The British Mandate of Palestine and International Law

Abstract

The establishment of Great Britain’s mandate over Palestine generated complex issues of international law. The mandate system was devised at the Paris Peace Conference with little prior analysis that might have given a clear answer as to its meaning. Complicating any analysis was the fact that three varieties of mandate were established, as Classes A, B, and C, with differing roles for the mandatory power. The Palestine Mandate was a Class A mandate, meaning a more robust status than that provided for Class B or C territories. Even within Class A differences existed. The three Class A mandates were Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Palestine. Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria each had a local administration with the mandatory power in an advisory capacity, whereas in Palestine the administration consisted of British personnel. The mandate system was criticized at the time as a continuation of colonial rule in a new guise. Feeding this criticism was the fact that in Great Britain’s governance structure, the Palestine Administration fell under the supervision of the Secretary for the Colonies. At the same time, Great Britain was subject to oversight by the League of Nations, through its Permanent Mandates Commission, and was enjoined to work toward relinquishing its role. Great Britain’s mandate over Palestine was further complicated by the fact that it involved a further injunction, namely, to foster a “Jewish national home” there. A notion of self-determination of peoples was becoming acknowledged at this period, and it was unclear how the concept of a “Jewish national home” might impact the population of Palestine, which was overwhelmingly Arab. Among international law writers of the 1920s, the mandate system generated a veritable cottage industry of scholarship, as they strained to fit it into existing categories of territorial status. Virtually every major international law analyst of the era expressed an opinion, with a number of them writing substantial volumes on the mandate system in general, or on Great Britain’s Palestine Mandate in particular. A technical note: The name “Henri Rolin” can be a source of confusion, as two Belgian scholars by this name wrote about the mandates in the interwar period. The dates of the elder Rolin are 1874–1946. The dates of the younger Rolin are 1891–1973. In the entries, each Rolin is identified by his dates.