Luis Duran

The Palestinian refugees and how UNRWAs scope and mission has evolved in the last 60 years
The importance of this evolution to the international community and thechallenge of the terms of impartiality, neutrality and state concern

In this research paper I will discuss how the United Nations Relief Work Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has evolved in its humanitarian mission in the last 60 years by challenging its initial mission without a conscious purpose. This analysis will sustain two theses. The first one is that the international community has legitimately strengthened the UNRWAs mission allowing it to not fail or be compromised. The second one is that the importance of UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees case to the international community lies in how the flexibility and adaptability this agency has developed over time can illuminate other refugees conditions in the world. Furthermore, this case can give us some suggestions for rethinking the terms of neutrality and impartiality that international organizations, NGOs and peacekeeping operations are supposed to have in their missions. After a brief introductionfirst, I will examineon one hand the arguments of Juliana Pilon and Arlene Kushler. For these authors, UNRWAs mission has failed, because it has been heavily politicized in favor of the Arab states perspective in the Middle East conflict and against Israel (Pilon, 1985). Furthermore, as Kushler argues, by operating outside the norms accepted by the international community, UNRWA not only has failed to resolve the Palestinian refugee issue, but has also lost sight of its original humanitarian goals (Kushler, 2005). On the other hand, in support of my point of view, I will summarize and discuss the arguments of Benjamin Shifft and Thomas Thompson. These authors agree on
1

Luis Duran

the nature evolution of UNRWA in the last 60 years. Nonetheless, for them, this evolution has not been a proof of failure but unintentionally [] an expression of the international communitys continuing commitment to the protection and care of Palestinian refugees (Thompson, 2006). Second, I will discuss the implications of this case to the international standards of consent, neutrality and impartiality. The articles presented by Nicholas Tsagourias (2007) and WillianAscher (1983) will be a primary source for this discussion. I will conclude that UNRWA, within its evolution, has played a very significant role in the protection of Palestinian refugees. At the same time, this evolution gives us some avenues to rethink the conditions of neutrality and impartiality that govern international organizations. BACKGROUND, QUESTIONS, LEGAL FRAMEWORK, AND UNRWAS MISSION In order to situate this research into the debate of international organizations, the first question that should arriveis whats the legal and international context where UNRWAs mission is subscribed? With the aftermath of World War II (WWII), when millions of refugees needed to be attended, the United Nations established an agency the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to organize the aid assistance given to them.Three years after the end of the WWII, in 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War more than 900,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory that became the State of Israel. In accordance to the defenders of the realistic theory of international organizations the refugee problem receives increasing international prominence due to the fact that polices affecting refugees are linked directly with the political and security interests of states (Loescher and Dull, 1994). In fact, whereas most of the refugees after

Luis Duran

1945 are the concern of the UNHCR, the Palestinian refugees began to be under the protection of a new agency called United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Although bothagencies are separate and independent institutions, the assistance to refugeesfor both is under several regulations that apply to most of the international agencies and international organizations. First, the assistance of refugees would be permitted only under the approbation and state supervision where the refugees are. This international condition is mostly known as state consent. Second, these agencies should maintain neutral in any political issue during its mandate mission (Tsagourias, 2007). This makes reference to the principle of neutrality. Third, international organizations should hold no prejudices towards participants in a conflict and should not influence the course of events (United Nations, 1992). This is better known as the principle of impartiality. Furthermore, in the international community the scope for the assistance of refugees, for both the UNRWA and UNHCR, has beenin accordance with the parameters and regulations of the Convection Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in Geneva in 1951 (Kushner, 2005). As the convention establishes, international organizations will only provide basic materials and assistance always with the expectation that host or new countries incorporate the refugees. The Convention also maintains that UNHCR s main role in pursuing international protection is to ensure that states are aware of, and act on, their obligations to protect refugees [] and cannot be considered as a substitute for government responsibility (UNHCR, 1951). However, what would happen when an international institution is caught in the necessity of crossing this scope? Could that be considered a clear violation of the convention? Is this kind of behavior a challenge to the international law for the protection of refuges? Since 1950 UNRWA has been providing material assistance to Palestinian refugees in the form of educational services, including
3

