Search

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.

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.

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).