SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1

The Legal Status of the City of Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and Its Future Prospects in Light of International Law: Analysis of International Positions

Uluslararası Hukuk Çerçevesinde Beytülmakdis’in (Kudüs) Hukuki Statüsü ve Geleceği: Uluslararası Tutumların Analizi

Hussein Nusair(The Islamic University of Gaza)0000-0002-7200-9018
Pages
91–114
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Such an approach would contribute to consolidating international legal protection for Jerusalem and for upholding the rule of law.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study seeks to examine the legal status of the city of Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and to anticipate its future within the framework of international law and relevant international positions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research employs a legal-analytical methodology reinforced by a historical dimension, tracing the evolution of the city’s legal status from the period of the British Mandate, through the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181 of 1947), to the legal implications arising from the 1967 occupation and subsequent unilateral measures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Such an approach would contribute to consolidating international legal protection for Jerusalem and for upholding the rule of law.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Uluslararası Hukuk · Kudüs · Taksim Planı

Abstract

This study seeks to examine the legal status of the city of Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and to anticipate its future within the framework of international law and relevant international positions. It undertakes a deconstruction of the legal framework governing the holy city, through an analysis of key international instruments, particularly those of the General Assembly and the Security Council, while assessing the extent to which international positions align with peremptory norms of international law. The research employs a legal-analytical methodology reinforced by a historical dimension, tracing the evolution of the city’s legal status from the period of the British Mandate, through the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181 of 1947), to the legal implications arising from the 1967 occupation and subsequent unilateral measures. The study further addresses the applicability of international humanitarian law, with particular reference to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and evaluates the legality of Israeli policies in light of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the principle of right of peoples to self-determination. It concludes that Eastern Jerusalem constitutes occupied territory under international law, and that all measures aimed at altering its legal or demographic character –including annexation and settlement expansion– lack legal validity. Moreover, it affirms that the city’s future legal status remains contingent upon the international community’s adherence and effective implementation of the principle of non-recognition of unlawful situations and the activation of mechanisms of international accountability. Finally, the study recommends the strategic deployment of international legal instruments, foremost among them recourse to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion clarifying the city’s legal status, in line with established international jurisprudence. Such an approach would contribute to consolidating international legal protection for Jerusalem and for upholding the rule of law.