Professor Quigley cites to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in advocating his position that Palestine is a state. This 1933 treaty, signed by the United States and a variety of Central and South American states, represents a codification of customary international law from the period and details the four factors considered vital for statehood: permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Professor Quigley proceeds to argue that Palestine meets each of these criteria, yet, in all four instances, must make a defense of the peculiarities of the Palestinian “state” and argue why they are insignificant in determining statehood. This may be the rare case where the sum is less than the totality of its individual parts; if it is only technicalities, abnormalities, and exceptions that allow Palestine to qualify as a state under each of the four factors, should we consider it a state in the totality of the circumstances as defined by the Montevideo Convention? A better argument for considering Palestine to be a state may be found in criticisms of the Convention and the need to embrace a more modern definition of statehood.

Even in 1933, the conditions for statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention were not universally agreed upon. (Thomas Grant, “Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 37, 1998-1999) In the intervening years, various theories of statehood have waxed and waned, and there remains significant dispute over what factors really should govern the determination. (Ibid.) For instance, Professor Quigley cites to evidence that is outside of the Montevideo Convention’s criteria, most notably his emphasis on the functional treatment of Palestine as a state by the organs of the United Nations. While this kind of evidence arguably falls under the fourth factor, I would contend that in the post World War II international landscape it should be considered to be its own criterion. The importance of the United Nations and other international bodies has grown in the post-war years, and so too has their role in determining the structure of international political landscape.

It is significant to note that many of the arguments against Palestinian statehood, both on this Forum and elsewhere, are centered around the Montevideo factors. For Professor Quigley and others attempting to advocate that Palestine is already a state, it may be necessary to first end the ideological stranglehold created by the Convention and move our thinking towards more progressive conceptions of statehood that reflect the modern global community.