TERRITORY OF STATES

Modes of Acquisition of Territory

1. Palmas Island Case (Permanent Court of Arbitration)

Discovery as a Mode of Acquisition of Territory

A title that is inchoate cannot prevail over a definite title

found on the continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty. The
peaceful and continuous display of territorial sovereignty is as
good as title. However, discovery alone without subsequent act
cannot suffice to prove sovereignty over the island. The
territorial sovereignty of the Netherlands was not contested by
anyone from 1700 to 1906. The title of discovery at best an
inchoate title does not therefore prevail over the Netherlands
claims of sovereignty.

The establishment of Netherlands authority, attested also

by external signs of sovereignty, had already reached such a
degree of development, that the importance of maintaining this
state of things ought to be considered as prevailing over a claim
possibly based either on discovery in very distant times and
unsupported by occupation, or on mere geographical position.

2. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland

3. Miniquiers and Ecrechos Case

Prescription as mode of Acquisition of Territory
Because of having established the existence of an ancient
title supported throughout by effective possession evidenced by
acts which manifest a continuous display of sovereignty over the
groups. And because of having established title by long
continued effective possession alone, such possession being
evidenced by similar acts."
The court held that United Kingdom has a better
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the disputed inlets and rocks
of Minquers and Ecrehos. The court ruled that they cannot give
credit on the claims of France that they have sovereignty over
 the disputed territory based on history going back to eleventh
century. Moreover, the claimed of France that when they
conquer north Normandy it also includes the disputed island for
there are no document to suffice such claim. United Kingdom
has the better sovereignty over the inlets due to the fact it
establishes authority or administration over it which is one of
the requisites to establish a territory.
4. Western Sahara
The Court stated that a claim to sovereignty based upon
continued display of authority involved the two elements of
intention and will to act as sovereign and some actual exercise
or display of such authority. Without sufficient evidence to
prove the same, an entity cannot be deemed to have acquire
sovereignty over an entity. Alleged acts of internal sovereignty, if
not substantiated, cannot be acknowledged. International acts
such as treaties shall be equally rejected if these documents
does not prove that an entity exercises sovereignty or
jurisdiction over the group of people in a particular territory
In law, "occupation" was a means of peaceably acquiring
sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or
succession; it was a cardinal condition of a valid "occupation"
that the territory should be terra nullius. According to the State
practice of that period, territories inhabited by tribes or peoples
having a social and political organization were not regarded as
terrae nullius: in their case sovereignty was not generally
considered as effected through occupation, but through
agreements concluded with local rulers.
5. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear

6. Frontier Dispute Between Benin and Niger

The principle of uti possidetis juris is the principle of the
succession of States to the frontiers inherited from colonialism,
namely the principle of the intangibility of such frontiers. The
delimitation, which clearly does not coincide with the course of
the River Mekrou, tends to support the position of Niger.
The Chamber would emphasize that the uti possidetis juris
principle requires not only that reliance be placed on existing
legal titles, but also that account be taken of the manner in
 which those titles were interpreted and applied by the
competent public authorities of the colonial Power, in particular
in the exercise of their law-making power.
7. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute Between Burkino Faso
and Mali
The principle of uti possidetis juris accords pre-eminence to
legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty. Its
primary aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries which
existed at the time when independence was achieved. When those
boundaries were no more than delimitations between different
administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign,
the application of this principle resulted in their being transformed
into international frontiers and this is what occurred with the States
Parties to the present case. Thus, the numerous declarations of the
intangibility of the frontiers at the time of the declaration of
independence of the African States are declaratory. The fact that the
principle did not exist when the states declared such independence in
1960 does not foreclose its present application.
8. Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute Between Libya and
Chad
Treaty which established the boundary and that boundary
remains even though the treaty was no longer in force. The basic
point of this case is that treaties that delineate borders are considered
to be permanent. Even if the treaty expires or the countries change
governments, the border is the same, unless a new treaty was
established.
The argument that the treaty is not already in force due to the
fact that it is written to effect only for twenty years is untenable.
9. Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru

10. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the

Occupied Palestinian Territory
As to the principle of self-determination, Israel is bound to
comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and
international human rights law. That the construction and the
establishment of a closed area between the Green Line and the wall
itself, and the creation of enclaves, have moreover imposed
 substantial restrictions on the freedom of movement of the inhabitants
of the occupied Palestinian Territory. Since a significant number of
Palestinians have already been compelled by the construction of the
wall and its associated regime to depart from certain areas, a process
that will continue as more of the wall is built, that construction,
coupled with the establishment of the Israeli settlements is tending to
alter the demographic composition of the occupied Palestinian
territory.
In sum the court points out that the obligations violated by
Israel include certain obligatio erga omnes. The obligatio erga omnes
violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination. Hence, the construction of
the wall by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory is contrary to
international law.

