The right to exist is a concept in political philosophy and international relations referring to a claimed right of a state (or nation) to exist based on its perceived political legitimacy. A state's right to exist is neither codified in international law nor, with some exceptions, recognized as a distinct legal category by the majority of international-law scholarship.
A doctrine of fundamental rights of states — including a right to political existence, self-preservation, and continuity — was widely discussed among international lawyers from the 18th century onward. A proposed right to exist was considered but ultimately excluded from the International Law Commission's 1949 draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the draft declaration itself was never adopted by the UN General Assembly.
In his 1882 essay "What Is a Nation?", French philosopher Ernest Renan argued that a nation possesses the right to exist so long as its members demonstrate a willingness to make sacrifices for the community it represents, describing it as a "daily plebiscite."
The phrase has featured prominently with regard to the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Political philosophy and international law What a "state right to exist" actually is remains unclear. In the past, such a state right was frequently assumed to exist; today, however, it is not a category recognized by a majority of scholars of state or international law.
In the 18thCompare, however, also on the mainstream of this century's research: and especially the 19th century, a theory of international law shaped by ideas of natural law was widespread and still found adherents well into the mid-20th century, according to which states, like persons, could hold fundamental rights. Several proponents of this theory also assumed a state right to exist, at times even regarding it as "the essential right as such". In the scholarly literature, however, it functioned more as an empty shell from which further fundamental rights could then be derived.
In the early 20th century there were also several initiatives to codify fundamental rights of states; these often included a right to exist or a corresponding principle. Toward the end of these initiatives, however, this right had disappeared from the drafts: in 1948 the Organization of American StatesText in instead recognized a fundamental state right "to live its own life". A year later, a right to exist still appeared in several drafts for an (ultimately unadopted) declaration of fundamental rights by the United Nations.Text in However, the International Law Commission ultimately voted, seven to five, to remove it from its draft declaration,Text in with several members calling it a legal truism and others wary that affirming such a right could not be cleanly separated from the question of which entities were entitled to statehood — foreshadowing the later debate over colonized peoples' right to self-determination. Consideration of the declaration was subsequently postponed indefinitely by the General Assembly and never revisited. Since the 1950s, the ideas of fundamental rights of states and of a state right to exist have also largely disappeared from works of international-law theory.
Accordingly, on the prevailing view, a "state right to exist" is today not a recognized right; no state thus has a right to exist that is distinct from the state rights to sovereignty and territorial integrity, from the right to "live in peace within secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force", from the group-based right of self-determination, or from the diplomatic act of the recognition of states.
Notwithstanding this majority view, several contemporary scholars continue to argue for some version of a state's right to exist. Among contemporary international lawyers, Volker Epping argues that such a right exists:
By contrast, Jure Vidmar argues against the traditional "anthropomorphic" doctrine of fundamental rights of states, but nonetheless finds that an existing state has a narrower, non-absolute right not to be extinguished or territorially diminished by outside force, grounded in the principle of territorial integrity and reflected in the International Court of Justice's recognition of a "fundamental right of every State to survival"; he denies, however, any corresponding right of an entity to come into existence as a state.
Similarly rejecting the term "right to exist" as a distinct legal category, three German legal scholars nonetheless argue that the protection of the continued existence of established states — following from sovereignty and, additionally, the right of peoples to self-determination — constitutes a bundle of legal positions that can be described, in a broader sense, as a "right to exist".
Historical use The concept of a right to exist for states or nations has roots in early modern political thought. In his 1795 work "Dissertation on First Principles of Government", Thomas Paine argued that representative government has a right to exist, while that hereditary government does not, grounding legitimacy in the consent and rights of the people rather than tradition or inheritance.Paine, Thomas, "Dissertation on the First Principles of Government" (1795), The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, 5:221--25.
In 1823, during the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman rule, Sir Walter Scott invoked the idea of a "right to exist in the Greek people".Scott, Walter, "The Greek Revolution ", Edinburgh Annual Register of 1823, p. 249.
The idea received influential philosophical treatment in Ernest Renan's 1882 essay "What Is a Nation?". Renan wrote that a nation has the right to exist "so long as this moral consciousness gives proof of its strength by the sacrifices which demand the abdication of the individual to the advantage of the community." He further described national existence as "a daily plebiscite, just as an individual's existence is a perpetual affirmation of life."Renan, Ernest, "What Is a Nation? ", 1882.
