Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 December 2021
The Palestine Mandate was argued to have been a document with legal force on the basis that the Council of the League of Nations voted to approve it. The Palestine Mandate lacked such a status, it was argued in response. The Palestine Mandate was not concluded as a treaty. It was not registered with the League as a treaty. It does not appear in League records that give treaties to which League members are party. Britain’s A. J. Balfour told the Council that the Palestine Mandate would have legal force once Turkey ceded sovereignty to the World War I Allies. Turkey never did so. When a peace treaty with Turkey was finalized, Turkey renounced sovereignty in favor of Palestine, not in favor of the Allies. When Britain explained its status in Palestine to the Permanent Court of International Justice, its counsel wrote that, as result of Turkey’s refusal to renounce sovereignty to the Allies, Britain acquired no legal status. He said that Britain’s standing in Palestine was that of belligerent occupant as result of having taken Palestine by force of arms. He did not mention any rights of Britain that might have come from the League of Nations.