Abstract
Modern International Law doctrine has a reified approach to territorial integrity. This has led to the perception that territorial integrity is the completeness/unity of state territory. Such an approach has proven to be irrelevant in understanding the real nature, content and legal consequences of territorial integrity. Amazingly International legal and political scholars as well as political geography specialists have never enquired about the link between territorial integrity and territoriality. In fact, territorial integrity is in essence the elaborated and sophisticated legal expression of territoriality. It is intimately linked to the state as a legal entity the main objective of which is to ensure its perennial existence within a specific territory whose borders have been established in accordance with International Law. Therefore, a new approach is needed in order to better understand territorial integrity, a principle that can be considered as the cornerstone of International Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Barberis (1999, p. 132).
- 2.
- 3.
Translation of “un Etat reste, est resté ou doit rester entier, ne subit, n’a subi ou ne doit subir aucun démembrement”, “Dictionnaire de la Terminologie du Droit International” (J. Basdevant) publié sous le patronage de l’Académie du Droit International, Sirey, Paris, 1960, p. 340.
- 4.
“Dictionnaire de Droit International Public” sous la direction de J. Salmon, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2001, p. 592.
- 5.
“Encyclopedia of Public International Law”, published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public law and International Law under the direction of R. Bernhardt, Elsevier, North-Holland, 2000, p. 813.
- 6.
A total confusion between territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty is made by Korva Gombe Adar who peremptorily states that “The term “territorial integrity is used here to refer to the power of a sovereign state to exercise supreme authority over all persons and things within its territory” (Adar 1986, p. 425).
- 7.
Shaw (1997, pp. 76 and 124).
- 8.
Kohen (1997, pp. 369–377).
- 9.
See for instance Shaw (1997, p. 151). See also Lalonde (2002, p. 143), who, although rightly adheres to the opinion that “the territorial principle is the foundation stone upon which rests the entire legal order”, confines the same principle to a simple “manifestation” amongst others of the doctrine of stability of boundaries.
- 10.
See, for instance, Borella (1964, p. 29), Bedjaoui (1972, p. 95), Yakemtchouk (1975, p. 51), Bipoum-Woom (1970, pp. 127–128), Touval (1972, p. 90 and seq.), Antonopoulos (1996, pp. 34–35), Nesi (1998, p. 9), Kohen (1997, p. 453), Sanchez-Rodriguez (1997), Shaw (1999, p. 499). Similar confusion is also made by the I.C.J. See Burkina Fasso-Mali case, ICJ Reports, 1986, 554 at 565 para 22; Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libya-Tchad), ICJ Reports, 1994, 6, at 38 para 75.
- 11.
See in particular Zacher (2001, p. 215).
- 12.
Our translation of: “En réalité, il n’y a pour les Etats, personnes naturelles et nécessaires, qu’un seul droit primordial, un seul droit fondamental, le droit à l’existence. De ce droit réellement primordial et essentiel, découlent, comme corollaires nécessaires, se rattachant les uns aux autres par voie de déductions successives, comme les chainons d’une unique chaine, tous les autres droits classés comme essentiels, innés, absolus, permanents, fondamentaux. Du droit à l’existence découlent le droit de conservation et celui de liberté. Le droit de conservation engendre le droit de perfectibilité, de défense, de sûreté. Du droit à la liberté se déduisent le droit de souveraineté et celui d’indépendance, etc.
Mais sous ces diverses dénominations, c’est un même droit qui se meut et s’exerce, le seul droit fondamental, le droit a l’existence. Les autres, inéluctables conséquences, participent au caractère d’absolutisme et de permanence du droit primordial, dont ils ne sont que des émanations et des développements”, Rousseau (1912, p. 142).
- 13.
Phillipson (1916, p. 87).
- 14.
Hershey (1927, pp. 230–231).
- 15.
See on that Declaration Root (1916, pp. 211–221).
- 16.
On the crucial importance of Article 10 of the League Covenant, see Part Two Chapter IV, I, B.
- 17.
Fauchille (1922, p. 408).
- 18.
Our translation of: “le droit à l’existence constitue un droit fondamental, et peut-être le seul droit fondamental (a footnote referring here to the principle of territorial integrity) d’où découlent, comme corollaires nécessaires tous les autres droits classés comme fondamentaux. Ainsi du droit à l’existence découlent le droit de conservation et celui de liberté. Le droit de conservation engendre à son tour le droit de perfectibilité, de défense, de sûreté. Du droit à la liberté se déduit le droit de souveraineté ou d’indépendance qui, à son tour, entraine avec lui, à l’intérieur, les droits de législation, de juridiction, de domaine, et à l’extérieur, ceux d’égalité, de respect mutuel, de libre commerce. Sous ces diverses dénominations et selon différentes manifestations, c’est un même droit qui s’exerce, le seul droit fondamental: le droit à l’existence”, Sibert (1951, p. 230).
