|
 On July 12, 2006, Hizbullah fighters penetrated into Israel, they captured
two soldiers and killed six others. Israel retaliated using land, sea, and
air power. In the process civilians were killed and infrastructure of
Lebanon was destroyed.
Hizbullah demands, among others, the return of Shebaa Farms to the
Lebanese
sovereignty.
The Shebaa Farms and International Law
By
Gabriel Sawma Esq.
Background
Following World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the territories
of Lebanon and Syria, which were considered one single political unit
prior to the War, were mandated by the League of Nations to France. The
principle underlying the Mandate was expressed in Article 22 of the
Covenant of the League of Nations.
The Mandate proceeded until November 26, 1941, when General Georges
Catroux, de Gaule’s choice for governing the mandated territory,
proclaimed in the name of his government and its ally the termination of
the mandate and the establishment of “sovereignty and independence” of
Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon became a constitutional republic in 1943.
The internationally recognized borders between Israel, Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, and Syria are governed by the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Those
agreements ended the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established the armistice
lines between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line,
until the 1967 Six-Day War between the Arab States of Jordan, Egypt and
Syria on one side and Israel on the other side.
. The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon was signed on
March 23, 1949. It points the following
The Armistice Line (“The Blue Line”) was drawn along the international
border.
• The international border between Lebanon and Israel are
considered to be a de
jure international border (i.e. by law).
• Israel withdrew its forces from 13 villages in Lebanese
territory, which were
occupied during the war.
With the exception of the Lebanon-Israel Armistice Agreement, the other
agreements
were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating a permanent or
du jure
borders.
The Israeli-Syrian Invasion of Lebanon
On
March 15, 1978, Israel launched a major military incursion into South
Lebanon,
called the Litani River Operation, and struck at PLO bases and staging
areas south
of
the Litani River, up to 10 kilometers deep inside the country. The
operation
prompted a formal statement of “United States Concern with the Territorial
Integrity of Lebanon,” calling for Israeli withdrawal and discussing a
United
Nations role in Lebanon. On March 19, 1978, the United Nations Security
Council
adopted Resolution 425 calling for Israeli withdrawal and establishing an
international peace-keeping force for South Lebanon, the United Nations
Interim
Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), to enable establishing of a buffer zone in
southern
Lebanon free of PLO bases.
By
June, 1978, Prime Minister Begin, under intense American pressure,
withdrew
Israeli forces, which were replaced by UNIFIL. The withdrawal of Israeli
troops
without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a
major
embarrassment to the Begin government. The cross-border cycle of attack
and
retaliation continued, and the PLO expanded its bases, forces, and
armaments in
Lebanon. Finally, Israel responded with its 1982 invasion and occupation
of southern
Lebanon. The UNIFIL force is still deployed in 2006.
UNIFIL was unable to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the region.
Cross-border
conflict between Israel and various forces in southern Lebanon continued
to
intensify. Civilians on both sides, and UNIFIL peacekeepers, were killed
as the
fighting continued to escalate, and Palestinians were shelling the
northern Israel.
In
June 3, 1982, the Defense Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the invasion of
Lebanon
with a massive force in an operation called Peace for the Galilee. Israeli
forces
drove all the way to Beirut. The PLO’s leadership was forced to move to
Tunis.
This military operation, although planned for limited duration, became
bogged down
and continued far longer than expected. The army lost 650 soldiers. For
three years
the Israel Defense Force (IDF) remained deep in Lebanon, until it
withdrew, in 1985,
to
the international border. Some territory in south Lebanon was retained as
a
security zone. The area was monitored jointly by Israeli Army (IDF) and
its Southern
Lebanese Army (SLA) ally.
The Lebanese Civil War, which started in April, 1975, provided the pretext
for
Syrian Military intervention in Lebanon. Alleging the fear of a
Christian-Muslim
partition of the country and/or a PLO takeover, Hafez Assad of Syria sent,
on June
1,
1976, 12,000 regular Syrian troops to Lebanon. By September of that year
the
number reached approximately 25,000 men. The Syrian force was operating
under what
came to be known as the Arab Deterrent Force authorized by the Riyadh
Summit held in
October 1976. Syrian troops acted to disarm some Lebanese militias at the
same time
that the national army of Lebanon disintegrated. By 1977, the number of
Syrian
troops exceeded 30,000, with over 200 tanks. On October 13, 1990, Syrian
forces
captured the presidential palace at Ba’abda, southeast of Beirut, and
defeated the
Lebanese Army units, which were under the command of General Michel Aoun,
who
declared ‘a war of liberation” against Syria. Syrian military occupation
of
Lebanon incorporated the entire country with the exception of southern
Lebanon,
which was under the control of the Israeli Army and the Southern Lebanese
Army.
