|
APPENDIX B
As a citizen of the United
States of America, the author of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem notes with pride that the source
of his idea for the territorial arrangements contained in Parts II, IV, V, and VI is the Constitution of the United States.
Article IV, Section 3, reads in part:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but
no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction
of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the
Congress."
Though the Constitution of the United States certainly does not apply directly to other
nations, this dynamic document has nevertheless influenced the minds of people in every corner of the earth and, with the
Almighty's help, will continue to do so. And although no union exists between Israel and its proximate Arab
neighbors, which is a state of affairs quite different from the one in which the framers of the Constitution of the United
States indited their formula for new combinations of states, the urgent need for peace may nevertheless spur the people
of these troubled nations to test a truly democratic idea that is rather old -- yet never used -- in the annals of American
history but quite new and revolutionary in the context of world history.
This idea or formula, which offers both
a legal precedent and a model for conflict resolution among states by means of territorial adjustment, could very well serve
as the basis whereby an international convention will establish rules expressly recognized by all the parties to the Iranian/Arab-Israeli
dispute.
Furthermore, a properly modified version of this formula for conflict resolution by means of territorial
adjustment would, as a new article in the Charter of the United Nations, provide a specific rule and remedy for situations
wherein the right of self determination of a people is in direct conflict with the sovereign and territorial rights of a member
state.
America's founding fathers based their formula
for conflict resolution by means of territorial adjustment on the principle of mutual agreement with state sovereignty as
the paramount default position. That this formula, enshrined in Article IV, Section iii of the Constitution of the United States, has never been exercised is testament to its fidelity to the established
order and applicability to rare and unusual circumstances only. As a model formula for a political solution to the
Iranian/Arab-Zionist dispute, and even for a new article in the Charter of the United Nations
for situations wherein the right of self-determination rubs against a nation's sovereignty, this truly democratic idea
deserves consideration without fear of a promiscuous breaking up of nations and their sovereign rights. Words written
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania over 200 years ago can and should be enlivened for a global context first as guarantor of
sovereignty and second as creator of sovereignty by mutual agreement only, and with power greater than all the armies of
the world and the utter destruction that their modern technologies of warfare can cause. This is the basis of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem, which is anchored in the United Nations
Security Council Resolution 242, a sure foundation for reasonable compromise.
Finally, yet another new article in the Charter of the United Nations is recommended;
such article would give mandatory jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice of all disputes between states that are
unable to settle them by negotiation or any other peaceful mode of settlement.
This proposed article on the mandatory
jurisdiction of the ICJ, together with the aforementioned proposed article on conflict-resolution by means of territorial
adjustment, will greatly help the United Nations meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
Copyright
Stephen M. St. John 1977, 1996, 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
|
