The article addresses the legality of the relocation of the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in light of the duty of non-recognition and the international consensus on the two-state solution. Analysing the massive reaction of states to the United States administration’s decision, the article takes stock of the practice on the status of Jerusalem and on the Israeli-Palestinian issue more broadly. The authors conclude that the almost unanimous negative reaction of states and their commitment to the two-state solution will remain a dead letter if the solution to the crisis is left to a future bilateral agreement.

The U.S. decision in December 2017 to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem recognizes the latter as the capital of Israel. While violating several UN resolutions and international law, it has in the short-term impacted the negotiations between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel. In the longer term we can see that the impact of the decision is also more complex and nuanced. There are three main areas which suggest this to be the case: First, the lack of clarity over the decision itself; second, the varying degrees of sovereignty exercised by Israel in different parts of Jerusalem due to the city's long and religiously diverse history; and thirdly, the contradictions inherent in imposing a nationalist ideology upon a cosmopolitan and heterodox city.