Luis Duran

general and higher education as well as vocational, technical and teacher education and a wide range of health services, including disease prevention and treatment, health protection and promotion and environmental and family health programs (Kushner, 2005). These kinds of services, including an UNRWA s micro financial program are beyond the scope of emergency relief envisioned by UNHCR as a temporary measure on the road to selfsufficiency (UNRWA, 2004). What is neutrality in the context of international organizations and for the assistance of refugees? Neutrality is about the apolitical character of any[UN] operation that facilitates those involved in the crisis to give their assent, confident that they are not compromising their respective positions (Tsagourias, 2007). If UNRWA has really crossed the line of neutrality and impartiality other questions arise. Has their amount of humanitarian aidbeen a violation of the international agreements, or has it been an adaptation of this institution to the challenge of the Palestinian situation itself? This situation includes the impossibility of the international community and the lack of willingness of the political forces of the Middle East to get a final agreement for the return or resettle of the Palestinian refugees. As Samuel Huntington (1973) argues every international organization at some points finds itself limited by the very principle which gives it being .What happens when an international organization crosses those principles? If UNRWA has crossed those limits, has that been with or without approval of the international community? If so, what are the results? Furthermore,what comes next when bureaucracy, international laws and conventions do not provide an ultimate way out for a conflict that was originated and provoked for a specific political decision of the international community?And also the mandate of this agencywas supposed to be shorter than expected.Since 1949, the mandate of UNRWA has been renewed several times.
4

Luis Duran

When an international organization like UNRWA has been caught between occupiers and occupied to carry out its mandate (Shiff, 1989), an evolution and

adaptation to answer the outcomes of the conflict is necessary. In this way the case of UNRWA is a challenge to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and state consentthat international agencies must meet. First, because its humanitarian assistance that differs from other refugee camps in the world, has gone from providing basic needs, to providing elementary and higher education, microfinance programs, and health coverage to the refugees and their families. This kind of assistance is not stipulated in the international convention. Second, because UNRWA, unintentionally, through its educational program, has provided a space for the development of a political cause, the formation and consciousness of the Palestinian citizenship and the formation of a political group, Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Shabane, 2010).Third, UNRWA is a challenge to the principle of impartiality because, it has defended the interests of the refugees, has supported the Palestinian cause, threatened the political interests of the state of Israel (Kushner, 2005). From this perspective, the revision of UNRWA s case is relevant for the international organizations studies. That is why other questions closely related to the second thesis of this paper come next. What can the international community learn from UNRWA s case? Which implications bring the fact that an international organization, supposedly to maintain neutral and impartial, is caught in a political issue such as the conflict in the Middle East? Moreover, and in a more theoretical context, can UNRWA s case be a challenge to the realistic theory of international organizations?If yes, how?If the UN General Assembly has renewed the mandate of UNRWA for more than 8times, including the last mandatethat goes from 2008 until June 2011, this means that the international community accepts the work this agency has been doing since 1949 as good and valid. This leads to a secondtheoretical
5

Luis Duran

question. Can UNRWAs success suggest that the principles of neutrality, impartiality and state consent should be reconsidered in conjunction with the UNs principles and values in order to allow that international agencies accomplish humanitarian goals? I will go back to these questions in the second part of the paper. First,I will discuss the arguments for the first thesis of the paper. HAS UNRWAS MISSION FAILED? For some scholars UNRWAs evolution and change of scope is a proof of its failure.For others this evolution has meant an adaptation of the agency to the contemporary challenges in the Middle East.Two of the main articles confronted for and against UNRWA - and presented in this section of the paper were published in the journal Azure.Before continuing, it is necessary to locate this journal in context. Azure: Ideas for the Jewish Nation is a quarterly journal published by the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, Israel. It is published in both Hebrew and English, allowing for the exchange of ideas between Israelis and Jews worldwide (University of Cincinnati, 2010). Although the journal presents ideas for and against the state of Israel, it advocates for the strengthening of Jewish and Zionist values. It is very critical of post-national and radical trends in academia, judicial activism in the Israeli legal system, and supports free market reforms in the Israeli state (Sagiv, 2010). Although the debate of UNRWA s failure or not could be placed in a political science class, the fact that in the middle of the discussion the image, legitimacy, role and scope of an international organization is being challenged, make this confrontation relevant for international organizations studies. Sustaining the arguments against UNRWA are the ideas presented by Arlene Kushner (2005).Kushner considers the role of this agency out of its original mission, and
6

