Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:49:26.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Settlement of Disputes About the Christian Holy Places*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Walter Zander
Get access

Extract

Disputes about the Christian Holy Places have played a major part in the history of the Middle East and indeed of Europe for many centuries. The main issues of these conflicts are still unsolved, and the fact that the Sanctuaries are now under the control of the State of Israel has added a new dimension to the problems.

This study tries to investigate the question of the jurisdiction over the Christian Sanctuaries as it presents itself today. It does not deal with the Holy Places of Judaism and Islam since their treatment, in spite of many common elements, requires different considerations.

The disputes about the Christian Holy Places are essentially disputes among Christian communities, and not, as might be assumed, controversies between Christians on one side and members of other religions—Moslems or Jews—or the government of the country, on the other. They spring ultimately from the divisions of the Church; and although political and national interests frequently played a part, they must be seen first and foremost in the context of the religious issues involved.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , July 1973 , pp. 331 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Accounts and Papers (24) Vol. LXI (1858) 1 et seq.

2 Accounts and Papers Vol. LXXXIII (1878) 353 et seq. (contains text of Treaty and Minutes of all Meetings).

3 Ibid., at p. 241 et seq.

4 Waddington, Francis, “La France au Congrès de Berlin” (1933) 156 Revue Politique et Parlementaire 481–82.Google Scholar

5 Valfrey, J., Histoire de la Diplomatie du Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale, Deuxième Partie (Paris, 1872) 145–46Google Scholar; Collin, B., Le Problème Juridique des Lieux-Saints (Paris, 1956) 56.Google Scholar

6 Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, Documents Diplomatiques Français (1871–1900) Ire Série, Tome second, (Paris, 1930) 349–50.

7 Supra n. 2 at p. 355–6.

8 Supra n. 6 at p. 359.

9 B. Collin, op. cit. supra n. 5 at p. 186.

10 Documents on British Foreign Policy (1919–39) Series I, Vol. IV, p. 635.

11 Dostoevsky, Feodor, Diary of a Writer (March, 1877).Google Scholar

12 Paléologue, Maurice, La Russie des Tsars pendant la Grande Guerre Vol. I (Paris, 1921) 200.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., p. 322.

14 Poincaré, Raymond, Au Service de la France Vol. VI (1930) 118.Google Scholar

15 Adamov, E., Die Europäischen Mächte und die Türkei während des Weltkrieges, Die Aufteilung der Asiatischen Türkei (Dresden, 1932) 29Google Scholar, (Document No. 30).

16 Ibid., p. 62.

17 Ibid., p. 83.

18 Ibid., p. 72.

19 Temperley, H. W. V., A History of the Peace Conference of Paris Vol. VI (London, 1924) 16.Google Scholar

20 Public Record Office, (hereafter referred to as P.R.O.) FO 608/116 and 117.

21 P.R.O. FO 608/116 p. 168 ss. 174.

22 Ibid., p. 330.

23 Documents on British Foreign Policy (1919–39) Series I Vol. IV, p. 428.

24 P.R.O., FO 608/117 p. 105 reverse.

25 P.R.O., FO 608/116 p. 484.

26 See supra n. 23.

27 It is of interest that, in contrast to the attitude of the Soviet Government, Prince Lvoff, M. Sazanoff and M. Maklakoff, as Members of “The Russian Political Conference in Paris in the interest of the administration of Admiral Kolchak” on July 5, 1919, submitted to the President of the Peace Conference a memorandum which stresses the profound interest of Russia in the Holy Places, draws attention to the centuries-old rivalries between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy regarding the Sanctuaries, asks for an unbiased administration and claims the restoration of all Russian Ecclesiastical property. The memorandum adds that if the religious interests are assured, Russia will reaffirm her favourable attitude towards the establishment of a Jewish National Home. Documents on British Foreign Policy (1919–1939) Series I, Vol. IV, p. 670et. seq.Google Scholar

28 Baldi, Paschal, The Question of the Holy Places, Roma Typographia Pontifica ‘Istituto Pio IX’, 1919 (Jerusalem, Franciscan Press, New edition, 1955) 94, 96, 97.Google Scholar

