James Crawford - The Creation of States in International Law

Machine Translated by Google
The Creation of States

in International Law
The Creation of States

in International Law
second edition
JAMES CRAWFORD
SC, FBA, BA, LLB (Adel), DPhil (Oxon), LLD (Cantab)
Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge
Former Member of the International Law Commission
CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the
UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States by

Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© James Crawford 2006
The moral rights of the author have been asserted

Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class License
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen's Printer for Scotland
First published 2006 All
rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by
law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be
sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You
must not circulate this book in any other binding or
cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British
Library Cataloging in Publication Data Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Data available
Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed

in Great Britain on acid-
free paper by Biddles
Ltd., King's Lynn
ISBN 0–19–826002–4 978–0–19–826002–8
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Preface to the Second Edition
The first edition of this book was based on a thesis, supervised by Ian Brownlie,
which was submitted in 1976 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University
of Oxford. At around 180,000 words the thesis was almost too long to be examined;
it also took too long to be published in full. An abbreviated version, updated as far
as possible to 31 December 1977, was published by Oxford University Press in
1979. It was awarded the American Society of International Law's Certificate of
Merit in 1981.
Since the first edition much has happened in international relations and
international law, not least in relation to the subject matter of this book. If its
argument—that the creation of States is a matter in principle governed by
international law and not left to the discretion of individual States—is now widely
accepted, the illustrations and the specific instances that could be used to
substantiate and illustrate that arguments have multiplied. Some outstanding
disputes then pending (South-West Africa (Namibia); Southern Rhodesia
(Zimbabwe); the 'divided States', especially Germany; the micro-States; East
Timor; Hong Kong, the Baltic States) have been more or less resolved . With a few
exceptions (Palestine and Western Sahara the most significant) decolonization
has been largely achieved. But new situations have arisen, especially those
resulting from the dissolution of States in Central and Eastern Europe.
The case law is still not rich but there have been major additions to it. Although the
first edition retained the only comprehensive treatment of statehood in international
law in the English language and although there were frequent requests for a reprint,
this did not seem appropriate when so much had changed and when so much new
material was available. I also came to regret some of the suppressions from the
original thesis.¹ Given complete latitude by the Press in terms of the length of a
second edition I have taken the opportunity of restoring some of the material and
of updating and revising all of it.
At one level, this was easier to do because I still maintained the basic argument.
I do not see how international law can coherently leave these issues to be decided
as a matter of discretion by individual States, as the rhetoric of recognition implies.
I believe that international law is, at least to this minimum extent, a
¹ For example a whole section on Palestine was omitted, producing puzzlement among reviewers
who could reasonably be expected to find it among the cases studied. See now Crawford, 'Israel (1948–
49) and Palestine (1998–99): Two Studies in the Creation of States' in Goodwin-Gill and Talmon (eds),
Reality of International Law, 95–124, and Chapter 9 below .
vi Preface to the Second Edition
coherent system. Moreover, the values that international law in this context
represents—self-determination, non-annexation of territory by force, fundamental
human rights—cannot be protected if the only basis for statehood is 'effectiveness',
if power grows, irrespective, out of the barrel of some or many guns. For international
law to concede that its most fundamental concept is purely a question of fact would
amount to a form of unilateral disarmament, given its now-parallel profession that
these basic values are peremptory.
At another level it has been a major exercise, because so much has happened
and so much more has been written. The result of the revision is a much longer
book than the first edition, even if one is still faithful to its main themes and
arguments. I also hope this edition corrects some of the faults of the first edition. A
fellow Australian, Hedley Bull (who I regret never meeting) commented in his Times
Literary Supplement review of the first edition that it was infuriatingly indecisive. I
agree, and I have tried to come off some of the fences on which the young scholar
rather awkwardly sat. But some might now complain that even longer discussions
of past problems are unnecessary in an era of universal United Nations membership,
where formal equality is the order of the day and all the forms of dependence are
now expressed in different, mostly extra-legal ways. Why go at length, it may be
asked, into the status of special entities such as Transkei or Berlin or Danzig or
Tangier or the British Dominions whose likes we will never see again? Here I
disagree. There is a wealth of historical experience which is, in the first place,
interesting in itself.
The periods of colonization and decolonization, of Great Power world-making and
remaking, of the dissolution of Empires and Cold War-waging were expressed in a
variety of specific forms, and the conflicts over them cannot be understood if their
actual expression is ignored. The past was experienced—and experienced as
present—not in swathes but in particulars, and a careful account of the particulars
still carries useful lessons even if we believe our circumstances to be new ones.
And anyway we are more likely to fall into mistakes of the past if we are ignorant of
it. When the government of the United States sought to detain aliens without trial
on the 'perpetual leasehold' of Guantanamo Bay, it was helpful to be reminded of
the English Court of Appeal's decision in 1960 that for habeas corpus what matters
is present territorial administration, not the location of residual sovereignty.² Thus
the old law of protectorates re-emerged in the brave new world of the 'war against
terror'.
² 'Later cases confirmed that the reach of the writ depended not on formal notions of territorial
sovereignty, but rather on the practical question of “the extent and nature of the jurisdiction or
dominion exercised in fact by the Crown”.' Rasul v Bush 124 S Ct 2686, 2696–7 (Stevens J) (2004),
quoting Ex parte Mwenya [1960] 1 QB 241, 303; 28 ILR 48, 79–1 (CA) (Lord Evershed MR); and see Chapter 7.
Preface to the Second Edition vii
So while I repent decisions and equivocations, I defend the history. But I

recommend starting with the index for those seeking their way to, or around,
particular questions. The basic argument of the thesis is contained, as it was from
the beginning, in the first three chapters.
So far as possible the work is current as of 30 June 2005.
James Crawford
Lauterpacht Center for International Law
University of Cambridge
1 August 2005
Acknowledgments
I am immensely grateful to those who assisted in the task of preparing this edition. In particular
I owe a special debt of gratitude to my former doctoral student, Dr Tom Grant, who has
combined constant support, extraordinary knowledge of the field and meticulous attention to
detail. Without his dedication and persistence this edition could not have been completed.
In addition, much help was given by the following students, former students and colleagues:
Catherine Bidart, Simon Connal, Angelos Dimopoulos, Catherine Dobson, Shauna Gillan,
Edward Guntrip, Jocelynn Liu, Jana McLean, Vipin Narang, Samuel Ollunga, Kate Parlett,
Professor Ryszard Piotrowicz; Assistant Professor Michael Reynolds; Christine Ruest, Mark
Searl, Elizabeth Stark, Dr Christian Tams, Sue Anne Teo, Dr Ralph Wilde, Marcus Wischik,
Sir Michael Wood and Anastasios Xeniadis. Thanks also to William Noblett, Head of Official
Publications, University Library, Cambridge and David Wills and his staff at the Squire Law
Library for repeated assistance.
From the Preface to the First Edition
Since the development of the modern international system, statehood has

