Malaysia Data

Controversies surrounding Palestine’s statehood arise from the dispute over its ‘defined territory’ and ‘effective government’, as outlined in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, 1933. The ‘government’ element, which is at the crux of the Mangisto and al-Sayed case, encompasses not only the existence of a central authority but also the efficient execution of its functions, including territorial management, as well as the exercise of its legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Significantly, the State of Palestine’s response to the authors’ allegations highlights the challenges it faces in meeting of the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian Authority’s limited control over Gaza, which has been under Hamas’ control since 2007. At the same time, Palestine’s ratification of the CRPD, acceptance of the individual complaint procedure, and responses to the authors’ allegations, reaffirm its capacity to enter into international relations, the fourth Montevideo criterion, which is somehow a corollary of sovereignty.

The CRPD Committee’s decision against the State of whatsapp number list Palestine also evinces the collective recognition of the State of Palestine, a criteria not contained within the Montevideo Convention. It may be noted that the Montevideo Convention has been criticized by many for not reflecting the current state of international law, by not recognizing the statehood of accepted States, and encompassing entities that are not States as States. Collective recognition, which is at the center of the constitutive theory of statehood is, as Akande puts it, ‘a mechanism by which the international community can give effect to important community values that may affect claims of statehood’ (see Vidmar for more on collective recognition).