Search

West Papua as one of the regions in Indonesia that integrates with the New York Agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands carries the right of self-determination in an effort to separate from Indonesia. This research discusses how the regulation of the right to self-determination as part of Human Rights and examines the basis of West Papua in carrying out the right to self-determination and declaring itself as a state. This type of research is normative, with statutory (statue) and historical approaches. This research concludes that the right to self-determination is part of human rights, while West Papua’s claim as part of the Indonesian State in demanding the right to self-determination is clashed with the Uti Possidetis Juris and Territorial Integrity.&nbsp, Papua Barat sebagai salah satu wilayah di Indonesia yang berintegrasi dengan Persetujuan New York antara Indonesia dan Belanda mengusung hak menentukan nasib sendiri dalam upaya memisahkan diri dari Indonesia. Penelitian ini membahas bagaimana pengaturan hak menentukan nasib sendiri sebagai bagian dari Hak Asasi Manusia dan mengkaji dasar Papua Barat dalam mengusung hak menentukan nasib sendiri dan mendeklarasikan diri sebagai negara. Jenis Penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif, dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statue approach) dan pendekatan sejarah (historical approach). Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hak menentukan nasib sendiri merupakan bagian dari hak asasi manusia dan klaim Papua Barat sebagai bagian dari Negara Indonesia dalam menuntut hak menentukan nasib sendiri terbentur dengan Uti Possidetis Juris dan Territorial Integrity

The problems regarding borders are more pervasive among the postcolonial states. One of the reasons for this is that the borders of most of these postcolonial states were drawn by their colonisers who paid little to no regard to the local realities. This article is focused on one such colonial border, i.e., the one between India and Nepal. It will highlight the relation between the drawing of borders and colonialism. It will also discuss the complicit role of international law in maintaining these colonial borders, through a discussion of the principle of uti possidetis. The article will highlight the problems with the principle of uti possidetis. The aim is to assess the Indo-Nepal border dispute through the lens of the colonial principle of uti possidetis. The article offers a few suggestions regarding other international law principles which can be used instead of uti possidetis, the principle of equity being one of them. So far no work has been done on the Indo-Nepal border dispute from the perspective of the principle of uti possidetis. This article aims to fill that gap.

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.

Resumo O presente trabalho discute a condição do direito colonial nas controvérsias territoriais internacionais decididas pela Corte Internacional de Justiça. Em particular, o artigo verifica tal condição nos casos em que o princípio uti possidetis juris é invocado para auxiliar na determinação dos limites e fronteiras territoriais. Se, por um lado, a jurisprudência tradicional da Corte tende a tratar o direito interno dos Estados como sendo um “mero fato”, por outro, os particulares casos de uti possidetis requerem determinados exercícios por parte do juiz internacional que parecem afastar esse tratamento. Através de um exame da jurisprudência e dos casos em que o princípio é invocado, bem como das técnicas empregadas pela Corte para determinar e interpretar o direito colonial, o artigo demonstra que a abordagem tradicional da Corte é mitigada quando o direito colonial aparece no contexto do contencioso internacional. Abstract The present essay discusses the condition of colonial law in the international territorial disputes decided by the International Court of Justice. In particular, the article verifies that condition in cases where the uti possidetis juris principle is invoked to aid in the determination of territorial limits and frontiers. If, on the one hand, the Court's traditional case law tends to treat the domestic law of States as a "mere fact", on the other, the particular cases of uti possidetis require certain exercises by the International Court that appear to refrain from such treatment. Through an examination of the case law and cases in which the principle is invoked, as well as of the techniques used by the Court to determine and interpret colonial law, this article demonstrates that the traditional approach of the Court is mitigated when colonial law appears in the context of the international litigation.

After the dissolution of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia – former socialist republics and now independent states – had to define their interstate borders. Since there were no maritime boundaries in Yugoslavia between the republics, an uti possidetis principle, which had been used for determining land borders, could not have been applied at sea. It was therefore on states to agree on the maritime delimitation. Croatia and Slovenia, however, were not able to settle their dispute by diplomatic negotiations and they agreed to submit the dispute for arbitration. However, during the course of the proceedings, Slovenia got involved into an ex parte communication with one of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal, which resulted in Croatia’s withdrawal from the proceedings. The Tribunal nevertheless decided that it had jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings and ultimately decided on the merits of the case. Croatia refuses to implement the Tribunal’s decision, while Slovenia insists on its implementation. It is yet to be seen how the settlement of this dispute will proceed, however it is interesting and legally challenging to analyze the Tribunal’s award, which introduces a rather unusual solution to the delimitation issue.

In the early 1950s, the right to self-determination was a concept rich with disruptive potential for pre-independence Africa. Some saw the application of self-determination as an opportunity to redraw the continent's colonial borders; others believed it would lead to a pan-African union of states. Through an analysis of legal, historical and political material, this article argues that between 1958 and 1964 Ghana's first President, Kwame Nkrumah, although ideologically a pan-Africanist, played a pivotal but unintentional role in entrenching colonial era borders in Africa. The article identifies three key ways in which Nkrumah shaped the law of self-determination in Africa: first, by actively campaigning against 'tribalism' in Ghana; second, by enlisting the UN to prevent the secession of Katanga in 1960, thereby creating a crucial precedent; and, third, by playing a leading role in establishing the OAU in 1963, which went on to endorse the legal validity of colonial frontiers. In this way, Nkrumah helped settle arguments around the authentic self-determination unit in Africa, forging an unintended legacy that continues to shape the legal and political contours of the continent to the present.

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 effectivite. 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.