been regarded as the paramount type of international personality; Indeed, in
doctrine if not in practice, States were for a time regarded as the only
international persons. This is no longer so; but the political paramountcy of
States over other international actors, with whatever qualifications, continues,
and statehood remains the central type of legal personality. Problems of
definition, and of application of the definition, of statehood thus occupy an
important place in the structure of international law. Nevertheless, the topic of
statehood has been somewhat neglected by writers. There is an abundance
of practice, a surprising volume of case law, and a large number of studies of
particular instances or problems of territorial status. The general treaties all
contain the mandatory section on statehood and legal personality, and some
of these treatments are of a high order. But, apart from Marek's study on
identity and continuity of States (published in 1954 and reissued in 1968),
and various accounts of recognition of States in books on recognition
generally, there is, to the writer's knowledge, no monograph dealing with the
topic of statehood as such, in the light of the substantial modern practice in
that field. This observation is not, of course, original: the writer's interest in
the topic was involved by observations in two leading works to this effect.³
This study attempts to deal with the representative modern doctrine and
practice in relations to the public international law of statehood and territorial
status; and thus, however inadequately, to contribute to filling the void mentioned by Professo
Perhaps the most controversial issue in this area is the relationship
between statehood and recognition. The view that recognition is constitutive
of State personality derives historically from the positive theory of international
obligation. However, this view does not correspond to State practice; nor is it
adopted by most modern writers. On the other hand, in this as in other areas,
relevant State practice—including recognition practice, especially where
recognition is granted or withheld on grounds of the status of the entity in
question—is of considerable importance. Against this background, this study
examines the criteria for statehood in international law, and the various ways
in which new States have been created in the period since 1815.
³ Jennings, Acquisition of Territory, 11–12; Brownlie, Principles (2nd edn), 74.

x From the Preface to the First Edition
Traditionally, the criteria for statehood have been regarded as resting solely on considerations
of effectiveness. Entities with a reasonably defined territory, a permanent population, a more
or less stable government and a substantial degree of independence from other States have
been treated as States. Other factors, such as permanence, willingness to obey international
law and recognition, have usually been regarded as of rather peripheral importance. To some
extent this represents the modern position. However, several qualifications are necessary.
In the first place, this standard view is too simple. Much depends on the claims made
by the entities in question, and on the context in which such claims are made. In some
circumstances, criteria such as independence or stable government may be treated
as flexible or even quite nominal; in other cases they will be strictly applied. Apart,
however, from the necessary elaboration of the criteria for statehood based on
effectiveness, a serious question arises whether new criteria have not become
established, conditioning claims based on effectiveness by reference to fundamental
considerations of legality. Practice in the field of self-determination territories is the
more developed, but the same problem arises in relation to entities created by illegal
use of force. These criteria, taken together, are on the whole reflected in United Nations
practice; they also provide a flexible but generally applicable standard against which to
consider the status of the numerous unusual or 'anomalous' territorial entities (Taiwan,
the Holy See, Andorra and so on).
Problems of the creation of States have commonly been regarded as matters 'of fact
and not of law'. This view was again simplistic, since it assumed the automatic
identification of States, whether by recognition or the application of criteria based on
effectiveness. In practice, identification and application of the criteria to specific cases
or problems raise interesting and difficult problems, some of which are dealt with in Part
II of this study. These problems do not of course occur in isolation; they are
classifications, rather than exclusive mandatory 'modes' of the creation of States.
However, the problems discussed in each context (dependent States, devolution,
secession and so on) have common features that justify such separate classification.
Superimposed on these classifications of the methods of the creation of States are

the various more overtly international competences or authorities affecting the creation
of States: these are dealt with in Part III. The problem of international powers of
disposition has attracted a good deal of practice since 1815. More specifically, the
development of self-government of colonial territories under the Mandate and
Trusteeship systems, and appropriate to Chapter XI
From the Preface to the First Edition xi
of the Charter (non-self-governing territories) has attracted a substantial body of

practice.
Finally, certain incidents of the creation of States, such as commencement or
acquisition of territory by new States, and certain related problems (identity,
continuity, reversion and extinction) are discussed in a concluding section.
While the States of the world form a community governed by international law...
Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, preambular paragraph

1, annexed to GA Resolution 375 (IV), 6 December 1949
Contents—Summary
Table of Cases xxix

Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments xlix
Select List of Abbreviations lxvii
PART I: THE CONCEPT OF STATEHOOD IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW 1
1. Statehood and Recognition 3

2. The Criteria for Statehood: Statehood as Effectiveness 37
3. International Law Conditions for the Creation of States 96
4. Issues of Statehood Before United Nations Organs 5. The 174
Criteria for Statehood Applied: Some Special Cases 196
PART II: MODES OF THE CREATION OF STATES

IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 255
6. Original Acquisition and Problems of Statehood 7. 257
Dependent States and Other Dependent Entities 282

8. Devolution 329
9. Secession 374
10. Divided States and Reunification 449
11. Unions and Federations of States 479
PART III: THE CREATION OF STATES IN

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 501
12. International Dispositive Powers 503

13. Mandates and Trust Territories 565
14. Non-self-governing Territories: The Law and Practice of

Decolonization 602
xiv Contents—Summary
PART IV: ISSUES OF COMMENCEMENT,

CONTINUITY AND EXTINCTION 649
15. The Commencement of States 651
16. Problems of Identity, Continuity and Reversion 667
17. The Extinction of States 700
Conclusions 718
Appendices:
1. List of States and Territorial Entities Proximate to States 2. 727
League Mandates and United Nations Trusteeships 3. The 741
United Nations and Non-Self-Governing Territories,
1946 to 2005 746
4. Consideration by the International Law Commission
of the Topic of Statehood (1996) 757
Select Bibliography 760

Index 851
Contents
Table of Cases xxix

Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments xlix
Select List of Abbreviations lxvii
PART I: THE CONCEPT OF STATEHOOD IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW 1
1. Statehood and Recognition 3