Luis Duran

therefore perpetuating a growing refugee problem instead of giving real solutions. She presents several arguments to support this thesis. First, UNRWA operates independently of the convention on refugees and independently of UNHCR. Moreover, UNRWA has its own legal definition of refugees, different from the one presented by the international convention. Second, the intervention and aid offered by UNRWA to its refugees go further than any assistance provided to any other refugee in the world. This includes healthcare, education, relief and social services. Also, it has a micro financial system that tries to alleviate poverty and support economic development. To that is added the opportunity that is given to the refugees to work inside the agency. The problem with this kind of assistance, as Kushner argues, however humanitarian it seems, is that it is outside the norms accepted by the international community, and it perpetuates a growing refugee problem, because this aid creates mutual dependency between assistants and refugees. Different from the definition used by UNHCR, UNRWA defines refugees as: Persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict (UNRWA, 1949). The problem with this definition is that it extends the status of refugee to other refugees that arrive to the zone after the conflict. Different from UNRWA s definition, UNHCR excludes from the status of refugees people who have found legal protection from established states, or who have refused to do so when offered (Kushner, 2005) while UNRWA does not. The last difficultyin UNRWA s own definition of refugees is that it confers the status of refugee to their descendants, ensuring in this way an ever-growing population in need of its services.

Luis Duran

Third, UNRWA, as an international organization, has failed to comply with the principle of neutrality. The international convention of refugees notes in chapter 1, Paragraph 5: The work of the High Commissioner shall be of an entirely nonpolitical character; it shall be humanitarian and social and shall relate, as a rule, to groups and categories of refugees (UNHCR, 1950). As I pointed out before, UNRWA, through its educational program, has provided a space for the development of a political cause, the formation and consciousness of the Palestinian citizenship and the formation of a political group, the Palestine Liberation Organization (Shabane, 2010). The fourth and last allegation of Kushner is more political and partisan than the first three. However, it is still a valid point of view. If UNRWA was set up as a temporary agency, why is it still operating more than half a century [later]? For her, UNRWA refuses to consider any resolution to the Palestinian refugees other than that demanded by the Arab world the right of return to Israel -. It is important to notice that the convention notes three alternatives for the solution of refuges cases all over the world, these areresettlement, repatriation or local integration (UNHCR, 1950). Kushner argues that UNRWA has denied the possibility of resettlement and local integration, by advocating for the return of the Arab-refugees to their ancient lands. UNRWA is denying the Palestinian refugees the one thing that the UNHCR takes as its essential purpose for existence: An end to their unwanted status (Kushner, 2005). BETWEEN OCCUPIERS AND OCCUPIED: UNRWAS EVOLUTION After the review of the arguments that explain in which ways UNRWAs scope and mission has been considered, for some critics out of the international norms, and for that reason a failure of the agency, I will summarize and analyze the contradictions to those arguments. At the same time this examination will sustain the first thesis of my research:
8

Luis Duran

UNRWAs mission has neither failed nor been compromised but, legitimately strengthened by the international community in favor of the Palestinian refugees. In accordance with the international norms, the permanent solutions for the problem of refugees [is] subject to the approval of the governments concerned (UNHCR, 1950). This norm has to deal with the principle of state concern that applies to international organizations. In this way, since 1949, the political, sociological and economic environment where UNRWAs mandate has been placed hasbrought several implications. Since 1967 UNRWA has been caught between occupiers and the occupied: to carry out its mandate, it must cooperate with a government perceived by the refugees as directly hostile to their interest (Schiff, 1989). This government in concordance to the international norms is capable of curtailing or expelling the agency from the territories. At the same time the agency still has the mission to assist the refugees and carry out its mandate from the General Assembly. As Benjamin Schiff (1989) says: The agency treads a thin line between collaboration with the occupiers and advocacy for the occupied. In an answer to the arguments against UNRWA, Thomas Thompson considered that the organization is not outside of the international norms. This can be demonstrated because in the absence of a solution to the Palestinian refugees, the General Assembly has repeatedly renewed UNRWAs mandate. (The current mandate runs until June 30, 2011). It is the international community which originally determined the parameters of UNRWAs operations, and which continues to support such operations to this day (Thompson, 2006). After its foundation, UNRWA was limited to the delivery of humanitarian services, but in every renewal of its mandate this goal progressively movefrom basic assistance to preparatory education, and health and relief assistance, (Thompson, 2006).
9