On
May 23, 2000, the Israeli military carried out a unilateral withdrawal
from the
south and the Bekaa Valley, ending 22 years of occupation causing the
collapse of
the 6,000 SLA members. With the withdrawal of Israeli forces, many
Lebanese began
calling for a review of the continued Syrian presence in their country.
On
June 16, 2000, the United Nations Security Council adopted the report of
the
Secretary General verifying Israel’s compliance with UNSCR 425 and the
withdrawal
of
Israeli troops to their side of the demarcated Lebanese-Israeli line of
separation (The “Blue Line”) mapped out by UN cartographers. In August,
2000,
with the permission of Syria, the Lebanese Government ordered the
deployment of 500
police and 500 soldiers to areas of south Lebanon evacuated by the
Israelis. This
force was not allowed to disarm Hizbullah guerrillas or to take up
positions along
the blue lines. Hizbullah maintained observation posts and conducted
patrols along
the Blue Line.
In
the summer of 2004, Syria pressured the country’s cabinet into endorsing a
constitutional change designed to let President Emile Lahoud extend his
expiring
six-year term for three more years. Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had for
years been a
fierce foe of Mr. Lahoud and had strongly opposed amending the
Constitution. But
suddenly he changed his mind after a night meeting with the Syrian chief
of military
intelligence.
On
September 2, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1559,
coauthored by
France and the United States. The Resolution “calls upon all remaining
foreign
forces to withdraw from Lebanon” and “for the disbanding and disarmament
of all
Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.” Syria made few moves to comply with
the
Resolution until the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Prime
Minister of
Lebanon, on February 14, 2005. International pressure and mass
demonstrations that
were labeled ‘the Cedar Revolution’ prompted President Bashar Assad of
Syria to
announce on March 5, 2005, his plan to “bring his forces home.” On April
26,
2005, after 29 years of occupation of Lebanon, the last Syrian troops left
the
country
The Shebaa Farms Issue
Shortly after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, The UN Secretary
General, Kofi
Annan, dispatched his special Middle East envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, and a
team of
experts to meet with Israeli and Lebanese officials and verify that both
sides were
in
agreement on the conditions required by Resolution 425. The UN team
reported that
the Lebanese Government “informed the United Nations of its new position
regarding
the definition of its territory.” The claim included that Israeli forces
seized
a
piece of Lebanese territory during the Six-Day War, called Shebaa Farms,
located
on
the western slopes of Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights, and has been
occupied by
Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War with Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.
The Farms are presumed to be owned by the residents of the nearby Lebanese
town of
Shebaa. Before the Six-Day War, most Shebaa landowners and farmers lived
in a
Lebanese village of Shebaa. The Shebaa farms, a separate piece of
territory, about
14
kilometers
(8.7
mi)
in length, and averages
2.5 kilometers
(1.6
mi)
in width, lie
inside Syria. The farmers used to cross the land from Shebaa city in
Lebanon to the
Shebaa Farms in Syria. Its fertile, well-watered farmland formerly
produced barley,
fruits, and vegetable for 14 farms, but now desolate.
After Syria lost the land in 1967, the Lebanese farmers of the city of
Shebaa were
no
longer able to commute and to farm the land at Shebaa Farms. Israel
maintains
that the Shebaa Farms was officially part of Syria when Israel occupied
the region.
Syria and Lebanon claim that the territory is in fact part of Lebanon,
since Lebanon
did not play a role in the Six-Day War, they claim, Israel must evacuate
the
territory in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions.
It
is worth to mention here, that the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Treaty
between
Lebanon and Israel followed the pattern of demarcation that was instituted
by Great
Britain and France in 1923. Nevertheless, there was no official border
between the
two countries. “On maps, the French clearly marked Shebaa Farms as Syrian
territory, while marking the village of Shebaa, whose residents owned the
farms, as
the territory of Lebanon.” In other words, the town of Shebaa is
considered to be
a
Lebanese territory, while the Shebaa Farms is Syrian land.
