In 1947, when it approached the United Nations for advice about Palestine, the British Government felt constrained to explain its status there, and how the Palestine mandate could be seen as a lawful exercise of authority. In a memorandum it prepared for the United Nations about the mandate, the Government wrote:

Britain here confirmed that the League Council action of 24 July 1922 related only to the mandate's terms, but that it was not an action that held legal significance for Britain having a mandate, since peace with Turkey was yet to be concluded. That distinction has been missed by many analysts, including Shabtai Rosenne, the first Legal Adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry. Rosenne wrote that “the Mandate for Palestine was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and entered into force on 24 July 1922.” As the 1947 British document correctly stated, however, the Council did not purport to confirm a mandate to Britain on 24 July 1922, or to give it any legal effect on that date.

Fourteen months later, on 29 September 1923, the Council did purport to give “effect” to the mandate itself. In 1945, on another occasion when the British Government was explaining its status in Palestine, it said that on 29 September 1923 the mandate “came formally into operation.” The British Government never clarified what this characterization meant. The Crown had, as we saw, announced a mandate on 1 July 1920. Was the mandate “provisional” in some sense for three years? Was it only an “informal” mandate, if such a term had any legal meaning? If the mandate lacked “effect” prior to 29 September 1923, did Britain regard itself as a belligerent occupant until that date, despite what it said on 1 July 1920?