1.1 Introduction 1.2 4
Statehood in early international law (1) 6
Doctrine (2) 6
Statehood in early international law: aspects of
State practice 10
1.3 Recognition and Statehood 12
(1) The early view of recognition 12
(2) Positivism and recognition 13
(3) Statehood in nineteenth-century international law 14
1.4 Recognition of States in modern international law (1) 17
Recognition: the great debate (i) The 19
constitutive theory (ii) The 19
declaratory theory (2) 22
Conclusions 1.5 26
Certain basic concepts (1) 28
International personality (2) The 28
State (3) 31
Sovereignty (4) 32
State and government (5) 33
State continuity and State succession 35
2. The Criteria for Statehood: Statehood as Effectiveness 37
The classical criteria for statehood: ex factis jus oritur (1) 45
Defined territory (2) 46
Permanent population (3) 52
Government 55
xvi Contents
(4) Capacity to enter into relations with other States 61

(5) Independence (i) 62
Formal independence (a) 67
Situations not derogating from formal
independence 67
(b) Situations regarded as derogating from
formal independence 71
(ii) Real or actual independence (a) 72
Situations not derogating from actual
independence 72
(b) Situations regarded as derogating from actual
independence 74
(iii) The relation between formal and actual
independence 88
(6) Sovereignty 89
(7) Other criteria (i) 89
Permanence (ii) 90
Willingness and ability to observe international law (iii) A certain 91
degree of civilization (iv) Recognition 92
(v) Legal order 93
93
3. International Law Conditions for the Creation of States 96
3.1 Legality and statehood (1) 97
Development of the concept of peremptory norms (2) Effects 99
of peremptory norms on other situations
than treaties 102
(3) Status of entities created by treaties (4) 105
Legality and statehood: general conclusions 3.2 106
Statehood and self-determination 107
(1) Self-determination in modern international law (i) Self- 108
determination before 1945 108
(ii) Self-determination under the United Nations Charter 112
(iii) Identifying the units of self-determination 115
(a) The mandate and trusteeship systems 116
(b) Non-self-governing territories 116
(c) Application to particular territorial disputes
or situations 117
(d) Criteria for self-determination of territories 117
Contents xvii
(e) The 'safeguard clause' 118

(iv) The consequences of self-determination (v) 121
Conclusions 122
(2) Statehood and the operation of the principle of self-
determination 128
3.3 Entities created by the unlawful use of force 131
(1) The relationship between self-determination and the
use of force 134
(i) Assistance to establish local insurgents (ii) 138
Military intervention to procure self-determination 139
(2) Conclusions 147
3.4 Statehood and fundamental human rights (1) 148
General considerations (2) 148
Democracy as a continuing condition for statehood (3) 150
Apartheid and the Bantustan policy (4) 155
Conclusions 3.5 155
Other cases 155
(1) Entities not claiming to be States (2) 156
Puppet States and the 1949 Geneva Conventions (3) 156
Violation of treaties providing for independence 3.6 157
Collective non-recognition (1) 157
Collective non-recognition and territorial status (2) 158
Consequences of collective non-recognition 162
-recognition (i) The Namibia 162
Opinion (ii) The ILC Articles on State Responsibility,
Articles 40 to 41 168
(iii) Subsequent consideration by the International Court 168
(iv) Conclusion 173
4. Issues of Statehood Before United Nations Organs 174

4.1 General considerations 4.2 174
League of Nations and United Nations membership 176
(1) Membership practice under the League of Nations 176
(2) The United Nations: original membership 177
(3) The United Nations: admission to membership (i) The 179
criteria for membership: Article 4 in
theory and practice 179
(ii) The micro-State issue and the move to universality
of membership 182
xviii Contents
(iii) Renewed controversy during the 1990s: the

former Yugoslavia 186
(iv) Conclusions 189
4.3 Statehood for other United Nations purposes (1) 190
Statehood and dispute settlement: Articles 32 and 35(2) 190
(2) Claims to be parties to the Statute of the
International Court of Justice (3) 191
Other cases 4.4 192
UN observer status 193
5. The Criteria for Statehood Applied: Some Special Cases 196
5.1 General considerations 197
5.2 Entities unrecognized as separate states: Taiwan (1) 198
Historical background (2) 198
The international relations of Taiwan (3) 200
Judicial decisions (4) 205
The legal status of Taiwan (5 ) 206
Development of a Taiwanese claim to statehood (i) 212
Amendments to the law of Taiwan (ii) 212
Statements respecting international policy (6) 216
Conclusion 5.3 219
Entities recognized as States 'for special reasons':
The Vatican City and the Holy See (1) 221
The international status of the Vatican City (2) The 222
international status of the Holy See (3) The 225
relationship between the Holy See and the Vatican City 5.4 226
'Internationalized Territories': the Free City of
Danzig and some modern analogues 233
(1) The concept of 'internationalized territory' (2) 233
The Free City of Danzig (3) 236
Trends in internationalization since 1945: Cyprus 5.5 241
Transitional autonomous entities: Hong Kong and Macao (1) 244
Historical outline (2) 245
Arrangements for the government of the HKSAR (3) The 246
status of Hong Kong (4) Relations 248
between Hong Kong and China 5.6 Conclusion 250
252
Contents xix
PART II: MODES OF THE CREATION OF STATES

IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 255
6. Original Acquisition and Problems of Statehood 257
6.1 General Considerations 6.2 257
The status of indigenous communities 260
(1) Statehood of indigenous communities (2) 260
Legal personality of indigenous communities not
regarded as States 263
6.3 Acquisition of territory from indigenous communities (1) Status 268
of aboriginal treaties of cession (2) Legal 268
effects of aboriginal treaties (3) Grants of 269
territory to private persons (4) Conclusions 270
6.4 Original 271
occupation of territory by a new State ( 1) Liberia (2) The 274
Boer 274
Republics (3) The Free 275
State of the Congo (4) Israel (5) 276
Taiwan 277
6.5 Original 277
acquisition and indigenous rights 7. Dependent 278
States and Other Dependent Entities 7.1 General 282
principles 7.2 Protectorates 282
and protected States (1 ) Protected States 286
(2) International 288
protectorates (3) Colonial 294
protectorates (4) Legal effects 299
of protectorates 303
(i) Protectorates and domestic jurisdiction 303
(ii) Relations between protectorate and protecting State 305
(iii) Opposability of protective arrangements 307
(iv) Protectorates and State succession 307
(v) Cession of protected territory 310
(vi) International responsibility 314
(vii) Treaty-making power with respect to protectorates 315
(viii) Belligerency and protectorates 316
(ix) Nationality in protection 317
(x) Protectorates and State immunity 318
(xi) Protectorates and international organizations 318
(xii) Termination of protected status 318
xx Contents
7.3 Other Cases 320

