The Question of Sovereignty.

In modern geopolitics, the principle of self-determination is often framed as an inherent right of any group that claims nationhood. However, a deeper examination of history, law, and sovereign legitimacy raises a crucial question: does self-determination require the approval of supreme royal authority from the most senior lineages? If so, the implications extend far beyond the so-called “Palestinian” issue to numerous modern nation-states formed in the wake of imperial dissolution.

The Colonial Legacy and the Myth of Universal Self-Determination

The 20th century saw the rapid dismantling of empires and the rise of newly formed states, many of which emerged through international mandates rather than historical sovereignty. Institutions like the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations, became arbiters of legitimacy, often recognising political claims that lacked foundational monarchical authority. However, these international endorsements are a modern construct, one that dismisses the historical role of supreme rulers in defining territorial legitimacy.

Under classical legal frameworks, territorial sovereignty was not merely a function of occupation or popular sentiment; it was determined by supreme rulers whose lineages traced back to the original sovereigns of a given land. The modern self-determination model, however, circumvents this principle, allowing newly declared states to assert legitimacy despite lacking monarchical approval.

The Case of the ‘Palestinian’ Claim

The so-called “Palestinian” national identity is a modern political construct, not an ancient Indigenous lineage with continuous sovereign rule. Historically, the region was governed by Jewish monarchs, followed by successive imperial rulers, including the Romans, Byzantines, Islamic Caliphates, the Ottomans, and finally, the British. At no point in this timeline was there a distinct sovereign “Palestinian” entity with royal authority over the land.

The British Mandate’s dissolution in 1948 did not transfer legal sovereignty to a Palestinian ruling house but rather left a vacuum that various factions sought to fill. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, itself a monarchy with descent from the Prophet Muhammad, held sovereignty over the West Bank until 1967, while Egypt controlled Gaza. The modern Palestinian leadership, however, derives its claim not from royal lineage but from political movements, some of which are internationally designated as terrorist organisations. By classical sovereign standards, this claim remains illegitimate.

A Global Question: What of Other Post-Imperial States?

As monarchical legitimacy was reinstated as the standard for self-determination, the question would extend beyond Palestine to dozens of states formed in the post-colonial era. India, Pakistan, numerous African nations, and parts of the Americas emerged from European imperial rule without approval from the original sovereign rulers of those lands.

Consider China, where the direct ascendant of the First Emperor retains sovereign authority. If a supreme imperial decree were issued defining the legitimate governance of historical Chinese territories, would that hold greater weight than the UN’s recognition of post-imperial states? The same question applies to other territories where ruling houses were displaced but not extinguished.

Restoring Sovereign Legitimacy in International Law

If the world is to return to a system where true sovereignty is recognised through lineage and supreme decree rather than transient political movements, a radical restructuring of international law would be required. Recognition of statehood would no longer be granted through international assemblies but through the approval of the most senior ruling houses of each historical empire.

Such a shift would have profound consequences, potentially invalidating modern claims that lack sovereign backing while reaffirming the legitimacy of monarchs whose rule was never lawfully dissolved. In this framework, the so-called Palestinian claim would remain unrecognised, as no supreme monarchical authority has conferred legitimacy upon it.

Conclusion: A World Beyond Political Constructs

The assumption that self-determination is an inherent right, divorced from sovereign lineage, is a product of 20th-century political engineering rather than historical precedent. As supreme royal authority is instated as the standard, many modern states would need to seek recognition from the ruling houses that historically governed their lands.

In this context, the Palestinian claim to statehood lacks not only Indigenous legitimacy but also the supreme monarchical approval necessary for true sovereignty. Without this, it remains a political assertion rather than a legitimate state under classical sovereign law.