1_March 2019, Ramallah – On the occasion of the International Women’s Day (8 March), a week-long joint campaign “My Rights, Our Power” was launched today in Palestine to raise awareness on women’s fundamental human rights. The joint effort, with participation from over 30 national and international partners from civil society organizations, media outlets, and international development agencies, targets youth, women, and men in various geographic areas in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza to promote women’s human rights in Palestine.

The campaign comes at a crucial moment when the anticipated adoption of the Family Protection Bill is at a standstill, raising concerns among national and international stakeholders about the consequences of such delay on safeguarding women’s fundamental human rights in Palestine. According to the Palestine report of the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), nearly one in five Palestinian men (17 percent) surveyed said they had perpetrated act of physical intimate partner violence against female partners, while 21 per cent of women surveyed reported having experienced such violence.

“Family violence, usually committed by a family member who has social or economic power over others in the family, causes enormous pain and suffering to all members of the family, especially the women and children,” said a spokesperson from civil society, which has vigorously initiated the development of the Family Protection Bill (FPB), and has strongly pushed its adoption since 2004.

“The violation of women’s human rights manifests in various levels and should be also understood from economic, cultural, and social aspects,” the spokesperson added, highlighting the lack of opportunities and freedom of choice, as well as limited access to justice and services that women in Palestine still experience.

The joint campaign aims to raise awareness of the general public, especially youth, women, and men on women’s fundamental rights in line with international standards and embedded in the Family Protection Bill draft endorsed by the previous Cabinet at the end of December 2018. Five key messages, addressing women’s right to a life free of violence, right to achieve justice and seek help in case of violation of such life, as well as the right to equal opportunities and right to make one’s own choices, will be distributed through various channels such as radio, social media, helpline (121), outreach activities, and on-site events. The closing event of the joint campaign will take place on 8 March in Jerusalem and will celebrate women’s achievements using TED-style talks, followed by art performances.

“My Rights, Our Power” joint campaign is part of the global International Women’s Day 2019 campaign under the theme of “Think equal, build smart, innovate for change”. The theme focuses on innovative ways in which we can advance gender equality and the empowerment of women, particularly in the areas of social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure, echoing the theme of the 63rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) taking place in New York on 11-22 March 2019.

The participating organizations of the “My Rights, Our Power” are (in alphabetical order): 17 Palestinian women’s organizations represented by Al-Muntada (coalition), British Consulate-General, Business Women Forum, CARE International, Consulate General of Sweden, Consulate General of Belgium, EUPOL COPPS, EU Representative Office, FAO, General Union of Palestinian Women, Government of Japan, CowaterSogema/GROW Project, International Labour Organization, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, Ma’an TV, MIFTAH, Netherlands Representative Office, Nisaa FM, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development, Palestinian Family Planning and Protection Association, Representative Office of Canada, Representative Office of Denmark, SAWA, Sawasya II, Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, Sports for Life, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Representative Office of Norway, UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNOPS, UN Women, Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, Women’s Studies Center.

For more information, please contact Eunjin Jeong at UN Women via eunjin.jeong@unwomen.org or 059 2321 308, Majd Beltaji at UNESCO via m.beltaji@unesco.org or 059 4501 506.

Mr. President,

We thank France for organizing this important meeting and extend our appreciation to the Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary General, the Executive Director of UN Women, the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security and the Secretary-General of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie for their efforts and important briefings.

The issue before us is of relevance not only for half the planet, but to all, given the role and contribution of women in the fields of peace and security and the untapped potential that could be unleashed by mainstreaming their participation. Since the adoption by consensus of resolution 1325 by this Council, a lot has happened, and yet we are still far from the goal of full and equal participation, including in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and from ensuring the protection and empowerment of women. Gender equality and non-discrimination remain prerequisites for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of this organization and all of our lofty, collective commitments, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The State of Palestine welcomes the Secretary General’s report and his commitment to implementing the women and peace and security agenda, including by placing gender at the centre of his prevention platform and surge in diplomacy. We appreciate all efforts by the UN in this regard, including by UN Women, OHCHR and UNDP, notably in the field of human rights, capacity building, employment and rule of law. We urge UN bodies, notably those operating in Palestine, including the Special Representative, to intensify their engagement and collaboration with women organizations.

Mr. President,

I wish to highlight some of Palestine’s own important efforts in this regard. The Palestinian women’s movement is one of the oldest and strongest in the region and beyond, with institutional and representative structures established as early as the 19th century. Within the PLO, the General Union of Palestinian Women was among the first unions to be established. A coordination of women frameworks within PLO political parties and other organizations has also been established as the “Women’s Affairs Technical Committee” in the aftermath of the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference.

