Which country owns liancourt rocks

The Court was asked to settle a dispute as to sovereignty over two plots of land situated in an area where the Belgo-Cutch frontier presented certain unusual features. In that location, there had long existed a number of enclaves formed by the Belgian commune of Baerle-Duc and the Netherlands commune of Baarle-Nassau.

A Communal Minute drawn up between and attributed the plots to Baarle-Nassau, whereas a Descriptive Minute and map annexed to the Boundary Convention of attributed them to Vaerle-Duc. The Netherlands maintained that the Boundary Convention recognized the existence of the status quo as determined by the Communal Minute, that the provision by which the two plots were attributed to Belgium 71 was vitiated by an error, and that the sovereignty of the Netherlands over the disputed plots was established by the exercise of various acts of sovereignty dating from After considering the evidence produced, the Court, in a Judgment delivered on June 20, , determined that sovereignty over the two disputed plots belonged to Belgium.

Under the Boundary Convention, sovereignty resided in Belgium. The question for the Court was whether Belgium lost its sovereignty by non-assertion of its rights and by acquiescence in acts of sovereignty alleged to have been exercised by the Netherlands at different times since Cambodia brought action against Thailand for infringing on its territorial sovereignty over the land surrounding the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear.

Thailand denied all violations of Cambodian sovereignty, claiming that the ruins were on its side of the common border. Burkina Faso based its sovereignty claim on the frontier delimited by the French colonial administration as shown in colonial maps. In the case of Frontier Dispute Burk. Faso v. Mali , the ICJ granted Burkina Faso the title of the disputed frontier, stressing that the principle of uti possidetis juris took the lead over effective possession as source of sovereignty.

In holding that uti possidetis juris takes priority over self-determination, the court expressly relied on a particular regional practice in Africa, according to which respect for boundaries existing at independence was seen as a necessity for realizing the practical benefits of self-determination; the court did not suggest that this decision of the conflict between two principles would necessarily apply in any other region.

El Salvador, on the other hand, maintained that the Chamber constituted by the ICJ for this case was bound to apply the modern law of acquisition of territory and consider the effective exercise of state control over the islands, as well as historical title. A boundary established by treaty thus achieves a permanence which the treaty itself does not necessarily enjoy. The treaty can cease to be in force without in any way affecting the continuance of the boundary. In this instance the Parties have not exercised their option to terminate the Treaty, but whether or not the option be exercised, the boundary remains.

This is not to say that two States may not by mutual agreement vary the border between them; such a result can of course be achieved by mutual consent, but when a boundary has been the subject of agreement, the continued existence of that boundary is not dependent upon the continuing life of the treaty under which the boundary is agreed … Then, because the Treaty was clear on the boundary question, it was unnecessary for the ICJ to further consider uti possidetis , title inherited from indigenous peoples, or sphere of influence.

In the case of Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Phase I: Territorial Sovereignty , Eritrea claimed territorial sovereignty over all the islands by virtue of Italian sovereignty, which, it argued, was acquired by effective occupation sometime after Turkish renunciation. In the absence of such better title, a claim of res inter alios acta is without legal import. In , Turkey renounced title to those islands over which it had retained sovereignty to that time.

The islands did not become res nullius — that is to say, open to acquisitive prescription — by any state, including any of the High Contracting Parties along with Italy. Neither did they automatically revert insofar as they had even belonged to the Imam [predecessor of Yemen].

Sovereign title over the islands remained indeterminate pro tempore. This negative analysis of Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne does not answer the question of who is the territorial sovereign of the contested islands, but rather establishes who the territorial sovereign was not and, therefore, who could not pass title to a putative successor.

Further, it is notable that the PCA did not accept the sovereignty over the islands in dispute to be returned to Yemen, dismissing the principle of reversion of territory to a former state. Yemen claimed the disputed islands principally on the basis of a theory of reversion, arguing that the islands were historically Yemeni from the sixth century. After the Ottoman Empire withdrew in , the islands reverted back to their original owner Yemen.

The parties agreed that the ICJ was to deliver its decision on the basis of the Treaty, which they recognized as applicable and binding. The ICJ held that it was not only authorized to interpret the treaty in the light of the rules and principles of international law, but that it was also asked to apply those rules and principles independently. Hence, after the ICJ decided on the definition of the boundary under the treaty, it proceeded to consider the question of prescription.

In the case of Territorial Questions Qatar v. While Bahrain claimed title to the Hawar islands on the basis of a British decision of July 11, , Qatar founded its claim on proximity and a prior title. In the case of Land Boundary Cameroon v. In the case of Pulau Ligitan and Sipadan Indon.