- 19.
Walzer (2006, pp. 53–55).
- 20.
Idem, p. 54.
- 21.
Scelle (1948, p. 92).
- 22.
Kelsen (1934/1989, p. 289).
- 23.
Deconstruction is, as Derrida has clarified, an analysis which tries to find out how a thinking – or a belief, an institution, a tradition, a society, etc. – works or does not work, to find the tensions, the contradictions, the heterogeneity within its own corpus. See Caputo (1997, p. 9). That is why it is not a method or some tool that you apply to something from outside. It is so because “deconstruction does not affirm what is, does not fall down adoring before what is present, for the present is precisely what demands endless analysis, criticism, and deconstruction” (Idem, p. 40). Therefore deconstruction requires first “a work of excavation, elucidation, and shaking of the prevailing views” (Guy Petitdemange 2003, p. 423). It requires, secondly, a deep journey in the memory of thinking and institutions (Derrida used very often to say that “(he) likes nothing more than memory”. See, for instance, “La signification de la parole donnée”, Mémoires, p. 27). It requires, thirdly, the use in a very interactive manner of different scientific knowledge and disciplines.
- 24.
See Balandier (1999, p. 43).
- 25.
Vischer (1970, p. 227).
- 26.
Ibid., p. 222.
- 27.
“The sad fact, points out John J. Mearsheimer, is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business, an it is likely to remain that way. Although the intensity of their competition waxes and wanes, great powers fear each other and always compete with each other for power. The overriding of each state is to maximize its share of world power, which means gaining power at the expense of other states. But great power do not merely strive to be the strongest of all the great powers, although that is a well known outcome. Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon – that is, the only great power in the system…. But the desire for more power does not go away, unless a state achieves the ultimate goal of hegemony. Since no state is likely to achieve global hegemony, however, the world is condemned to perpetual great-power competition” Mearsheimer (2001, p. 2). Likewise J. Barthelemy (1917, p. 358) has noted that “Le premier mobile de l’activité d’un Etat à l’extérieur est naturel, spontané et pour ainsi dire physiologique. C’est la tendance de croître. Le cidre, comme l’a dit Max Harden, étend ses puissantes ramures et étouffe les arbrisseaux modestes qui tentent de végéter après lui. Aussi la force d’un Etat s’exerce par une loi de nature, sans qu’on ait a mêler à la constatation de ce phénomène physique de croissance, des considérations de moralité ou de droit”.
- 28.
Gilpin (1981, pp. 96–105).
- 29.
See Cukwurah (1967, p. 13).
- 30.
See Paasi (1996).
- 31.
See, for instance, Arbaret-Schulz et al. (2004).
- 32.
See Gottman (1952).
- 33.
See Retaille (1990, p. 34).
- 34.
One can then understand why the Arabic language does, when it refers to territorial integrity, does talk, as we see earlier, of the “unity of territory”.
- 35.
Retaille (1990, p. 31).
- 36.
- 37.
See Goemans (2004, p. 20).
- 38.
See Jones (1959, p. 242).
- 39.
See Michael Rienzi “Pan-European Genetic Interests. Ethno-States, Kinship Preservation, and the End of Politics”, http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/mxr-genetic.html.
- 40.
See Guichonnet and Raffestin (1974, p. 116).
- 41.
Fromm (2004, pp. 150–151).
- 42.
Ibid.
- 43.
Raffestin (1990, p. 295).
- 44.
Idem, p. 15, and Person (1972).
- 45.
See Raffestin (1986, p. 182).
- 46.
Contradictory and conflicting interpretations of the notion of territoriality can be very frequently found in the writings of many scholars. Thus some authors see in it a process. See, for instance, Stack (1986, p. 19). Others see in it a status that reflects the control extended over a territory. See White (2000, p. 32). Others see in territoriality a geographic area. See Luke (1994, p. 1). See also in almost the same vein, Haigh (2004). Others see in it “a territorial regime”. See Kahler (2004, p. 9). Echoing that opinion, Kal Raustiala sees in it “a defining attribute of the Westphalian state”. See Kal Raustiala “The Evolution of Territoriality: International relations & American Law”, same Workshop, 2. Giving a political coloration to territoriality, Christopher K. Ansell and Giuseppe Di Palma define it as “the consolidation of political authority into territorially defined, fixed, and mutually exclusive enclaves”, www.si.unmich.edu/ICOS/AnsellPaper.pdf, 2. Others see in it an epistemological and socio-structural principle as well as a symbolic reference to territory which underlies the construction of collective identities and a form of segmentary differentiation of world society”. See Christoph K. Ansell and Giuseppe Di Palma “Territoriality and Modernization” www.uni.bielefed.de/soz/iw/pdf/albert_.pdf, 3.
- 47.
On animals and territoriality, see Ardey (1967).
- 48.
Agnew (2004, p. 1).
- 49.
