Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:36:55.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Territorial Integrity Narrowly Interpreted: Reasserting the Classical Inter-State Paradigm of International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2011

OLIVIER CORTEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paragraph 80 of the Kosovo AO reflects a very traditional conception of international law. By insisting on the inter-state character of the principle of territorial integrity, the Court refused to challenge the classical argument of the ‘neutrality’ of international law in regard to secession. The Court also refused any reinterpretation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. As already stated in the Wall Advisory Opinion, the prohibition of the use of force is only applicable between states. It does not apply between states and non-state actors, whether secessionist or not. Similarly, the Court refused the argument of ‘remedial secession’, at least as far as it would imply a right to violate the principle of territorial integrity of a state by a secessionist group. Indeed, if the latter principle is not applicable in such situations, it logically cannot be violated and there is therefore no right to infringe it. Finally, the Court refused to consider Kosovo as a ‘special case’ or a sui generis situation. According to the Court, this situation must be governed by the traditional rules of general international law. This implies that Kosovo did not violate international law by proclaiming independence. But this also implies that a declaration of independence by a secessionist group inside Kosovo would not be contrary to international law. Moreover, it can be pointed out that if Kosovo is not a state (a hypothesis perfectly compatible with the advisory opinion), then general international law would not preclude Serbia from invoking the argument of ‘legal neutrality’ to support such a secessionist group.

Keywords

legal neutralitynon-use of forceremedial secessionself-determinationterritorial integrity
Type
KOSOVO SYMPOSIUM
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 87 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 22 July 2010 (hereafter Kosovo AO), paras. 79–84.

2 Kosovo AO, para. 80, emphasis added.

3 See, e.g., O. Corten, ‘Are There Gaps in the International Law of Secession?’, in M. Kohen (ed.), Secession: International Law Perspectives (2006), at 231–54; and Th. Christakis, Le droit à l'autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation (1999), at 190–259.

4 See, e.g., v° ‘sécession’, in J. Salmon (ed.), Dictionnaire de droit international public (2001), 1022; R. Higgins, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations (1963), 125; Th. Christakis, Le droit à l'autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation, supra note 3, at 74; J. Salmon, ‘Le droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes: Aspects juridiques et politiques’, in Le nationalisme, facteur belligène: Etudes de sociologie de la guerre (1972), 364 ff.

5 See generally J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd edn (2006).

6 Albania (WS), at 25–6, para. 43, at 27, para. 47, at 38–9, para. 73; (WC), at 27–30, paras. 46–53; Frowein, CR 2009/26, 2 December 2009, at 13–15, paras. 19–30; Austria (WS), at 14–15, paras. 23–24, at 21–2, paras. 37–38; Tichy, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, at 8–9, paras. 10–13; Bulgaria, Dimitroff, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 24, paras. 23–24; Czeck Republic (WS), at 6–8; Denmark, Winkler, CR 2009/29, 7 December 2009, at 65; Estonia (WS), at 4; Finland, Koskenniemi, CR 2009/30, 8 December 2009, at 59–60, para. 18; France (WS), at 36, para. 2.4, at 37–8, para. 2.6; Belliard, CR 2009/31, 9 December 2009, at 16, para. 18; Forteau, ibid., at 19–20, para. 9; Germany (WS), at 27–32; Ireland (WS), at 5–7, paras. 18–22; Japan (WS), at 2–3; Jordania, Al Hussein, CR 2009/31, 9 December 2009, at 48–50, paras. 21–26; Switzerland (WS), at 14, para. 55; (WC), at 2, para. 5; United Kingdom (WS), at 86–7, paras. 5.8–5.10; Crawford, CR 2009/32, 10 December 2009, at 53, para. 26; USA (WS), at 50–1; (WC), at 16–20; Koh, CR 2009/30, 8 December 2009, at 30; see also Authors of the Declaration (WS), at 146, para. 8.19; (WC), at 60 ff.; Müller, CR 2009/25, 1 December 2009, at 39 ff.

7 Argentina (WS), at 30–2, paras. 75–82, at 47, para. 121; (WC), at 20, para. 39; CR 2009/26, Ruiz Cerutti, 2 December 2009, at 42–3; Azerbaijan (WS), at 5, paras. 26–27; Mehdiyev, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, at 20–1, paras. 20–27; Bolivia, Calzadilla Sarmiento, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 8, paras. 6–7; Brazil (WS), at 2; Denot Medeiros, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 15, para. 4; China, Xue Hanqin, CR 2009/29, 7 December 2009, at 33–4, paras. 14–17; Iran (WS), at 4–6, paras. 3.1–3.6; Cyprus (WS), at 19, para. 80; (WC), at 7–9, paras. 15–19; Libya (WS), at 1; Serbia (WS), at 155 ff., paras. 431 ff.; (WC), at 15–16, paras. 15–16, at 110 ff., paras. 253 ff.; Shaw, CR 2009/24, 1 December 2009, at 66–7, paras. 8–11; Spain (WS), at 20–37, paras. 29–55; (WC), at 3–4, para. 4; Slovakia (WS), at 2, para. 7; Venezuela, CR 2009/32, 10 December 2009, at 10–11, paras. 18–19.