During the 1950s and early 60s A joint Lebanese Syrian commission was
formed to
determine the border between the two nations. In 1964 the commission
determined
that the Farms belong officially to Lebanon. However, maps printed after
1964 did
not incorporate the determination of the commission, the maps printer
after that
period rather shows that the Shebaa Farms are still Syrian territory.
And in 1960,
Syrian authority ordered the inhabitants of the Shebaa Farms to replace
their
Lebanese identification cards with Syrian ones.
The Lebanese government showed little interest in the views of the
inhabitants.
While the commission was conduction its work to determine the border
identity, the
Syrian Government maintained control over the Farms. In 1955, the Syrian
military
built an outpost on one of the farms, and military bases in the area.
Those military posts in and around the Farms confirmed the identity of the
Shebaa
Farms as Syrians. During the Israeli invasion of Syria in 1967, the
territory was
captured by the Israeli forces and remained occupied until this time. No
Lebanese or
Syrian newspapers or any other discussion about the identity of the Shabaa
Farms as
being Lebanese territory, nor was there any hint in the UN Security
Council at the
time by the Lebanese representative to this effect. At no time, prior to
the
Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, did the Lebanese Government
claim the
Shebaa Farms to be Lebanese.
In
1974, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was
established at
Camp Faouar in Syria. Its mandate includes: (1) to supervise the
cease-fire between
Israel and Syria; (2) to supervise the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian
forces;
and (3) to supervise the Areas of Separation and Limitation, as provided
in the
Agreement of Disengagement between Israel and Syrian forces of May 31,
1974. The
UNDOF maintained the border with the Shebaa Farms as part of Syria.
In
March 19, 1978, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 426 establishing
the
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) headquartered in Naqura,
Southern
Lebanon to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli forces from South Lebanon.
The Lebanese
Government made no attempt to claim the Shebaa Farms.
On
May 4, 2000, three weeks after the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from
Lebanon
in
compliance with Security Council Resolution 425 and 426, 1978, the
Lebanese
Government officially filed a grievance with Israel to the UN Secretary
General Kofi
Annan. He called the Lebanese move a “new position”. Lebanese officials
claim,
without giving an explanation, that in 1951, Syria had given the Shebaa
Farms to
Lebanon. They claim also that there is no record to such a transfer at the
United
Nations. In fact one senior Lebanese official stated that the Syrian
transfer of
Shebaa Farms to Lebanon occurred in the form of “oral agreement” between
the two
countries and “nothing was documented.” In May 29, 2000, the Lebanese
Newspaper, ‘The Daily Star’ described the land deed of one resident of the
Shebaa Farms as “handwritten and signed on a yellow piece of paper in
pencil and
ink.” Furthermore, the Lebanese government presented the a forged land
deed to
the UN representatives date back to the 1940’s, years before the alleged
transfer
took place, an indication of inconsistency on the part of the Lebanese
Government.
There are documents from the 1920s and 1930s that indicate some local
inhabitant in
the region who considered themselves to be part of Lebanon. Some have even
paid
taxes to the Lebanese government. But the demarcations from that period
under the
French mandate show that the Shebaa Farms lie within the borders of Syria.
Detailed
maps produced by the French in 1933, and again in 1945 point out to the
same
conclusion. U.S and French archives leave no doubt that the Shebaa Farms
belong to
Syria.
All maps belonging to the period before 1967 save one, an apparent
forgery, show the
land as being on the Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border. In
fact, on
February 13,
2006, a
Lebanese newspaper Beirut Times article quotes a Druze Leader Walid
Jumblatt, member of the Lebanese Parliament displayed and map and revealed
that it was a “fake map,” with the boundary shifted. In an interview, the
Druze leader said the following: “The question of the Shebaa Farms was
invented by Syria and Iran using Hizbullah as a pretense to have an armed
presence in Lebanon. This must end.”
Lebanese army map published in 1961 and 1966 indicate the Shebaa Farms
area,
including Zebdine, Fashkoul, Mougr Shebaa, and Ramta as being part of the
Syrian territory and lie inside the border of Syria. Every single Syrian
map and every single Lebanese Ministry of Tourism map show the Lebanese
border runs west of the Shebaa Farms. These maps make it clear that the
Shebaa Farms are in fact a Syrian
land.