Both parties argued that there were a series of cession treaties and a chain-of-title could be established as a matter of succession from an historic title-holder. The ICJ , however, was not convinced concerning the contention of both parties that there had been an uninterrupted series of transfers of title from the alleged original title-holder to the present one because it had not been established with certainty that Ligitan and Sipadan belonged to the possession of the alleged original title-holder nor that any of the alleged subsequent title-holders had a treaty-based title to these two islands.

However, the Chamber pointed out that it could not exclude a priori the possibility that maps, research or other documents subsequent to the date of independence may be relevant in order to establish, in application of the uti possidetis juris principle, the situation that existed at the time.

The Chamber concluded that neither of the parties succeeded in providing evidence of title on the basis of regulative or administrative acts during the colonial period. Finally, returning to the concept of uti possidetis juris , the Chamber defined the boundary as the main channel, namely the line of deepest soundings as it existed at the dates of independence.

Accordingly, Benin was granted title to the islands situated between the boundary and the right bank of the river and Niger received title to the islands between that boundary and the left bank of the river. The Court rendered its Judgment concerning the question of sovereignty over several small islands lying within the area of overlapping maritime claims on October 8, The Court rendered its Judgment determining the sovereignty over an island and two maritime features located at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore on May 23, It therefore found that Malaysia, as the successor to the Sultan of Johor, should be considered to have retained original title to Middle Rocks.

Recalling that it had not been mandated by the Parties to delimit their territorial waters, the Court concluded that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in whose territorial waters it lies. It concluded, however, that neither the Treaty nor the historical documents conclusively established the composition of that Archipelago. It found that neither Nicaragua nor Colombia had established that it had title to the disputed maritime features by virtue of uti possidetis juris , because nothing clearly indicated whether these features were attributed to the colonial provinces of Nicaragua or of Colombia.

This exercise of sovereign authority had been public and there was no evidence that it had met with any protest from Nicaragua prior to , when the dispute had crystallized. The Court rendered a ruling to determine the disputed border between Burkina Faso formerly known as Upper Volta and Niger on April 16, Before declaring independence in , two countries were French colonies, forming part of French West Africa.

Textbooks on international law describe territorial disputes in two ways: by listing complex items in which it is difficult to find systemic logic or by listing relatively fewer items in which each item involves too much information. The decisive binding effect of treaties upon apportioning territory and delimiting boundaries may result from the consent of relevant states.

Treaties concluded between two parties including their predecessors concerning boundary delimitation are the primary legal basis by which to determine which country has sovereignty over the territory at issue. Cases in which this approach was established include the Pulau Ligitan and Sipadan Indon. In examining the issue of territorial acquisition, special references must be made to boundary treaties, whereby either additional territory is acquired or lost or uncertain boundaries are clarified by agreement between the states concerned.

Boundary treaties establish the critical date and they will shift the pertinent date of crystallization of territorial rights.

This being so, many boundary disputes in fact revolve around the question of interpretation of the treaty. Courts have taken the view that the Convention, in this respect at least, represents customary international law thus apparently obviating the problem.

From the principle of stability a presumption exists that the Tribunal and the Court will favor an interpretation of a treaty creating a boundary that holds that a permanent, definite and complete boundary was established. This approach was supported in the case of Certain Frontier Land Belg.

Once agreed, the boundary stands, for any other approach would vitiate the fundamental principle of the stability of boundaries. Even were the circumstantial evidence that the Parties thought they were resolving all the territorial problems arising out of their overlapping … claims, inconclusive, it is surely sufficient to invoke the rebuttable presumption, based on the commonsense and experience of diplomacy and recognized by several international tribunals, to the effect that when States negotiate a boundary allocating or confirming their respective areas of sovereignty over territories, these shall be presumed to have intended to resolve all outstanding and potentially disputatious claims in the area in question, subject only convincing evidence to the contrary.

In these circumstances the silence in the text cannot be ignored. A peace treaty can be reviewed as a special kind of boundary treaty in terms of the binding effect on third-party states. As demonstrated in the Lausanne Peace Treaty in the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Phase I: Territorial Sovereignty , peace treaties are the primary legal basis by which to determine which country has sovereignty over the territory at issue.

