analysis finally addressing the key inconsistencies and ambiguities in state practice on 1D. El Kott is a sea change for the European approach to determining Palestinian asylum claims, but much remains to be done to ensure state consistency and compliance with both the language of the ECJ’s decision and the main purpose of Article 1D: ensuring continuity of assistance and protection to Palestinian refugees until the durable solution of Resolution 194, Para. 11 is implemented for all Palestinians. It is in this context that the revised edition of the BADIL Handbook plays a critical role. From the original 23 countries profiled in the first edition, the authors and contributors of the Handbook have expanded the legal mapping to 30 countries, covering Europe, the Americas, Africa and Oceania. Although the data on Palestinian refugees and asylum seekers and jurisprudence applying the Refugee Convention are more complete for some countries than others, the profiles provide substantial detailed information on how Palestinian refugee claims are treated in practice. The preliminary data available from caselaw post-El Kott, however, reflects the sustained effort practitioners and Palestinian legal experts must make to ensure adherence to the language and purpose of both the ECJ decision and Article 1D. Already there are inconsistencies in interpretation and application of El Kott and between UNHCR’s interpretation and the ECJ. As noted later in the Handbook, the El Kott decision has brought European countries’ jurisprudence more in line with UNHCR’s most recent interpretation of 1D in its 2013 Note. Even countries outside the EU have been applying the criteria found in UNHCR’s Note and El Kott to interpret Palestinian claims under 1D. As the Handbook concludes at the end of the mapping of national practice, there remains great inconsistency in domestic jurisprudence: there are at least 11 different analyses apparent in the different practices adopted by the countries surveyed. The issue is not simply one of harmonizing state practice: there remains a significant difference in BADIL’s interpretation based on expert scholarship and UNHCR and the ECJ approach to 1D. The main difference is in the assessment of what is meant by ‘protection’ and ‘assistance’ in the two sentences of Article 1D, and when such ‘protection and assistance’ has ceased such that Palestinian refugees no longer benefit from the special regime established for them. The key role of the UNCCP and its termination has not been adequately considered by either UNHCR or any judicial authority with regard to what international protection obligations are owed Palestinian refugees. The Handbook aims to parse out these ambiguities and point out the errors in existing interpretations and state practice. Until this issue is properly analyzed and corrected, Palestinian refugees will continue to receive lesser protection than they were guaranteed by the international community in the critical period of 1948-1951 when the instruments designed to ensure continuity of protection for them were debated and drafted. The Handbook has five chapters. The first chapter gives an overview of the historical and legal underpinnings of the Palestinian refugee problem. Chapter Two discusses the legal and institutional framework established by the United Nations Introduction xvii