Laws of the Seas

1. Philippines v. China

As to the what are areas covered:

Under Article 121 of the Convention, islands generate an

entitlement to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles
and to a continental shelf, but rocks which cannot sustain
human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

The Tribunal noted that this provision was closely linked

to the expansion of coastal State jurisdiction with the creation of
the exclusive economic zone and was intended to prevent
insignificant features from generating large entitlements to
maritime zones that would infringe on the entitlements of
inhabited territory or on the high seas and the area of the
seabed reserved for the common heritage of mankind. The
Tribunal interpreted Article 121 and concluded that the
entitlements of a feature depend on (a) the objective capacity of
a feature, (b) in its natural condition, to sustain either (c) a
stable community of people or (d) economic activity that is
neither dependent on outside resources nor purely extractive in
nature.

The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot

generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found
 that none of the features claimed by China can generate an
exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could
without delimiting a boundary declare that certain sea areas are
within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because
those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of
China.

Possession and control over the features in the disputed

part of the seas:

The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not

constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all the
historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly,
the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands can
generate extended maritime zones.

The Tribunal concluded that the current presence of

official personnel on many of the features does not establish
their capacity, in their natural condition, to sustain a stable
community of people and considered that historical evidence of
habitation or economic life was more relevant to the objective
capacity of the features.

Duties of the states in the High Seas and other maritime

zones:

The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of

Chinas recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of
artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and
found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef
environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect
fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or
endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chinese
authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested
endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial
scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe
damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled
their obligations to stop such activities.

2. Magalona v. Executive Secretary

United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas III

(UNCLOS III) has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of
territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others,
 sea-use rights over maritime zones contiguous zone, exclusive
economic zone and continental shelves that UNCLOS III
delimits. On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are
enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific base
points along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either
straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to
measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental
shelf. Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory
mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental
shelves.

The Philippine government, in the competent discharge of

their constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating
routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and
sea lanes passage. Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for
sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress.

In the absence of municipal legislation, international law

norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent
passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters,
subject to the treatys limitations and conditions for their
exercise.

Absent an UNCLOS III-compliant baselines law, an

archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of
internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of
its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is
recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open
invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the
resources in the waters and submarine areas around our
archipelago; and second, it weakens the countrys case in any
international dispute over Philippine maritime space.

3. The Im Alone (US-Canadian Claims Commission)

Doctrine of Hot Pursuit

With the developments in the Laws of the Seas, the right

to hot pursuit is highly appreciated. However, this right is
subject to reservations.

The following are the elements of the exercise of hot

pursuit, namely:
 a. The first is that the pursuing country must pay due
regard to the equality of states principle that is
contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter;
b. That the hot pursuit must commence in the internal
waters of the coastal state;
c. An order to stop must have been given to the vessel
before being pursued and it has defied.
d. The ship may only pursue the foreign ship to 12
nautical miles from its territory;
e. The pursuit must be unabated, uninterrupted, and
continuous; and
f. It may only be exercised by warships, military
aircraft or ships or aircraft clearly marked as being
on governmental service, that is, marine police
officers.
Finally, once the ship enters its territorial waters or those
of another state, the pursuit must stop. This is aimed at
observing the principle of territorial sovereignty.

4. Church v. Hubbart

The right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel on the

high seas for contraband of war, is universally admitted,
because the belligerent has a right to prevent the injury done to
himself by the assistance intended for his enemy.

Any attempt to violate the laws made to protect this right

is an injury to itself which it may prevent, and it has a right to
use the means necessary for its prevention. These means do not
appear to be limited within any certain marked boundaries
which remain the same always and in all situations. If they are
such as unnecessarily to vex and harass foreign lawful
commerce, foreign nations will resist their exercise. If they are
such as are reasonable and necessary to secure their laws from
violation, they will be submitted to.

5. Anglo-Norweigian Fisheries Case

Persistent objector

The Court in its judgment held that even if a customary

law rule existed on the ten-mile rule, the ten-mile rule would
 appear to be inapplicable as against Norway inasmuch as she
has always opposed any attempt to apply it to the Norwegian
coast.

In this case, the Court appears to support the idea that an

existing customary law rule would not apply to a State if (1) it
objected to the application of the rule to itself (a) at the initial
stages and (b) in a consistent manner. In this manner, the Anglo
Norwegian fisheries case supports the asylum case (Peru vs
Colombia) in articulating what we now call the persistent
objector rule.

Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries

The Court held that the fact that this consistent and
sufficiently long practice took place without any objection to the
practice from other states (until the time of dispute) indicated
that states did not consider the Norwegian system to be
contrary to international law.