- 50.
Hence it is most likely the emergence of nationalism and its sophisticated language which will lead to the substitution of the notion of “identity” to the notion of “survival”. See on the link between identity and security, Ryerson Christie “Homeland ad Defense and the Re/Territorialization of the State”, www.cda-cdai.ca/Symposium/2002/Christie.htm. The author writes in this regard that “when the physical body of the state is attacked, our very identity is assaulted. In essence an attack on the soil of a country is an attack on the people”, 6.
- 51.
Malmberg (1980, p. 10).
- 52.
It can, according to M. Chisholm and D. Smith, “take different forms in different geographical and historical circumstances, and its specific manifestations must be contextualized” Chisholm and Smith (1990, p. 3).
- 53.
See Kelsen (1934/1978, p. 287).
- 54.
Kelsen (1941–1942, pp. 69–70).
- 55.
See Kelsen (1934/1978, p. 286).
- 56.
See Grant (1998–1999, p. 413).
- 57.
Which states that “The state as a person of International Law should posses the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a government; and d) a capacity to enter into relations with other states” (Article 1).
- 58.
The American Institute of International Law’s “Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations” adopted in its first session held in 1916 states that: “IV. Every nation has the right to territory within defined boundaries.”
- 59.
See G. Balandier (1999, p. 34 and seq.).
- 60.
- 61.
See Firth (1964, p. 143 and seq.).
- 62.
- 63.
White (1959, respectively p. 77 and 78).
- 64.
Idem, p. 59.
- 65.
Nadel (1951, p. 141).
- 66.
White (1959, p. 208).
- 67.
Idem, pp. 313–314.
- 68.
Howes (2003, p. 669 and 690).
- 69.
Waltz (1979, p. 91).
- 70.
Mearsheimer (2001, p. 33).
- 71.
Idem, p. 31.
- 72.
Waltz (1979, p. 126).
- 73.
Hobbes (1668/1994, p. 106).
- 74.
See Nys (1901, p. 621).
- 75.
Laband (1861/1900, Vol. 1, p. 119).
- 76.
He says in this respect that every state claims “the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”, “Politics as a vocation” in “From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology”, trans. and ed. by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (1958, p. 77).
- 77.
Garner (1910, p. 80). Carré de Malberg has also written in this regard that “la souveraineté, c’est le caractère suprême d’un pouvoir: suprême, en ce que ce pouvoir n’en admet aucun autre ni au-dessus de lui, ni en concurrence avec lui. Quand on dit que l’Etat est souverain, il faut entendre par là que, dans la sphère où son autorité est appelée à s’exercer, il détient une puissance qui ne relève d’aucun autre pouvoir et qui ne peut être égalée par aucun autre pouvoir” (1920, p. 70).
- 78.
Balandier (1999, p. 44).
- 79.
Beaud (1994, p. 17).
- 80.
Thompson (1995, p. 219).
- 81.
K. J. Holsti writes in this respect that “Sovereignty is a foundational institution of international relations because it is the critical component of the birth, maintenance, and death of states. Sovereignty helps create state; it helps maintain their integrity when under threat from within or without; and it helps guarantee their continuation and prevent their death”, 2004, p. 113.
- 82.
Hinsley (1966, p. 3).
- 83.
Ibid., p. 17.
- 84.
See El Ouali (1993, p. 28 and seq.).
- 85.
Schmitt translated from German by Schlegel (1988, p. 46).
- 86.
See Fardella (1997, p. 118).
- 87.
See Osiander (2001, p. 262).
- 88.
- 89.
Modelski (1987, p. 9).
- 90.
Frantz von Liszt has written in this respect that: “the absolute equality of rights of the Christian states, without establishing a difference between them in reason of their religions or political regimes, from one hand, and the recognition of the community created by these Christian states, on the other hand, found their expression in one and same principle, “the European principle of balance of power” called also “co-sharing principle”. In accordance with this principle, each state has the right, either alone or by allying itself with others, to preserve itself from the threatening strength of states seeking hegemony”, translated by Gidel (1928, p. 18). See also Turrettine (1949).
- 91.
Hume (1744/1985, p. 337).
- 92.
Waltz (1979, p. 119).
- 93.
See the important contribution of Modelski (1987).
- 94.
Trumer (1933, pp. 86–87).
- 95.
- 96.
Krassner (1999).
- 97.
Krassner SD. Sovereignty. www.globalpolicy.org/nations/realism.htm, p. 1
- 98.
Rosenau (1995, p. 195).
- 99.
El Ouali (1993, p. 13 and seq.). According to Todd, the international system has become instable due to the weakness of USA, the dominating power (2002, p. 9 and seq.).
- 100.
Chapter 2, 2.2.3.
- 101.
See Baecheler (2002, p. 93 and seq).
- 102.
See Parkinson (1975, p. 16).
- 103.
- 104.