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Beytülmakdis Şehri’nin (Kudüs) hukuki statüsünü incelemeyi ve uluslararası hukuk kuralları ile ilgili uluslararası tutumlar çerçevesinde geleceğini öngörmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, başta Genel Kurul ve Güvenlik Konseyi kararları olmak üzere kilit uluslararası belgelerin analizi yoluyla mukaddes şehri yöneten hukuki çerçeveyi çözümlemekte; uluslararası tutumların uluslararası hukukun emredici normlarıyla ne ölçüde örtüştüğünü değerlendirmektedir. Araştırma, tarihsel boyutla desteklenen hukuki analitik bir yöntem kullanarak, şehrin hukuki statüsünün İngiliz Mandası döneminden, Birleşmiş Milletler Taksim Planı’na (1947 tarihli 181 sayılı Karar) ve oradan da 1967 işgali ile sonrasındaki tek taraflı tedbirlerden doğan hukuki sonuçlara kadar geçirdiği evrimi izlemektedir. Çalışma ayrıca, özellikle Dördüncü Cenevre Sözleşmesi hükümlerine atıfla, uluslararası insancıl hukukun uygulanabilirliğini ele almakta ve toprağın güç yoluyla ilhakının yasaklanması ile halkların kendi kaderini tayin hakkı ilkesi ışığında İsrail politikalarının hukukiliğini değerlendirmektedir. Çalışma, ‘Doğu Kudüs’’ün uluslararası hukuk uyarınca işgal altında bir toprak parçası olduğu ve şehrin hukuki veya demografik niteliğini değiştirmeyi amaçlayan ilhak ve yerleşim genişlemesi dahil tüm tedbirlerin hukuki geçerlilikten yoksun olduğu sonucuna varmaktadır. Ayrıca, şehrin gelecekteki hukuki statüsünün, uluslararası toplumun hukuka aykırı durumların tanınmaması ilkesine bağlılığına, bu ilkenin etkin biçimde uygulanmasına ve uluslararası hesap verebilirlik mekanizmalarının harekete geçirilmesine bağlı olduğunu teyit etmektedir. Son olarak çalışma, başta şehrin hukuki statüsünü açıklığa kavuşturacak bir istişari görüş için Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’na başvuru olmak üzere, uluslararası hukuki araçların yerleşik uluslararası içtihatla uyumlu biçimde stratejik olarak kullanılmasını önermektedir. Böyle bir yaklaşım, Kudüs için uluslararası hukuki korumanın pekiştirilmesine ve hukukun üstünlüğünün gözetilmesine katkı sağlayacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Nusair, H. (2026). The Legal Status of the City of Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and Its Future Prospects in Light of International Law: Analysis of International Positions. Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 91–114. https://doi.org/10.31456/beytulmakdis.1167497

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Abd al-Salam, J. (1997). Al-Markaz al-Qanuni al-Dawli li-Madinat al-Quds [The International Legal Status of the City of Al-Quds]. Saudi Arabia: Muslim World League.
  2. Abu al-Suud, Kh. (2009). Athar al-Ihtilal al-Israili wa-Iqamat al-Mustawtanat ‘ala wad‘ al-Quds wifqan li-Ahkam al-Qanun al-Dawli [The impact of the Israeli occupation and the establishment of settlements on the status of al-Quds in accordance with the provisions of international law]. Ramallah: The Palestinian Ministry of Culture.
  3. Abu Amer, A. (2014). Silah al-Sahaynah al-Jadid li-Ikhtiraq al-Matiqah [The Zionists’ new weapon for infiltrating the region]. Majalat al-Bayan, vol. 325.
  4. Alarqan, A. (1997). Qadiyat al-Quds fi Itar al-Taswiyah al-Silmiyah wal-Sira‘ al-Arabi al-Israili [The Issue of Jerusalem in the Peaceful Settlement of Arab - Israeli Conflict]. Master Dissertation, Al al-Bayt University.
  5. Al-Ashal, A. (2009). Al-Markaz al-Qanuni al-Dawli li-Madinat al-Quds [The International Legal Status of the City of Al-Quds]. Egypt: General Egyptian Book Organization.
  6. Al-Jamal, B. (2021). Naql al-Safarah al-Amrikiyah li-Madinat al-Quds fi al-Qanun al-Dawli [Relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem in the International Law]. Master Dissertation, Islamic University of Gaza.
  7. Al-Jazeera Net (2017). Al-Qimam al-Islamiyah wa-Filistin, min al-Da‘wah lil-Jihad lil-Idanat [Islamic Summits and Palestine: From Calls for Jihad to Condemnations]. Al-Jazeera, https://aja.me/utu9z
  8. Al-Masri, H. (2016). Al-Ada’ al-Filistini Tijah al-Quds [Palestinian performance towards Jerusalem]. Workshop on ‘The Judaisation of Jerusalem and Mechanisms for Political and Media Resistance’. www.masarat.ps/article/1806/files/content_files/ld_lflstyny_tjh_lqds.pdf
  9. Al-Quds conference (2009). Qira’ah fi al-Mashhad al-Maqdisi [An insight into the developments in Jerusalemite scene]. Amman: Jordanian Ministry of Culture.
  10. Al-Ratrout, H. F. (2005). Al-Masjid al-Aqsa fi al-Athar al-Qur’aniyah [Al-Aqsa Mosque in Quranic Archaeology]. Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies, 6(1), 1-32.
  11. al-Rayyis, N. M. (2009). Al-Quds bayn Zayf al-Qanun al-Israili wa-‘Ajz al-Qanun al-Dawli [al-Quds between the Falsity of Israeli Law and the Inadequacy of International Law]. Gaza: Higher National Committee for al-Quds as the Capital of Arab Culture.
