more than a restricted repatriation and, later, no repatriation at all.170 In response to that impasse, the United Nations General Assembly passed a series of measures beginning in 1951 that “effectively terminated the UNCCP’s role of implementing the durable solution of return and curtailed its role as intervenor with Israel (or other states) to protect refugees’ rights and interests.”171 The result was that, by 1952,172 UNCCP’s activities were restricted to “gathering information on refugee property in Israel and investigating the possibilities of compensation.”173 Accordingly, by the early 1950s UNCCP reached the conclusion that it was unable to fulfill its mandate.174 The ability of UNCCP to protect and promote the legal rights of Palestinian refugees was compromised by its mandated requirement to merge refugee protection with the broader task of Arab-Israeli conciliation, combined with a lack of international political will. The rights affirmed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194(III) were often deferred in light of what the Commission came to view as the “practicalities on the ground,” i.e., Israel’s opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees.175 Parallel UNCCP efforts toward resettling these refugees also failed, as Arab host states and the refugees themselves were opposed to any form of resettlement which did not include the option to return.176 There is some debate concerning whether UN Resolution 394(V),177 of 14 December 1950, reduced or actually expanded UNCCP’s mandate.178 The Resolution reads: [The General Assembly:] 2. Directs the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to establish an office which, under the direction of the Commission, shall: (a) Make such arrangements as it may consider necessary for the assessment and payment of compensation in pursuance of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III); (b) Work out such arrangements as may be practicable for the implementation 170 Susan M. Akram and Terry Rempel, “Recommendations for Durable Solutions for Palestinians Refugees: A Challenge to the Oslo Framework,” The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online 11, no. 1 (2001): 20. 171 Akram, “Palestinian Refugees and Their Legal Status,” 42. 172 The year of 1952 is emblematic because it was in that year that UNCCP’s “budget was limited solely to maintaining a record-keeping office in New York.” Ibid., 51, fn. 35. 173 Ibid., 42. 174 The UNCCP wrote that “the present unwillingness of the parties fully to implement the UNGA resolutions under which the Commission is operating, as well as the changes which have occurred in Palestine during the past three years, have made it impossible for the Commission to carry out its mandate,” UNCCP, “Progress Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine,” November 20, 1951, para. 79 and 87, UN Doc.A/1985. See Harish Parvathaneni, “UNRWA’s Role in Protecting Palestine Refugees,” in Rights in Principle - Rights in Practice: Revisiting the Role of International Law in Crafting Durable Solutions for Palestinian Refugees, by Terry Rempel (BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, 2009), 15. 175 Rempel, The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Protection, and Durable Solution for Palestinian Refugees, 4. 176 UNCCP, “Historical Survey of Efforts of the UNCCP,” para. 31. 177 UN General Assembly, “Resolution 394(V),” para. 2. 178 Akram and Rempel, “Recommendations for Durable Solutions for Palestinians Refugees: A Challenge to the Oslo Framework,” p. 21, footnote 86. The Palestinian Refugee Problem: An Overview 31