Search

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.

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.

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.

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.