See El Ouali (1982, p. 75 and seq.).
- 105.
Spykman (1942, p. 436).
- 106.
See Nys (1904, p. 401 contd.).
- 107.
Legality of the Threat or the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, para 96.
- 108.
“Summary: Self-Defense and Collective Security”, www.mpiv-hd.mpg.de/de/hp/beitrsumm/beitr151.pdf, p. 405.
- 109.
Delivanis (1971, p. 125).
- 110.
de Visscher (1970, p. 222).
- 111.
- 112.
The formulation of these conditions has been made by the U.S. Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, in 1837 following the Caroline incident. See Moore (1906, p. 409, 412). However, these conditions seem to be increasingly confused since the attack of 11 September 2001 against the World Trade Center when the issue at stake is the use of self-defense against terrorism. See Antonio Cassese “Terrorism is also Disrupting Some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law”, www.ejil.org/forum_WTC; Janos Boka “Forcible Measures Against International Terrorism and the Rule of Law”, www.uni-miskolc.hu/uni/res/kozlemenyek/2002/boka.html.
- 113.
- 114.
O’Connell (2002).
- 115.
Idem, p. 13.
- 116.
Eckert and Mofidi (2004, p. 147).
- 117.
Kohen (1999, p. 312).
- 118.
ICJ Reports 1996, para 105 E.
- 119.
Declaration, ICJ Reports 1996, op. cit., p. 273.
- 120.
Krisch (2001, p. 412).
- 121.
Idem, p. 410.
- 122.
Thomas Jefferson has stated in this regard that “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation…” cited by Gregory A. Raymond “Necessity in Foreign Policy”, note 12. See next footnote for full reference.
- 123.
On the state of necessity, see, among others, de Visscher (1917), Rodick (1928), Salmon (1984), Jagota (1985); Raymond (1998), Love (1999), Romano (1999), Boed (2000), Laursen (2004), Kalamatianou (2004), Heathcote (2005), and S. Heathcote “Est-ce que l’état de nécessité est un principe de droit international coutumier?”, R.B.D.I., 2007/1, Christakis (2007).
- 124.
International Law Commission, YB.Int’l L. Com., 34, U.N.Doc. AICN.4/ Ser.A/1880/Add.l (Pt.2).
- 125.
Cahier (1985, p. 290).
- 126.
Hesse (2002, p. 131).
- 127.
Hesse (2002, p. 126 and seq.).
- 128.
- 129.
Haslam (2002, p. 17).
- 130.
Grotius (1625/1853, p. 206).
- 131.
Pufendorf (1672/1964, p. 264 cont.)
- 132.
de Vattel (1758/1852, p. 308).
- 133.
Hershey (1927, p. 232) who refers in particular to Pradier-Fodere and Westlake.
- 134.
Raymond 10.
- 135.
Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v. France), 82 ILR 1990, p. 499, 554.
- 136.
96 ILR 1991, pp. 282, 318–319.
- 137.
2 YB.Int’l L.Comm’n. 34,U.N.Doc.AICN.4/Ser.A/1980/Add.l (Pt.2), at 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 151.
- 138.
For a review of that doctrine, see Laursen (2004, pp. 499–500 and 507–508).
- 139.
Judge Krylov has declared in this regard as a consequence of the adoption of the UN Charter “the so-called right of self-help, also known as the law of necessity (Notrecht) which used to be upheld by a number of German authors, can no longer be invoked. It must be regarded as obsolete”, Dissenting Opinion, Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 77.
- 140.
Roberto Ago, Addendum to Eight report on State responsibility, [1980] 2 YB Int Law Comm’n 51, 53 UN Doc. A/CN.4/318/ADDS.5-7.
- 141.
Laursen (2004, p. 524).
- 142.
Romano (1999, p. 31).
- 143.
See ATTAC France, “L’état de nécessité. La dette extérieure: mécanismes juridiques de non-paiement moratoire ou suspension de paiement”, www.france.attac-org/a310 and 311; H. R. Diaz “La force majeure: la situation en Argentine, moratoire ou suspension de paiement”, http://users.skynet.be/cadtm/.
- 144.
André and Dutry (1999, p. 80).
- 145.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros (Hungary/Slovakia), ICJ Reports 1997, para 52. The same position has been adopted by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, para 140.
- 146.
Idem.
- 147.
Idem.
- 148.
Extract from the Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session Regarding the Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, U.N. GAOR Int’l L.Comm’n., 56th Sess., Supp. No 10.at ch.E1, U.N.Doc. A/56/10 (2001).
- 149.
Report on Work of the 32nd Session, [1980] 2 Y.B.Int Law Comm’n 33.
- 150.
ICJ Reports 2004, para 140.
- 151.
Addendum to Eight Report on State Responsibility by Roberto Ago, op. cit., at p. 14.
- 152.
Crawford (2002, p. 183).
- 153.
