Afrasianet - Dr. Laith Kamal Nasrawin - Recent political developments regarding understandings on the disarmament of resistance in the Gaza Strip in exchange for a gradual Israeli withdrawal have sparked a debate about disarmament provisions in international law, particularly whether national liberation movements commit themselves to giving up their weapons once a political agreement is reached.
To answer this question, a distinction needs to be made between the rights established by international law of peoples under occupation and the means they may use in exercising their right to resist occupation.
The right of peoples to self-determination has been recognized by international law, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966, as well as in numerous resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, with national liberation movements adhering to the norms of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts.
Disarmament in international practice is therefore not an abstract legal obligation, but rather part of negotiating arrangements usually associated with ending armed conflicts and achieving sustainable peace.
In recent history, there have been many instances in which the surrender of arms has been the result of comprehensive political agreements that addressed the causes of the conflict and provided the necessary guarantees for the sustainability of peace.
In South Africa, for example, the abandonment of armed action came after an agreement to end apartheid and establish a new democratic order.
In Northern Ireland, the IRA began handing over its weapons only after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, which paved the way for an end to decades of violence.
There is no single model in international law that dictates how disarmament should be implemented, as its mechanisms vary from case to case depending on the nature of the conflict and the terms of the political agreement.
Disarmament may be gradual, linked to the implementation of mutual obligations, or subject to international supervision to verify compliance with the terms of the agreement.
This confirms that disarmament is not an independent legal procedure based on specific provisions of international law, but rather part of a negotiation process whose details are derived from the content of a political settlement.
Nor does international law require national liberation movements to lay down arms once hostilities have ceased or preliminary understandings have been reached, but rather leaves the matter to the parties to a political settlement.
Thus, the obligation to disarmament does not arise from a general rule of international law, but from the provisions of the political agreement itself.
In international practice of post-conflict peacebuilding processes, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programmes are one of the most prominent mechanisms, aimed at collecting weapons, demobilizing combatants, reintegrating them into society and rebuilding State institutions, and their success is measured by their ability to establish sustainable peace that addresses the causes of conflict.
It follows that disarmament arrangements cannot be transformed into a legal obligation of one party, while the other party remains unaware of the implementation of its political and legal obligations.
The principle of good faith in the implementation of agreements requires that security arrangements be balanced with political and legal steps that address the root causes of the conflict, otherwise security measures will become mere temporary measures that do not lead to a stable settlement or lasting peace.
This understanding applies to any discussion of the future of the Gaza Strip; if any future settlement includes arrangements for the disarmament of the resistance, it should not be seen as a substitute for a political solution or an end to the Palestinian question.
The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the establishment of their independent State is based on the rules of international law and resolutions of international legitimacy, and this right is not linked to the continuation or cessation of armed action.
Therefore, progress in the security process in the Gaza Strip must be accompanied by similar progress in the political track.
If the security considerations used to postpone the final solution are removed, the international community will be required to move from managing the conflict to addressing it, from sufficing with security arrangements to implementing the resolutions of international legitimacy, leading to an end to the occupation and the realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The international community should therefore view the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance as an end to the conflict, but rather as a stage in a broader political process whose success can be completed only by the realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the establishment of a just and lasting peace.
________________
Dr. Laith Kamal Nasrawin - Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law at the University of Jordan
________________
