mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2015-1-107-116mgimolaw-69Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ТЕРРИТОРИИINTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES OF TERRITORYОбзор критических взглядов на принцип uti possidetisCritical Views on Principle of uti possidetisФархад Сабир Оглы МирзаевFarhad Sabir Oglu Mirzayevfmirzayev@gmail.comМГИМО (У) МИД РФ; Международная юридическая фирма BM Morrison PartnersРоссияMGIMO-University MFA Russia; BM Morrison Partners international law firmRussian Federation20153003201501107116Copyright © Фархад Сабир Оглы Мирзаев ., 20152015Фархад Сабир Оглы Мирзаев .Фархад Сабир Оглы Мирзаев .Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/69

В статье приводится анализ критических взглядов на принцип uti possidetis, представленных различными школами международного права. Рассматриваются четыре основных аргумента против принципа uti possidetis: (i) конфликт с правом народов на самоопределение, (ii) ограниченное применение лишь к процессам деколонизации, (iii) противоречивость принципа в связи с наличием двух его форм uti possidetis de jure и uti possidetis de facto и (iv) его несостоятельность как нормы международного обычного права. Предложены контраргументы правового характера относительно необоснованности критики принципа uti possidetis.

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.

uti possidetisкритика uti possidetisпринцип международного правапограничные и территориальные споры и конфликтыпрактика государствuti possidetiscritics of uti possidetisprinciple of international lawboundary and territorial disputes and conflictsstate practiceReferencesBurkina Faso v Mali [1986] / ICJ Reports. P. 65, 159, 554-583.Burkina Faso v Mali [1986] / ICJ Reports. P. 65, 159, 554-583.Международное право. Том 1. Под ред. А.Н. Вылегжанина. М. 2015. С. 24.Международное право. Том 1. Под ред. А.Н. Вылегжанина. М. 2015. С. 24.Shaw M., Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries // European Journal of International Law№ 3. 1997. P. 478-492, 496-498.Shaw M., Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries // European Journal of International Law№ 3. 1997. P. 478-492, 496-498.Мирзоев Ф., Принцип uti possidetis в современном международном праве и его применение на постсоветском пространстве: Теория и практика // Право и Политика № 6(54). 2004. С. 43-53Мирзоев Ф., Принцип uti possidetis в современном международном праве и его применение на постсоветском пространстве: Теория и практика // Право и Политика № 6(54). 2004. С. 43-53EC Yugoslav Arbitration Commission Opinion No 2. [1992] // EJIL № 3. P. 183-185.EC Yugoslav Arbitration Commission Opinion No 2. [1992] // EJIL № 3. P. 183-185.EC Yugoslav Arbitration Commission Opinion No 3. [1992] // ILM № 31. P. 171.EC Yugoslav Arbitration Commission Opinion No 3. [1992] // ILM № 31. P. 171.Terrett S., The Dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Badinter Arbitration Commission: A Contextual Study of Peace-Making Efforts in the Post-Cold War World (Ashgate, Dartmouth). 2000. P. 175-320Terrett S., The Dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Badinter Arbitration Commission: A Contextual Study of Peace-Making Efforts in the Post-Cold War World (Ashgate, Dartmouth). 2000. P. 175-320Malenovsky J., Problèmes Juridiques Lies a la Partition de la Tchécoslovaque // AFDI № 39. 1993. P. 305.Malenovsky J., Problèmes Juridiques Lies a la Partition de la Tchécoslovaque // AFDI № 39. 1993. P. 305.Craven M., The European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia // BYBIL № 66. 1995. Р. 385.Craven M., The European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia // BYBIL № 66. 1995. Р. 385.Ratner S., Drawing Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States // American Journal of International Law № 90. 1996. P. 591, 613-614.Ratner S., Drawing Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States // American Journal of International Law № 90. 1996. P. 591, 613-614.Musgrave T., Self-Determination and National Minorities. (Univ. of Michigan, Clarendon Press). 1997. P. 233.Musgrave T., Self-Determination and National Minorities. (Univ. of Michigan, Clarendon Press). 