Search

Kashmir has been a flashpoint of conflict since independence from British rule in 1947 and the partition of India into two states. These two countries, India, and Pakistan, have both claimed the land on the northern most sector of the Subcontinent the focal point of which is the Valley of Kashmir. The conflict is not a domestic dispute or a regional issue between the two protagonists but engages international law because of the human rights violations and the atrocities committed that has engaged international humanitarian law. The occupation by India of Kashmir was controversial from the start as it went against the aspirations of the population who had close affinity and kinship with Pakistan. The United Nations Security Council mandated a referendum to decide the future of the territory divided by a Line of Control, a military boundary, but India has refused to implement the resolutions. The Indian army has cracked down on the population under the Special Powers Act 1958 and various other opaque ordinances that oppress the population. The final act in this de facto occupation was transformed into de jure control by the Indian Parliament when it revoked Article 370 and Article 35 of the Constitution and annexed Kashmir. The Valley has been placed under lockdown and the population disfranchised with all political activity banned and demographic changes underway by a government appointed by India. The pogroms committed by the Security forces and the gross abuses of human rights have been catalogued in two UN Human Rights Council reports that implicate the Indian forces. The argument of this paper is that there should be rigorous application of international law and war crimes tribunals should be invested to prosecute the Indian officials for breaches of human rights established in the conduct of non-international conflicts (NIC).

Seeking asylum presents itself as a surviving strategy to a part of the Legal tradition recognizes the Madrid Treaty (1750) as (i) the result of the personal genius of the Portuguese-American diplomat Alexandre de Gusmão, and (ii) a fruitless document aimed only at resolving territorial conflicts between Iberian crowns. Without ignoring this reading, a qualitative research based on primary and secondary sources and guided by the notion of Court society allows us to glimpse a deeper structural sense: to replicate and maintain characters of an international order marked by the parameters of a corpus politicum mysticum. We argue that (i) recognizing such elements provides Brazilian legal historiography additional nuances in the assessment of ruptures and continuities between Portuguese America and Independent Brazil, since (ii) the Treaty of Madrid (1750) incorporates traditions that would mark Brazilian foreign policy after its political emancipation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Djibouti and Eritrea have been in conflict since June 2008 when their troops fought along the Djibouti–Eritrea border. The conflict revolves around the location of the border and sovereignty over the strategically located Doumeira Islands and adjacent reefs. In 2010 Qatar brokered a mediation agreement and began to implement it, but withdrew in 2017 without notifying Eritrea and without providing reasons to either country. The dispute raises a number of international law issues. This article focuses on the validity and application of three relevant colonial treaties (from 1900, 1901 and 1935) that defined the boundary, one of which (the 1935 Treaty) did not enter into force. Issues relevant to the determination of the borderline and sovereignty over the disputed islands and the unique challenges that may arise are discussed in light of the colonial treaties, relevant International Court of Justice jurisprudence and other international law principles, particularly uti possidetis juris. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this article is to discuss the relationship between invasions, cartography, and possessory law in the context of diplomatic relations between Portugal and Spain in the first half of the eighteenth century, in South America territories. The Castilian siege of Colônia do Sacramento and the French invasion of Fernando de Noronha island (1736 and 1737), awoke in the Portuguese ambassador D. Luís da Cunha the need to change the foundation on which the frontiers of Brazil were negotiated. He began to use the concept of uti possidetis as a strategy, which would become the directive for the diplomatic negotiations in the 1750 Treaty of Madrid. Despite its acceptance as a resource to demarcate frontiers, uti possidetis created various controversies at the moment of the demarcation of the territories and the Treaty was annulled by the Treaty of El Pardo (1761), when the legal frontiers returned to their previous positions.

