By Konstantinos D. Magliveras, Professor of Public International Law, University of the Aegean, Greece

I. Introduction

In late July 2025, the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution was adopted during a namesake High-Level International Conference held under the auspices of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) (A/CONF.243/2025/1). The Declaration was accompanied by an Annex containing a summary of proposals and recommendations made by participants to serve as the basis for further joint deliberation, discussion and action (A/CONF.243/2025/1/Add.1). On 10 September 2025, UNGA Decision 80/506 endorsed the Declaration by 142 votes in favour, ten votes against (Argentina, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, USA) and twelve abstentions. The purpose of this note is to discuss the background to the New York Declaration, to offer a very brief account of its content and report on developments since its adoption.  

II. The Background

In its explanation of vote, the USA called Decision 80/506 ‘a gift to Hamas’, ‘a publicity stunt’, and the New York Declaration ‘the demographic death of Israel as a Jewish state’. On the other hand, France called it a ‘historic vote reflect[ing] the international community’s determination to commit to the implementation of an ambitious road map for the peace and security of everyone in the region. The Declaration adopted by the General Assembly mirrors the unprecedented support …’ (emphasis added).

It should be noted that, legally speaking, UNGA did not adopt the Declaration, it only endοrsed it. As will be explained, UN Member States entrusted the holding of the Conference to the UNGA; therefore it is not an official UNGA activity/event so to speak. In particular, Resolution ES-10/24, approved on 18 September 2024 during the Tenth UNGA Emergency Special Session, resolved an international conference be convened during the course of the 79th Ordinary UNGA Session to implement UN resolutions concerning Palestine and to promote the so-called ‘two-State solution’. To put it otherwise, another attempt to secure a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The Conference’s modalities, including the designation of France and Saudi Arabia as Co-Chairs, and extending an invitation to observers and to international institutions to contribute to the discussions, were set out in UNGA Resolution 79/81 of 3 December 2024. Titled ‘Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine’ and approved by 157 members, it is a very broadly worded resolution, which reads like a chronology of relevant UN action starting with Resolution 194(III) (1948).  

Two interesting points. First, the invitation extended to international organisations led to the participation of the EU, the League of Arab States (LAS), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Given that the State of Palestine is a Member State of LAS and OIC, it was able not only to partake in the deliberations but, perhaps more importantly, to become one of the co-sponsors of Decision 80/506. Perhaps a conspicuous absence was that of the African Union, which has always been a most fervent supporter of the Palestinian cause and maintains a permanent representation at UN Headquarters.

The second point has to do with the fact that enabling Resolution ES-10/24 was taken during the Tenth Emergency Special UNGA Session (57 members voted against it or abstained) and not during an Ordinary UNGA Session. The former Session was originally convened in 1977 to address ‘Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory’. It was requested by Qatar, the very country whose territory on 9 September 2025 was hit by Israeli missiles killing several people. The UN Security Council addressed this flagrant violation of state sovereignty by a mere press statement, whose drafters ensured that Israel is not mentioned at all! In September 2024, Mauritania, Syria and Uganda requested the resumption of the Tenth Emergency Session so that UN members could consider how to follow-up ICJ’s Advisory Opinion Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which had been rendered in July 2024 at the UNGA’s request (Resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022). Resolution ES-10/24 is effectively the legal instrument setting out various measures / actions that the UN membership considered necessary to give effect to the ICJ Advisory Opinion, in conjunction with other previous UN instruments.

One such measure was establishing an international mechanism for reparation for all damage arising from Israel’s internationally wrongful acts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to be assisted with the creation of an international register of damage. Another was tο ensure accountability for the serious international crimes committed (the Resolution does not specify by whom) through investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels. It is rather extraordinary that the Resolution did not mention, even en passant, the arrest warrants against B. Netanyahu and Y. Gallant, which the International Criminal Court had at the time issued for crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed in the period October 2023 – May 2024. And a third measure was the decision to convene under UNGA auspices an international conference for the implementation of the Palestine related UN resolutions. This is of course the event that finally led to the adoption of the New York Declaration. In theory, UN members could have opted for such an international conference to take place outside the framework of the UN and with the modalities to which they would have agreed. But here they chose to convene it within (the structures of) the UNGA. One would imagine that the reason was the UNGA’s experience in organising and holding large-scale conferences. With the UNGA chosen as the venue, three months later, UN members laid down the modalities for the international conference in the aforementioned Resolution 79/81, which was adopted during an Ordinary (79th) UNGA Session.