There have been many achievements thereafter. Among them: In 2012, Palestine inaugurated a High-Level National Committee for the implementation of resolution 1325, led by the Ministry of Women Affairs in partnership with relevant Ministries and NGOs. In 2016, the State of Palestine was among the 68 countries and areas that adopted a National Action Plan on women, peace and security.

This Action Plan (2017-2019), adopted by both the Government and civil society organizations, identifies three primary objectives: 1. ensuring protection for women and girls both domestically and in the face of the Israeli occupation; 2. ensuring accountability through national and international mechanisms, with a particular focus on crimes and violations committed by the occupation; and 3. furthering women’s political participation in decision making at the national and international level. The State of Palestine also joined core IHL and human rights instruments, including CEDAW, without reservations. Women’s participation and empowerment are also important and cross-cutting objectives in the context of the National Policy Agenda (2017-2022).

We are, however, conscious that, despite all these efforts, much more work remains to be done. Only in 2009 was a women elected to the highest executive body of the PLO. Quotas are still decisive in allowing women’s election to Parliament and local councils. And while women organizations were among the strongest advocates of national reconciliation, they have been unfairly absent from reconciliation talks. The relevant legislative framework applicable in Palestine is also outdated and must be revised to ensure consistency with Palestine’s international commitments and obligations and avail women the protection and rights they are entitled to and the opportunities they deserve.

Mr. President,

The Palestinian women’s movement since its establishment over a century ago pursued the struggle on two fronts – the struggle for the independence of Palestine and the struggle for women’s rights and empowerment – a dual struggle the movement continues to pursue to this day. The Israeli occupation remains the main source of the violations of our women’s rights and their vulnerability and violence against their person. We have repeatedly called for protection of the Palestinian people, especially women and children. We have also called for accountability, a key element of resolution 1325, the first resolution to address the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women, as the only way to put an end to violations and crimes.

While Palestine stands ready to do its part to advance women rights and the role of women in the fields of peace and security, it is clear that the enjoyment of these rights in our country necessitates ending the Israeli occupation. We will thus continue to work for an end of the occupation and true progress on the path to independence, justice and peace, with the equal and full involvement of women, leading to an independent State of Palestine ensuring human rights for all its citizens without discrimination.

On the occasion of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to Palestine, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325, which consists of twelve different Palestinian women’s organisations, is urging the Prosecutor’s Office to take concrete actions towards investigating war crimes committed against Palestinians. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom remains deeply concerned with the complete impunity of Israeli war crimes and firmly supports the Coalition’s call for a just accountability mechanism for Palestinian victims. WILPF also calls on the international community to recognise and fully support Palestinian women’s organisations substantial role in paving the paths to justice, accountability and peace. Read the statement of the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325 below.

We, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325,welcome the visit of the delegation of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office as a step in the right direction. But we are deeply disappointed that the purpose of this visit was restricted to preliminary examination, while Palestinian victims of Israeli war crimes, including women, continue to suffer and urgently await justice and an end to Israel impunity.

We do not understand the decision to exclude the Gaza Strip from this visit, when Gaza has been the site of the most war crimes and where women have been most systematically impacted by Israeli collective punishment policies; a prolonged imposed siege and a severe humanitarian deterioration resulting from Israeli military aggressions .

We are further disappointed that women who have been systematically impacted, and their women’s organisations, have been excluded from the delegation’s agenda.

We call upon all future delegations of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to include on their agenda meetings with women’s organisations and women who have experienced direct and indirect impacts of Israeli crimes.

We, the Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325, have seen in UNSCR 1325, 2242, and other UN Resolutions a commitment to hold the Israeli perpetrators accountable for their war crimes.

We look to the ICC as the most important mechanism to end impunity for all war crimes committed, finally bringing justice for the Palestinian people. Yet, we are very concerned that the preliminary examinations will be an endless process.

Therefore, we urge, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, the Prosecutor of the ICC, to conclude the preliminary examination and move to investigations into Israeli war crimes, bringing justice to Palestinians.

We have paid the price of non-accountability and impunity of Israeli war crimes for too long. “Delaying justice is justice denied.”

Palestinian Women Coalition of UNSCR 1325: The General Union of Palestinian Women (GUPW), the Women’s Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development (PWWSD), MIFTAH, Filastinyat, Women Media and Development (TAM), Women Stu Dies Center, Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling (WACLAC), the National, YWCA of Palestine, Center for Women’s Legal Research and Consulting (CWLRC), the Culture and Free thought Association(CWLRC) and Women’s Affairs Center (GWAC).