In international relations, the last three decades have been marked by national and institutional fragmentation. The fate of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and the regrettable way that events played out (especially in the former case), could befall other federative entities as well. Canada and Belgium come to mind, as do countries like Spain, all of which effectively function as federations. However, while federations usually have dispute settlement and mechanisms for secession embedded in their constitutions, sub-constitutive territories are often excluded from such considerations. What territories such as Kosovo, Sandjak, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. have in common is that they share a desire for independence from their parent country. However, achiveing independence would present risks to the territorial integrity of other countries (what can be termed the domino principle), as well as risks to the endurance of flexible international law. The cases we have alluded to above culminated in the Crimean crisis. The problems between Estonia and the Russian Federation stem from the choice of precedent and founding text on which to base the former’s renewed independence. While Estonia was founded on the basis of the 1920 Tartu Peace Treaty that put an end to the country’s War of Independence, its experience as a Soviet Republic added another legislative filter in the form of the 1977 Constitution of the Soviet Union. However, the principle of uti possidetis had evolved to apply to more than cases of colonialism. Thus, when Estonia seceded from the USSR with the borders it had been since 1945, it was doing so under the principle of uti possidetis. The current dispute stems from the fact that the Estonian political elite seek to have the 1920 Tartu Peace Treaty recognized as the foundational document for the country’s renewed independence. Under the Treaty, Estonian sovereignty applied over a much larger territory. By insisting that any new border arrangement with Russia be based on that Treaty, Estonia is invalidating the principle of uti possidetis and the validity of the Constitution of the Soviet Union as a vehicle for independence. It implies a latent Article 5 situation between NATO and Russia, and threatens the legitimacy of other post-Soviet secessions.

1. Raspad Jugoslavije. 2. Izbijanje spora o granicama između Hrvatske i Slovenije. 3. Sporazum o arbitraži od 4. studenoga 2009. 4. Tijek postupka i jednostrano odustajanje Hrvatske od arbitraže. 5. Konačna presuda izrečena 29. lipnja 2017. godine: Kopnena granica; Piranski zaljev / Savudrijska vala; Pojam ‘’vitalnih interesa’’; Razgraničenje teritorijalnoga mora izvan Piranskoga zaljeva; Pitanje “veze Slovenije s otvorenim morem” (“junction”); Ostale odluke i zaključci Tribunala. 6. Kratak zaključak.

Copyright of Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie IV, Historia Moderna is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

INTRODUCTION. This paper considers the general principles of international law and focusing specifically on the principle of uti possidetis. The author argues that uti possidetis originating from Roman jus civile was transformed into a principle of interstate relations dealing with a transformation of former administrative borders into international boundaries of the newly independent states in Latin America in XX century. The principle’s further effective application in Africa and Asia contributed into uti possidetis’ formation as the principle of international law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials for the article were the works of leading Russian and foreign researchers in the field of international law dedicated to general principles of international law and international customary law. The author referred to historical, comparative and theoretical methods in his analysis.RESEARCH RESULTS. It is argued that uti possidetis as the principle of international law has a primary concern with the state or territorial sovereignty. The paper analyses uti possidetis’ evolution from the regional principle into the general principle of international law. It also deals with the review of cases considered by the International Court of Justice and other international ad hoc tribunals as well as specialised authoritative opinions of specialised international commissions that played a vital role in affirming uti possidetis as one of the general principles of international law.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author argues that uti possidetis is not similar to the principle of territorial integrity, and in contrast the former serves as auxiliary support to the latter one. The analysis refers to the most recent precedents with dissolution of the former communist federations that simply reconfirmed the importance of uti possidetis as the general principle of international law. It is concluded that the evolution of uti possidetis as the general principle of international law took place under influence of the state practice and application by international judicial bodies.

African states and institutions believe that the principle of territorial integrity is applicable to sub-state groups and limits their right to self-determination, contrary to international law. The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon has been an ever-present issue of social, political and economic debates in the country, albeit most times in undertones. This changed as the problem metamorphosed into an otherwise preventable devastating armed conflict with external self-determination having become very popular among the Anglophone People. This situation brings to light the drawbacks of irregular decolonisation, third world colonialism and especially the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uti possidetis originating from Roman jus civile which later transformed into a principle of interstate relations dealing with a transformation of former administrative borders into international boundaries of the newly independent states in Latin America was also effectively applied upon decolonisation in Africa in XX century. This article considers the relevant state practice of the African states and the OAU’s position on application of uti possidetis principle. The article also analyses the Burkina Faso vs Mali case which is one of the substantial cases on application of uti possidetis pinciple.

