¿Mudez y mudanza o mudanza y mudez? Reflexiones jurídicas sobre la eventual relocalización de la embajada argentina ante Israel en la ciudad de Jerusalén.

Abstract

Despite the fact that a lot has been said with regards to the pros and cons of moving the Argentine embassy in Israel from its current location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, most of the debates have been centered on the political underpinnings of the matter. The legal implications entailed in this course of action seem to be, at least, neglected, if not utterly ignored.

Taking the disregard of such important aspects as a starting point, the main goal of this work is to put forward for analysis the legal arguments that shape the dispute looming over the city of Jerusalem. The twofold approach intended is strictly limited to the realm of law, and it aims to offer relevant considerations that need to be taken into account when deciding such sensitive issue.

On the one hand, the matter will be looked at from the perspective of the United Nations, delving into the pronouncements of its principal organs —which span from the very inception of the organization until these days—.

On the other hand, but still from a legal standpoint, special emphasis will be put on the law governing the acquisition of territories which are achieved through the use of armed force by states. In this sense, the focus will shift away from the city of Jerusalem to discuss broader issues, exploring the answers that general international law offers to this kind of situations, no matter where they take place, allowing to examine the topic in abstract terms, beyond the specific context.

This dual legal approach will hopefully contribute to better understand what Argentina is bound to do with regards to its embassy, both as a member of the United Nations and as a subject of international law who wants to play by its rules.

Even though it could be argued that the United Nations are subject to political pressures which might make its organs depart from the strict dictates of international law  —and this might be particularly true when it comes to the General Assembly and the Security Council—, the most compelling feature in the case of Jerusalem is that regardless the independent analysis proposed, both the United Nations and the international legal order in general lead to the same conclusions.

No matter what the outcome of this whole issue ends up being, it would be desirable that those adopting the final decision are at least aware of the applicable law and, ideally, make sure it complies with it. Sticking to the international legal order is the only means our country has to show itself both as a respectful and a respectable player amid the international community. Still, the crucial factor that should always be kept in mind is that, as long as we genuinely seek to help build a peaceful future for the Middle East, showing an unwavering commitment to international law is the only possible way.