III. The content of the New York Declaration

It follows that the New York Declaration should be seen as the culmination of a process, which principally originated from the need to give effect to the conclusions of the aforementioned ICJ Advisory Opinion. According to it, the ICJ was, inter alia, ‘of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly … and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’. With the Security Council unable to exercise its ‘primary responsibility’ to maintain peace and security in the Middle East (Article 24(1) UN Charter), the High-Level International Conference in July 2025 was arguably such ‘further action’.

The emphasis on the ‘Two-State Solution’ in the Conference’s and the Declaration’s title could be easily explained by the fact that from the very beginning the UN was effectively in favour of two states being created in what was largely the British mandate of Palestine. In particular, UNGA Resolution 181(II) ‘Future government of Palestine’ of 29 November 1947 had adopted a ‘Plan of Partition of Palestine’, which envisaged in Part I(A)(3) thereof ‘Independent Arab and Jewish States’.

The rather long New York Declaration (18 pages) intertwines this dimension with how to peacefully resolve the Palestinian question, given the state of affairs at the time of the Conference, which have arguably been radically changed since then. Thus, the first of the four sections of the Declaration is titled ‘Ending the War in Gaza and securing the day after for Palestinians and Israelis’. The other three sections address, respectively, how to empower a sovereign, unified and economically viable State of Palestine; how Palestine and Israel will live side by side in peace and security; how to preserve the ‘two-state solution’ against illegal unilateral measures; and how to achieve regional integration by ending this conflict. The Declaration contains several good ideas and proposals, also building upon the experience of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). On the other hand, it also features some rather meaningless recommendations e.g. to ‘Ensure that global social media engines are operating in a non-discriminatory manner and in line with international law’.

With Israel rejecting a priori to discuss with the majority of UN members how the conflict could realistically end, instruments like the New York Declaration could become futile even before they are adopted. A question that can perhaps not be avoided is whether those states and international organisations that participated in the Conference acted in favour of promoting Palestine’s rights and interests. If Palestine is the weakest party in this conflict, arguably to do so would not be against any rules, provided of course that the other side’s rights and interests are fully acknowledged, respected and not compromised.  

IV. Developments since the New York Declaration

On 30 July 2025, the Conference was suspended. On 5 September 2025, the Saudi Arabia’s UN representative introduced a draft oral decision to the effect that the UNGA should resume it, because ‘the situation on the ground in Palestine has never been more dire [and] the momentum towards peace must be maintained’. Without a vote, the Assembly decided to resume the Conference  setting the date for 22 September 2025. Israel’s delegate raised questions regarding, among others, the legality of such decision arguing that Resolution 79/81 had no provision for suspension or resumption, and warned the UNGA not to succumb to ‘procedure bullying’ and to ‘a publicity stunt’. Clearly, Israel had a point regarding the lack of such provisions in Resolution 79/81. However, this argument would have had merit if the Conference had been an official UNGA event and, therefore, UN members were obligated to follow specific rules. However, as submitted above, this is not the case; UN members resolved to essentially entrust to the UNGA to convene the Conference and, presumably, they are within their rights to modify its modalities if developments warrant it. To carry on this argument, UN members could have equally rejected Saudi Arabia’s proposal or they could have ignored it.

The next obvious question is whether the resumption of the Conference will achieve anything of substance. One could (and should) be pessimistic on its success, namely to resolve Palestine’s statehood. Perhaps other recent developments will prove to be more important. One has in mind the proposed recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state by several powerful states, including two UNSC permanent members (France, UK). Were this to happen, the State of Palestine would be recognised by four out of the ‘Big Five’.  In practical terms, this should prove to be more significant than the New York Declaration. –    

Image: UNGA voting on the endorsement of the New York Declaration @ UN Photo/Loey Felipe