Occupied Palestine

October 11, 2016

GENEVA, 9 March (UN Information Service) -- The United Nations International Meeting on the Question of Palestine this morning heard a number of panellists discuss the responsibility of governments and intergovernmental organizations in upholding international law in relation to the implementation of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Georges Abi-Saab, Honorary Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said States had an obligation to do something to deter a violation such as the building of the wall by cutting off the funds used for that construction. International organizations, particularly the financial institutions, also had an obligation to refrain from contributing to the illegality of measures that could violate international obligations.

Pieter H.F. Bekker, former ICJ Staff Lawyer and Senior Counsel to Palestine in the ICJ Advisory Proceeding, noted that the Court had concluded that the obligations violated by Israel’s construction of the wall were essentially of an erga omnes character. In other words, they were obligations in whose protection all States had a legal interest and which constituted intransgressible principles, or “super-rules”, of customary international law. Thus, existing and aspiring nations alike should strive to uphold the primacy of the ruling.

Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Professor of Public Law at the University of Paris VII, echoed a similar analysis, saying that the opinion on the illegality of the construction of the wall had an erga omnes character -– having consequences not only to Israel or Palestine, but also to other States and international organizations. The Court had recalled the obligations of all States relating to the issue, thus the opinion, although it was an advisory one, was a declarative law destined to all subjects of international law.

Michael Lynk, Professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario, said the placement of the wall almost entirely within the West Bank, and away from the Green Line, had very much to do with maximizing the inclusion of as many of the large settlements as possible on the Israeli side of the wall.

Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ had marked a milestone in the Middle East conflict. For the first time, the international community could count on a fundamental legal analysis of the conflict, which was pronounced by the principal legal body of the United Nations.

In the debate that followed the presentations by the legal experts, representatives of Jordan, the League of Arab States, Congo, Madagascar, Indonesia and Algeria took the floor, as well speakers for the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Humanitarian Centre in Palestine, Human Rights Group in Palestine, Centre of Human Rights of Jerusalem, and French Platform of Non-Governmental Organizations for Palestine.

The International Meeting, which is convened by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, will meet today from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to discuss the role of parliaments and civil society in advocating adherence to international law. A closing session of the two-day meeting will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Statements

GEORGES ABI-SAAB, Honorary Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said the International Court of Justice was clear in its findings on the implication of the issue in question, which had facilitated the work of governments and intergovernmental organizations. The Court had reminded the international community in its Advisory Opinion that there were regular rules and rules that created obligations. The building of the wall had undermined the Palestinian right to self-determination, which Israel had violated. The obligation emanating from humanitarian law had also been violated by the State. The result of the violation of the obligations could not be consolidated by time and could not create another status.

It was important that the Court established its findings. All States should recognize their obligations. States also had the obligation to do something to deter the violation of the building of the wall by cutting off the funds used for that construction. International organizations, particularly the financial institutions, had the obligation to refrain from contributing to the illegality of measures that could violate international obligations. Public opinion also played an important role in putting pressure on respective States to act in accordance with international law.

PIETER H.F. BEKKER, former ICJ Staff Lawyer and Senior Counsel to Palestine in the ICJ Advisory Proceeding, New York, said the Advisory Opinion issued by the Court raised important questions about the legal status of the ruling and the principle of the primacy of international law. There was nothing “anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestine” about supporting that principle. There also was nothing inconsistent about condemning suicide bombings and colonial settlements in occupied territory simultaneously, as he did. To be clear, nobody questioned Israel's right to protect its citizens against violent attacks that the Palestinian leadership unequivocally had condemned, so long as Israel complied with international law.

International law included both regular norms and obligations of a higher order. The Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 differed from other non-binding rulings in that it featured key findings on the highest-ranking norms of international law. The Court concluded that the obligations violated by Israel’s construction of the wall were essentially of an erga omnes character. In other words, they were obligations in whose protection all States had a legal interest and which constituted intransgressible principles, or “supper-rules”, of customary international law. The Court’s findings in the wall opinion were rooted in international law and had the strength of that law. The ruling constituted a most powerful reminder that the question of Palestine, in all its aspects, was subject to international law. Existing and aspiring nations alike should strive to uphold its primacy.

