Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:01:50.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-State Communication Submitted by the State of Palestine against State of Israel (U.N. Comm'n on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2020

Gay McDougall
Gay McDougall*
Affiliation:
Gay McDougall is former Vice Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and was a member during the proceedings discussed in this note. She is Senior Fellow and Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice/Center for Race, Law and Justice at Fordham University School of Law.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On December 12, 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Committee) issued its decision on the question of jurisdiction in the inter-state communication submitted by the State of Palestine against Israel. It is among the three first inter-state communications ever before human rights treaty bodies and therefore sets numerous precedents on matters of procedure and in this case, on the question of jurisdiction and the unique nature of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Convention)—the first of a series of treaties codifying and expanding the scope of human rights law.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 59 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 922 - 940
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Inter-State communication submitted by the State of Palestine against Israel, CERD/C/100/5, 12 December 2019. [Hereinafter Decision]. To be read in conjunction with CERD/C/100/3 and CERD/C/100/4.

2 Decision, supra note 1, ¶¶ 3.12–3.13.

3 Decision, supra note 1, ¶¶ 3.22–3.26.

4 The Committee illustrates this proposition by reference to various judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. See, Decision, supra note 1, ¶¶ 3.26–3.30.

5 Decision, supra note 1, ¶ 3.36.

6 Decision, supra note 1, ¶¶ 3.30–3.37.

7 Decision, supra note 1, ¶ 3.43.