The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris in Modern International Law (Some Aspects and the Context of Georgian Statehood)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52340/zssulaw.2023.01.02Keywords:
territorial integrity, borders, secessionAbstract
The article discusses the essence of the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris, the historical evolution of the doctrine of Uti Possidetis and the application of this principle in modern international law.
For a sovereign state territory and borders are of the most importance in the international political system. In this context, the importance of the principle of Uti Possidetis regarding achieving stability in relations between states and avoiding territorial conflicts is emphasized. It is also mentioned that in many cases the application of this principle has caused border disputes.
The article analyzes the application of this principle in the case of the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, presents an analysis of the possibility of using this principle in the context of the territorial integrity and border determination of Georgia in the context of the territorial conflicts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is highlighted that after gaining independence, on the basis of Uti Possidetis Juris, the former administrative borders of the Georgian SSR were transformed into the international borders of independent Georgia, which is supported by the practice of democratic states, and Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia cannot use the principle of Uti Possidetis for separatist purposes.
The article presents problematic aspects, conclusions and opinions on the discussed issue.
References
Shaw, M. N., The Heritage of States: The Principle of Uti Possidetis Today. 67 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 1996. N 1, 115.
Ibid, p. 5.
Ratner, S. R., Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States, 90 AM. J. INT’L L. 1996. N4, 590.
Walter, Ch. et al. eds., The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: How Relevant Is It for Issues of Secession? by Anne Peters in “Self-determination and Secession in International Law”. 2014. 95.
Evison, J. A., MIGs and Monks in Crimea: Russia Flexes Cultural and Military Muscles, Revealing Dire Need for Balance Of Uti Possidetis and Internationally Recognized Self-Determination, 220 MIL. L. REV. 2014. 95.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), General List No. 69. 22.12.1986. Para 23.
Shaw, M. N., Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries, 8 EUR. J. INT’L L. 1997. 493.
Ibid, 492.
Ibid, 594-595. See Ratner, S.R., "Named Paper," supra footnote 3, 594-595.
Lalonde, S., Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: The Role of Uti Possidetis. McGill-Queen's University Press. 2002. 31.
Ibid, 31.
Ibid, 33.
Ibid, 23.
Hasani, E., Uti Possidetis Juris: From Rome to Kosovo. 27 The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 2003. N2, 86
Ibid, p. 87. Cf. See also recent disputes: ICJ Judgment, Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), General List No. 75, 11.09.1992, available at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/75/075-19920911-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf [accessed 12.12.2023]; and ICJ Judgment, Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), General List No. 120, 08.10.2007, available at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/120/120-20071008-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf [accessed 12.12.2023].
Ibid, 87.
Organization of African Unity, Border Disputes Among African States, AHG/Res. 16(I) <https://www.peaceau.org/uploads/ahg-res-16-i-en.pdf> [accessed: 12.12.2013].
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), General List No. 69, 22.12.1986, para 20 <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/69/069-19861222-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf> { accessed: 12.12.2023}.
Ibid, paragraph 23.
Ibid, paragraph 20.
Ibid, paragraph 23.
Ibid, paragraph 25.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), General list No. 45. 15.06.1962, ICJ Reports 6, 16 <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/45/045-19620615-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf> {accessed: 12.12.2023}.
Jennings and Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, ninth edition. 1992. 670.
Justin A. Evison, MIGs and Monks in Crimea: Russia Flexes Cultural and Military Muscles, Revealing Dire Need for Balance Of Uti Possidetis and Internationally Recognized Self-Determination, 220 MIL. L. REV. 2014. 95; Shaw, M. N., “Named Paper”, supra note 1, 106.
Crawford, J., The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press. 2006. 107.
Burkina Faso v Mali Case, supra note 18, paragraph 23.
Ibid, paragraph 30.
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), supra note 15, paragraph 43.
Bell, A. and Kontorovich, E. Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris and the Borders of Israel. 58 Arizona Law Rev. 2016. 644
Shaw, M. N. “Named Paper”, supra note 1, 130.
Ibid, 130.
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), supra note 15, paragraph 42.
ICJ Judgement, Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), General list No. 125.12.07.2005, para 30 <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/125/125-20050712-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf > [accessed: 12.12.2023].
Ratner, S. R. Drawing A Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States. 90 AM. J. INT’L L. 1996. 599.
Honduras Borders Case (Guat./Hond.), 2 R.I.A.A.1933.1356-1357 <https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/1307-1366.pdf> [available 12.12.2023]
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), supra note 18, paragraph 20.
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/ Honduras: Nicaragva intervening), supra note 18, paragraph 41.
Ibid, paragraph 42.
Ibid, paragraph 45.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning The Territorial Dispute (Libian Arab Jamahiriya/Chad). General List No.83. 03.02.1994, para 72, 73 <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/83/083-19940203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf> [accessed: 12.12.2023].
