Illegal Occupation and Its Consequences

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 201-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaël Ronen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Peremptory Norm ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Territorial Status ◽  
The Right

This Article explores the grounds and consequences of illegal occupation. It proposes that an occupation may be considered illegal if it is involves the violation of a peremptory norm of international law that operates erga omnes, and is related to territorial status. Accordingly, illegal occupations are primarily those achieved through violation of the prohibition on the use of force and of the right to self-determination, or maintained in violation of the right to self-determination. This examination forms the basis for a systematic analysis of specific occupations that have been declared illegal by U.N. organs. The second part of the Article addresses the consequences of an occupation's illegality, in view of the political and legal objectives of determining such illegality. It considers the international responsibility for an illegal occupation; the obligation of non-recognition and the law applicable to an illegal occupation; and the right to self-defense. The Article concludes by commenting on the role of “illegal occupation” as a category under international law.

Self-Determination, Human Rights, and the Nation-State

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 443-484
Author(s):  
Gaetano Pentassuglia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Nation State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
General Process ◽  
Cultural Minority ◽  
The Right

Abstract In this article I examine selective dimensions of the nexus among the right to self-determination, human rights, and the ‘nation-state’ as they relate to claims made by certain ethno-cultural minority groups. I first discuss some conceptual extensions of ‘national’ claims and their underlying relation to international law and state sovereignty. Then, I critique elements of ‘national’ self-determination that are supposedly constitutive of the law of self-determination, including arguments about sub-national groups as ‘peoples’, and discuss some alternative approaches to the role of international law vis-à-vis this sort of claims. Finally, I argue that international human rights law can offer a synthesis of the above nexus insofar as it works, not so much as a platform for accepting or rejecting seemingly ‘absolute’ rights or solely enabling legal-institutional ad hocism, but rather as a general process-based framework for assessing group- related pathologies that are (directly or indirectly) of international law’s own making.

The International Court of Justice and Peoples

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-180
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe article examines how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dealt with the concept of peoples and peoples' rights in its jurisprudence. Most prominent has been the Court's role with respect to the right of self-determination and it is this issue that forms the core of the article. A second important question dealt with is the role of indigenous peoples in ICJ case practice, as the struggle by those peoples to gain collective rights is a recent development in international law. Drawing on this analysis, the discussion proceeds to consider the role that the ICJ has played in the development of the rights of peoples in general and what its future role might be in this sphere of international law. The article also examines the way in which the Court has allowed peoples to participate in its proceedings and whether and how its treatment of peoples' rights has strengthened the general foundations of international law.

The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jure Vidmar
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Borders ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
Territorial Status ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe secession of Crimea and—more broadly—the conflict in Ukraine reopened questions concerning the limits of a democratic expression of the will of the people and the use of force in order to procure annexation of a territory belonging to another State. This article seeks to clarify the law governing the change of the legal status of a territory through secession and merger with another state. It argues not only that the right of self-determination does not grant an entitlement to alter the legal status of a territory, but also that general international law does not prohibit such an alteration. The rules of international law favor the stability of theexistinginternational borders and thus the territorial status quo, but this does not mean that a unilateral attempt at altering an existing territorial arrangement automatically constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Any change of the legal status of a territory becomes illegal, however, upon anoutsideuse of force. Such an illegality cannot be “cured” by a democratically expressed will of the people.

scholarly journals The Doctrine of Legitimate Defense

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens David Ohlin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Rogue States ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Textual Interpretation ◽  
Normative Foundation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Self Determination

The following article reorients mainstream conceptions of self-defense by defending a broader doctrine of legitimate defense that, in limited circumstances, justifies unilateral intervention. The source of the doctrine is natural law, which was explicitly incorporated into the text of UN Charter article 51. The effect of this incorporation was to preserve, as a carve-out from the prohibition against force in Article 2, the natural law rights of defensive force. Specifically, the Article concludes that defensive force under natural law included, in extreme situations, a right of intervention in rogue States that refused to comply with natural law. The Article then provides a normative foundation for the doctrine of legitimate defense by showing how the right of self-determination, the right to be free from genocide, and the right to self-defense, all flow from a more primary right to exist that applies to nations and peoples. Finally, drawing on earlier work published with George Fletcher, the Article explains how a national group’s right of self-defense can trigger a third party’s right to intervene on its behalf. This reading of Article 51 shows how its explicit incorporation of natural law and its textual reference to “legitimate defense” provides the conceptual ground for a modern doctrine of humanitarian intervention. However, unlike other legal justifications for humanitarian intervention that are framed as “exceptions” to article 51, the doctrine of legitimate defense is based on a textual interpretation of that provision.Published: Jens David Ohlin, "The Doctrine of Legitimate Defense," 91 International Law Studies (2015)