The Court alluded to the relationship between national

and international law in delimitation of maritime boundaries. In
delimitation cases, States must be allowed the latitude
necessary to be able to adapt its delimitation to practical needs
and local requirements The Court would also consider
certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and
importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage.
However, while the act of delimitation can be undertaken by the
State, its legal validity depends on international law.

The delimitation of sea areas has always an international

aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the
coastal State as expressed in its municipal law. Although it is
true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act,
because only the coastal State is competent to undertake it, the
validity of the delimitation with regard to other States depends
upon international law.

6. Corfu Channel Case

Right of Innocent Passage

The generally admitted principle that States, in time of

peace, have a right to send their warships through straits used
for international navigation between two parts of the high seas,
 provided that the passage is innocent is well-recognized under
Public International law.

The Corfu Channel is an intl highway as it connects two

parts of the high seas. Hence, in times of peace, Albanian govt
can pose no restrictions on any vessels conducting navigation.
However, at that time of the dispute, it was not a time of peace.
Thus, the Albanian Govt couldve pose certain restriction but not
to the extent of prohibiting the passage of any vessel.

7. Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases Between the United Kingdom

The very notion of preferential fishery rights for the

coastal State in a situation of special dependence, though it
implied a certain priority, could not imply the extinction of the
concurrent rights of other States. The fact that Iceland was
entitled to claim preferential rights did not suffice to justify its
claim unilaterally to exclude British fishing vessels from all
fishing beyond the limit of 12 miles agreed to in 1961.

8. Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland

The contents of the Exchange of notes is binding to the
parties. Iceland cannot unilaterally exclude, or impose
restrictions on, fishing vessels of Germany from the fishery
limits agreed to in the Exchange of Notes of July 1961.

The extension of a fishery zone up to a 12-mile limit from

the baselines is generally accepted. The fishery zone is an area
in which a state may claim exclusive fishery jurisdiction
independently of its territorial sea. The concept of preferential
rights of fishing in adjacent waters in favor of the coastal state
in a situation where the coastal state has special dependence on
its coastal fisheries.

The preferential rights of the coastal states in a special

situation are to be implemented by agreement between the
states concerned, either bilaterally or multilaterally, and, in case
of disagreement, through the means for the peaceful settlement
of disputes provided for in Article 33 of the UN Charter.
 The preferential rights of the coastal State come into play
when an intensification in the exploitation of fishery resources
makes it imperative to introduce some system of catch limitation
and sharing of those resources to preserve the fish stocks in the
interests of their rational and economic exploitation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) outlined some

guidelines which shall be used by the countries to undergo a
new set of negotiations. The ICJ confirmed that it had become
customary international law for countries to establish 12-mile
fishery zones and in special cases, where the economy was
highly dependent on fishing, preferential rights of coastal
countries.

9. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases

Principle of Equidistance vis--vis the formation of customary

international law

The Court considered that the principle of equidistance, as

it figured in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention, had not been
proposed by the International Law Commission as an emerging
rule of customary international law. This Article could not be
said to have reflected or crystallized such a rule. Upon
inspection of the language of both the Geneva Convention and
the Truman Proclamation, equidistance was found to be a last
resort rather than an a priori rule. The Court concluded that the
equidistance principle was not binding on Germany by way of
treaty or customary international law. In the case of the latter,
the principle had not attained a customary international law
status at the time of the entry into force of the Geneva
Convention or thereafter. As such, the Court held that the use of
the equidistance method is not obligatory for the delimitation of
the areas concerned in the present proceedings.

The Court explained the criteria necessary to establish a

State practice is that the rule or principle must be widespread
and there must be a representative participation. It also held
that uniform and consistent practice was necessary to
demonstrate opinio juris which is the belief that State practice
amounts to a legal obligation.
 However, in this case he Court found that the two parties
must draw up an agreement taking both the maximization of
area and proportionality into account. These were to be based
upon equitable principles. The holding here is somewhat
inconclusive, but the opinion is significant to international law,
regardless.

10. Gulf of Maine Case

"No maritime delimitation between States with opposite or

adjacent coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of those
States. Such delimitation must be sought and effected by means
of an agreement, following negotiations conducted in good faith
and with the genuine intention of achieving a positive result.
Where, however, such agreement cannot be achieved,
delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party
possessing the necessary competence.

"In either case delimitation is to be effected by the

application of equitable criteria and by the use of practical
methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the geographic
configuration of the area and other relevant circumstances, an
equitable result."

11. United States v. F/V Taijo Maro

The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly
purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty.
A State may seize a foreign vessel on the high seas, based on
hot pursuit: when the competent authorities of the coastal state
have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and
regulations of that state-such pursuit must be commenced when
the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters or
the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing state and
may only be continued outside the territorial sea of the contiguous
zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. If the foreign ship is
within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 24 of the Convention
on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the pursuit may
only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for
the protection of which the zone was established.