29 Les Lieux Saints de la Palestine, Mémoire des Latins à la Conférence de la Paix, 1919 (Jerusalem, Franciscan Press, 1922) reprinted in Collin, B., Le Problème Juridique des Lieux-Saints (Paris, 1956) Part II pp. 173–181.Google Scholar

30 Pernot, M., Le Saint Siège, L'Eglise Catholique et la Politique Mondiale (Paris, 1924) 96.Google Scholar

31 Documents on British Foreign Policy (1919–1939) Series I Vol. VII, p. 109.

32 Ibid., pp. 103, 109, 110.

33 Ibid., pp. 109, 110.

34 Ibid., p. 162.

35 Ibid., pp. 164, 165.

36 Ibid., pp. 17C, 171.

37 Osservatore Romano, June 30, 1922; English translation in The Tablet, July 8, 1922, reprinted in B. Collin, op. cit., supra n. 29 at pp. 209–211.

38 Cmd 1708.

39 League of Nations Official Journal, August 1922, Minutes of the 19th Session of the Council, pp. 785 et seq.

40 Ibid., p. 822.

41 B. Collin, op. cit., supra n. 29 at pp. 230–232.

42 Ibid., pp. 233–235.

43 P.R.O. FO 371/7786, p. 237 et seq.

44 Reprinted in B. Collin op. cit. supra n. 29 at pp. 239–243.

45 Report by His Britannic Majesty's Government on the Palestine Administration for 1923 to the Council of the League of Nations, p. 19.

46 P.R.O. FO 371/7786, pp. 246–7.

47 Ibid., p. 245.

48 P.R.O. FO 371/7787, p. 40.

49 Ibid., p. 69 et seq. The assumption of Monsignor Borgongini-Duca that under the Turkish regime the local courts had been able to deal with claims regarding the Holy Places is mistaken, since Turkey had pledged herself in the Treaty of Berlin to maintain the status quo. This excluded any investigation as to whether the status quo was legally justified.

50 P.R.O. FO 371/7787 p. 74.

51 Ibid., p. 107.

52 Ibid., p. 112.

53 P.R.O. CO 733/28, p. 415.

54 Ibid., p. 414.

55 Ibid., p. 414 r.

56 Ibid., p. 482–3.

57 Ibid., pp. 477–81.

58 Ibid., p. 486.

59 P.R.O. CO 733/55 p. 290.

60 Ibid., pp. 293–4.

61 P.R.O. FO 371/8997 p. 109.

62 P.R.O. CO 733/56 pp. 35–6.

63 Ibid., pp. 66–7.

64 Ibid., p. 62 et seq.

65 Ibid., pp. 78–9.

66 Ibid., pp. 76–7.

67 P.R.O. CO 733/50 p. 403 et seq.

68 Ibid., p. 410.

69 P.R.O. CO 733/80 p. 42 et seq.

70 Ibid., p. 554.

71 Ibid., p. 735.

72 A Minute in CO 733/80 p. 729 relating to the letter of the Charge d'Affaires of the Soviet Government says: “I purposely delayed answering this until the draft Order-in-Council has been approved. That will be signed on 25/7/24.”

73 P.R.O. CO 733/81 pp. 339.

74 Stoyanovski, J., The Mandate for Palestine (London, 1928) 302Google Scholar; Collin, B., Les Lieux Saints (Paris, 1948) 152Google Scholar; B. Collin, op. cit. supra n. 5 at p. 98; Zander, W., Israel and the Holy Places of Christendom (London—New York, 1971) 70Google Scholar; and most recently Bovis, Eugene, The Jerusalem Question, 1917–1968 (Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, California, 1971) 17.Google Scholar The error is of importance because if the High Commissioner had been authorized by the Order to decide the disputes, this authority would have been transferred to the Israel Government.

75 P.R.O. CO 733/81 p. 398.

76 Ibid., p. 399.

77 Reports by His Britannic Majesty's Government on the Palestine Administration for the year 1924, Section IX.

78 Proche Orient Chrétien (1971) 184–5.

79 (1948) 1 L.S.I. 9.

80 (1970) (II) 24 P.D. 141. See also Klein, C., “The Temple Mount Case” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 257.Google Scholar

81 (1971) (I) 25 P.D. 225.

82 See supra text after n. 39.