The UN Secretary General issued the following report, disputing the claims
of Lebanon on the Shebaa Farms, he states the following:
‘On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966 from the
Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government’s position that these
farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in
possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese
Government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army,
all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The
United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the
Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the
farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic...’
Nancy Solderberg, a high-ranking official with the U.S. delegation to the
UN, made a similar observation. She said: “When it was clear the Israelis
were going to withdraw fully from Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials
fabricated the fiction that this small, sparsely populated area was part
of Lebanon. They even produced a crudely fabricated map to back up the
dubious claim. I and United Nations officials went into the map room in
the United Nations and looked at all the maps of the region in the files
for decades. All showed the Shebaa Farms clearly in Syria.
Hizbullah’s claim over Shebaa Farms
In
June 18, 2000, the UN Security Council issued a statement confirming the
identification of Israeli withdrawal, and noting that both sides would
respect the Blue Line as identified. Moreover, the Security Council took
note, “with serious concern,” of reports of violations by Hizbullah that
had occurred since June 16, 2000, and called upon the parties to respect
the line drawn by the United Nations.
On
October 7 of that year, Hizbullah launched a daring attack into the Shebaa
Farms and abducted three Israeli soldiers. In February 16, 2001, another
attack was conducted by Hizbullah, it killed an Israeli soldier. In the
meantime, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Hariri was reassuring the
world that there will be no more outbreaks of violence in south Lebanon.
In an interview, he was quoted as saying:
“We have a clear agreement with our Syrian brothers in this matter…There
will be no provocations on our part.”
Hizbullah, founded in 1982 with the mission of expelling Israel from all
Lebanese occupied land. The organization presents itself as being a
charitable organization. It holds several seats in the Lebanese
parliament, and two cabinet seats in the current Lebanese government of
Prime Minister Fouad Seniora. Hizbullah is mainly funded by Iran and
operates under the auspices of Syria.
The Lebanese Government allows Hizbullah’s militia to act despite Security
Council Resolutions which call for all militias in Lebanon to be
disbanded. In fact the Lebanese Government maintains that Hizbullah is a
“national resistance group” and doe not fall under the requests of the
Security Council.
Although Syria withdrew its forces from Lebanon in compliance with
Security Council Resolution 1559, it still maintains control over
Hizbullah. Syria uses the organization to force its will on Lebanon and to
keep the Israeli forces engaged until such time comes when Israel ends its
occupation of the Syrian territory Hizbullah’s critics charge it with
simply using the issue to justify its existence as an armed force and to
continue serving as an outpost of Iran’s Islamic revolution. But would-be
peacemakers say that if Israel relinquishes the area, Hizbullah will have
no excuse to continue its armed role and could better be pressured to
transform itself into a normal political party. This suggestion has been
made by the Lebanese Prime Minster Fouad Seniora. In an interview with
Aljazeera.net, the Prime Minister of Lebanon said his government “cannot
force Hizbullah to disarm as long as Israel continues to occupy the Shebaa
Farms.”
For Israel, the Shebaa Farms have little strategic importance and has
always been subject to return to Syria in a peace negotiations. Israel
might probably accept a pullback from the Farms if Syria formally ceded
the area to Lebanon.
So
far Syria has been supporting, verbally, Lebanon’s claim to the area, but
it has shunned any official redefinition of its borders because it still
regards the territory of Lebanon, Jordan and Israel to be part of the
Greater Syria that existed before World War One.
The Dispute under International Law
The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the
United Nations. Its prime function is to arbitrate international disputes.
The court’s decisions are binding, and its broad jurisdiction encompasses
cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for
in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in
force. The court may be asked to give advisory opinions at the request of
the General Assembly or the Security Council or at the request of other
organs and specialized agencies authorized by the General Assembly.
Paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) states the following:
“The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties
refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the
United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.”
In
Paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute, the states may at any time
“declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special
agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation,
the jurisdiction of the Court in all disputes concerning…(b): any question
of international law…”
Chapter IV, Article 65 states that “the Court may give an advisory
opinion on legal question at the request of whatever body may be
authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to
make such a request.”
Accordingly, the Lebanese government may request an “advisory opinion”
from the ICJ to resolve the dispute over its territorial claims over the
Shebaa Farms. Syria could be called on by the ICJ to submit an affidavit
supporting Lebanon’s claim to the Shebaa Farms. The United Nations General
Assembly and the Security Council may submit a request to the ICJ for an
“advisory opinion”. None of that has happened
yet.