Copyright of Comparative Maritime Law / Poredbeno Pomorsko Pravo is the property of Jadranski zavod HAZU and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper deals with analysis of critical views on uti possidetis principle by various doctrines of international law. Four key arguments of critical approaches to uti possidetis principle are reviewed therein: (i) the principles’ conflict with self-determination; (ii) its limitation to decolonisation processes; (iii) its controversial nature due to existence of two forms, uti possidetis de jure and uti possidetis de facto and (iv) lack of grounds to be accepted as a norm of customary international law. The relevant counterarguments are produced against critical views on uti possidetis principle.

The foregoing analysis argues that uti possidetis ’ originates from jus civile of Roman Law. The principle’s main purpose in Roman Law was the preserving of the status quo and stability of property possession. From the rule of private Roman Law uti possidetis transformed into a principle of international law dealing with state or territorial sovereignty issues. Only in the 18-19th centuries it became a principle of interstate relations in Latin America and then in African and Asian continents. It is argued that the principle of uti possidetis juris is a specifi c mechanism and process of international law, which serves for the purposes of transferring the sovereignty from preceding sovereign to the new state.

Copyright of Review of International Affairs (04866096) is the property of Institute of International Politics & Economics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Decolonized States of Latin America accepted principle uti possitedis juris to escape disputes and armed conflicts. They agreed that frontiers, inherited from colonial time, are transformed by the principle uti possidetis juris in frontiers among new independent States. The Frontier dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali was the first case before the International Court of Justice resolved by application of that principle. The International Court of Justice found that the principle is of universal value and applicable to all cases of decolonization and acquiring independence. The Court explored relationship between the principle uti possidetis juris and other principles of international law - self-determination, equity and effectivité. It considered value of geographic maps in determination of colonial frontiers.

Sewerage system (cloaca), which implies any cavity through which waste water flows, has in Roman law a special legal protection due to its importance for public health preservation and safety of citizens. In Praetorian Edict, two interdicts are envisaged; one prohibitory, by which private sewerage system is protected and one restitutory, by which public sewerage system is protected. It is possible that a restitutory interdict about private sewerage system existed. By the public sewerage interdict, a person who blocks or damages public sewerage is ordered to restore everything to previous state. By the private sewerage interdict, anyone is forbidden to obstruct a person who wants to repair sewerage that leads from his building through neighboring buildings. By lawyers' interpretations, the application of this interdict is expanded to all realty, as well as a situation of building a new sewerage system. Moreover, it is envisaged by Praetorian edict that against a person who builds or repairs sewerage neither interdict uti possidetis can be filed. Similarly, by lawyers' interpretations, application of operis novi nuntiatio is prevented against a person who repairs or cleans sewerage system if interruption of work could cause danger. Law developed in the direction that enabled unobstructed maintenance and building of sewerage system through neighboring realty, especially if danger of effusion existed. The only limitations were comprised in the obligation of compensation of damages to third parties, and in certain obligations of public law character: obligation to obtain consent of magistrate when building a new sewerage and duty to pay sewerage tax (cloacarium).

This paper deals with several territorial disputes, regarding the land delimitation, which were put before the International Court of Justice. The determination of international borders is one of the most important questions of international law and the International Court of Justice represents a very important judicial instance to which states can address if they have an unsolved boundary question with the neighboring states. In the territorial disputes at the Court State Parties were not only states that were formed in the process of decolonisation but also some European states such as, for example, The Netherlands and Belgium. The principles that Court has applied in the process of dispute resolution were different regarding the region and demands of the State Parties. The Court should, firstly, apply international law that means sources envisaged in the Article 38 of its Statute. In its jurisprudence, it used at the first place international treaties, where that was possible, but also the principle of uti possidetis and the principle of effectivity in order to resolve the dispute presented before him by the Parties.