MONIQUE CHEMILLIER-GENDREAU, Professor of Public Law at the University of Paris VII, Paris, said Israel had tried to oppose the competence of the International Court of Justice by pretending that its consultative procedures could be diverted to settle a bilateral conflict in which Israel had refused to go towards a legal settlement of the issue. The Court, rejecting that argument, had put the consequences of its findings beyond the two principal protagonists in the conflict. The legal consequences of the Advisory Opinion did not concern only the General Assembly, which had requested the Court for its opinion. The opinion on the illegality of the construction of the wall had an erga omnes character -- having consequences not only to Israel or Palestine, but also to other States and international organizations. The Court had recalled the obligations of all States relating to the issue. The opinion, although it was an advisory one, was a declarative law destined to all subjects of international law.

The Advisory Opinion had reminded all States of their obligations. The obligations incumbent on Israel had been clearly enumerated in detail. The opinion had indicated the massive and prolonged violation of the international law by Israel by building the wall of separation. The building of the wall had violated the right to self-determination of Palestinians, including international humanitarian law relative to human rights. The Court had called on Israel to provide compensation to the victims affected by the damage caused by its actions. The Court had also urged Palestine to respect international humanitarian law. In spite of the Advisory Opinion, the building of the wall had continued.

MICHAEL LYNK, Professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario in Ontario, said the Advisory Opinion had provided clarity to the conflict in the Middle East. If there were no settlements, there would be no need for the wall, at least on the route where it was being built. The placement of the wall almost entirely within the West Bank, and away from the Green Line, had very much to do with maximizing the inclusion of as many of the large settlements as possible on the Israeli side of the wall.

The Israeli political authorities and the Israeli High Court had differing opinions with regard to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. The High Court had decided that the occupied territories were governed by political considerations and that territories could be used for security reasons. The High Court had also allowed in the past the building of fences by the military command while looking at the needs and necessities of the local population. The argument of the Government that the occupation was temporary was accepted by the High Court. In addition, the same court had never pronounced on the legality or illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territory.

MARCELO G. KOHEN, Professor of Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, said the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice had marked a milestone in the Middle East conflict. For the first time, the international community could count on a fundamental legal analysis of the conflict, which was pronounced by the principal legal body of the United Nations. The Opinion had even gone beyond the concrete issue of the illegality of the construction of the wall by pronouncing on the impossibility of forceful acquisition of land, the right to self-determination of Palestinians, the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the determination of territorial occupation of the West Bank, illegal settlements and the right of Israel to defend its citizens through the respect for international law. The Court of Justice had clearly established the illegality of the settlements by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. The construction of the wall of separation, decided unilaterally by the Government of Israel, could not be taken as a provisional boundary.

The representative of Jordan observed that the Court had reiterated the violation of Israel of international customary law. The Court had unequivocally reiterated the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territory. He welcomed the election that took place in Palestine that led to the election of Mahmoud Abbas as President. The commitments and understandings made in the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit should be implemented by both parties. Israel had continued to include territories and properties belonging to Jordan and Palestine by expanding its occupation. The peace process that was reinitiated recently should lead to a durable peace in the region.

The representative of the League of Arab States said the continued Israeli violation of the human rights of the Palestinians and other Arabs in the occupied territories had drawn the attention of the international community. Among the multiple violations, the construction of the wall of separation had encircled the Palestinians in their own territories. All States should respect the Opinion of the International Court of Justice. In spite of the Advisory Opinion and the General Assembly resolution, Israel had continued implementing its plan of construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and other Palestinian territories.

Discussion

Following the presentations made by the panellists, participants raised questions on a number of issues. Some speakers said efforts should be made to urge the European Union to apply legal actions with regard to the conflict. The free trade system of the Union, which did not restrict materials exported to Israel, had benefited that State which had imported construction materials used to expand the wall.

A speaker asked whether Article 7 of the United Nations Charter could be applicable to reinforce the law and to end the conflict in the Middle East. He also asked if the peacekeeping mission could be reinforced in the region.

A speaker from a Palestinian non-governmental organization said the “443” road built by Israel did not allow Palestinians to use it and any Palestinian driving or even walking on it could be fined. In addition, since three years and half, a number of villages in the West Bank had been closed off. Some Israeli legal authorities still believed that the occupied territories were “liberated territories” which made the situation more complicated.

The lack of application of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territory was also commented on by a number of speakers who said the inapplicability of the Convention by Israel had made people in the occupied territory suffer.

Reacting, a panellist said the fact that there was no mechanism for the full application of the Geneva Conventions did not mean that the Palestinians were fully deprived of their rights. Without the Geneva Conventions, Palestinians would have been deprived of even more rights under occupation. This was a congenital defect for all international laws as they did not have an implementing arm. Another panellist said the General Assembly had no coercive means to implement its resolutions. Israel had so far rejected the validity of international law applicable to it.