(1) Special treaty relations (2) 320
Vassal States and suzerainty (3) 321
Autonomy and residual sovereignty (4) 323
Spheres of influence 327
8. Devolution 329
Explicit grants of independence (1) 330
Granting partial or incomplete independence (2) Grants 332
in violation of self-determination (i) Grants to 333
minority or unrepresentative governments
within self-determination units (ii) 333
Grants disruption of the territorial integrity of
a self-determination unit (3) 335
Grants of independence in furtherance of fundamentals
unlawful policies: the Bantustans 338
(i) Origins of the Bantustan policy 338
(ii) Denationalization through State creation 340
(iii) The status of the Bantustans under international law 341
(iv) Dismantling the Bantustan system 345
(4) Colonial enclaves and rights of pre-emption 348
(5) Derogations from grants of independence 348
8.3 Relinquishment of sovereignty without grant 349
8.4 The gradual devolution of international personality 349
(1) The 'unitary State' theory 351
(2) General principles of the status of devolving entities 353
(3) The principles applied: devolution of States within
the British Commonwealth 358
(i) The self-governing Dominions 358
(ii) British India 366
(iii) Subsequent cases of Commonwealth independence 368
(iv) Southern Rhodesia pre-1965 368
(v) The elimination of post-Imperial links 371
(a) Canada 371
(b) Australia 371
(c) New Zealand 372
(4) Other cases of devolution 372
(i) The Ottoman Empire 372
Contents xxi
(ii) The Philippines (iii) 372

The French and Netherlands Unions 373
9. Secession 374
9.1 Secession as a method of the creation of States 375
9.2 The traditional approach: secession and
recognition 1815 to 1945 376
(1) The relevance of recognition 376
(i) Metropolitan recognition (ii) 376
Recognition by third States (iii) 379
Recognition of belligerency 380
(2) The traditional test of independence in a
secessionary situation 382
9.3 Independence and secession in modern international law (1) 383
The secession of a self-determining unit 384
(i) Secession in furtherance of self-determination (ii) 384
Secession in violation of self-determination 388
(2) Secession outside the colonial context (i) 388
Cases of secession or dismemberment post-1945 (a) 391
Senegal (b) 392
Singapore (c) 392
Bangladesh (d) 393
The Baltic States (e) 393
Successor States to the USSR (f) 395
Successor States to the SFRY (g) 395
Czechoslovakia (h) 402
Eritrea (ii) 402
Unsuccessful attempts at secession (a) 403
The Faroes (b) 404
Katanga (c) 404
Biafra (d) 406
Republika Srpska (e) 406
Kosovo (f) 407
Chechnya (g) 408
Quebec (h ) 411
Somaliland (iii) 412
Summary of post-1945 practice 9.4 415
Certain incidents of secession in international law 418
(1) Belligerency and insurgency in secession struggles 418
xxii Contents
(2) Application of international humanitarian law in

internal conflicts 420
(3) Military and civil aid to succeeding regimes 421
(4) Problems of continuity and commencement 421
9.5 The Former Palestine Mandate: Israel and Palestine 421
(1) Historical introduction 421
(i) The Mandate for Palestine 422
(ii) The abandonment of the Mandate and its aftermath 424
(2) The creation of the State of Israel 425
(i) The validity of the Mandate for Palestine 428
(ii) Validity and legal effects of the Partition Resolution 430
(iii) The creation of Israel (1948–9) 432
(3) The creation of the State of Palestine (1988–) 434
(i) Palestine prior to the Oslo Accords: the
1988 Declaration 435
(ii) Alternative conceptions of statehood:
Montevideo and other criteria 436
(iii) The authority of the General Assembly (iv) 440
The position of dissenting or opposing States (v) The 442
road to Palestinian statehood since 1993 (vi) Conclusion 442
446
10. Divided States and Reunification 449
10.1 The category of 'divided States' 10.2 449
The two Germanies (1) The 452
quadripartite government of Germany (2) The creation 452
of the Federal Republic of Germany (3) The creation of the 454
German Democratic Republic (4) Residual quadripartite 455
authority over
'Germany as a whole' 458
(5) The status of Berlin (6) 459
Conclusions 10.3 465
Other cases of 'divided States' (1) 466
Korea after 1947 (2) 466
Vietnam after 1945 (3) 472
China after 1948 477
10.4 Conclusions 477
11. Unions and Federations of States 479
11.1 The classification of political unions 479
Contents xxiii
11.2 Federation, confederation and other forms of

political unions 481
(1) Real and personal unions (2) 482
Federations and confederations (3) 483
Unusual formations (4) 489
'Remedial federation': federal solutions in
conflict situations 490
(i) Cyprus 490
(ii) Bosnia and Herzegovina (5) 491
Associated States 11.3 492
Unions of States in international organizations (1) The 492
United Nations organization (2) The 493
European Union 11.4 495
Regional devolution in previously unitary States 500
PART III: THE CREATION OF STATES IN

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 501
12. International Dispositive Powers 503
12.1 Introduction 504
12.2 Territorial dispositions by multilateral treaty (1) 505
Dispositions in treaties of peace 505
(i) The nineteenth-century practice (a) 505
The Congress of Vienna, 1815 (b) 505
The Concert of Europe, 1815 to 1848 (c) The 506
Treaty of Paris, 1856 (d) The 506
Congress of Berlin, 1878 (e) The 508
Conference of Berlin, 1884 to 1885 (f) The 509
International Government of
Crete, 1897 to 1913 509
(g) The Act of Algeciras, 1906 (h) 510
The Treaty of London, 1913 and the
creation of Albania 510
(i) The nineteenth-century Congresses and the
principle of consent 512
(ii) The World War I settlements (iii) 516
The World War II settlements (a) The 518
re-establishment of annexed or
conquered States 519
xxiv Contents
(b) Internationalized territories (c) 522

Poland, 1939 to 1946 (d) 522
Other dispositions (iv) 522
Peace settlements since 1945 (a) 523
Germany, 1990 (b) 523
Cambodia, 1991 (c) 526
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992 to 1995 528
(2) Dispositions anticipatory of peace treaties 530
(3) Dispositions delegated to groups of States 531
(i) The Conference of Ambassadors and Albania (ii) 532
The Principal Allied and Associated
Powers after 1918 533
(a) The Mandate system 533
(b) Danzig 534
(c) Memel 534
(d) Fiume 534
(e) Luxembourg 535
(iii) The Allied Powers 1945 to 1955 535
(4) Conclusion: powers of disposition capable
to multilateral treaties 535
12.3 The exercise of dispositive power through the collective
recognition 539
(1) The concept of 'collective recognition' (i) 539
Greece, 1822 to 1830 (ii) 540
Belgium, 1830 to 1839 (iii) 542
Albania, 1913 to 1921 (iv) 544
New States in the former Soviet Union and
the dissolution of Yugoslavia, 1990 to 1995 544
(2) Collective recognition within international
organizations 544
(3) Collective conditional recognition 12.4 545
Territorial dispositions by international organizations (1) General 546
principles (2) The 546
Concert of Europe (3) The 547
League of Nations (4) The 548
United Nations and territorial dispositions (i) General 549
principles: delegated and inherent
authority 549
(a) The General Assembly 551
Contents xxv
(b) The Security Council (ii) 552

