7. Sovereignty over Territory

Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams

Sovereignty is one of the fundamental concepts in international law. It is an integral part of the principles of equality of States, territorial integrity and political independence that are referred to in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. Sovereignty is crucial to the exercise of powers by a State over both its territory and the people living in that territory. This chapter discusses traditional means of acquisition of territory; effective occupation; consent by other States; and limitations on sovereignty over territory.

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 910-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Chinkin

The use of force has been prohibited in international relations since at least the United Nations Charter, 1945. Article 2 (4) of the Charter states:All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the United Nations.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Yitzhak Benbaji ◽  
Daniel Statman

The legal prohibition on aggression was first posited in the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact (‘The Pact of Paris’), which outlawed ‘war as an instrument of national policy’. The parties to this pact undertook the duty not to use force to resolve ‘disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them’. Later, the United Nations Charter gave expression to the same idea: ‘All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’...


2003 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 389-408
Author(s):  
Geoff Gilbert

The protection of refugees in international law is always a complex mix of legal obligations and policy considerations. Unfortunately, the reaction against refugees post September 11 has ignored both the facts and the pre-existing law.This paper addresses how refugees have fared in international and domestic law post September 11 2001. Given that a refugee, by definition, has lost the protection of her/his state, there is no body, other than the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which is able to respond in the face of unjustified restrictions on the rights accorded to this most vulnerable group.The first thing to note is that none of the people involved in the events of September 11 was a refugee. Equally, immediately after the events of September 11, approximately 100,000 Afghans fled Kabul fearing revenge attacks by the United States. At the same time, under pressure from Pakistan and Iran, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees facilitated the repatriation of 215,000 Afghan refugees.


1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson

In the merits phase of decision in the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the World Court briefly mentions references by states or publicists to the concept of jus cogens. These expressions are used to buttress the Court’s conclusion that the principle prohibiting the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is also a rule of customary international law.


1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mala Tabory

The framework for the systematic registration and publication of international agreements on an intergovernmental level was set in Article 18 of the League of Nations Covenant, and later in Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. The purpose of treaty registration and publication is to give effect to the principle and policy of “open covenants”—enunciated as the first of President Wilson’s Fourteen Points—in lieu of secret diplomacy. In addition, these procedures serve to record “contemporary trends in substantive international law” for the benefit of judicial and government practitioners, scholars, and specialists in various fields.


2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rain Liivoja

AbstractArticle 103 of the United Nations (UN) Charter stipulates that the obligations of UN Member States under the Charter prevail, in the event of a conflict, over their obligations under any other international agreement. While this important provision is often mentioned, its precise meaning remains something of a mystery. The present article tries to shed some light on the scope of this ‘supremacy clause’ by discussing, first, its operation with respect to treaties, and then by looking at its relevance to various other contractual arrangements and to customary international law.


Author(s):  
A. N. Vylegzhanin ◽  
Tim Potier ◽  
E. A. Torkunova

INTRODUCTION. This year is the 75-th anniversary of the Great Victory of the Allies – Britain, the Soviet Union and the USA – over Nazi Germany. The most important legal result of this victory has become the Charter of the United Nations – the universal treaty initiated by Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the USA (and later – by China and France) aiming to save succeeding generations from the new world war by establishing United Nations mechanisms to maintain international peace and global security. The UN Charter has since become the foundation of modern international law, respected by States across continents and generations. That seems, however, to begin changing after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, when its former-members «socialist» European countries (including Bulgaria and Poland) became a part of the Western military bloc – North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO seems to demonstrate now a new attitude to fundamental principles of the UN Charter, first of all, to the principle relating to the use of armed force only according to the UN Charter. NATO States-members launched in 1999 an air campaign against Serbia without authorization by the Security Council; then an ad hoc western coalition, led by the United States, resorted to armed force in 2003 against Iraq and organized in the occupied territory of Iraq the death penalty of the President Saddam Hussein. Even some western European States, France and Germany, first of all opposed such military action of the USA for ignoring the UN Charter. The apparent involvement of the USA in the unconstitutional removal of the Ukrainian President Yanukovich from power in Kiev in 2014 and the subsequent local war between those who recognize such a discharge as legitimate and those who do not (both referring to the right of self-defense) – these facts make the problem of international peace especially urgent. In this political environment, the risks of World War III seem to be increasing. This paper addresses such challenges to modern international law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Th background of this research is represented by the teachings of distinguished scholars and other specialists in international law, as well as international materials including documents of the international conferences relevant to the topic. Some of such materials are alarming, noting that the international legal system is in danger of collapse and it is doubtful whether an international legal order will be possible in the coming decades at all. Others are not so pessimistic. The analytical framework includes also suggested interpretations of the UN Charter and other international treaties regulating interstate relations in the area of global security. The research is based on a number of methods such as comparative law and history of international law, formal logic, including synthesis of relevant facts and analogy.RESEARCH RESULTS. It is acknowledged that there is a need for a more coherent international legal order, with the system of international law being at its heart. Within the context of applicable principles and norms of international law, this article specifically provides the results of analysis of the following issues:1) centrifugal interpretations of international law as they are reflected in its sources; 2) the need for increasing the role of the UN Charter in the global international legal framework; 3) modern values of the UN Charter as an anti-confusion instrument; 4) the contemporary meaning of the Principles embedded in the UN Charter; 5) comparison of the main principles of international law and general principles of law; 6) jus cogens and the UN Charter.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. After discussing the issues noted above, this paper concludes that it is in the interest of the community of states as a whole to clarify the normative structure and hierarchy of modern international law. Greater discipline will need to be demonstrated in the use and classification of principles of international law and general principles of law in the meaning of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. The content of jus cogens norms most probably will be gradually identified, after diffi lt discussions across the international community, both at interstate level and among academics. At the heart of such discussions may be the conclusion suggested in this paper on the peremptoriness of the principles of the United Nations Charter – Articles 1 and 2. Such an approach will further promote international law at the advanced quality of regulation of international relations and, for the good of all mankind, assist in the establishment of an international environment much more dependent on the rule of law.


Author(s):  
Shane Darcy

This chapter focuses on the evolution of the international law on the use of force as it relates to the concepts of retaliation and reprisal, particularly since the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945. After defining the concepts of retaliation and reprisal as understood in international law, the chapter considers whether armed reprisals are contrary to the UN Charter, along with the debates surrounding the UN Security Council’s condemnation of retaliatory actions. It then examines claimed instances of state practice, as well as judicial and scholarly views on the lawfulness of such reprisals. Finally, it discusses arguments calling for the revival of reprisals or retaliation as permitted exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force.


1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-196

1. WHEREASThe peoples of the United Nations have expressed in the Charter of the United Nations their determination to practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security; and to that end the Members of the United Nations have obligated themselves to carry out the purposes and principles of the Charter;


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document