The phrase saw increased use during the decline and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. In 1903, Eliakim and Robert Littell wrote in The Living Age: "If Turkey has a right to exist – and the Powers are very prompt to assert that she has – she possesses an equally good right to defend herself against all attempts to imperil her political existence."
Examples Armenia The right to exist of Armenia became known as the Armenian question during the Congress of Berlin in 1878, and would again be asked during the Armenian genocide in World War I.
Basque Country
According to Basque nationalists, "Euzkadi (the name of our country in our own language) is the country of the Basques with as such right to exist independently as a state as Poland or Ireland. The Basques are a very ancient people..."Nationalism, Naunihal Singh, Mittal Publications, 2006, p. 111.
Israel and Palestine
In 1947, a United Nations General Assembly resolution provided for the creation of an "Arab State" and a "Jewish State" to exist within Palestine in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The Jewish Agency for Israel, precursor to the Israeli government, agreed to the plan, but the Palestinians rejected it and fighting broke out. After Israel's 14 May 1948 unilateral declaration of independence, support from neighboring Arab states escalated the 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The legal and territorial status of Israel and Palestine is still hotly disputed in the region and within the international community.
In September 1967, the Arab leaders adopted a hardline "three nos" position in the Khartoum Resolution: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. In November 1967, Egyptian government spokesman Mohammed H. el-Zayyat argued that the 1949 Egyptian–Israeli Armistice Agreement had already implicitly guaranteed Israel's right to exist. Pointing out that Egypt had never repudiated it, he nevertheless distinguished this acknowledgment from formal recognition of Israel. In the same month, Egypt accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which, according to data scientist Anne Alexander, also implied acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.Alexander, Anne, Nasser, p. 150. . At the same time, Nasser urged Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to reject the resolution. "You must be our irresponsible arm," he said.Alexander, Anne, Nasser, p. 150. . King Hussein of Jordan also acknowledged that Israel had a right to exist at this time.Dennon, Leon, "Key to Peace in Mideast", Owosso Argus-Press, 25 November 1967. Meanwhile, Syria rejected Resolution 242, saying that it, "refers to Israel's right to exist and it ignores the right of the [Palestinian] refugees to return to their homes."Lukacs, Yehuda, Israel, Jordan, and the Peace Process , 1999. Syracuse University Press, pp. 98–99.
Upon assuming the premiership in 1977, Menachem Begin spoke as follows: "Our right to exist—have you ever heard of such a thing? Would it enter the mind of any Briton or Frenchman, Belgian or Dutchman, Hungarian or Bulgarian, Russian or American, to request for its people recognition of its right to exist? ... Mr. Speaker: From the Knesset of Israel, I say to the world, our very existence per se is our right to exist!"Statement to the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin upon the presentation of his government, June 20, 1977 ", Volumes 4–5: 1977–1979, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
As reported by The New York Times, in 1988 Yasser Arafat pledged that the PLO would strive for a comprehensive settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and that such a settlement would guarantee "the right to exist in peace and security for all". In June 2009, US president Barack Obama said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's."
In 1993, there was an official exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and chairman Arafat, in which Arafat declared that "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."
In 2009 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demanded, as preconditions for further negotiations, the Palestinian Authority's acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian Authority rejected. The Knesset plenum gave initial approval in May 2009 to a bill criminalizing the public denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, with a penalty of up to a year in prison.Shragai, Nadav, "Knesset okays initial bill to outlaw denial of 'Jewish state' ", Haaretz, 30 May 2009. In 2011 Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech to the Dutch Parliament that the Palestinian people recognize Israel's right to exist and they hope the Israeli government will respond by "recognizing the Palestinian state on the borders of the land occupied in 1967."'We recognize Israel, they should recognize Palestine' . JPost, 30 June 2011.
Israeli government ministers Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state, with Bennett stating "I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."David Remnick (21 January 2013), The settlers move to annex the West Bank—and Israeli politics. The New Yorker In June 2016 a poll showed that only 4 out of 20 Israeli ministers accepted the state of Palestine's right to exist.