1997. P. 233.Castellino J., Title to Territory in International Law: A Temporal Analysis. (Dartmouth, Ashgate Press). 2003. P. 75.Castellino J., Title to Territory in International Law: A Temporal Analysis. (Dartmouth, Ashgate Press). 2003. P. 75.Lalonde S.N., Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis (Montreal, McGill Queens University Press). 2003.Lalonde S.N., Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis (Montreal, McGill Queens University Press). 2003.Hyde C.C., International Law, Chiefly As Interpreted and Applied by the United States (Vol. 1) (Boston, Little, Brown and Company) 1945. P. 508-509.Hyde C.C., International Law, Chiefly As Interpreted and Applied by the United States (Vol. 1) (Boston, Little, Brown and Company) 1945. P. 508-509.Fenwick C.G., The Honduras-Nicaragua Boundary Dispute // AJIL № 51(7). 1957. Р. 61-765.Fenwick C.G., The Honduras-Nicaragua Boundary Dispute // AJIL № 51(7). 1957. Р. 61-765.Munkman A., Adjudication and Adjustment International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes // BYBIL № 46. 1972. P. 93.Munkman A., Adjudication and Adjustment International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes // BYBIL № 46. 1972. P. 93.Sharma S.P., International Boundary Disputes and International Law: A Policy Oriented Study (2nd edn) (Bombay, Tripathi) 1976. P. 120.Sharma S.P., International Boundary Disputes and International Law: A Policy Oriented Study (2nd edn) (Bombay, Tripathi) 1976. P. 120.Parodi C.A. Politics of South American Boundaries. (Westport, Greenwood). 2002. P. 6.Parodi C.A. Politics of South American Boundaries. (Westport, Greenwood). 2002. P. 6.Bluntschli M., Le Droit International Codifie. (Paris, Librairie de Guillaumin et Cie). 1870. P. 363.Bluntschli M., Le Droit International Codifie. (Paris, Librairie de Guillaumin et Cie). 1870. P. 363.Moore J.B., Memorandum on Uti Possidetis: Costa Rica-Panama Arbitration 1911 / Moore J.B., The collected Papers of John Bassett Moore (Vol III) (New Haven, Yale University Press) 1944. P. 328-330.Moore J.B., Memorandum on Uti Possidetis: Costa Rica-Panama Arbitration 1911 / Moore J.B., The collected Papers of John Bassett Moore (Vol III) (New Haven, Yale University Press) 1944. P. 328-330.Dias Van Dunem F. J., Les Frontiers Africaines (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universite d’Aix-Marseille) 1969. P. 260-261.Dias Van Dunem F. J., Les Frontiers Africaines (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universite d’Aix-Marseille) 1969. P. 260-261.Клименко Б.М., Государственная территория: Вопросы теории и практики международного права. (Москва, Международные отношения). 1974. C. 18-20.Клименко Б.М., Государственная территория: Вопросы теории и практики международного права. (Москва, Международные отношения). 1974. C. 18-20.Клименко Б.М. Мирное решение территориальных споров. (Москва, Международные отношения). 1982. C. 143.Клименко Б.М. Мирное решение территориальных споров. (Москва, Международные отношения). 1982. C. 143.Барсегов Ю.Г., Территория в Международном Праве. (Москва, Госюриздат). 1958. С. 231.Барсегов Ю.Г., Территория в Международном Праве. (Москва, Госюриздат). 1958. С. 231.Vallat F., First Report on Succession of States in respect of Treaties // YBILC № I-1, S. 1. 1974. P. 77-80Vallat F., First Report on Succession of States in respect of Treaties // YBILC № I-1, S. 1. 1974. P. 77-80Odentum G. Africa before the International Courts: The Generational gap in International Adjudication and Arbitration // Indian Journal of International Law № 44(4). 2004. Р. 701-748.Odentum G. Africa before the International Courts: The Generational gap in International Adjudication and Arbitration // Indian Journal of International Law № 44(4). 2004. Р. 701-748.Bloomfield L. P., Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aquaba. (London, Kluwer Law International). 1957. P. 107-108.Bloomfield L. P., Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aquaba. (London, Kluwer Law International). 