Luis Duran

The critics of UNRWA say that the agency does not promote the resettlement of the refugees because the agency only advocates for a return to the antique lands of the refugees. Nevertheless, addressing this kind of issues if outside the scope of the agency even that the UN itself. The resettlement, local integration or return of the refugees is political rather than humanitarian [] and can only be addressed by political decision-making among the parties involved (Thompson, 2006). This issue, however, is more complex than that. The three possible options that the international convention offers to the refugees in the world are not feasible in the Palestinian context. The first two options, resettlement and local integration, are rejected by the refugees themselves and their host countries. The remaining option, return, is rejected by the State of Israel. The argument that UNRWA is only perpetuating an ever-growing scenario, ends up being a very weak argument after reviewing the political complexity of the case. Since there is a refugee situation that has gone on longer than expected, it is the concern of this agency to evolve andtry to offer a better standard of living to the people they are protecting. UNRWA has moved beyond the limitations of its initial mandate for the benefits of the refugees. UNRWA has educated teachers, doctors, engineers and social workers. This education has been a contribution, not only for the refugees but for the development of the Middle East region as a whole, (Thompson, 2006). The development of UNRWA on handling its refugee situation has been an example for other refugees camps in the world. Such is the case of UNRWA s Microfinance Program. This program is an autonomous financial unit established in 1991. The lending provided by the program has helped to create and sustain jobs, reduce poverty and boost economy prosperity, (Shabaneh, 2010). The international community has supported the evolution of UNRWA s scope and mission, a process that has not been outside of international norms. As an example, in 1988,
10

Luis Duran

after the start of the first intifada (1987-1993) Palestinian uprising - the UN secretarygeneral published a report describing UNRWAs general assistance for the protection of the refugees rather than merely humanitarian assistance (Shiff, 1989). In the report, the secretary-general included four varieties of protection for the refugees: physical, legal, general, and protection from publicity. This kind of protection goes further than providing only humanitarian and economic assistance. In 2000 and 2005 there have been two more intifada. In support of my argument that UNRWAs mission and scope has unintentionallyevolved over the years, Shiff(1989) argues that the different intifada has enabled the agency to increase activities in the territories and to stretch its mandate in the direction of refugee protection . ADAPTABILITY, EVOLUTION, AND CHALLENGE TO

INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF NEUTRALITY, IMPARTIALITY AND STATE CONSENT This last section of the research paper looks for a comprehensive point of view on how UNRWAs evolution and adaptability can give some suggestions on rethinking the terms of neutrality, impartiality, and state consent that govern international organizations. In order to illuminate this topic the Nicholas Tsagourias (2007)Consent,

Neutrality/Impartiality and the Use of Force in Peacekeeping: Their Constitutional Dimension, and WillianAscher(1983) New development approaches and the adaptability of international agencies articles will help to develop the ideas.This analysisalso looks to support the second thesis of the paper on how UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees case can illuminate other refugees conditions in the world. The work of international organizations, humanitarian, emergency relief, and peacekeeping operations, is based on the trinity of consent, neutrality and impartiality.
11

Luis Duran

These principles, enunciated as criteria by the UN Secretary-Generalare constantly affirmed and reaffirmed in UN documents or academic definitions (Tsagourias, 2007). In the case of any humanitarian assistance, such as with thePalestinian refugees, state sovereignty is protected and no kind of action can take place without state consent. Mainly because consent has constitutional value for the presence of the operation within a particular state, whereas the organization of the operation is independent of host state consent and resides within the powers of the referent institution. The requirement of consent [] derives from the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention, and this is a general principle of international law (Tsagourias, 2007). Although these arguments are true I can affirm that numerous factors related to UNRWA and its activities challenge the principles of neutrality, impartiality and state consent.Among these are its renovation of several mandates, the support received from the international community and the state of Israel, its advocacy for the Palestinian refugees against the interests of Israel, its micro financial and educational program, and the fact that this institution over the years has gained more administrative power in the refugee camps. WillianAscherargues that it is important to understand how international organizations adopt new orientations and often different objectives. This understanding is important for both, practical and theoretical reasons. For practical reasons it is essential to understand which changes are available and which are not. Asking that simple question international agencies can avoid reorientations that are doomed to failure, for efforts to achieve them waste resources (Ascher, 1983). In the same path of practical reasons international organizations should determine whether such efforts should be directed at the nation states or at the agencies leadership or staffs. In the case of UNRWA, we have seen how the agency has had to deal with the interests of the refugees without damaging or
12