The Secretary-General made the following statement while talking to Palestnian Rights Committee

Following is today’s statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the opening of the 2004 session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People:

In the wake of yesterday’s terrible tragedy in Madrid I would like to reiterate my profound and most heartfelt sympathy to King Juan Carlos I of Spain, to the Government and people of Spain, and to the families and friends of the people who were killed and injured.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in observing a minute of silence in memory of the innocent victims of this tragedy.

The situation between the Palestinians and Israelis remains extremely tense. There has been no discernible progress in peace efforts. The goal of the Palestinians -- an end to the occupation and the establishment of an independent State of Palestine -- is still out of reach. The hope of the Israelis for security is yet to be realized.

Instead, the situation on the ground has once again been shaken by a wave of violence. Israeli incursions into Palestinian cities, arrests, house demolitions, closures and curfews have continued. Targeted assassinations have resumed. Their victims have not only been their intended targets -- tragically, many civilians going about their daily lives in the crowded streets have also been killed.

Over the last few years Palestinian terrorist attacks have claimed many innocent civilian lives in Israel. There is no justification for such crimes. Efforts to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire, which would help prevent such horrific acts, have so far produced no results.

Palestinians are dismayed to see more and more of their land being taken to make way for the expansion of the barrier, the construction of which has generated heated protests, adding to Palestinian anger and desperation.

The death toll since September 2000 continues to climb. It has now reached over 3,000 Palestinians and over 900 Israelis dead. Thousands more have been wounded. Most of those killed have been civilians, many of them children.

The price already paid by both Israelis and Palestinians has been far too high. Let us waste no more time. There is an urgent need for a negotiated settlement to this deadly conflict.

The lack of any tangible progress towards a peaceful settlement has raised the level of hopelessness and despair among ordinary Palestinians and Israelis. Frustrated by the stalemate in the peace process, civil society has begun exploring possible pathways that could stimulate peacemaking and push the process forward. Late last year, the Geneva Initiative and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh statement of principles sent a powerful message that differences could be bridged and that a dialogue was possible.

But only a clear political resolve on the part of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships will break the impasse and restart the process. Attempts by either side to resolve this drawn-out conflict unilaterally could actually foment more anger and violence. There is no substitute for the two parties sitting down and working out with each other the details of an agreement that both peoples can live with.

The “Road Map”, launched in 2002, was accepted by both parties. It enjoys broad support from the international community. Based on Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, it remains the most practical way of achieving the aspirations of both sides. In resolution 1515, the Council further bolstered support for the Road Map. The objective of the resolution is clear -– two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

Today, I call on both parties to take immediate and specific steps to implement the plan without preconditions. I urge the Palestinian Authority to take resolute action to halt terror attacks by militant groups against Israelis. Meanwhile, I urge the Israeli Government to halt further settlement expansion and the construction of the barrier. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s announcement of a plan to evacuate the Gaza Strip settlements is encouraging. I look forward to seeing a timetable for that. An evacuation of Gaza strip settlements should be seen as part of a broader process, an interim step that could revitalize stalled peace efforts, consistent with the Road Map.

For its part, the international community should assert itself to help the two sides out of the present deadlock. For their part, representatives of the Quartet must try harder to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.

The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee met in Rome last December to secure financial assistance for the Palestinian people, who continue to endure a devastating economic and humanitarian crisis. The Special Coordinator and the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs continue their work, as do other United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund-– some of them with limited resources, and all under extremely difficult conditions. International help is particularly crucial at this time. The United Nationswill continue its work, but it needs the international community to give generously.

This Committee has an important role to play in efforts to reach our common goals. I thank you for your continued commitment to peace in the Middle East, and I wish you success in carrying out your mandate.

The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has asked Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz for a thorough probe of the circumstances surrounding the death of British aid worker Iain Hook, who was fatally wounded by an Israeli soldier in the Jenin refugee camp last month.

Mr. Annan's request came during a meeting with the Defence Minister in New York on Monday. The two exchanged views on the current difficult situation in the Middle East as well as a number of pressing UN-Israel issues, including the recent killing of Mr. Hook and two other staff members of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), according to a read-out of the talks provided by the Secretary-General's spokesman.

"The Secretary-General reiterated that he expected from the Government of Israel a rigorous investigation of Mr. Hook's killing and that the United Nations would be provided with a written report," the spokesman reported.

Mr. Annan also stressed the need to ensure security and improved access for the staff of UNRWA and other international humanitarian personnel in the occupied Palestinian territory. While welcoming the Israeli Government's recent transfer of approximately $28 million in tax revenues owed to the Palestinian Authority, he stressed the need to take other practical steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians, according to the spokesman.

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they remembers.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.