8 See, e.g., GA Res. 47/9, 28 October 1992 (Comores) or United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (GA Res. 61/295, Art. 46(1)).

9 See Art. 8(3) of the International Criminal Court Statute or Art. 21 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

10 See, e.g., European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, Art. 5.

11 See ICJ, Judge Cançado Trindade, Separate Opinion, Kosovo AO, para. 208. See also the contribution of Anne Peters and Théodore Christakis in the present symposium.

12 In this paragraph, the Court states that ‘The practice of States . . . does not point to the emergence in international law of a new rule prohibiting the making of a declaration of independence in such cases’ (Kosovo AO, para. 79).

13 See the contribution of Théodore Christakis in the present symposium.

14 Kosovo AO, para. 81.

15 O. Corten, ‘The Controversies over the Customary Prohibition on the Use of Force: A Methodological Debate’, (2005) 16 EJIL 803.

16 See, e.g., Th. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Actions against Threats and Armed Attacks (2002).

17 See, e.g., C. Gray, International Law and the Use of Force (2008).

18 See North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, 20 February 1969, [1969] ICJ Rep. 4, at 44; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Judgment, 27 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14, at 98, para. 186.

19 See, e.g., P. Klein, ‘Le droit international à l'épreuve du terrorisme’, (2006) 321 RCADI 371; O. Corten, The Law against War (2010), Chapter 3; A. Nollkaemper, ‘Attribution of Forcible Acts to States: Connections between the Law on the Use of Force and the Law of State Responsibility’, in N. Blokker and N. Schrijver (eds.), The Security Council and the Use of Force: A Need for Change? (2005), at 133–71.

20 See, e.g., T. Franck, ‘Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense’, (2001) 95 AJIL 840; S. D. Murphy, ‘Terrorism and the Concept of “Armed Attack” in Article 51 of the UN Charter’, (2002) 43 Harv. ILJ 50; C. Tams, ‘Swimming with the Tide or Seeking to Stem It? Recent ICJ Rulings on the Law on Self-Defence’, (2005) 18 RQDI 275; N. Schrijver, ‘The Future of the Charter of the United Nations’, (2006) 10 MPYUNL 21.

21 Kosovo AO, para. 80 (see the complete paragraph above).

22 See, e.g., Albania (WC), at 27, para. 46; Austria, Tichy, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, at 9, para. 14; Bulgaria, Dimitroff, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 25, para. 26; Germany, Wasum-Reiner, CR 2009/26, 2 December 2009, at 27, paras. 11–12; Jordania, Al Hussein, CR 2009/31, 9 December 2009, at 35, para. 30; Switzerland (WS), at 14, para. 55; (WC), at 2, para. 5; United Kingdom (WS), at 86, para. 5.8; (WC), at 19, para. 39; Crawford, CR 2009/32, 10 December 2009, at 49, para. 13; USA (WS), at 69; (WC), at 16; see also Authors of the Declaration (WC), at 60–2, paras. 4.05–4.07; Müller, CR 2009/25, 1 December 2009, at 43, para. 26.

23 See Romania (WS), at 25–6, paras. 70–80; Russia (WS), at 27, para. 77; Slovakia (WS), at 1, para. 4; Spain (WC), at 3, para. 3; Vietnam, Nguyen Thi Hoang Anh, CR 2009/33, 11 December 2009, at 18, para. 6; see also Argentina (WS), at 47, paras. 123–124; Ruiz Cerutti, 2 December 2009, at 46, para. 27; Serbia (WS), at 154, para. 430; (WC), at 110–13, paras. 253–260.

24 ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Territories, 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 136, at 62, para. 139.

25 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), ICJ Rep. (2005), at 53, paras. 146–147.

26 See Judge Koroma, Dissenting Opinion, Kosovo AO, para. 21.

27 See Ch. Tomuschat, ‘Secession and Self-Determination’, in Kohen, supra note 3, at 38–42; Th. Christakis, Le droit à l'autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation, supra note 3, at 296–7.

