Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Lecture 4
Module 1
Territorial Sovereignty over Air Space
Areas covered with water also comes within the territory of a state.
Oppenheim divides these into
National waters lakes, canals, rivers, ports, harbours, bays, gulfs etc.
Foreign vessels have no right of passage
Territorial waters maritime belt , may include gulfs, straits etc
Foreign vessels have right of passage
Rivers
National Rivers within a state exclusively. Navigational rights
exclusive to the states
Boundary River separate two states
Non-national Rivers pass through several states
In both cases above the Navigational rights exists with the riparian
states
International rivers either separate or pass through several states
and are navigable from open seas. Navigational rights are based on
regional agreements
In 1966 the Helsinki Rules on use of water of Intl Rivers settled the
matter
Lakes & land-locked seas surrounding countries can exercise
sovereignty over their own respective zones of territorial waters
Bays & Gulfs area enclosed by land but have an opening from the
sea not more than 6 miles wide and are territorial in nature
Loss of Territory
Dereliction
Operation of nature
Subjugation or Prescription
Revolt
Servitude
Intl law recognises rights over territory which corresponds to
servitude or easements
It is a restriction imposed by treaty on the Territorial sovereignty of
a particular state whereby the territory of that state is put under a
condition or restriction serving the interest of another state, or nonstate entity
Starke
Eg. right of way maintenance or wireless stations, railways, military
bases etc
Types
Positive & Negative Servitude
Military & Economic Servitude
Intervention
Interference by a state usually dictatorial in nature in the affairs of
another state
In Nicaragua v USA (1986) ICJ pointed out that intervention is
prohibited
If it impinges on matters as to which each state is permitted to make
decisions by itself
If it involves interference in regard to this freedom by method of
coercion, especially force
Types
Internal Intervention state interfering with the disputing section of
the community in another state
External Intervention state intervening in the foreign affairs of
another state
Punitive intervention stronger nations acting against weaker
nations as a reprisal for some injury suffered or non fulfilment of
treaty obligation
Intervention when permissible
Collective intervention
Self-preservation
Balance of power
Humanitarian grounds
Enforcing treaty rights
Protection of person and property
Civil wars
Unlawful intervention
As a matter of right
Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin
American countries in 1823.
It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or
interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as
acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention
James Monroe the fifth president of the United States (1817-1825) is
best known for establishing this foreign policy principle that came to
bear his name, the Monroe Doctrine.
Monroe Doctrine
In October 1823, President Monroe was concerned about Spain
reclaiming sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere.
He asked former presidents Jefferson and Madison for advice. They
told Monroe to join forces with Britain.
3
Monroe Doctrine
1. The United States would not get involved in European affairs.
2. The United States would not interfere with existing European
colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
3. No other nation could form a new colony in the Western Hemisphere.
4. If a European nation tried to control or interfere with a nation in
the Western Hemisphere, the United States would view it as a
hostile act against this nation.
In his Monroe Doctrine, he said that the peoples of the West "are
henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization
by any European powers
Monroe's declaration of policy toward Europe did not become known
as the Monroe Doctrine until about 30 years after it was proclaimed
In the early 1900s, the U.S. emerged as a world power and the
Monroe Doctrine became the foundation of U.S. foreign policy.
Drago Doctrine
President Theodore Roosevelt added the "Roosevelt Corollary" to the
Monroe Doctrine in 1904, which said
the U.S. had the exclusive right to intervene in the affairs of Latin
American countries that were actively involved in deliberate
misconduct or that refused to pay their international debts.
This was opposed by the foreign Secretary of Argentina Luis M
Drago . Use of force to collect debts, Luis Drago of Argentina wrote,
is wrong.
