THE RECENT PROPOSAL to establish a committee formed of representatives of the three religions with the consent of the UN to deal with the sensitive archaeological sites in Jerusalem, formulated by King Hussein of Jordan in the wake of the tragic events which followed the opening of a new exit from the Hashmonean tunnel in the Old City, represents an opportunity to clarify some legal issues about the status of the Holy Places and the rights of the religious communities therein.

The topic was discussed at an international conference held in The Escorial, Madrid August 5-9, 1996, organized by the Complutense University of Madrid, where I was invited to give two lectures on the subject-matter of my research, regarding the Holy Places of Jerusalem in International Law. The participants included senior Palestinian, Israeli as well as Spanish political and academic figures, who discussed the topic 'Jerusalem: Past, Present and Future', paying special attention to the religious dimension of the Jerusalem question.

The debate between the Palestinian and the Israeli participants was at times tense, not surprisingly, given the present diplomatic impasse on the final status negotiations which include, among other issues, Jerusalem. Nevertheless, a general agreement seemed to emerge on some loose principles such as respect for 'existing rights' in the Holy Places, freedom of access and worship, partial immunity from jurisdiction, and fiscal exemption to be granted to the religious communities present in Jerusalem.

In my first lecture I presented the idea, which is currently emerging as a result of my research on the topic, that such principles are already internationally binding not only on Israel, but on whatever entity will be responsible, after the final status negotiations, for any area of the city where the Holy Places are located.

Regarding this idea the Israeli and the Palestinian participants expressed similar views. In particular, the two Palestinian speakers went even further: according to Riad Malki, there may be a difference between considering Jerusalem as a political capital as distinguished from a religious capital for the Palestinians and the Israelis. The latter, to be established in the Old City, should therefore be the common religious capital for Judaism, Islam and Christianity, whose representatives already agree on the religious status quo.

According to the Director of Panorama (Center for the Dissemination of Alternative Information), the two political capitals may be located in the vicinity of the existing Israeli Knesset and in an area near Abu Dis or El-Eizariya.

For his part, Mohammed Jadallah, Chairman of the Freedoms' Defence Committee, suggested that a Supreme Council representing the three monotheistic religions (including a representative from the Holy See) should be set up, in order to secure the long established religious status quo.

Indeed, as I pointed out in my second lecture, this principle dates back to article 14 of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, according to which, "A special Commission shall be appointed to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine" including, we would say today, the tunnel and the concerns about possible structural damage to the buildings on Al-Haram Ash-Sharif.

As the Commission was never set up, its powers vested, according to the wording of the aformentioned article 14, with the Council of the League of Nations, which represented at that time the values and the positions of the most representative countries of the world. The successor of this body may be considered today the General Assembly of the United Nations, which gave the international community an opportunity, by its Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, to express the universal consensus on the aforementioned principles. Indeed, they were defined as 'special objectives' of the whole Part (III) of the said Resolution, specifically devoted to the City of Jerusalem, namely, "To protect and to preserve the unique spiritual and religious interests located in the city of the three great monotheistic faiths throughout the world, Christian, Jewish and Muslim".

In this context, we may better interpret, from the 'Memorandum on the Significance of Jerusalem for Christians' written on November 14, 1994 by the Patriarchs and the Heads of Christian Communities in Jerusalem, the 'Legitimate Demands of Christians for Jerusalem', as a confirmation of the aforementioned principles: "(...) Jerusalem (...) above all ought to enjoy full freedom of access to its holy places, and freedom of worship. Those rights of property, ownership, custody and worship which the different Churches have acquired throughout history should continue to be retained by the same communities. These rights which are already protected in the Status Quo of the Holy Places according to historical edicts and other documents, should continue to be recognised and respected. (...) In claiming these rights for themselves, Christians recognise and respect similar and parallel rights of Jewish and Muslim believers and their communities."

Thus, in my opinion, once all the interested parties show their willingness to abide by the aformentioned established principles, the religious dimension of the Jerusalem question may be considered already settled. The proposal suggested by the King of Jordan, too, may be seen in this legal framework, opening the way for accelerated and successful peace negotiations on the main issues, related to the territorial - or political - aspect of the Jerusalem question.