Essential Interest of the State in Addendum to Eight Report, op. cit. at p. 50.
- 154.
See Crawford (1999, p. 39).
- 155.
ICJ Reports 1997, para 57.
- 156.
See e.g. Dunn (2005, pp. 23–70).
- 157.
See Canovan (2005, pp. 11–16).
- 158.
See for instance Clastres (1974).
- 159.
See Engels (1902).
- 160.
Baecheler (2002, p. 62).
- 161.
Ibid. p. 161.
- 162.
This issue is analyzed by Barberis (1999).
- 163.
Balandier (1999, p. 117).
- 164.
Ibid. (my translation).
- 165.
- 166.
For an account of the historical process which has led to the adoption of the principle of popular sovereignty, see David (1996).
- 167.
Millar (1998, p. 124).
- 168.
Canovan (2005, p. 11).
- 169.
See Canning (1996, pp. 8–9).
- 170.
Idem, pp. 157–158.
- 171.
See Canovan (2005, p. 14).
- 172.
Morgan (1988, p. 153).
- 173.
On the process which has led to the rise in England of popular sovereignty, see the aforementioned and well documented study of Morgan (1988, pp. 17–121).
- 174.
Idem, p. 152.
- 175.
Idem, pp. 17–121.
- 176.
See Joyce (1994, p. 206).
- 177.
Canovan 2005, p. 28.
- 178.
- 179.
Archives Parlementaires, Discours de Sieyès du 7 Septembre , vol.8, p. 694.
- 180.
See the analysis made by Rosanvallon (2000, pp. 9–28).
- 181.
Archives Parlementaires de à 1860, vol. 8, p. 694.
- 182.
- 183.
See Tilly (1975, p. 15).
- 184.
- 185.
Idem, p. 330.
- 186.
“Analyse raisonnée de la Constitution française décrétée par l’Assemblée Nationale”, Paris, 123 cité par Rosanvallon (2000, p. 15).
- 187.
See Yack (2003, p. 34).
- 188.
“Nationality”(1862) reproduced in Balakrishnan (1996, p. 28).
- 189.
Morgan (1988, p. 294).
- 190.
Carré de Malberg (1920, p. 13).
- 191.
MacIver (1964, p. 6).
- 192.
Idem, p. 15.
- 193.
Kelsen clarifies elsewhere that “The state is not its individuals; it is the specific union of individuals, and the union is the function of the order which regulates their mutual behavior” Kelsen (1942, p. 64).
- 194.
Kelsen (1934/1989, p. 287).
- 195.
Guggenheim wrote in this regard that “We cannot conceive of the state as an above individual general will, independent from individuals…. The state acts on behalf of a whole number of individuals that are attributed to it. The state uses organs that it itself designate et whose acts are imputed to the community of individuals and the legal order is the expression”, (1953, pp. 172–173). See also Robert McCorquodale “Self-Determination: a Human Rights Approach”, www.eleves.ens.fr/home/blondel/law.html.
- 196.
Roth (1999, p. 2).
- 197.
Umozurike (1972, p. 236).
References
Adar KG (1986) The principle of self-determination and territorial integrity make strange litigants in international relations: a recapitulation. Indian J Int Law 26(3/4)
Agnew J (2004) Sovereignty regimes: sovereignty and territory over time and space. Paper presented at the international workshop on “globalization, territoriality, and conflict”. The Institute for International, Comparative, and Area Studies (IICAS) at the University of California, San Diego, January 2004
Allies P (1983) L’invention du territoire. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble
Altman A (2008) Tracing the earliest recorded concepts of international law. The Ancient Near East in the Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BCE). J Hist Int Law 10 and in the same journal, 2004, vol 6 and 2005, vol 7
André L, Dutry J (1999) La responsabilité internationale des Etats pour des situations d’extrême pauvreté. R.B.D.I.
Antonopoulos C (1996) The principle of Uti Possidetis Iuria in contemporary international law. RHDI, 29
Arbaret-Schulz C, Beyer A, Permay JL, Reitel B, Selimanovski C, Sohn C, Zander P (2004) La frontière, un objet spatial en mutation. Groupe Frontière, EspacesTemps.net, Textuel, 29.10.2004. http://espacestemps.net/document842.html
Ardey R (1967) The territorial imperative. Collins, London
Baecheler J (2002) Esquisse d’une histoire universelle. Fayard
Balakrishnan G (ed) (1996) Mapping the world. Verso, London
Balandier G (1999) Anthropologie politique, 4th edn. P.U.F, Paris
Barberis JA (1999) Les liens juridiques entre l’Etat et son territoire: Perspectives théoriques et évolution du Droit International. A.F.D.I. 132
Barthelemy J (1917) Démocratie et politique étrangère. Paris
Bastid P (1970) Sieyès et sa pensée. Hachette, Paris
Beaud O (1994) La puissance de l’Etat. P.U.F., Paris
Bederman DJ (2001) International law in antiquity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bedjaoui M (1972) Le règlement pacifique des différends africains. A.F.D.I. 95
Bipoum-Woom JM (1970) Le droit international africain. L.G.D.J, Paris
Boed R (2000) State of necessity as a justification for internationally wrongful conduct. Yale Human Rights Dev Law J 3:4. http://islandia.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vol3.html
Borella F (1964) Le régionalisme africain. A.F.D.I. 10
Bonfils H (1912) Manuel de Droit International public (droit des gens), 6th ed., Rousseau, Paris
Cahier P (1985) Cours de Droit International Public. R.C.A.D.I.