  12. Alshora, S. (2011). Madinat al-Quds that al-Ihtilal wal-Intidab al-Biritani [The City of Jerusalem under British occupation and Mandate]. Amman: Dar Kunuz al-Ma‘rifah.
  13. Al-Watan Voice (2015, October 18). Issa: 181 al-Madallah al-Qanuniyah li-‘Adam Shar’iyat Siyadat Israil ‘ala al-Quds [Isa: Res. 181 - The legal basis for the illegality of Israel’s sovereignty over al-Quds]. https://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2015/10/18/795078.html
  14. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (2012). Ziyarat al-Quds tahta al-Ihtilal: Da‘m lil-Sumud amm Tatbi‘. Qatar: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.
  15. Arafat, H. T. M. (2005). Athar Itifaq Oslo ‘ala al-Wihdah al-Wataniyah al-Filistiniyah wa-In‘ikasatuh ‘ala al-Tanmiyah al-Siyasiyah [The Effect of Oslo Accord on Palestinian Unity and its Reflections on the Political Development]. Master Dissertation, An-Najah National University.
  16. Benvenisti, E. (2012). The International Law of Occupation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Dalloul, A. F. & Shurrab, F. K. (2021). Mustaqbal Madinat al-Quds fi Dhill al-Tatbi‘ al-Khaliji ma‘ al-Ihtilal al-Israili [The future of the city of Jerusalem in light of the Gulf normalization with the Israeli occupation]. Ibn Khaldoun Journal for Studies and Researches, 1(1), 176-201.
  19. El-Awaisi, K., & Yavuz, C. (2020). The Future of Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Light of Trump’s Deal of the Century. Insight Turkey, 22(3), 215-236.
  20. El-Maghraoui, A. (2020). Itfaqiyat al-Tatbi‘ fi Daw’ Qawa‘id al-Qanun al-Dawli. Dirasah Huquqiyah [Normalisation Agreements in the Light of the Rules of International Law: A Legal Study]. Bawabat al-‘Adl wal-Ihsan. https://www.aljamaa.net/posts/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%A1-%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86
  21. European Commission. (2022). EU report on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem (Jan. – Dec. 2021). European Union, pp. 5–9.
  22. European Council. (1980). Venice Declaration on the Middle East. European Parliament. Legislative Observatory, para. 8.
  23. European Council. (2017). European Council Conclusions on Jerusalem, 14 December 2017 (Report No. EUCO 19/17). General Secretariat of the Council. www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/14/european-council-conclusions-external-relations
  24. European Union External Action Service (EEAS). (2022). EU Position on Jerusalem and the Middle East Peace Process. European Union.
  25. European Union. (2023). Statements on the Situation in Jerusalem and Holy Sites.
  26. Ghanem, T. (1997). Al-Tatwi‘ wal-Tatbi‘ [Taming and Normalisation]. Majlat al-Furqan, vol. 39.
  27. Hammo, B. I. (2021). Haykal Sulayman fi ‘Aqidat al-Yahud wa-Atharuh fi Hadm al-Masjid al-Aqsa [Solomon's Temple in the creed of the Jews, and its impact on the demolition of Al-Aqsa Mosque]. IUG Journal of Islamic Studies (Islamic University of Gaza), 29(2), 338-344.
  28. Holy See (1993). Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel. Vatican City.
  29. Holy See (2012). Statement on the Status of Jerusalem at the United Nations.
  30. Hopwood, D. (1999). Russian Presence in the Holy Land. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 45–52.
  31. Institute of Arab Research and Studies (1993). Al-Mujtama‘ al-Dawli wal-Qadiyah al-Filistiniyah. Cairo: Institute of Arab Research and Studies.
  32. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), Art. 49.
  33. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), August 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, Art. 49.