Functions compatible with the peace treaties (a) 553
Trieste (b) 553
Disposition of Italian colonies in Africa 554
(iii) Functions compatible with the Mandate and
Trusteeship systems 555
(iv) Other cases 555
(a) West Irian 555
(b) Namibia 556
(c) Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and
Western Sirmium (d) 556
Kosovo (e) 557
East Timor (f) 560
Iraq (g) 562
Jerusalem (v) 563
Conclusion 12.5 564
The notion of 'international dispositive powers' 564
13. Mandates and Trust Territories 565
13.1 Mandates and Trust territories in historical perspective 13.2 566
Sovereignty over Mandates and Trust Territories (1) 568
Sovereignty and 'A' Mandates (2) 569
Sovereignty and other mandated and trust territories (3) Legal 570
personality of mandated and trust territories 574
13.3 Termination of Mandates and Trusteeships (1) 574
Termination of Mandates (i) 575
During the period of the League (ii) After 575
the dissolution of the League (iii) By 580
transfer to Trusteeship 580
(2) Termination of Trusteeships (3) 581
Legal effects of termination 13.4 584
Revocation of Mandates and Trusteeships (1) 586
Revocation of Mandates during the League period (2) 586
Revocation of Trusteeships (3) 590
Revocation of Mandates by United Nations organs (4) Post- 591
revocation action of the United Nations
concerning Namibia 595
13.5 Post-independence claims 596
(1) Namibia 597
xxvi Contents
(2) Nauru 598

(3) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 13.6 599
The Future of Trusteeship? 600
14. Non-self-governing Territories: The Law and Practice of

Decolonization 602
14.1 Introduction 603
14.2 The development in practice of Chapter XI of the Charter (1) The 606
definition of 'non-self-governing territories' (2) Competence 606
to determine whether a territory falls
under Chapter XI 607
(3) The scope of Chapter XI in practice (4) 608
Possible extension of Chapter XI beyond
colonial territories 610
14.3 The international status of non-self-governing
territories 613
(1) Sovereignty and non-self-governing territories (2) The use 613
of force and non-self-governing territories (3) The legal personality 616
of dependent peoples (4) Standards for assessing the 617
wishes of a dependent
people 620
14.4 Termination of non-self-governing status:
the forms of self-government (1) 621
Termination of non-self-governing status:
criteria for self-government 621
(2) Determination of cessation of non-self-governing
status 621
(3) The forms of self-government (i) 623
Independence (ii) 623
Incorporation in another State (iii) 623
Association (a) 625
Association arrangements in practice
since 1952 626
(b) The international legal status of
associated States 632
(4) Remaining non-self-governing territories 634
(5) Claims by third States against non-self-governing
territories 637
Contents xxvii
PART IV: ISSUES OF COMMENCEMENT,

CONTINUITY AND EXTINCTION 649
15. The Commencement of States 651
15.1 The problem of commencement 651
(1) Problems of commencement in national courts 652
(2) Problems of commencement at the international level 653
(3) 'Illegal entities' and problems of commencement 657
15.2 States in statute 658
15.3 New States and the acquisition of territorial sovereignty 664
(1) The acquisition of statehood as a 'mode of
acquisition' of territory 664
(2) Claims to the entire territory of a new State 665
16. Problems of Identity, Continuity and Reversion 667
16.1 Identity and continuity of States: general considerations 16.2 667
Some applications of the concept of continuity (1) 672
Territorial changes (2) 673
Changes in population (3) 678
Changes in government (4) 678
Changes in international status (5) 680
Belligerent occupation (6) 688
Continuity and illegal annexation (7) 689
Identity without continuity (8) 690
Multiple changes and State continuity: the case
of Poland after 1945 692
16.3 Reversion to sovereignty 695
(1) Rights of reversion by treaty (2) 696
Reversion of territorial enclaves (3) 696
Postliminium (4) 696
Reversion to sovereignty 697
17. The Extinction of States 700
17.1 General principles 700
17.2 Extinction and illegal annexation 17.3 702
State extinction and the possibility of prescription 17.4 703
Extinction, merger and the creation of new States (1) 705
Voluntary absorption: the German
Democratic Republic 705
(2) Extinction by merger: Yemen 705
xxviii Contents
(3) Extinction by voluntary dissolution: the Czech

and Slovak Federal Republic 706
(4) Extinction by involuntary dissolution: the SFRY
and its successor States 707
17.5 International law and the survival of States 715
Conclusions 718
Appendices:
1. List of States and Territorial Entities Proximate to States 2. 727
League Mandates and United Nations Trusteeships 3. The 741
United Nations and Non-Self-Governing Territories,
1946 to 2005 746
4. Consideration by the International Law Commission
of the Topic of Statehood (1996) 757
Select Bibliography 760

Index 851
Table of Cases
A/ S Tallinna Laevauhisus & Ors v Tallinna Shipping Co (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 AB v MB

(1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53, 434 Abu Dhabi
Arbitration (1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269 Achievers Investments,
Inc v Karalekas (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343, 348 Achikian v Bank of Athens
(1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .701 Acquisition of Polish Nationality
(1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .545 Administration des Douanes v Société
Cafés Jacques Valore (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .498 Administration of Papua and New Guinea v
Guba & Doriga (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . .270 Administrative Decision No 1 (US-Austrian-Hungarian
Claims Commission)
(1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .483
Administrative Tribunal of the ILO (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495
Administrator of Customs v Dewulf, Caillert & Sons (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237
Admissibility of Applications 71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02 von
Maltzan & ors v Germany (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,685
Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on
South West Africa (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,574, 592
Admissions Case (see Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in
the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) )
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .579 Afghan
Citizens Case (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .653 AG for Canada
v AG for Ontario (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359, 486 AG of Israel v El-Turani
(1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .426 AG v Goralschwili
(1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .570 AG v Sheng Fu Shen
(1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 Agarwala v Union of India
(1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299 Agency of Canadian Car and
Foundry Co Ltd v American Can Co (1919) . . . . . . . .679 Al Odah v United States
(2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .642 Alabama Arbitration
(1872) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381, 388–89 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom
(2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 Åland Islands Case (Commission of
Jurists)
(1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24, 58–59, 108–10, 383, 391, 536–37, 657 Åland
Islands Case (Commission of Rapporteurs) (1921) . . . . . . . .58–59, 110–12, 658 Albanian Frontier
Case (see Monastery at St Naoum (Albanian Frontier) )
Andrew Allen Case (1799) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .654 Anglo
Iranian Oil Co Case (First Phase) (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495 Anglo-French
Continental Shelf Case (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .351 Antarctic Legal Status
Case (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,266
xxx Table of Cases
Antolok v United States (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,600

Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations
Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (Advisory Opinion) (1988) . . . . . . ,195
Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case Concerning
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections
(Yugoslavia v Bosnia and Herzegovina) (2003) . . . . . . . . .189, 708, 710, 711–14
Application of Reyes (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
Aradnas v Hogan (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
Arizona v California (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 Arrest
Warrant Case (see Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Provisional Measures) )
Artukovic v Boyle (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .692
Asakura v City of Seattle (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Assanidze v Georgia (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Assessment of Aliens for War Taxation (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Asylum Case (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Atlantic Mutual Inc v Northwest Airlines (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 Attorney
General for Fiji v House (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 Attorney-
General for British Honduras v Bristowe & Hunter (1880) . . . . . . . . . . . . .302 Attorney-General
v Wellington Newspapers Ltd (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .482 Austrian Citizens
(Entitlement to Compensation) Case (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .459 Austro-German Customs
Union Case (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19, 45, 63–66, 69, 283, 537–38
Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v Goldberg & Feldman

Fine Arts Inc (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Avena (see Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United
States) )
Badinter Commission Opinions—

Opinion 1 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24, 396–97, 401 Opinion
2 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397, 401, 406–07, 644 Opinion 3
(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397 Opinion 4
(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397, 398 Opinion 5
(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397–98 Opinion 6
(1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68, 397, 398 Opinion 7
(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397 Opinion 8
(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24, 399–400 Opinion 10
(1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Baer Claim
(1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Baltzoudis v
Souliotis (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314 Bank of China v
Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Table of Cases xxxi
Bank of Ethiopia v National Bank of England & Liguori (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .652

Bank of Hawaii v Balos (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
Banque de l'Union Parisienne v Jaudon (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .679
Barber v Gonzales (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd (Preliminary
Objections) (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .592
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd (Second
Phase, Judgment) (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101, 103–04, 116, 283,
702 Baronci v Ospedale del Bambino Gesu (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.223 Baxter v Commissioner of Taxation (1907) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.370 Bayetto v Administration d'Enregistrement (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.293 Belgium/ Netherlands (see Case Concerning Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land)
Bishwanath Singh v Income Tax, Central & United (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284
Blackburn v AG (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Blankard v Galdy (1692) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
Boguslawski v Gdynia-Ameryka Linie (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,653, 657
Bolivar Ry Co Claim (1903) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .658
Bosnian Genocide Case (see Case Concerning Application of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia) )
Botswana/ Namibia (see Case Concerning Kasikili/ Sedudu Island (Botswana/ Namibia) )
Bradford v Chase National Bank (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373
Brcko Award (see Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina v Republika Srpska
(Final Award) )
Brehm v Acheson (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .454
Bremen (Hansa City of) v Prussia (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Bridgeway Corp v Citibank (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .275
British Coal Corporation v The King (1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .363
Brunell v United States (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
Buck v Attorney General (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331–32, 585
Bulamu Arbitration (see Island of Bulamu Arbitration)
Burnet v Chicago Portrait Co (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,292
Cabet de Chambine v Bessis (1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317

Caglar v HM Inspector of Taxes (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Calder v AG of British Columbia (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
Calvin's Case (1608) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
Cameroon v Nigeria (see Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon
and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) )
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v Prime Minister and Secretaries
of States (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,562
xxxii Table of Cases
Campbell v Hall (1774) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,353

Caribtan Corp v OSHRC (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,626
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (no 2) (1967) . . . . . . . .17, 91, 343, 455, 456
Case Concerning Acquisition of Polish Nationality (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53–54
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v
Yugoslavia) (Provisional Measures) (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . .100, 131–32, 189, 707
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v
Yugoslavia) (Preliminary Objections) (1996) . . . . . . . .25, 133, 189, 487, 662–63
Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v United States) (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,489
Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia)
(Preliminary Objections) (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169, 192, 270, 363, 567, 597,
598–99, 663
Case concerning Certain Property (Liechtenstein v Germany)
(Preliminary Objections) (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,681
Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v Australia) (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .101, 103, 116,
168–72, 560–62, 617
Case Concerning Kasikili/ Sedudu Island (Botswana/ Namibia) (1999) . . . .99, 311, 328,
464, 596, 615, 704
Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between
Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,291, 310
Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India) (1960) . . .47,
108, 259, 261, 268, 536, 614–15, 616, 697–98
Case Concerning Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land
(Belgium/ Netherlands) (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47, 544
Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Ligitan Island and Sipidan Island
(Indonesia/ Malaysia) (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,296, 640–41, 752
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Provisional Measures) (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Case Concerning the Constitutionality of the Maastricht Treaty (1994) . . . . . . . . . . ,495
Case concerning the Gabcíkovo-Nagymoros
Project (Hungary/ Slovakia) (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100, 447, 679, 707
Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/ Chad)
(1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50, 328
Case No 1550 v China (ILO) (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,251
Case No 1652 v China (ILO) (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,251
Case No 1952 HK Confederation of Trade Unions v HKSAR (ILO) (1998) . . . . . . . ,251
Case of Gold Looted by Germany from Rome in 1943 (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,520
Cayuga Indians Cases (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263, 267, 270, 488, 597
Ceara (State of) v D'Archer de Montgascon (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,484
Table of Cases xxxiii
Ceara (State of) v Dorr (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .484

