Be it the Algerian National Liberation Front, the African National Congress in South Africa or the continued struggle of the Palestinian people, the principle of self-determination is largely central to all projects of national liberation. This paper addresses what is arguably a deficient conception of self-determination by highlighting two factors that contributed to this deficiency. The first is the re-enforcement of dependency in self-determination projects by international institutions, primarily through the Mandate System. The second is a merit-based system of conditionality for the granting of independence, accompanied by a tendency to deformalize the law, relegating self-determination to an empty principle, the substance of which is decided by the negotiations’ context. The case of Palestine is used to demonstrate how those factors are adopted as central means in resolving the Palestinian self-determination problem, which in-turn leads to a deficient conception that does not account for the core content of the right.

Be it the Algerian National Liberation Front, the African National Congress in South Africa or the continued struggle of the Palestinian people, the principle of self-determination is largely central to all projects of national liberation. This paper addresses what is arguably a deficient conception of self-determination by highlighting two factors that contributed to this deficiency. The first is the re-enforcement of dependency in self-determination projects by international institutions, primarily through the Mandate System. The second is a merit-based system of conditionality for the granting of independence, accompanied by a tendency to deformalize the law, relegating self-determination to an empty principle, the substance of which is decided by the negotiations’ context. The case of Palestine is used to demonstrate how those factors are adopted as central means in resolving the Palestinian self-determination problem, which in-turn leads to a deficient conception that does not account for the core content of the right.

L’effondrement et le démantèlement de l’Empire ottoman à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale ont conduit les Grandes puissances européennes à opérer un partage territorial du Proche-Orient, légitimé par le système des mandats de la Société des Nations (SDN). Sans précédent, cette administration internationale marqua le point de départ de l’internationalisation de la question de la Palestine, dont le droit international allait servir de socle à une nouvelle forme de colonialisme. Au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) continua l’action entreprise par la SDN en s’occupant également de cette question sur la demande des Britanniques. En novembre 1947, l’ONU décida du partage de la Palestine en deux Etats pour résoudre les conflits entre sionistes et nationalistes arabes. Si ce partage fut accepté par les sionistes, il fut rejeté par les Etats arabes voisins et de nombreux Arabes palestiniens. Les affrontements opposant nationalistes arabes et sionistes de Palestine laissèrent place au conflit israélo-arabe après la proclamation d’Indépendance de l’Etat d’Israël en mai 1948. Au commencement de la guerre froide, les Etats-Unis et l’URSS prirent conscience de l’intérêt géostratégique de cette région, progressivement désinvestie par la France et la Grande-Bretagne. Dans cette étude, nous verrons comment la scène interétatique et la communauté internationale, successivement composée de la SDN puis de l’ONU, ont en partie scellé le sort du Proche et Moyen-Orient. Nous consacrerons également une analyse au rôle joué par les idéologies nationalistes arabes et sionistes, qui tiennent une place centrale au sein de ce conflit. / The collapse and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, led the great European powers to engage in a territorial division of the Middle East, legitimized by the mandates system of the League of Nations. Without any precedents, that international administration marked the beginning of the internationalization of Palestine’s thorny issue. The international law would serve as the pillar for a new form of colonialism. The day after World War II, the United Nations continued the action taken by the League of Nations, as well as for the demand of the British. In November 1947, the UN decided to divide Palestine into two States. If the Zionists had accepted that split, their neighbors, Arab States and Palestinian Arabs, would have rejected it. The clashes opposing the Arab Nationalists and the Palestine Zionists gave space to the Arab-Israeli conflict after the independence of Israel, on May 14, 1948. At the beginning of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union became aware of the geo-strategic interest in this region, gradually divested by France and Great Britain. In this study, we will see how the interstate scene and the international community, successively composed by the League of Nations and the United Nations, have partially sealed the fate of the Near and the Middle East. We will also devote a preliminary analysis related to the role played by the Arabs and Zionists nationalist ideologies, which are central in this conflict.

L’effondrement et le démantèlement de l’Empire ottoman à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale ont conduit les Grandes puissances européennes à opérer un partage territorial du Proche-Orient, légitimé par le système des mandats de la Société des Nations (SDN). Sans précédent, cette administration internationale marqua le point de départ de l’internationalisation de la question de la Palestine, dont le droit international allait servir de socle à une nouvelle forme de colonialisme. Au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) continua l’action entreprise par la SDN en s’occupant également de cette question sur la demande des Britanniques. En novembre 1947, l’ONU décida du partage de la Palestine en deux Etats pour résoudre les conflits entre sionistes et nationalistes arabes. Si ce partage fut accepté par les sionistes, il fut rejeté par les Etats arabes voisins et de nombreux Arabes palestiniens. Les affrontements opposant nationalistes arabes et sionistes de Palestine laissèrent place au conflit israélo-arabe après la proclamation d’Indépendance de l’Etat d’Israël en mai 1948. Au commencement de la guerre froide, les Etats-Unis et l’URSS prirent conscience de l’intérêt géostratégique de cette région, progressivement désinvestie par la France et la Grande-Bretagne. Dans cette étude, nous verrons comment la scène interétatique et la communauté internationale, successivement composée de la SDN puis de l’ONU, ont en partie scellé le sort du Proche et Moyen-Orient. Nous consacrerons également une analyse au rôle joué par les idéologies nationalistes arabes et sionistes, qui tiennent une place centrale au sein de ce conflit. / The collapse and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, led the great European powers to engage in a territorial division of the Middle East, legitimized by the mandates system of the League of Nations. Without any precedents, that international administration marked the beginning of the internationalization of Palestine’s thorny issue. The international law would serve as the pillar for a new form of colonialism. The day after World War II, the United Nations continued the action taken by the League of Nations, as well as for the demand of the British. In November 1947, the UN decided to divide Palestine into two States. If the Zionists had accepted that split, their neighbors, Arab States and Palestinian Arabs, would have rejected it. The clashes opposing the Arab Nationalists and the Palestine Zionists gave space to the Arab-Israeli conflict after the independence of Israel, on May 14, 1948. At the beginning of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union became aware of the geo-strategic interest in this region, gradually divested by France and Great Britain. In this study, we will see how the interstate scene and the international community, successively composed by the League of Nations and the United Nations, have partially sealed the fate of the Near and the Middle East. We will also devote a preliminary analysis related to the role played by the Arabs and Zionists nationalist ideologies, which are central in this conflict.