Canning J (1996) A history of medieval political thought 300–1450. Routledge, London
Canovan M (2005) The people. Polity, Cambridge
Caputo JD (ed) (1997) Deconstruction in a Nutshell. A conversation with Jacques Derrida. Fordham University Press, New York
Carré de Malberg R (1962) Contribution à la théorie générale de l’Etat. Editions du C.N.R.S., Paris (1st edn, 1920)
Chisholm M, Smith D (eds) (1990) Shared space: divided place. Unwin Hyman, London
Christakis T (ed) (2007) La nécessité en Droit International. Actes du Colloque de la Société Française pour le Droit International, A. Pédone, Paris
Clastres P (1974) La société contre l’Etat, recherches d’anthropologie politique. Editions de Minuit, Paris
Collins R (1988) Weberian sociological theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Crawford J (1999) Second report on state responsibility. Int’l L.Comm’n51st Sess., at 32, U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/498/Add.2
Crawford J (2002) The international law commission’s articles on state responsibility: introduction text and commentary. Cambridge Univ. Press
Cukwurah AO (1967) The settlement of boundary disputes in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester
David M (1996) La souveraineté du peuple. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
Delbez L (1932) Le territoire dans ses rapports avec l’Etat. R.G.D.I.P.
Delivanis J (1971) La légitime défense en Droit International Public. L.G.D.J., Paris
Dembinski L (1975) Le territoire et le Développement du Droit International”, A.S.D.I.
de Vattel E (1758/1852) Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqué à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains. Paris, Librairie de Guillaumin et Cie
de Visscher C (1917) Les lois de la guerre et la théorie de la nécessité. R.G.D.I.P
de Vischer Ch (1970) Théories et réalités en Droit International Public, 4th edn. A. Pédone, Paris
Dunn J (2005) Setting the people free. The story of democracy. Atlantic Books, London
Eckert AE, Mofidi M (2004) Doctrine or Doctrinaire. The first strike doctrine and preemptive self-defence under international law. Tulane J. Int. Comp. Law 12
El Ouali A (1982) l “existence transhistorique du Droit International. Quelques notes pour une critique de l’idéologie juridique dominante”, Revue Marocaine de Droit et d’Economie du Développent, No 1
El Ouali A (1993) Nouvel ordre international ou retour à l’idée d’inégalité des Etas? Les Editions Maghrebines, Casablanca
Engels F (1902) The origin of the family, private property and the state. C. H. Kerr & Company
Fauchille P (1922) Traité de Droit International Public, 8th ed, Librairie, Paris
Fardella F (1997) La dogme de la souveraineté de l’Etat. Un bilan. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Sirey 41
Firth R (1964) Essays on social organization and values
Forsyth M (1987) Reason and revolution. The political thought of the Abbé Sieyes. Leicester University Press, Leicester
Freund J (1966) Sociologie de Max Weber. P.U.F.