1957. P. 107-108.Torres Bernardez S., The ‘Uti Possidetis Juris Principle’ in Historical Perspective / Zemanek K. (ed), Volkerrecht Zwischen Normativem Anspruch und Politischer Realitat (Berlin, Duncker & Humbolt) 1994. P. 420-435.Torres Bernardez S., The ‘Uti Possidetis Juris Principle’ in Historical Perspective / Zemanek K. (ed), Volkerrecht Zwischen Normativem Anspruch und Politischer Realitat (Berlin, Duncker & Humbolt) 1994. P. 420-435.Radan P., The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law. (London, Routledge). 2002.Radan P., The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law. (London, Routledge). 2002.Radan P., Post-Secession International Borders: Critical Analysis of the Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Commission // Melbourne University Law Review № 24.1. 2000. P. 50-76.Radan P., Post-Secession International Borders: Critical Analysis of the Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Commission // Melbourne University Law Review № 24.1. 2000. P. 50-76.Pomerance M., The Badinter Commission: The Use and Misuse of the International Court of Justice’s Jurisprudence // Mich J Int’l L № 20. 1998. P. 54-55.Pomerance M., The Badinter Commission: The Use and Misuse of the International Court of Justice’s Jurisprudence // Mich J Int’l L № 20. 1998. P. 54-55.Cassese A., Self-determination of Peoples: Legal Reappraisal. (Cambridge, CUP). 1995. P. 192.Cassese A., Self-determination of Peoples: Legal Reappraisal. (Cambridge, CUP). 1995. P. 192.Nesi G., L’uti Possidetis hors de Contexte de la Décolonisation: le cas de l’Europe // AFDI № 44. 1998. P. 22-23Nesi G., L’uti Possidetis hors de Contexte de la Décolonisation: le cas de l’Europe // AFDI № 44. 1998. P. 22-23Delcourt B., L’Application de L’Uti Possidetis Juris au Dememberment de la Yougoslavie: Regle Coutumiere ou Imperatif Politique? // Revue Belge de Droit International № 1. 1998. P. 76-106.Delcourt B., L’Application de L’Uti Possidetis Juris au Dememberment de la Yougoslavie: Regle Coutumiere ou Imperatif Politique? // Revue Belge de Droit International № 1. 1998. P. 76-106.Pradelle D., La Frontière: Etude de Droit International (Paris, Les Editions International) 1928, P. 86.Pradelle D., La Frontière: Etude de Droit International (Paris, Les Editions International) 1928, P. 86.Reisman M., Protecting Indigenous Rights in International Adjudication //American Journal of International Law № 89(2). 1995. P. 350.Reisman M., Protecting Indigenous Rights in International Adjudication //American Journal of International Law № 89(2). 1995. P. 350.Waldock H.M., Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Island Dependencies / 25 BYBIL № 25. 1948. P. 225.Waldock H.M., Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Island Dependencies / 25 BYBIL № 25. 1948. P. 225.Hasani E., Uti Possidetis Juris: From Rome to Kosovo // Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 2003. P. 85.Hasani E., Uti Possidetis Juris: From Rome to Kosovo // Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 2003. P. 85.Jankov F., Coric V., The legality of Uti Possidetis in the Defi nition of Kovoso’s Legal Status. European Society of International Law. 2012. URL: http://www.esil-sedi.eu/fichiers/fr/Agora_Fernandez_879.pdf.Jankov F., Coric V., The legality of Uti Possidetis in the Defi nition of Kovoso’s Legal Status. European Society of International Law. 2012. URL: http://www.esil-sedi.eu/fichiers/fr/Agora_Fernandez_879.pdf.Cukwurah A.O., The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law (Manchester, Manchester University Press) 1967. P. 6.Cukwurah A.O., The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law (Manchester, Manchester University Press) 1967. P. 6.Coleman A., Resolving Claims to Self-Determination: Is There a Role for the International Court of Justice. (Abington, Routledge). 2013. P. 99-103.Coleman A., Resolving Claims to Self-Determination: Is There a Role for the International Court of Justice. (Abington, Routledge). 2013. P. 99-103.Kreijen G., State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2004. P. 71-80.Kreijen G., State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers). 2004. P. 71-80.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.