28 Albania (WS), at 42–3, para. 81; (WC), at 31–4, paras. 55–60; Gill, CR 2009/26, 2 December 2009, at 18–22; Estonia (WS), at 5–11; Finland (WS), at 3–7, paras. 6–12; Germany (WS), at 34–5; Ireland (WS), at 8–10, paras. 28–32; Jordania, Al Hussein, CR 2009/31, 9 December 2009, at 36–7, paras. 35–38; Lithuania (WS), at 1–2; Maldives (WS), at 1; Netherlands (WS), at 7–8, paras. 3.5–3.7, at 13, para. 3.21; Lijnzaad, CR 2009/32, 10 December 2009, at 9–10, paras. 5–10; Poland (WS), at 25–6, paras. 6.1–6.10; Russia (WS), at 31–2, para. 88; Gevorgian, CR 2009/30, 8 December 2009, at 41–4, paras. 8–22; Slovenia (WC), at 6–7, para. 8; Switzerland (WS), at 16–18, paras. 60–68, at 26, para. 96; (WC), at 2, para. 6; see also Norway (WS), at 3; Authors of the Declaration (WS), at 157–8; (WC), at 79–82, paras. 4.39–4.46, at 133–4, paras. 6.23–6.24.

29 Emphasis added.

30 Argentina (WS), at 38–9, para. 97; (WC), at 26, para. 59; Ruiz Cerutti, 2 December 2009, at 45, para. 25; Azerbaijan (WS), at 5, para. 25; Mehdiyev, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, at 24, paras. 40–41; Belarus, Gritsenko, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, at 30–1; Bolivia (WC), at 2, para. 7; Bolivia, Calzadilla Sarmiento, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 11, para. 19; Brazil, Denot Medeiros, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 15, para. 5; Burundi, d'Aspremont, CR 2009/28, 4 December 2009, at 38–9; China (WS), at 3–7; Xue Hanqin, CR 2009/29, 7 December 2009, at 35–6, paras. 22–26; Cyprus, Lauwe, CR 2009/29, 7 December 2009, at 36–7, paras. 140–147, at 47, para. 60; Iran (WS), at 6–7, paras. 4.1–4.2; Romania (WS), at 40, para. 138; Dinescu, CR 2009/32, 10 December 2009, at 27–35, paras. 4–29; Serbia (WS), at 214 ff., paras. 598 ff.; (WC), at 142 ff.; Kohen, CR 2009/24, 1 December 2009, at 76; Spain (WS), at 17; (WC), at 5, para. 8; Escobar Hernández, CR 2009/30, 8 December 2009, at 17–19; Venezuela, Fleming, CR 2009/33, 11 December 2009, at 13–16, paras. 29–40; Vietnam, Nguyen Thi Hoang Anh, CR 2009/33, 11 December 2009, at 20, para. 13; see also Slovakia (WS), at 2, para. 6 and the ambiguous position of the United Kingdom (WS), at 87, para. 5.11, at 92, para. 5.30, at 93, para. 5.33; (WC), at 5, para. 10; Crawford, CR 2009/32, 10 December 2009, at 50, para. 30.

31 M. Kohen, ‘Introduction’, in Kohen, supra note 3, at 10; O. Corten, ‘A propos d'un désormais “classique”: Le droit à l'autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation, de Théodore Christakis’, (1999) XXXVI RBDI 340.

32 Kosovo AO, para. 83.

33 But see Judge Cançado Trindade, Separate Opinion, Kosovo AO, paras. 178–180; Judge Yusuf, Separate Opinion, Kosovo AO, paras. 10–17.

34 See also Kosovo AO, para. 79.

35 This was contested by some states in the Security Council; see, e.g., USA, S/PV.6367, 3 August 2010, at 19–20.

36 Kosovo AO, para. 123, §3.

37 See Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, S/2010/401, 29 July 2010, paras. 7 and 16–26.

38 See, e.g., United Kingdom, S/PV.6367, 3 August 2010, at 15–16.

39 See also A/64/L.65/Rev.1, 8 September 2010, adopted by consensus.

40 See Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, S/2010/401, 29 July 2010, para. 9.

41 Kosovo AO, para. 51.

42 However, Serbia clearly excluded using non-peaceful means to resolve the crisis (see, e.g., the speech of the Serbian delegate presenting the GA draft resolution on 9 September 2010, www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/ga10980.doc.htm, which could perhaps be interpreted like a unilateral commitment according to general international law (cf. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002), Rep. (2006), para. 49).

43 See, e.g., Judge Koroma, Dissenting Opinion, Kosovo AO, paras. 4–5.

44 See the written proceedings and oral statements by Serbia, Russia, China, Argentina, Spain, etc.

45 Kosovo AO, paras. 85–121.

46 See the contributions of Marcelo Kohen and Katherine Del Mar and Marc Weller in the present symposium.

47 See, e.g., Judge Bennouna, Dissenting Opinion, Kosovo AO, para. 56.