GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLE OF UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS

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.

1. Arajarvi N. 2014. The Changing Nature of Customary International Law: Methods of Interpreting the Concept of Custom in International Criminal Tribunals. New York: Routledge. 194 p.

2. Barsegov Yu.G. 1958. Territoriya v mezhdunarodnom prave [Territory in the international law]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat. Publ. 1958. 271 p. (In Russ.)

3. Bluntschli M. 1870. Le Droit International Codifie. Paris: Librairie de Guillaumin et Cie. 480 p.

4. Brownlie I. 1979. African Boundaries – A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia. London: C Hurst & Company. 1355 p.

5. Campinos P. 1980. L’Actualite de l’Uti Possidetis. – Societe Francaise pour le Droit International. Paris: La Frontiere. P. 95-123.

6. Chernichenko S.V. 1999. Teoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava. T. 1. [Theory of International Law. Vol. 1]. Moscow: NIMP Publ. 336 p. (In Russ.)

7. Clapham A. 2012. Brierly’s Law of Nations: An Introduction to the Role of International Law in International Relations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxfrod University Press. 576 p.

8. Craven M. 1995. The European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia. – British Yearbook of International Law. No 66. P. 333-413.

9. Crawford J. 2007. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. New York: Oxfrod University Press. 944 p.

10. Cukwurah A.O. 1967. The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 114 p.

11. D’Amato A. 1971. The Concept of Custom in International Law. Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 274 p.

12. Dinh N.Q., Daillier P., Pellet A. 2009. Droit International Public. 8th edn. Paris:LGDJ. P. 573-637. 1720 p.

13. Fenwick C.G. 1957. The Honduras-Nicaragua Boundary Dispute. – American Journal of International Law. Vol. 51. Issue 7. Р. 761-765

14. Forlati S. 2014. The International Court of Justice: An Arbitral Tribunal or a Judicial Body? Cham: Springer. 2014. 235 p.

15. Goy R. 1993. L’Independence de l’Erythree. – AFDI. No 39. P. 337-350.

16. Hannum H. 1993a. Re-Thinking Self-Determination. – Virginia Journal of International Law. Vol. 34. P. 1-69.

17. Hannum H. 1993b. Self-Determination, Yugoslavia, and Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles? – Tran L & Contemp Problems. No 3. P. 57-73.

18. Hyde C.C. 1945. International Law, Chiefly As Interpreted and Applied by the United States. Vol. 1. Boston, Little, Brown and Company. 822 p.

19. Jennings R.,Watts A. 1996. Oppenheim’s International Law. Vol I. 9th ed. London and New York: Longman. 1572 p.

20. Klimenko B.M. 1974. Gosudarstvennaya territoriya: Voprosy teorii i praktiki mezhdunarodnogo prava [State Territory. Issues of theory and practice]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 168 p. (In Russ.)

21. Koretskii V.M. 1957. Obshchie printsipy prava v mezhdunarodnom prave [General principles of law in the international law]. Kiev: Izdatel’stvo AN USSR. 57 p. (In Russ.)

22. Lachaume J.F. 1980. La Frontiere: Separatio. – Societe Francaise pour le Droit International, Colloque de Poitiers, La frontier. Paris: La Frontiere. P. 79-92.

23. Lalonde S.N. 2003. Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis. Montreal: McGill Queens University Press. 360 p.

24. Malenovsky J. 1993. Problèmes Juridiques Lies a la Partition de la Tchécoslovaque. – AFDI. No 39. P. 305-336.

25. Mirzaev F. 2014. Printsip uti possidetis: istoriya zarozhdeniya [Historical Background of the Principle uti possidetis juris]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. No 4(96). P. 56-72. p. (In Russ.)

26. Mirzaev F. 2015. Obzor kriticheskikh vzglyadov na printsip uti possidetis [Critical Views on Principle of uti possidetis]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. No 1 (97). P. 56-77. p. (In Russ.)

27. Mirzaev F.S. 2017. Pogranichnyi spor Burkina-Faso protiv Mali i ego znachenie v opredelenii i utverzhdenii roli printsipa uti possidetis [Burkina Faso vs. Mali boundary dispute and its importance in determining and affirming uti possidetis principle’s role]. – Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. No 6 (109). P. 18-22 p. (In Russ.)

28. Moore J.B. 1944. Memorandum on Uti Possidetis: Costa Rica-Panama Arbitration 1911. – The collected Papers of John Bassett Moore. Vol III. New Haven: Yale University Press. P. 349-367.

29. Munkman A. 1972. Adjudication and Adjustment International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes. – British Yearbook of International Law. No 46. P. 26-91.

30. Nesi G. 1998. L’uti Possidetis hors de Contexte de la Décolonisation: le cas de l’Europe. – AFDI. No 44. P. 1-34.

31. Pellet A. 1991. Note sur la Commission d’Arbitrage de la Conférence Européenne pour la Paix en Yougoslavie. – AFDI. No 37. P. 329-348.

32. Pineschi L. 2015. General Principles of Law, the Role of the Judiciary. Cham: Springer. 325 p.

33. Polyanskii N.N. 1951. Mezhdunarodnyi Sud [International Court of Justice]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR Publ. 235 p. (In Russ.)

34. Pradelle D. 1928. La Frontière: Etude de Droit International. Paris: Les Editions International. 368 p.

35. Ratner S. 1996. Drawing Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States. – American Journal of International Law. No 90. P. 590-624. DOI: 10.2307/2203988

36. Reisman M. 1995. Protecting Indigenous Rights in International Adjudication. – American Journal of International Law. Vol. 89. Issue 2. P. 350-362. DOI: 10.2307/2204207

37. Scharf M. 2013. Customary International Law in Times of Fundamental Change: Recognizing Grotian Moments. Cambridge: Cambridge Univrsity Press. 237 p.

38. Sharma S.P. 1976. International Boundary Disputes and International Law: A Policy Oriented Study. 2nd ed. Bombay: Tripathi. 323 p.

39. Shaw M. 1997. The Heritage of States: the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today. – British Yearbook of International Law. No 67. P. 74-154.

40. Shaw M. 2008. International Law. 6th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1708 p.

41. Shestakov L.N. 1982. Imperativnye normy v sisteme sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [Imperative norms in the system of modern international law]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGU Publ. 120 p. (In Russ.)

42. Sorel J.M., Mehdi R. 1994. L’Uti Possidetis Entre la Consecration Juridique et la Pratique: Essai de Reactualisation. – AFDI. No 11. P. 11-40.

43. Terrett S. 2000. The Dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Badinter Arbitration Commission: A Contextual Study of Peace-Making Efforts in the Post-Cold War World. London: Routledge. 418 p.

44. Thirlway H. 2014. The Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 272 p.

45. Torres Bernardez S. 1994. The “Uti Possidetis Juris Principle” in Historical Perspective. – Volkerrecht Zwischen Normativem Anspruch und Politischer Realitat. Zemanek K. (Hrsg.). Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt. S. 420-435.

46. Tunkin G.I. 1970. Teoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava [Theory of International Law]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 511 p. (In Russ.)

47. Vylegzhanin A.N., Kalamkaryan R.A. 2012. Mezhdunarodnyi obychai kak osnovnoi istochnik mezhdunarodnogo prava [International custom as the main source of international law]. – Gosudarstvo i parvo. No 6. P. 78-89. (In Russ.)

48. Waldock H.M. 1948. Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Island Dependencies. – British Yearbook of International Law. No 25.

49. Yakemtchouk R. 1993. Les Conflits de Territoires et de Frontières dans les Etats de l’ex-URSS. – AFDI. No 39. P. 393-401.