Since its inception, the ICJ has ruled on many cases regarding the
territorial
claims. The following is an example:
• In the Case Concerning Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land
(Belgium v. Netherlands), the court traced developments that had begun
• On July 8, 1991, Qatar filed in the Registry of the Court an
Application instituting proceedings against Bahrain in respect of certain
disputes between the two States relating to “sovereignty over the Hawar
Islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qit’at Jaradah, and
the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two States. Bahrain
contested the basis of jurisdiction invoked by Qatar.
Finally the Court issued its ruling on March 16, 2001.
• On December 1, 1978, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia
notified the Court of a Special Agreement in the Arabic language signed at
Tunis on 10 June 1977 between the Republic of Tunisia and the Socialist
People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The government of Tunisia requested the
Court to render its judgment on the
principles and rules of international law which may be applied for the
delimitation of the area of continental shelf appertaining to the Republic
of Tunisia and the area of the continental shelf appertaining to the
Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
• On November 26, 1957, the ICJ issued its ruling on the case
concerning right of passage over Indian Territory between Portugal and
India. The Portuguese Government requested the Court to recognize and
declare that Portugal was the holder or beneficiary of a right of passage
between its territory of Damao and its enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Aveli
and between each of the latter and that this right comprises the faculty
of transit for persons and goods, including armed forces, without
restrictions or difficulties and in the manner and to the extent required
by the effective exercise of Portuguese sovereignty in the said
territories, that India has prevented and continues to prevent the
exercise of the right in question, thus committing an offense to the
detriment of Portuguese Sovereignty over the enclaves and violating its
international obligations and to adjudge that India should put an
immediate end to this situation by allowing Portugal to exercise the right
of passage thus claimed. The application expressly referred to Article 36,
Paragraph 2, of the Statute and to the Declarations by which Portugal and
India have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
• In its advisory opinion on the question put by the Security
Council of the United Nations, “What are the legal consequences for States
of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia notwithstanding
Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)?” On June 21, 1971, the ICJ issued
its advisory opinion by stating that “the continued presence of South
Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to
withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end
to its occupation of the Territory.”
• In a case between Libya and Chad, the two countries submitted to
the Court a territorial dispute relating to the Aozou Strip in the Sahara.
Libya’s claim as made in the case extended far to the south of that strip
of land. The Court, in a judgment on February 3, 1994, found wholly in
favor of Chad. After and agreement on the implementation of the judgment
had been concluded between the two nations, Libyan forces, monitored by an
observer force deployed by the Security Council, withdrew from the Aozou
strip by May 31, 1994.
In
the Middle East, as elsewhere in the world, there are territorial disputes
including Sudan and Egypt on international boundary around the “Hala’ib
Triangle,” a barren area of 20580 sq km. Libya claims about 19,400 sq klm
in northern Niger and part of south-eastern Algeria. Kuwait ownership of
Quruh and Umm al Maradim islands is disputed by Saudi Arabia. Iran
occupies two islands in the Persian Gulf claimed by the United Arab
Emirates: Lesser Tunb (called Tunb as Sughra in Arabic by UAE and
Jazireh-ye Tonb-e Kuchek in Paersian by Iran) and Greater Tunb(called Tunb
al Kubra in Arabic by UAE and Jarireh-ye Tonb-e Bozorg in Persian by
Iran); it jointly administers with the UAE an island in the Persian Gulf
claimed by the UAE (called Abu Mussa in Arabic by the UAE and Jazireh-ye
Abu Mussa in Persian by Iran)-over which Iran has taken steps to exert
unilateral control since 1992, including access restrictions and a
military build-up on the island; the UAE has garnered significant
diplomatic support in the region in protesting these Iranian actions.
Iran and Iraq, after their eight-year war, restored diplomatic relations
in 1990 but are still to settle disputes concerning border demarcation,
freedom of navigation and sovereignty over the Shatt al Arab waterway.
Iraq also disputes over water development plans by Turkey for the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers. And Indonesia is in dispute over two islands with
Malaysia, who is in dispute with Singapore over two other islands.
About the Author
Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer specializing in international law, mainly the
European Union Law, the Middle East and Islamic Shariaa Laws. Authored
many articles on private as well as public international law.
http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com;
email:
gabrielsawma@yahoo.com
http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com
|