Luis Duran

threatening the interests of the state of Israel. From the theoretical reasons on how international organizations should approach new orientations and objectives Ascher considers the paradox of international organizations. This paradox is the fact that although they are by definition creatures of agreements among sovereign states, they are also among the most formally institutionalized features [and] may be influenced by a variety of professional and organizational norms distinct from nation-state interests (Ascher, 1983). Hence, these organizations often find themselves working against the very states that set them up in the first place.We have here two opposing points, and UNRWA s case illustrates them very well. On the one hand, as already mentioned quoting Huntington (1973) international organization several timesfind themselves limited by the principles which give themtheir reason of being. On the other hand, it can also be argued that international organizations may assume a life of their own, a life independent of the basic causal factors that led to their creation in the first place (Krasner, 1982).This idea brings an important issue to the debate between the realistic theory and their critics. The realist theory argues that international organizations exist because they are relevant for the interest of nation states. However, in the case of UNRWA the state of Israel has had to accept over the years the increase of UNRWA s administrative and advocacy powers over the territories of the refugees. Among these powers arethe defense of the Palestinian cause in the international community, the formation of the consciousness of the Palestinian citizenship, and the acceptance and indirect promotion of political groups such as PLO.Additionally, UNRWA s mission has evolved in the last 60 years seeking the promotion of interests that are against the interest of the state of Israel. For that reason, it can be affirmed that determining the evolution of an international organization, it may be impossible to say for any given case whether a new initiative is or is not in the interest of
13

Luis Duran

the most powerful nation state or states(Ascher 1983). Arguing that international organizations merely exist because they can be puppets of the state, as the realistic theory suggest, nowadays is an incomplete approach to the existence of these agencies, and URWA is a proof of that. For international organizations, the viability of the development of new strategies, changing specific scope and goals, and the adaptation to new challenges over the years, as in UNRWAs case, does not only depend on the acquiescence of the obvious international actors the nation states through their formal institutional representation and their various pressures but also on its congruence with the professional role models (Ascher, 1983). The political capacity of the agency to keep pushing for the implementation of those new goals, objectives and strategies is also important. Indeed, development objectives and approaches [] cannot be usefully viewed as mere manifestations of bargained agreements among nation states (Ascher, 1983) as realists would believe. The theoretical approach of international organizations defined with the terms of neutrality, impartiality and state concern must be redefined and reframed. Rephrasing Aschers idea, the manifestations of bargained agreements among nation states is not enough to explain how international organizations behave in the international arena. I believe the suggestion presented by Tsagourias in its article regarding the use of force in peacekeeping operations also apply to several refugee situations all over the world, including the Palestinian case. The demands of modern operations concerning a final resolution for the Palestinian refugees put pressure to these principles, [neutrality, impartiality and state concern] and therefore, the United Nations needs to reconsider their meaning in conjunction with its own principles and values (Tsagourias, 2007). For the reasons and arguments already presented in this research paper, I can affirm that the case of UNRWA clearly illustrate the challenges
14

Luis Duran

presented to these terms and at the same time can give some lights to the administration of other refugees camps all over the world. CONCLUSION The refugee emergencies after World War II and the Cold-War era have highlighted the fact that combating the causes of forced migration cannot proceed solely within the [traditional] confines of international humanitarian organizations (Loescher and Dull, 1994).UNRWA, with its more than 60 years of existence and the support of the international community and the state of Israel (Thompson, 2006) has been a model in negotiating its own evolution and adaptation for the defense of the Palestinian refugees. International agencies that work in humanitarian aid while trapped incomplex political scenarios can find, in UNRWA s case,a revealing experienceof evolution and adaptation in accordance with the international parameters and norms. Without compliance with these parameters it would be impossible for the agency to continue operating after more than 60 years of existence. The study of UNRWA s case can also give an idea of how international organizations, (if they really want to provide humanitarian aid and defend human rights) cannot escape from the thin line that separates neutrality, impartiality and state consent. As Tsagourias (2007) argues, Rwanda is the best example of the ambiguity these terms. International agencies should always negotiate, discuss and push for their intentions through diplomacy, dialogue, negotiations, and in accordance with their founding principles. However, this does not mean they have to remain static without challenging or modifying their original principles in accordance with the evolution of the situation. Supporting my argument Loescher and Dull (1994) offer a compelling idea:

15

Luis Duran Going beyond traditional refugee emergency assistance to facilitating reintegration of returnees requires the development of new or different competencies on the part of international agencies. A focus on reintegration will involve rethinking the roles and mandates of international organizations and NGOs; the shifting of their operational priorities from receiving countries to countries of return; and closer cooperation between development, human rights, and refugee agencies than has hitherto been the case.