Ovu su raspravu potaknule dvije nedavno izrečene presude Međunarodnog suda u Haagu, i to ona iz 2002. godine o suverenosti nad Pulau Ligitan i Pulau Sipadan, između Indonezije i Malezije, te ona iz 2007. o teritorijalnom i morskom sporu u Karipskom moru između Nikaragve i Hondurasa. Obje su odlučivale o suverenosti nad malim nenaseljenim ili slabo naseljenim otocima, udaljenima od obala država u pitanju. Uz to je druga presuda razgraničila morske prostore između parničnih strana. Te se presude uklapaju u prijašnju sudsku praksu i čine važan doprinos nadogradnji pravnih pravila iz tih oblasti. Naposljetku se u toj svjetlosti raspravlja o zahtjevima i jednostranim aktima Slovenije glede morskih prostora na sjevernom Jadranu.

This paper places the issue of subsidiarity in the context of a wider question: "What boundaries between political units ought there to be?" Rejecting the idea of a world without borders, it begins by examining the view of international lawyers, encapsulated in the principle of uti possidetis, that existing state boundaries must be treated as sacrosanct unless modified by mutual consent. It then considers three normative approaches to boundary-drawing. The functional approach seeks to create political units that can best perform the economic and other functions expected of states. The political approach argues for boundaries that will enclose well-functioning democracies, which depends partly on the constitution of the demos itself, and partly on its likely impact on those outside of the boundaries. The homeland approach looks for boundaries that respond to the pre-existing territorial claims of nations and other groups. Since all three approaches have merit, boundary-drawing must try to accommodate each of them, which in the case of disputed boundaries will mean looking for solutions other than the traditional hard-bordered nation-state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to self-determination of peoples is one of the most controversial concepts in public international law. Also, this concept is not only legal, but also philosophical, and also pertains to political science, sociology and entails various issues and repercussions. Therefore, its analysis should be approached in detail, gradually and with an interdisciplinary approach in order to comprehend the various important aspects of the concept that leads toward the answer to the following question - Is the self- determination of peoples a principle or a right and what else in involved here? Is this right jus cogens de facto and de jure or is it conditioned by the organic other rules of contemporary international order? This primarily refers to the cogent ban of breaching the territorial integrity of existing states and jeopardizing international peace and stability as proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations. This entails a consideration of the principle of uti possidetis and its roots, as well as secession, the most common consequence of the affirmative exercising of the right to self-determination of peoples. Also on the continuation and dissolution of states, mostly federal, which is necessary for an analysis whether or not there are any material differences in relation to secession, which is also neither permitted nor prohibited. The author here will interpret our closest known case (one still recent) the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, which was a modern precedent for a federal state and has reverberation in current events like those in the Ukraine. In order to have a more complete impression of law, policy and various interests will also make mention of the constitutionality of peoples, minorities and their rights through a variety of documents and the opinions of scholars and also concepts concerning the nation and state recognition. There is no consensus whether it is a constitutive or declaratory act by third countries and the international community. In order to avoid a worst case scenario, the acceptance of the legal “status quo”, it should be openly debated in order to avoid political and public diversions or distractions that hide interests which are either contrary to the spirit of the United Nations or, on the other hand, legitimately opposed to each other.

Uti possidetis je načelo opće naravi koje se primjenjuje na delimitaciju (razgraničenje) izmeðu država ukoliko one nakon stjecanja neovisnosti nisu uspjele sklopiti nove ugovore o svojim granicama. Neke su države nastojale otkloniti primjenu toga načela usljed novih dogaðaja, ili temeljem njihovih jednostranih akata, pozivajući se na efektivnost vlasti koju su u nekom prostoru vršile. Kao kriterij razgraničenja nekih morskih prostora neki ugovorni propisi spominju crtu sredine uz posebne okolnosti. Ali članci 74. i 83. Konvencije UN o pravu mora iz 1982. godine u stvari ne sadrže nikakav kriterij razgraničenja gospodarskoga i epikontinentskog pojasa. U ovoj se rasprava analizira kako je spomenuta pitanja razriješio Meðunarodni sud u svojoj presudi iz 2002. godine, i to u svjetlosti prijašnje meðunarodne sudske i arbitražne prakse.