A special kind of boundary treaty, like a peace treaty, is accepted to establish an objective territorial regime valid erga onmes. To understand the evidentiary value of a peace treaty in territorial awards and decisions, it is valuable to examine the need to grasp the issue of whether a peace treaty is binding to a non-party state as well as to a party state. As demonstrated in the case of the Frontier Dispute Burk. In the Frontier Dispute Burk. In holding that uti possidetis takes priority over self-determination, the court expressly relied on a particular regional practice in Africa, according to which respect for boundaries existing at independence was seen as a necessity for realizing the practical benefits of self-determination.

The Court did not suggest that this decision of the conflict between two principles would necessarily apply in any other region. Accordingly, the uti possidetis position can be qualified by adjudication and by treaty, as well as it can be qualified by acquiescence or recognition.

Naturally, these factors should operate where there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parties have, in effect, clearly accepted a variation, or at least an interpretation, of the uti possidetis juris position. The application of the principle of uti possidetis resulting from colonial dominance may be reinforced by the terms of the compromis itself.

Just as in the case of a boundary treaty, a territorial dispute may be resolved and title established or confirmed by an award or decision of a court or tribunal, or to put the proposition another way, boundary awards sometimes termed adjudication , like boundary treaties, may constitute roots or sources of legal title to territory.

Historical claims to territory are based on historical priority first possession or duration length of possession by cession and succession which constitute a chain-of-title. Cession and succession, of course, can be defined as legal basis.

In the case of the Territorial Dispute Libya v. Although the Court entered into reviewing a chain-of-title, it never turned out to be decisive proof of establishing a title over the disputed territory in most territorial dispute cases, as was demonstrated in the cases of Palmas Island U. Both parties of the cases submitted in vain an extraordinarily vast amount of historic records including maps and exchange of correspondence to the Court. However, it is not easy to prove that cession or succession over the territory at issue is legally valid.

In order to demonstrate validity of cession and succession in front of the Court, the claimant state must prove that its predecessor state exercised dominium over the disputed territory at the time when transfer or succession existed. However, it was admitted that this treaty could not be interpreted as transferring rights over territory to which Spain had no title.

Moreover, even if a legal title is alleged to have existed in the past, its evidential power has apparently diminished as the new rule of international law evolved with regard to territorial acquisition e. Therefore, the Tribunal and the Court prefer to go have recourse to modern manifestations of sovereign activity in the absence of overwhelming evidence that the historical data provided was sufficient to meet the criteria required for an historic title. Here, the Minquiers and Ecrehos Fr.

Both the U. The Court can determine if the evidence amounts to effective domination and continued display of effective control - which is a matter of fact, while the issue of succession of title seems a purely legal issue.

If the Court cannot resort to the legal basis defined in the first two stages, the proceedings will enter into the next stage. In the absence of a legal basis in the form of treaties, grants of awards or application of uti possidetis first stage , or of a chain-of-title through cession or succession second stage , the considerations deliberated by the Court may include evidence of actual administration and legislation over disputed areas.

The rationale is to stabilize a territorial relationship between the states and to allow sovereignty to the state that can properly fulfill the duties corresponding to exclusive sovereignty over the territory.

Therefore, even though the legal basis could not be found, the Court granted title to the state that exercised continuous, peaceful and effective control over the territory. Even if proof, such as the existence of a peace treaty, a treaty concerning boundary delimitation, the principle of uti possidetis , adjudication, or a chain-of-title through cession and succession as mentioned above seemed to exist, the Court would not adopt it in most cases.

In the Palmas Island U. For that reason, most territorial disputes are judged in favor of the preponderance of effective control except in cases such as the Territorial Questions Qatar v.

The reason most territorial cases were solved on the basis of effective control is the lack of sufficient legal basis. Without an explicit legal basis, the Court has no alternative but to enter the next stage, which confers legal title as a fait accompli. The traditional modes of territorial acquisition — such as occupation of terra nullius or prescription — are categorized as the third stage. The two other traditional modes of acquiring title to territory are conceptually different but in practice difficult to differentiate in the case law, primarily because courts and tribunals rarely categorize title acquisition in terms of either occupation or prescription as such but rather focus on the elements of effective control.

Title to territory in disputed cases is decided essentially on the basis of a relative weighting of the arguments of the claimant parties. Therefore, it is adequate for one party to demonstrate a claim that is stronger than that of another state. Where both claims are weak, the less weak of the two will suffice.

Conversely, the probative power of the following activities depends on certain special circumstances. The construction and operation of lighthouses and navigational aids is not normally considered a manifestation of State authority. However, in the case of Territorial Questions Qatar v. Lastly, certain activities cannot prove sovereignty.