As Loescher and Dull suggest, the refuge assistance is a complex enterprise that requires more than facilitating traditional assistance. Indeed, if UNRWA has been criticized over the years is because the agency have going beyond this traditional aid. Regarding the principle of state consent in the work of UNRWA and the UNHCR as well, even if consent has been given, the problem of maintaining it is rather acute. When the mandate is clear and comprehensive, consent can be secured and maintained, because parties will have a clear view of what they have consented to (Tsagourias, 2007). However, when the mandate beginsto infringe the interests of the state involved, as in the case of UNRWA and Israel, the answer coming from the parameter of state consent is not as simple as removing or expelling the agency from the country.Consent, neutrality, and impartiality oscillate between legal friction and legal reality , (Tsagourias, 2007) and the evolution and adaptability presented for UNRWA in the last 60 years gives some suggestions on how an international agency can treaty and negotiate within that friction. Finally, and regarding the living conditions of the refugees, international agencies that work for the refuges causes cannot forget that, as Kushner (2005) suggests, without a country to call their own, refugees are denied the basic social, economic, and political rights that most civilians take for granted, and without which a citizen s ability to lead a productive and fulfilling life is nearly impossible.International agencies have the mission to
16

Luis Duran

provide a final solution to the livelihood of those human beings. Although UNRWAs primary scope has evolved over the years, this evolution does not represent a failure but a strengthening in the cause for the protection of refugees, specifically, in the Middle East. UNRWA has fulfilled its role, and that is why its evolution can illuminate other refugee situations in the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ascher, W. (1983) New Development Approaches and the Adaptability of International Agencies: The Case of theWorld Bank.International Organization, 37(3). Pp. 415-439 Azure journal.(2010). Unpublished manuscript, Library Department, University of Cincinati, Cincinati, USA. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R0WukCVzMuQJ:www.libraries. uc.edu/research/subject_resources/judaic_studies/journals.html+azure+magazine+jerusalem &cd=63&hl=en&ct=clnk Gil and Loescher. (1994). The global refugee crisis, a reference handbook. Contemporary World Issues. Huntington, S. (1973). Transnational Organizations in World Politics.World Politics.25(3). Pp. 333-368 Krasner, S. (1982) Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous Variables.International Organization. 36

17

Luis Duran

Kushner, A. (2005). The UNs Palestinian Refugee Problem.Azure, Autum 5766 / 2005, No. 22. Linday, J. (2009). Fixing UNRWA: repairing the UNs troubled system of aid to palestinian refugees. Policy Focus, 91. Pilon, J. (1985). How the UNRWA has failed the Palestinian Refugees. Heritage Foundation. May 1985 Sagiv, A. (2010). The Sad State of Israeli Radicalism.Azure Schiff, B. (1989). Between occupier and occupied: UNRWA in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Journal of Palestine Studies, 18(3), 60-75. Shabaneh, G. (2010). Ghassan. Refugees, International Organizations, and National Identity: the case of Palestine. New political Science, 32(2). Thompson, L. (2006). UNRWA, Thomas L. Thompson, and others.Azure, 24, Tsagourias, N. (2007). Consent, Neutrality/Impartiality and the Use ofForce in Peacekeeping: TheirConstitutional Dimension. Journal of Conflict & Security Law.11(3). UNHCR.(1950). Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, G.A. res. 428 (V), annex, 5 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 20) at 46, U.N. Doc. A/1775 United Nations (1992), UN doc. A/3943 (1958), 810; Higgins, vol. III, op. cit., fn. 7, pp. 131132; SC Res. 743, para. 10 UNRWA (1949). Retrieved from - http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=86 UNRWA, (2004).Organization of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Secretary General's Bulletin, Article 2.1 (b).

18