CEAT v Società Hungary (1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph
2, of the Charter) (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .405–06, 495, 550, 608
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (1926) . . . . . . . . . . .19, 349, 657, 661
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (see Case Concerning Certain Phosphate
Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia) (Preliminary Objections) )
Chagos Islanders v Attorney-General (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337
Cham Kam Nga v Director of Immigration (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
Chen Li Hung v Tong Lei Mao (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 221, 251
Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273–74
Chief Tschekedi Khama v Ratshosa (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318
Chisholm v Georgia (1793) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .485
City of Sherrill, NY v Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
Civil Aeronautics Administrations v Singapore Airlines Ltd (2004) . . . . . . . . . .205, 219
Civil Air Transport Inc v Central Air Transport Inc (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199, 653
Civil Air Transport Inc v Chennault & Willauer (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Claimants of the Brig General Armstrong v United States (1858) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Clement v Agent Judicaire du Trésor Public (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .453
Clipperton Island Arbitration (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269
Coe v Commonwealth (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265
Coe v Commonwealth of Australia (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272
Colony of the Belgian Congo v Lehideux (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277, 509
Colorado v New Mexico (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
(interim measures) (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Commission v Austria & others (Re the 'Open Skies' Agreements
with the USA) (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.499 Commission v Council (AETR) (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.499 Commonwealth v Queensland (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.482 Community Competence to Conclude Certain International Agreements (1994) . . . .
.61 Competence of the ILO to regulate, incidentally, the work of the Employer (1926) . . .
.42 Competence of the ILO with Respect to Agricultural Labor (1922) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.42 Concordat (Germany) Case (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.681 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations
(Article 4 of the Charter) (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42, 174, 179, 180, 318, 546
Congo v Belgium (see Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Provisional Measures)
Consistency of Certain Danzig Legislative Decrees with the Constitution
of the Free City (1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239
Constitutionality of Treaty Relations (FRG) (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .459
Cooper v Stuart (1889) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,265
xxxiv Table of Cases
Corfu Channel Case (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 135, 154

Costa v ENEL (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .497
Costa v Military Service Commission of Genoa (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .673
Couvertier v Gil Bonar (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Cuculla v Mexico (1868) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Customs Union Case (see Austro-German Customs Union Case)
Cyprus v Turkey (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81–82, 133, 146, 147, 167
Dabrai v Air India Ltd (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .367

Danube Commission (see Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the
Danube between Galatz and Braila)
Danzig and the ILO (1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318, 359
Danzig Legislative Decrees (see Consistency of Certain Danzig
Legislative Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City)
Danzig Pension Case (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
Danzig Railway Officials Case (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Date of Entry into Force of Versailles Treaty (Germany) Case (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Delagoa Bay Arbitration (1875) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
Delimitation of the Polish-Czechoslovakian Frontier
(Question of Jaworzina) (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 483, 514, 532
Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium (see Case Concerning the Arrest
Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) )
Deutsch Continental Gas Gesellschaft v Polish State (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24, 49–50,
531, 656
Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights (Advisory Opinion) (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
Ditzler, Reith & Buess v Customs Administration (1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293 Dix
Claim (1903) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .658 Doe v
Bush (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .562 Dubai-
Sharjah Border Arbitration (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 Duff
Development Co v Government of Kelantan (1924) . . . . . . . . .17, 72, 76–78, 318 Dupire v
Dame DuPire-Constantinoff (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .354 DuToit v
Strategic Minerals Corp (re Gur Corporation) (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,343
East Timor Case (see Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v Australia) )
Eastern Carelia Opinion (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Eastern Greenland Case (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267–68
Ecoffard v Cie Air France (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316
Efrat Ungar v Palestine Liberation Organization (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 62, 148, 434 El
Caso de Belice (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,638, 665
Table of Cases xxxv
El Kharbutli v Minister of Defense (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims (Civilian Claims) (Eritrea's Claims:
Partial Award) (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54–55, 654–55
Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Phase I Award (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .644, 645
Eshugbayi Eleko v Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria (1928) . . . . . . .302
Etablissements Allart Rousseau et Cie v FRG (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .460
Ethiopia v South Africa (see South West Africa Cases)
European Commission of the Danube (see Jurisdiction of the European
Commission of the Danube between Galatz and Braila)
Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273 Ex
parte Mwenya (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi, 302–03 Ex
parte O'Dell and Griffen (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .362 Ex
parte Sekgome (1910) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302
Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v President of the
Republic of South Africa (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .346
Expenses Opinion (see Certain Expenses of the United Nations
(Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter) )
Ex-Rajah of Coorg v East India Co (1860) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,269, 323
Falco Claim (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Falla-Nataf v Germany (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina v Republika Srpska (re Brcko)
(Final Award) (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .529
Ffrost v Stevenson (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .571
Fijian Land Claims (Burt Claim) (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42, 114
Fogarty v O'Donague (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .658
Forester v Secretary of State (1872) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323
Foster v Globe Venture Syndicate Ltd (1900) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262
France v Commission (re EC-US Anti-Trust Agreement) (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499
Francis v Queen (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272
Free City of Danzig and the ILO (1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181, 239, 240, 539 Free
Zones Case (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .517 Fubini
Claim (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Furundzija
Case (see Prosecutor v Furundzija)
Gabcíkovo-Nagymoros Project (see Case Concerning the Gabcíkovo-Nagymoros

Project (Hungary/Slovakia) )
Gale v Andrus (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572, 655
Gastaldi v Lepage Hemery (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .673
German Inter-Zonal Trade Case (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,459
xxxvi Table of Cases
Germany v Reparations Commission (13th Question) (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 656

Germany v United States of America (see LaGrand Case)
Gibbons v Salii (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .583
Gilmore Steel Corp v Dep't of Revenue (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Go Man Ei v Municipality of Tokyo (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .470
Golovitschiner v Dori (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .679
Gosalia v Agarwal (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132, 697–98
Government of Morocco v Laurens (1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295, 318
Government of Spain v Chancery Lane Safe Deposit Ltd (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34–35
Guaranty Trust Co of NY v US (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .653
Gugenheim v State of Vietnam (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .476
Gur Corporation v Trust Bank of Africa Ltd (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,343
Hagi-Salad v Ashcroft (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414, 722

Haitian Centers Council v McNary (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .642
Harris v Rosario (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .627
Harris v The Minister of the Interior (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Harshaw Chemical Patent Case (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .470
Hartje v Yugoslva Military Mission (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .460, 684
Hearings of Petitioners Case (see Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners
by the Committee on South West Africa (1956) )
Heintschel v Heinegg (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337
Heller v US (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32–33
Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . .17–18, 147
HKSAR v Ma Wai Kwan (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
HKSAR v Ng Kung Siu (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board (1941) . . . .265, 269, 272
Hodgson v UESP (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .626
Hoogstraten v Low Lum Seng (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316
Hopkins Claim (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23, 167
Hunt v Gordon (1883) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Hunt v The Queen (no 2) (1882) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Huttinger v Upper Congo Ry Co & Ors (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277
Hyacinth Pellat Case (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,488
Icelandic Fisheries Case (First Phase) (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

ICI Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .498–99
Idler v Venezuela (see Jacob Idler v Venezuela)
Igartúa de la Rosa v United States (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .627
Ilascu v Moldova and Russia (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Ilse Hess v UK (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .685
In re Abdouloussen (1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,308
Table of Cases xxxvii
In re Al-Fin Corporation's Patent (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .470