  34. International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2024). Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, (Advisory Opinion), General List No. 186 (July 19, 2024).
  35. International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, Reports 136. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131, p. 200.
  36. International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, pp. 171–172.
  37. International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, p. 136.
  38. International Law Commission (ILC). (2001). Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Articles 40–41.
  39. Labib, F. (1995). Difa‘an ‘an ‘Urubat al-Quds [In defence of the Arab identity of Al-Quds]. Cairo: Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation (AAPSO).
  40. League of Arab States. (2002). Arab Peace Initiative: Beirut Summit Declaration. United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine, para. 2.
  41. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (2017). Russia’s Position on Jerusalem. Moscow.
  42. Natsheh, Yusuf (2020). Turath al-Quds al-Mimari: Dirasah fi Tatawurih wa-Tarzih wa-A‘lamih wa-‘Anasirih al-Mimariyah wal-Zakhrafiyah [, Studying its Development, Style, Landmarks, Architectural and Decorative Elements]. Al-Quds: al-Taawon Association.
  43. Orakhelashvili, A. (2006). Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). (2017). Final Communiqué of the Extraordinary Islamic Summit on Jerusalem. Istanbul, pp. 3–5.
  45. Pope Francis (2017). Address on the Status of Jerusalem, Vatican Press Office.
  46. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2023). Statements on the Situation in Jerusalem and Holy Sites.
  47. Salih, M. M. (2018). Itifaq Oslo… Dorus lil-Hadir wal-Mustaqbal [The Oslo Accords: Lessons for the Present and the Future]. Al-Jazeera, https://aja.me/a6x7p
  48. Sha’ban, I. M. (2011). Al-Quds fi Qararat al-Umam al-Mutahidah [Jerusalem in United Nations resolutions]. Al-Quds: Jam’iyat al-Dirasat al-‘Arabiyyah.
  49. Shabaneh, L. (2007). Arbaun ‘Aman ‘ala al-Ihtilal, Arbaun ‘Aman min Ihbat al-Tanmiyah, al-Siyasat al-Israiliyah wa-Atharha ‘ala al-Bunyah al-Iqtisadiyah wal-Ijtimaiyah fi al-Quds [Forty Years of Occupation: Forty Years of Stifled Development – Israeli Policies and Their Impact on the Economic and Social Structure of Jerusalem]. Ramallah: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.
  50. The Palestinian Ministerial Council (2007). Al-Quds Tahadiyat wa-Makhatir [al-Quds: Challenges and Risks]. Palestine: General Department for Government Performance Quality.
  51. The White House. (2020). Peace to prosperity: A vision to improve the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people, pp. 11–15.
  52. Tomeh, G. J. (1993). Qararat al-Umamm al-Mutahidah bi-Sha’n Filistin wal-Sira‘ al-‘Arabi al-Israili, vol. 1: 1947-1974. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies.
  53. Trump, D. J. (2017, December 6). Statement by President Donald Trump on Jerusalem. The White House. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-jerusalem.
  54. United Nations (2014). The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, Part V (1989–2000). New York: UN.
  55. United Nations General Assembly (1970). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625 (XXV), UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV), para. 1.
  56. United Nations General Assembly. (1947). Resolution 181 (II) (A/RES/181(II)), p.12.
  57. United Nations Security Council. (1967). Resolution 242 (S/RES/242). Preamble.
  58. United Nations Security Council. (1980). Resolution 478 (S/RES/478), para. 5
  59. United Nations Security Council. (1980). Resolution 478 (S/RES/478).
  60. United States Congress. (1995). Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, Public Law 104-45, 109 Stat. 398.
  61. El-Maghraoui, A. (2020). Itfaqiyat al-Tatbi‘ fi Daw’ Qawa‘id al-Qanun al-Dawli. Dirasah Huquqiyah [Normalisation Agreements in the Light of the Rules of International Law: A Legal Study]. Bawabat al-‘Adl wal-Ihsan. https://www.aljamaa.net/posts/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%A1-%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86