scholarly journals مظاهر استخدام القوة في الحرب الاستباقية

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
طلعت الحديد ◽  
بريز يونس
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Preemptive War ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The Issue of preemptive war and the protection of States against the dangers and threats they face is a process that facilitates rectifying things and carrying out defensive operations that gave rise, in turn, to the legal capacity through repeating and stating them in the international agreements. Self-defense in international law is very similar to the right of defense in the national laws of states which consider the individual’s protection and survival as having the priority over the violator or the enemy. In order tackle all the aspects of the topic, the researchers have tried to divide the study into two main sections. The first section is about the definition of preemptive wars and the scholars’ opinions through two subsections: the first gives the definition of pre-emptive war, and the second tackles the requirements and the motivations of the preemptive war. While the second section which falls in two subsections is related to the role of the international organizations in defining these wars and their mechanisms. The first subsection is about the role of the League of Nations, and the .second is about the role of the United Nations in such wars

The Failed Battle for Self-Determination

2019 ◽  
pp. 426-442
Author(s):  
Olivier Barsalou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Democratic Participation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Self Rule ◽  
The Right

The right to self-determination in international law arose as a justification and rationalization of imperial trusteeship practices over subjugated peoples. The UN Charter embodies the conception of the right to self-determination as a conditional right enabling self-rule only after colonial powers ‘permit’ it. This chapter analyses the evolution of the US government’s attitude on the colonial question between August 1941 and April 1945. It argues that the US delegation to the UN established the idea of a gradual, managed, and orderly dismantling of European empires. It discusses the political and legal compromise reached at San Francisco in June 1945 that allowed the US and other imperial powers later to turn those colonial territories into Western assets, transforming the right to self-determination—implying a right to decolonization—into a right to internal self-determination—implying a right to democratic participation. Common Article 1 of the 1966 Human Rights Covenants embodied this shift.

Vladimir Jabotinsky

2018 ◽  
pp. 124-171
Author(s):  
Dmitry Shumsky
Keyword(s):  
Critical Role ◽  
The State ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Social Self ◽  
The Right

This chapter explores the political approaches toward self-determination, the nation, and the state by the founder of the right-wing revisionist movement, Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880–1940). According to Jabotinsky, every nation aspires to “social self-determination,” meaning an optimal demographic concentration in one region that is understood to be its historical homeland. Politically speaking, however, those same nations are also interested in becoming a part of a larger multinational federative state that would serve as an organizing political framework that includes all citizens. Each citizen's national districts/communities would have the critical role of mediating their inclusion as subjects of the governmental sovereignty of the multinational federative state.

Palestinian Diaspora Communities in Latin America and Palestinian Statehood

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-120
Author(s):  
Yousef M. Aljamal ◽  
Philipp O. Amour
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
South America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Middle Classes ◽  
Latin Americans ◽  
Political Views ◽  
The Right

There are some 700,000 Latin Americans of Palestinian origin, living in fourteen countries of South America. In particular, Palestinian diaspora communities have a considerable presence in Chile, Honduras, and El Salvador. Many members of these communities belong to the professional middle classes, a situation which enables them to play a prominent role in the political and economic life of their countries. The article explores the evolving attitudes of Latin American Palestinians towards the issue of Palestinian statehood. It shows the growing involvement of these communities in Palestinian affairs and their contribution in recent years towards the wide recognition of Palestinian rights — including the right to self-determination and statehood — in Latin America. But the political views of members of these communities also differ considerably about the form and substance of a Palestinian statehood and on the issue of a two-states versus one-state solution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document