The paper discusses border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia along the lower reaches of the Dragonja River, acute since the two countries gained independence in 1991. It is the most hotly contested border dispute point between the two countries except for the maritime border in Bay of Piran. The area with small villages of Mlini-Škrile, Bužini and Škodelin is known in the literature as the “area along the Dragonja River”, "the area of double records" or "the case of four villages". The paper begins by describing reasons for the southern border of the Municipality of Piran from geographic and economic aspects. It focuses on changes of borders from the legal aspect between and after World War Two. Situation on site is described for the last 60 years, based on a field research. The paper concludes by outlining the principle of international law “uti possidetis” and its possible implications for the area in question.

During the 20th century, the United Nations led several peacekeeping missions into Africa, where civil wars and armed conflicts among states have followed each other. These conflicts differed in many aspects from each other, and the UN tried to give several answers to heal the conflicts. This essay attempts to present and compare these conflicts and the UN missions through the case of three states and a colony, Angola, Namibia, the Central African Republic, and Western Sahara. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The seas of South East Asia present a succinct backdrop against which several current disputes are being played out. At stake are the maritime boundaries of China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Singapore. In seeking to delimit such international maritime boundaries, vital questions are being asked concerning sovereignty over islands, reefs and islets, and the value that can be ascribed to these following the determination of sovereignty. This paper seeks to examine one such dispute, between South Korea and Japan, concerning contested sovereignty over two traditionally uninhabited islets that lie in the sea between the two countries, namely the islets of Dokdo (Korean name)/Takeshima (Japanese), also known as Liancourt Rocks (English terminology). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article problematizes dominant understandings of moral rights to territory and rejects the claim that the legitimacy of independence of the former Yugoslav republics can be grounded in the right of their peoples to self-determination, either within ethnic or then-existing administrative boundaries. Instead, the most promising normative justification for a decision to recognize Yugoslav republics as independent states follows from a particular interpretation of the all-affected interests principle in democratic theory, which leads to a radical reconceptualization of the idea of the people, "its" territory, and the legitimate role of the inter national community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Main topics: Municipal legislation, bilateral treaties on delimitation and participation in multilateral conventions on the law of the sea, by the former Yugoslav Federation and other coastal States in the Adriatic at the ''critical date''. Developments in Croatia and other coastal states after 1991. The principle of uti possidetis in its various aspects as a basis to the settlement of territorial disputes on land and maritime areas. The author emphasizes the problems and claims raised in maritime delimitation of Croatia with Slovenia, Italy, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

This article aims to discuss the lack of social participation in Brazilian diplomacy. For this, it was elected the example of a negotiation between Brazil and Britain about the territory of British Guiana, where the Brazilian negotiator, Joaquim Nabuco, was defeated in his argument, representing one of the few episodes in which the country lost territory. In this case it can realize the instrumental use of social strata, as the indigenous, to justify territorial possession, based on the principle of uti possidetis and how the society is exclued from decision-making in foreign policy, going into this framework as an element, but not as a subject or part of what is called "national interest", which ends up weakening the Brazilian state with a relative loss of legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is argued in this paper that the choice made by the vast majority of the international community to promote a systematic and extensive use of the uti possidetis principle for defining new international borders of newborn European States has not met the expectations of peace and stability. Starting from the explanation of the initial meaning of the principle in antique Roman law, a first part explores how the principle of uti possidetis was reactivated for decolonisation processes in Latin America, Asia and Africa, before being implemented in Europe following the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. A second part is dedicated to the assessment of this import for separations of States whose constituting territory is at stake. The intent is to expose its shortfalls and propose alternative solutions to improve the situations for which the use of uti possidetis principle has been counter-productive. One possible option is certainly to promote adjustments of borders under the supervision of the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]