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), supra note 18, paragraph 20.
Ibid, paragraph 21.
Shaw. M. N., International Law. Cambridge University Press. 2008. 527–528.
Jennings, R. and Watts, A. (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law (9th edition), Longman, London 1996, 669–670.
Shaw, M. N “Named Paper”, supra note 1, 111.
Ibid, 112.
Arbitration Tribunal For The Determination of The Maritime Boundary (Guinea-Bissau v, Senegal), Arbitral Award, 1989, paragraph 40.
Ibid, paragraph 43.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), supra note 18, paragraph 24.
Shaw, M. N “Named Paper”, supra note 1, 114.
Court of Arbitration, Dubai-Sharjah Border Dispute, 91 I.L.R. 1993. 579.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), supra note 18, paragraph 23; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), და supra note 15, paragraph 43.
Shaw, M. N., The Heritage of States: The Principle of Uti Possidetis Today, supra note 1, 118.
Ibid, 118.
ICJ Judgement, Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), supra note 15, paragraph 50.
Shaw, M. N., “Named Paper”, supra note 1, 118.
Ibid, 118.
Burkina Faso v Mali Case, supra note 18, paragraph 30.
Walter, Ch. et al. eds., The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: How Relevant Is It for Issues of Secession? by Peters, A., supra note 4, 108.
Ibid, 108.
Crawford., J. and Nouwen, S. eds, “Statehood after 1989: “Effectivites” between Legality and Virtuality” by Peters, A. in Select Proceedings of the European Society of the International Law, Vol. 3. Hart publishing 2012, 171.
Walter, Ch. et al. eds., The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: How Relevant Is It for Issues of Secession? by Peters, A., supra note 4, 114.
The Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia (Badinter Arbitration Committee) Opinion No 3, 92 ILR 168. 1992. 171.
Ibid, 168.
Rathner. S. R., Drawing a better Line: Uti Possidetis and the borders of New States. 90 AJIL. Cambridge University Press 1996. 601.
Corten. O. et al. eds. “Le problème des frontières en cas de dissolution et de séparation d'Etats: quelles alternatives?” by Kohen. M. G., in Demembrements d'Etats et delimitations territoriales, Bruxelles, 1999. 400.
Ibid, 375.
Kohen. M. G. ed., Secession: International law perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 2006. 14-15.
Hasani, E., Named Paper, supra note 14, 286.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), supra note 6, paragraph 20.
Walter, Ch. et al. eds., The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: How Relevant Is It for Issues of Secession? by Peters, A., supra note 4, 117, 118.
ICJ Judgement, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), supra note 6, paragraph 20.
Article 5. Minsk Treaty of 1991 of December 8 https://www.refworld.org.ru/pdfid/52f8f06a4.pdf > [accessed: 12.12.2023].
Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991 December 21 https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/START/documents/alma-ata91.htm [accessed: 12.12.2023].
Shaw, M. N., Named Paper, supra note 1, 110.
Corten. O. et al. eds. Droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes et uti possidetis: deux faces d'une même médaille? by Corten. O., in Demembrements d'Etats et delimitations territoriales, l'uti possidetis en question(s), Bruxelles 1999. 432.
Walter, Ch. et al. eds., The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: How Relevant Is It for Issues of Secession? by Peters, A., supra note 4, 128-129.
EC Declaration on the `Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union”, 4 EJIL. 1993. 72.
Shaw, M. N., “Named paper”, supra note 1, 110.
Security Council Resolutions 876 (1993), 896 (1994), 906 (1994), 937 (1994), 977 (1995), 993 (1995), 1036 (199 6).
Security Council Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993), 884 (1993).
Shaw, M. N., Named Paper, supra note 1, 110-111.
EU Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, 2009. 143 <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG> [available 12.12.2023].
Badinter Arbitration Committee Opinion No 3, supra note 64, 171.
Constitution of Georgia, Article 1(2), available at https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346?publication=36 [accessed 12.12.2023].
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission Report, supra footnote 84, p. 143, available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG [accessed 12.12.2023].
Constitution of the USSR 1977, Articles 83 and 87, available at https://www.prlib.ru/en/node/420906 [accessed 12.12.2023]; Constitution of the USSR 1936, Article 25, available at https://www.prlib.ru/en/node/420907 [accessed 12.12.2023].
Peters, A. “Named Paper” supra note 4, 121.
Constitution of Georgia, supra note 86, article 1.
Shaw, M. N., Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries. supra note 7, 504.
Peters, A. “Named Paper”, supra note 4, 123.
Ibid, 123.
Wolfrum. R. ed. “Uti Possidetis Doctrine”, by Nesi. G. in The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press. 2013, para 10.
Peters, A. “Named Paper”, supra note 4, 123.