Fourthly, the Court presumes that the currently occupying state has the right to the title to the territory; as a result, if the non-occupying state cannot plead a strong rebuttal, the decision will not be in favor of the non-occupying state — even though it seems to hold, by a narrow margin, a relatively superior position in the comparative weight of effective control.

Lastly, proof that the Court will evaluate in terms of evidentiary value must be directly related to the possession of the disputed territory. The legal basis of territorial sovereignty can be divided into two categories: assessment of boundary treaties, peace treaties, the principle of uti possidetis , and an adjudication award; and, investigation of a chain-of-title through cession and succession. Considering a hierarchy between the former and the latter, once a boundary has been established or a territory has been apportioned by the former, it cannot be modified by the latter.

Further, when the Tribunal and the Court determine a sovereignty issue, the former is the only decisive evidence and conversely, the latter is the type of evidence which the Tribunal and the Court are unwilling to seriously consider. Tracking a chain-of-title through cession and succession is of no value when it purports to base the claim on some distant historic connection with the territory which has in fact long been superseded by the effects of later historical developments — the emergence of a modern state as a governance form as we see in Eastern Greenland Den.

Three reasons exist for the reluctance of the Tribunal and the Court to grant territorial sovereignty based on a chain-of-title through cession and succession from ancient times. Firstly, it is very difficult to prove that all former entities involved in the chain-of-title through cession or succession intentionally displayed power and authority over the territory.

Because Since the former can transfer to the latter no more rights than actually possessed, the title claimed by the ceding or predecessor state should be proved as a non-defective title in order to show that the state to which the territory is ceded or succeeded will also retain the intact and valid title.

Secondly, the judicial review of historical chain-of-title tends to open the door for non-legal claims, which directly relates to the effect of colonialism and conquest on a current status of a territory at issue. The Tribunal or the Court which takes into account its own standing and reputation whenever it issues an award or a decision, does not want to be seen as acting as a proxy to re-impose colonial rule.

Conversely, to render void any title established at a time when conquest was a legal mode of acquiring territory and to revert the title to a successor state of an alleged original owner could seriously damage the stability of boundaries. Clearly, a society that did not mirror the structure and model of a modern state, is regarded as having no sovereign rights over the territories.

Example of this type of society include the dynastic and feudal governance form of early European society as well as organized groups of peoples on other continents as long as they did not conform to the model of a modern state. Even if there is some nuance by which the Tribunal and the Court consider an entity other than a state as the territorial sovereignty, it could not admit that the ties of personal allegiance between non-Western cultural and religious entities and inhabitants would fall within the category of the category of the ability to exercise of sovereign authority.

Title to territory in disputed cases is determined essentially on the basis of a relative weighing of the arguments of the claimant parties. It is adequate for one party to demonstrate a claim that is stronger than that of another state. It says it then incorporated the islands into modern-day Shimane prefecture in South Korea acted illegally by declaring them its territory in , it says, because they were not included in territory to be returned under the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

There have been sporadic flare-ups over the issue, which remains a sore spot for both nations. The islands are in good fishing grounds and it is thought that gas reserves may also lie nearby, although their amount is not clear. But the islands also symbolise the lingering historical grievances between the two nations, which have their roots in Japan's lengthy colonisation of Korea. The Liancourt Rocks were uninhabited before the twentieth century, and historical texts referring to their first settlers are ambiguous.

After World War II, the final version of the Allies' peace treaty with Japan failed to mention the Liancourt Rocks among the islands Japan was specifically returning to Korea, so both countries still claim the islands today. Japan calls the island group Takeshima "bamboo island" ; in Korea, it's Dokdo "solitary island".

Even the name of the sea where the islands sit is different. The only two civilian residents of the island are a Korean octopus fisherman and his wife. Environment As the EU targets emissions cuts, this country has a coal problem.

Paid Content How Hong Kong protects its sea sanctuaries. History Magazine These 3,year-old giants watched over the cemeteries of Sardinia. Magazine How one image captures 21 hours of a volcanic eruption. Science Why it's so hard to treat pain in infants. Science The controversial sale of 'Big John,' the world's largest Triceratops.

Science Coronavirus Coverage How antivirals may change the course of the pandemic. Science Coronavirus Coverage U. Travel A road trip in Burgundy reveals far more than fine wine. Travel My Hometown In L. Travel The last artists crafting a Thai royal treasure.

Subscriber Exclusive Content. Why are people so dang obsessed with Mars? How viruses shape our world. The era of greyhound racing in the U. See how people have imagined life on Mars through history.