Drago believed that governments have no more right to invade or
attack other countries to collect money owed them than a private
citizen has the right to use force to collect debts
The principle has lost its importance now because the UN Charter
requires members to settle disputes peacefully
Types
Expropriation of Property
Justification/Defence
Prompt payment of adequate and effect compensation
The Calvo Clause
N.American dredging Case
El Oro Mining & Rly Co Case
Creeping expropriation
Debts
3 theories in relation to settlement of debts
Lord Palmerstons Theory
Drago Doctrine
Correspond to agreement theory
Intl Delinquencies
Every neglect of an intl duty constitutes intl delinquency
Injured state can resort to reprisals or even war
Breach of intl law but not a contractual obligation
State responsibility is based on notion of imputability
Imputability
Act of a state agent may be attributable to the state under intl law
Youmans Claim (US v Mexico)
Does not apply to the acts of private citizens
Special duty to protect diplomatic and consular staff
Damage inflicted to person or property of aliens in course of riots
may be imputed only in certain circumstances
Insurgency & belligerency imputation not possible until the new
govt. comes into power
Imputability
Imputability of state also extends to the officers of international
organisations like the UN
An act becomes imputable by subsequent ratification as well
Green Peace Case (1985)
State liability can be imputed for the injurious acts of the
Legislature, Judiciary and Executive
Claims
State is entitled to claim before an intl tribunal if one of its subjects
sustain unlawful injury for which another state is responsible
Nationality is the factor which provides the state with necessary
locus standi to make the claim on behalf of the individual
Barcelona Traction Case (1970)
Remedies
Reparation
Restitution
Indemnity/ satisfaction
Damages
Lost profits & interests
Vindictive damages
Other methods
Punishment of concerned officials
Apology
Formal acknowledgement of unlawful act
Corfu Channel case
Defences
Self-defence
UN Sanction
Reprisals
Force Majeure
Necessity
Acquiescence & Waiver
Public International Law
Lecture 6
Module 1
Territorial Jurisdiction
State Jurisdiction
o Exercise of jurisdiction
o Basically territorial in nature
o Varies from state to state
o Affected by history and geography
o Lotus Case (1927)
o There is no restriction on exercise of jurisdiction by any state unless
such restriction can be shown to exist as a principle of intl law.
Territorial Jurisdiction
Exercise of Jurisdiction by state over property, person, acts or events
within its territory clearly conceded by intl law.
For exercise of TJ, state territory would extend to
o A maritime coastal belt or territorial sea
o A ship bearing the flag of the state exercising jurisdiction and
Ports
Extend of Territorial Jurisdiction
o May extend beyond territory under certain circumstances. Based on the
following principles:
Subjective Territorial Principle
Objective Territorial Principle
Nationality Principle
Effect Doctrine
Passive Personality Principle
Protective Principle
Universal Principle
10
State Succession
State Succession
Replacement of one state by another in responsibility for intl
relations of territory
Vienna Convention 1978
Passing of rights and obligations upon external changes of sovereignty
over territory - Starke
State A becomes incorporated into state B or divided between B, C and D
Treaty Rights & Obligations
11
Public Debts
No settled rules practice and doctrine reveal divergence
Rule of taking burdens with benefits
Successor state is liable for loans if the loans have been used or
visible benefits of the loans are associated with the territory that has
passed
No obligation to pay debts incurred for hostile purposes
Apportioning of debts in case of division of territory among more than
one state
Vienna Convention on Public Debts
Part IV
o Succession of state does not affect rights and obligations of
creditors
o Equitable proportion of debt to pass with territory
o Newly independent state is not liable for debts unless agreement
exists
o Apportioning of debts in case of division of territory among more
than one state
Private or Municipal Rights
No obligation to maintain former municipal law
Successor state can displace existing rights & titles
However must follow obligations under intl law
Claims in Tort
No general rule of succession of tort liability
Hawaiian Claims Case (1926)
o Successor state is not bound by un-liquidated claims for damages
in tort
o But once the claim becomes liquidated by agreement between
parties or through tribunal successor state is bound
Public Funds & Public property
General rule successor state takes over both
Vienna Convention 1983 Part II
o Art 11 - Successor state takes predecessor states property without
paying any compensation
o Includes both immovable property and movable property
connected to the territory
12
13