Fromm J (2004) The emergence of complexity. Kassel University Press GmbH, Kassel
Garner JW (1910) A treatise on the origin, functions and organization of the state. New York Book Cie
Gilpin R (1981) War and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press, New York
Gottman J (1952) La politique des Etats et leur géographie. A. Colin, Paris
Goemans H (2004) On the homeland. In: Globalization, territoriality, and conflict conference. International workshop. The Institute for International, Comparative, and Areas Studies (IICAS), at the University of California, San Diego, January 2004. http://www.intlstudies.ucsd.edu/IICASConferences/Globalization2004.htm
Grant TD (1998–1999) Defining statehood: Montevideo convention and its discontents. Columbia J Transnational Law 37
Grotius H (1625/1853) De Jure Belli ac Pacis
Guggenheim P (1953) Traité de Droit International Public, Librairie de l’Université, Georg & Cie S.A, Geneva
Guichonnet P, Raffestin (1974) Géographie des frontières. P.U.F., Paris
Gulick E (1967) Europe’s classical balance of power. Norton, New York, Chap. 9
Haigh SP (2004) Globalization and the sovereign state: authority and territoriality reconsidered. Paper presented to the first oceanic international studies conference. Australian National University, Canberra, 14–16 July 2004, 11
Hall JA (1996) International orders. Polity Press, Cambridge
Haslam J (2002) No virtue like necessity. realist thought in international relations since Machiavelli. Yale University Press
Heathcote S (2005) State of necessity in international law. Thesis, University of Geneva
Hershey AS (1927) The essentials of international public law and organization. The MacMillan Company, New York
Hesse P-J (2002) Un droit fondamental vieux de 3000 ans: l’état de nécessité. Jalons pour une histoire de la notion. Droits fondamentaux, No 2, January–December 2002
Hinsley FH (1966) Sovereignty. C.A. Watts & Co. Ltd., London
Hobbes T. (1994) Leviathan (1668), Hackett Publishing, Cambridge
Holsti KJ (2004) Taming the sovereigns. Institutional changes in international politics. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Howes DE (2003) When states chose to die: reassessing assumptions about what status want. Int Stud Quart 47
Hume D (1744/1985) Of the balance of power. In: Miller E (ed) Essays: moral, political and literary. Liberty Classics, Indianapolis
Jagota SP (1985) State responsibility: circumstances precluding wrongfulness. Neth YB Int Law 16
Jones SB (1959) Boundary concepts in the setting of place and time. Association of the American Geographers 3
Joyce P (1994) Democratic subjects: the self and the social in nineteenth-century England. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kahler M (2004) Globalization, territoriality, and conflict: definitions and hypotheses. Paper presented at the international workshop on “globalization, territoriality, and conflict. The Institute for International, Comparative, and Area Studies (IICAS) at the University of California, San Diego, January 2004
Kalamatianou P (2004) L’état de nécessité sous l’angle du droit comparé et de la justice pénale internationale. Revue de D.I. et D. Comparé, No 2
Kelsen H (1941–1942) The pure theory of law and analytical jurisprudence. Harvard Law Rev 55
Kelsen H (1934/1989) Pure Theory of Law, translated by Knight M, Smith Gloucester P, Mass
Kohen MG (1997) Possession contestée et souveraineté territoriale. PUF, Paris
Kohen MG (1999) The notion of ‘state survival’ in international law. In: Laurence Boisson de Chazounes and Philippe Sands (eds) International law, the international court of justice and nuclear weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Krassner SD (1999) Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Krisch N (2001) Self-Defense and Collective Security, Summary, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
Laband P (1861/1900) Le droit public de l’Empire allemande, translated by Gandilhon M, Paris, V.Girard and E.Briére
Lalonde S (2002) Determining boundaries in a conflicted world. The role of Uti Possidetis. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal
Laursen A (2004) The use of force and (the state of) necessity. Vanderbilt J Transn Law
von Liszt F (1927) Le Droit International. ExposÕ systÕmatique, translated by Gidel G, (1928) A. PÕdone, Paris
Luke TW (1994) Fixing identity, fabricating space: sovereignty and territoriality after the cold war. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, March 27–April 2 1994
MacIver RM (1964) The modern state. Oxford University Press, London (1st edn, 1926)
Malmberg T (1980) Human territoriality: survey of behavioral territories in man with preliminary analysis and discussion of meaning. Mouton Publishers, The Hague
Mearsheimer JJ (2001) The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Millar F (1998) The crowd in Rome in the late republic. University of Michigan, Michigan
Modelski G (1971) Principles of world politics. Collier-Macmillan limited, London
Modelski G (1987) Long cycles in world politics. University of Washington Press, Seattle
Moore JB (1906) A digest of international law, Washington D.C., US Government Printing Office
Morgan ES (1988) Inventing the people. The rise of popular sovereignty in England and America. W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Nadel SF (1951) The foundations of Social Anthropology, London, Cohen and West
Nesi G (1998) l’ uti possidetis hors du contexte de la décolonisation: le cas de l’Europe. 44 A.F.D.I.
Newman D (2004) The resilience of territorial conflict in an era of globalization. In: Globalization, territoriality, and conflict conference. International workshop. The Institute for International, Comparative, and Areas Studies (IICAS), at the University of California, San Diego, January 2004. http://www.intlstudies.ucsd.edu/IICASConferences/Globalization2004.htm
Nys E (1901) L’Etat et la notion d’Etat. Revue de Droit Internationale et de Législation Comparée 35
Nys E (1904) L’acquisition du territoire et le Droit International. R.D.I.L.C.
O’Connell ME (2002) The myth of preemptive self-defense. The American Society of International Law, Task Force on Terrorism, August 2002. www.asil.org/taskforce/oconell.pdf, Note 10
Osiander A (2001) Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization 55(2)
Paasi A (1996) Territories, boundaries and consciousness: the changing geographies of the Finnish–Russian Border. Wiley, Chichester
Parkinson F (1975) Pre-colonial international law. In: Mensah-Brown AK (ed) African international law legal history. U.N.T.A.R., New York
Pasquino P (1998) Sieyès et l’invention de la Constitution en France. Editions Odile Jacob, Paris
Person Y (1972) L’Afrique noire et ses frontières, R.F.E.P.A., August
Petitdemange G (2003) Philosophies & philosophes du XXe siècle. Seuil, Paris
Phillipson C (1916) Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, revised by Phillipson C, London, Stevens & Sons, New York, Baker, Vooehis é Co.
