Few legal developments have been so closely associated with the end of the Cold War and the perceived renewal of international law as the proliferation of schemes of international territorial administration (ITA) in the 1990s and early 2000s. Schemes of ITA were implemented in a diverse range of post-conflict settings, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and East Timor. Since then, ITA has been closely associated with the revival of the United Nations Security Council, its adoption of expansive interpretations of threats to “international peace and security” for the purposes for Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and the authorization of the use of force as well as of schemes of internationalized administration of varying degrees of comprehensiveness. Relatedly, the revival of interstate competition and the increasingly frequent usage of veto powers, coupled with growing unrest against the post-1990 global order, has raised doubts about the future of the practice. As both critics and supporters of ITA point out, modern ITA is not without precedent. Rather, notions of trusteeship, protectorate, mandated territories, and colonialism have been mobilized to situate the practice historically. Conceptually, international territorial administration is also associated with “robust peacekeeping,” which decisively moves away from ideas of minimal interference and neutrality, as well as with the concepts of “state-building,” “peace-building,” and “liberal peace-building.” Relatedly, the theory and practice of international territorial administration after the 1990s has been informed by ideas about “liberal peace,” the conviction that liberal democracies do not go to war with each other and, therefore, the spread of this particular form of government is a precondition for peace. Rising concerns about “weak” or “rogue” states as the breeding grounds for ethnic conflict, genocide, and terrorism also form the background of the practice. The ad hoc character of ITA has meant that the international organizations and states that are involved in each experiment vary greatly as does their mandate and lawful authority. As a result, multiple legal issues surrounding ITA remain contested and unresolved. For example, the applicability of the international law of occupation in the context of ITA is still fiercely debated, and so are issues about the human rights obligations owed by and the immunities enjoyed by international actors when they exercise de facto governmental functions.
Fit-for-Purpose Land Administration in Violent Conflict Settings