Suchergebnisse

Different parts of State territory on land, sea and in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness and its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions and restrictions imposed either by rules of general international law or by specific treaty obligations that can be assumed by a State. The concept of State servitudes was not assimilated in the practice of international courts and tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions and confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries such as boundary rivers and lakes and mountain boundaries, as well as the artificial boundaries. Follow explanation of the principle of "uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries and of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law. (SOI : PM: S. 74)

The author is of the opinion that experts in international law are not broad-minded regarding the establishment of a state. Most legal experts take for granted the statements of the international judiciary on the existance of certain rules of general international law and consider them validated and indisputable. This faction has been given support by states since they uphold those legal statements that suit their interests. The author analyses the Opinions of the Arbitration Committee on the process of the disintegration and the criteria for the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia as well as the criteria for the creation of the new states. He considers this precedent as central for international judiciary law. (SOI : PM: S. 187)

What are the doctrinal implications of international responses to the demise of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY)? Faced with harshly conflicting internal visions of Yugoslav self-determination, the international order - taking direction from the Badinter Commission - reacted in an essentially ad hoc manner against the most manifestly virulent of the competing ethno-nationalisms. In ascribing international legal status to a particular set of constitutionally-established internal boundaries, the Badinter Commission gave a rationale that masked rather than highlighted its departure from existing doctrine, seeking thereby to minimize any implications for the future of sovereignty and s elf-determination. Any effort to invoke the Badinter Commission judgments as evidence of a broader doctrinal transformation, attributing international legal personality to constitutionally-delineated sub-national units more generally, neglects the peculiar context of those judgments and threatens to lend undue support to externally-promoted secessionist projects. Adapted from the source document.

The situation in Kosovo up to 1999, and all attempts which failed in order to find a just and lasting solution for that problem, have fully justified the above criteria for a lawful humanitarian intervention which was undertaken by the NATO forces against the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It seems, however, that the responsible persons in the NATO were not aware of the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate to prosecute persons responsible for use of prohibited arms and for destruction of some objects. Some of these unlawful acts constitute grave breaches of the 1959 Geneva Conventions and violations of laws and customs of war. In these circumstances it is the legal duty of the Prosecutor to undertake an investigation. In case that he fails in his duty, there are no statutory limits in respect of the crimes provided in the Statute of the Tribunal. (SOI : SOEU: S. 98f.) + Most legal writers in their writings confuse notions of humanitarian intervention, intervention of a State in order to protect its citizens abroad and humanitarian relief. The use of force for protection of citizens abroad, when they are in immediate danger of losing their lives or suffering serious injury, can exceptionally be justified by a state of necessity as regulated in article 33 of Drafts Article on State Responsibility by the International Law Commission. Further conditions for such an intervention are provided in the wording of the US State Secretar, Daniel Webster in the Caroline case of 1837, relating to the self-defence. Actions of humanitarian relief have nothing unlawful in their character, but a question can arise of the obligation of parties to a conflict to receive and allow its distribution to a who are in need. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Protocol of 1977, provide in this respect a legal obligation of all parties to internation armed conflicts. Such relief actions can be imposed as obligation to parties to internal armed conflicts as well, by UN Security Council resolutions based on Chap. VII of the UN Charter. + In the view of this author there is no rule of positive international law granting a right to foreign States to intervene by force, either in protection of their citizens, or when a humanitarian intervention is required. The matter can only be of exceptional circumstances precluding wrongfulness of the use of force, which otherwise remains prohibited. When the matter is of humanitarian intervention, circumstances precluding the wrongfulness would, according to this author, be the following: (1) There should be a situation of systematic, repeated and widespread commission of international crimes by a State authority against its own citizens. Special problems are created to the international community by widespread practices of ethnic cleansing. (2) Such a situation constitutes itself a "threat to the peace" calling for an enforcement action by the Security Council according to the Chap. VII of the UN Charter. (3) In case that the Security Council fails in its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and when there are no other means, a group of States or an organization can undertake a humanitarian intervention by use of force in order to stop the commission of crimes. In these circumstances it acts as de facto organ of the entire international community of States. (4) In these extreme and exceptional circumstances, States taking part in such an action cannot obtain any advantages in their profit. (5) Collective intervention by a single State acting in the name of several other States or an organization. However, even such an intervention should have priority over humanitarian intervention undertaken by a State acting in its o name. (6) It is self-evident that in performing a humanitarian intervention there should not be committed international crimes especially against protected persons, including civilian population