Pufendorf S (1672, 1852) De Jurae Nature et Gentium
Raffestin C (1980) Pour une géographie du pouvoir. LITEC, Paris
Raffestin C (1986) Ecogenèse et territorialité. In: Auriac-Brunet (dir.) Espaces, jeux et enjeux, nouvelle encyclopédie des sciences et techniques. Fayard, Paris
Raffestin C (1990) La frontière comme représentation: discontinuité géographique et discontinuité idéologique. Relations Internationales 63, (my translation)
Raymond GA (1998) Necessity in Foreign Policy http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action= print&docld=5001404161&pgNum=1
Retaille D (1990) L’impératif territorial. Relations Internationales 63
Rodick BC (1928) The doctrine of necessity in international law. Columbia University Press, New York
Romano J-A (1999) Combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction: reviving the doctrine of a state of necessity. Georgetown Law J. www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805is_199904/ai_n8839027
Root E (1916) The declaration of the rights and duties of nations adopted by the American Institute of International Law. A.J.I.L.
Rosanvallon P (2000) La démocratie inachevée. Histoire de la souveraineté du peuple en France. Gallimard, Paris
Rosenau JN (1995) Sovereignty in a turbulent world. In: Gene M, Lyons GM, Mastanduno M (eds) Beyond Westphalia. State Sovereignty and International Intervention. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London
Roth BR (1999) Governmental illegitimacy in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Salmon J (1984) Faut-il codifier l’état de nécessité en Droit International? In: Makarczyk J (ed) Essays in international law in honour of Judge Manfred Lachs
Sanchez-Rodriguez (1997) L’uti possidetis et le effectivités dans les contentieux territoriaux et frontaliers. R.C.A.D.I., vol 263
Scelle G (1948) Manuel de Droit International Public. Domat Montchrestien, Paris
Schmitt C (1922/1988) Théologie politique, translated from German by Schlegel J. Gallimard, Paris
Schoenborn W (1929) La nature juridique du territoire de l’Etat. R.C.A.D.I. II 30
Shaw MN (1982) Territory in international law. N.Y.B.I.L.
Shaw MN (1997) The Heritage of States: the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today, BYIL 1996, 75
Shaw MN (1999) Peoples, territorialism and decolonisation. EJIL 3
Sibert M (1951) Traité de Droit International Public, Paris, Dalloz
Spykman NJ (1942) Frontiers, security, and international organization. Geogr Rev
Stack R (1986) Human territoriality. Its theory and history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Strayer J (1963) The historical experience of nation-building in Europe. In: Deutch KW, Foltz WJ (eds) Nation-building. Atherton Press, New York
Strayer J (1970) On the medieval origins of the modern state. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Thompson EU (1995) State sovereignty in international relations: bridging the gap between theory and empirical research. Int Stud Quart 39(2)
Tilly C (1975) Reflections on the history of the European state-making. In: Tilly C (ed) The formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Todd E (2002) Apres l’Empire. Essai sur la décomposition du système américain”. Gallimard, Paris
Touval S (1972) The boundary politics of independent Africa. Harvard University Press
Trumer M (1933) Le matérialisme historique chez K. Marx et Fr. Engels. Paris, les Editions Domat-Montchrestien
Turrettine R (1949) La signification des traités de Westphalie dans le domaine du droit des gens. Imprimerie Genevoise, Genève
Umozurike UO (1972) Self-determination in international law, Hamden CT: Archon Books
Urbinati N (2006) Representative democracy. Principles & genealogy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Vaughan L (1999) Precluding wrongfulness or responsibility: a plea for excuses. Eur J Int Law 10
Waltz KN (1979) Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley, Reading McGraw-Hill, New York
Walzer M (2006) Just and unjust wars. A moral argument with historical illustrations, 4th edn. Basic Books, New York
Weber M (1958) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated and ed. by Gerth HH and Mills CW. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston
White GW (2000) Nationalism and territory: constructing group identity in Southern Europe. Rowman and Liilefield, Lanham (Maryland) & Oxford
White LA (1959) The Evolution of Culture. The development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome, McGraw-Hill
Yack B (2003) Nationalism, popular sovereignty, and the liberal democratic state. In: Paul TV, John Ikenberry G, Hall JA (eds) The nation-state in question. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Yakemtchouk R (1975) Les frontières africaines. R.G.D.I.P. 51
Zacher MW (2001) The territorial integrity norm: international boundaries and the use of force. Int Organization 55(2)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ouali, A.E. (2012). The State’s Sovereign Right to Existence. In: Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22869-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22869-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22868-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22869-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)