the Absence of the Definite Article
b) The Withdrawal Clause in other UN Languages
c) The Intended Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
7. Appendix
Objectives and Thematic Focus
This academic work aims to analyze the legal and political significance of UN Security Council Resolution 242 within the context of the Middle East conflict, specifically addressing the long-standing controversy surrounding the interpretation of its withdrawal clause. The research explores how diplomatic negotiations and assurances influenced the resolution's final text and how subsequent interpretations by conflicting parties have shaped the peace process.
- The diplomatic history and drafting process of Resolution 242.
- The linguistic debate regarding the "Withdrawal Clause" and the omission of the definite article.
- The role of international legal frameworks and assurances in understanding the resolution's intended meaning.
- An assessment of the resolution's implementation and relevance in modern Middle East peacemaking.
Excerpt from the Book
The Making of Resolution 242
In the weeks and months following the conflict of June 1967, the urgent need for a strong, meaningful and comprehensive United Nations Security Council Resolution arose. It lay in the in the nature of things that the parties concerned and the powers supporting them had different ideas about the context of such a resolution. In the following section, the drafts that were considered shall be introduced.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research purpose, focusing on the historical importance of Resolution 242 as a framework for Middle East peace and the resulting interpretive debates.
2. Historical Context: The June War of 1967: Describes the events leading to the Six Days War and the regional tensions that culminated in the conflict.
3. The Making of Resolution 242: Details the diplomatic process, analyzing the various draft resolutions proposed and the intense negotiations involved before the final adoption.
4. The Withdrawal Clause: Examines the linguistic and legal disputes over the withdrawal wording, including comparisons across different UN language versions and the impact of diplomatic assurances.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the study’s findings, arguing that the resolution inherently implies a return to pre-war borders despite ongoing political challenges.
6. Bibliography: Lists the primary and secondary sources used for this historical and legal analysis.
7. Appendix: Provides supplementary documentation and official texts relevant to the resolution and regional negotiations.
Keywords
Resolution 242, Middle East conflict, June War 1967, Withdrawal Clause, International Law, United Nations Security Council, Diplomacy, Territorial integrity, Land for peace, Arab-Israeli relations, Lord Caradon, Mahmoud Riad, Abba Eban.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this publication?
The book focuses on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, specifically analyzing the diplomatic origins and the conflicting interpretations of its "Withdrawal Clause."
What are the central themes of the work?
The central themes include the historical context of the 1967 war, the intricacies of international diplomatic negotiation, and the legal analysis of language used in UN resolutions.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The primary objective is to clarify the intended meaning of the withdrawal clause by examining the historical record and the specific assurances given to stakeholders during the drafting process.
Which research methodology is applied?
The author employs a historical-analytical method, examining primary diplomatic documents, meeting records, and historical scholarship to deconstruct the resolution's text and its implementation.
What does the main body cover?
The main body covers the lead-up to the 1967 conflict, the competing draft resolutions submitted by different nations, and a deep dive into the debate over the absence of the definite article in the final resolution text.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Resolution 242, territorial withdrawal, international law, Middle East peacemaking, and diplomatic assurances.
How does the author evaluate the "Withdrawal Clause" controversy?
The author argues that despite the debate over the definite article, the resolution was clearly intended by its framers to mean a return to the June 4, 1967, borders.
What role did specific diplomatic assurances play?
The author highlights that assurances given by US and British officials to leaders like King Hussein were critical for gaining Arab support for the resolution, effectively framing the interpretation of the text.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Belabbes Benkredda (Autor:in), 2003, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the Controversy Over Varying Interpretations of the Withdrawal Clause, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/14097