In re Bowoon Sangsa Co (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
In re Cassèque & Cot (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .570
In re Dalla Torre (1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
In re Dirks' Patent (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .681
In re Fouad Baddoura (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .570
In re G (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
In re G (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
In re Grange & LeGlay (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295
In re James (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
In re Kraussman (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .454, 460
In re Kruger (1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
In re Labrador Boundary (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .360
In re M (Danzig Conviction Case) (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
In re Moriggi (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
In re Nepogodin's Estate (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.79 In re Nix (1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.240 In re petition of S (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.679 In re Savini (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.701 In re Schwinn Bicycle Co (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.206 In re Société des Phosphates Tunisiens (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.295 In re Southern Rhodesia (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270,
586 In re Tamasese (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.363 In re Ungarische Kriegsproduktien AG (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .483,
675 In re Wong Hon (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.642 In re YMA (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.43 Indonesia/ Malaysia (see Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and
Sipadan Island (Indonesia/ Malaysia) )
Insas BHD v Cumaraswamy (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
International Fruit Co NV v Produktschap voor Groeten en Fruit (No 3) (1975) . . . . .496
International Registration of Trade Marks (Germany) Case (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .456
International Status of South-West Africa (Advisory Opinion) (1950) . . .117, 122, 197,
430, 435, 441, 504, 537, 550, 566, 517, 573, 574, 592
Internazionale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle für
Getreide und Futtermittel (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495–96
Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase) (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.41 Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237–
38 Interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 549, 588,
590 Iraq Airways Company and the Republic of Iraq v Kuwait
Airways Corporation (No 1) (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.162 Irish Free State v Guaranty Safe Deposit Co (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.658 Island of Bulamu Arbitration (1870) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,258
xxxviii Table of Cases
Island of Lamu Arbitration (1889) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262

Island of Palmas (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46, 62, 258, 263–64, 267,
286, 299, 353, 486, 644
Jacob Idler v Venezuela (1885) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .654

Jamar v Kersten (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277
Jani v Jani (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299
Jaworzina Case (see Delimitation of the Polish-Czechoslovakian Frontier
(Question of Jaworzina) )
Jayan Nath Sathu v Union of India (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .360
Johnson & Graham's Lessee v McIntosh (1823) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258, 270, 273
Jolley v Mainka (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359, 363
JP Morgan Chase Bank v Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd (2002) . . . . . . . . . . .17
Juda v United States (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .581, 600
Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239
Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between
Galatz and Braila (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14–15, 42, 69, 514–16
Kaefer and Procacci v France (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .624

Kanda v State of Japan (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .469
Kansas v Colorado (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Kasikili/ Sedudu Case (Botswana/ Namibia) (see Case Concerning
Kasikili/ Sedudu Island (Botswana/ Namibia) )
Katrantsios v Bulgaria (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316, 357
Katz & Klump v Yugoslavia (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .692
Kawasaki Kisn Kabashiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Co Ltd
(1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
King (see R)
Kletter v Dulles (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .570
Klinghoffer v Achille Lauro (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .438
Knox v Palestinian Liberation Organization (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
KPMG Peat Marwick v Davison (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .630
Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v Elicofon (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .458
Kuster v Regierungsrat des Kantons Schwyz (1975)
L & JJ v Polish State Rys (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

LaGrand Case (Germany v United States of America) (Merits) (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . .489
LaGrand Case (Germany v United States of America) (Provisional Measures)
(1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44, 488–89
Laguna del Desierto (Chile-Argentina) (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Lamu Arbitration (see Island of Lamu Arbitration)
Table of Cases xxxix
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria

(Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening)
(Merits) (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311–14, 328, 464, 644, 702
Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v
Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) (Preliminary Objections) (1998). . . ,615
Land Registry of Waldsassen v Towns of Eger (Cheb) and
Waldsassen (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,679, 692
Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,262, 623
Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,252
Lazard Bros v Midland Bank Ltd (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,652, 679
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in
Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council
Resolution 276 (1970) (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113, 116, 117, 122–
23, 162–68, 336, 430, 431, 435, 439–40,
441, 493, 494, 536, 551–52, 567, 573,
580, 586, 587, 591 –96,
604–05
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) (2004). . . . . . . .105, 113, 116, 172–73, 420–
21, 423, 444–45
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) (1996) . . .42, 104
Legality of Use of Force (NATO Cases) (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .708, 712–14
Lehigh Valley RR Co v State of Russia (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,653
Lei Wei Fang v Kennedy (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,219
Les Verts Case (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,496
Levantesi v Governor of Rome (1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,224
Levi Claim (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Liberia v South Africa (see South West Africa Cases)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/ Chad (see Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/ Chad) )
Liechtenstein v Germany(see Case concerning Certain Property (Liechtenstein v Germany) )
Lighthouses Arbitration (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,357
Lighthouses in Crete and Samos (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .354–57
Ligitan and Sipadan (see Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau
Ligitan and Pulau Sipidan (Indonesia/ Malaysia) )
Littleton's notes (1640) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,258
Liyanage v R (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,331
Loizidou v Turkey (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146–47
Loizidou v Turkey (Merits) (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81–82, 162
Lone Wolf v Hitchcock (1903) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,269, 274
Lord Gray's Motion (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,676
Lotus (see The Lotus)
xl Table of Cases
Louisiana v Mississippi (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486

Lovelace v Canada (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.624 Lowinsky v Receiver in Bankruptcy (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,679 Lubicon Lake Band (see Ominayak & Lubicon Lake Band)
Luigi Monta of Genoa v Ceckofracht Ltd (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 219
Luther v Sagor (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 652
M v ONU & Etat Belge (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .494

Maastricht Urteil (see Case Concerning the Constitutionality of the Maastricht Treaty)
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92, 259, 268, 278, 281, 676
Madaha Resena v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
Madzimabamuto v Lardner-Burke (1968–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 358, 362, 369–70
Magher Singh v Principal Secretary of the Jammu &
Kashmir Government (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284
Maharaja Bikram Kishore of Tripura v Province of Assam (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322
Maharajah of Tripura v Province of Assam (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284
Mangope v Van der Walt (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .347
Matimak Trading Co v Khalily (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Matthews v UK (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .624
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .429–
30 McDonough's Executors v Murdoch (1853) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.275 Mellenger v New Brunswick Development Corporation (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . .485,
486 Ménier v PLM Ry Co (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.295 Metropolitan Chapter in Poznán v State Treasury (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.693 Mexico v United States (see Case Concerning Avena and
Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States) )
Mighell v Sultan of Johore (1894) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78, 318
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266, 270
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v United States of America) (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . .40, 41, 69–70, 154
Millen Industries Inc v Coordination Council for N American Affairs (1988) . . .18, 205
Mingtai Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v United Parcel Service (1999) . . . .205–04
Ministière Public v Nicoleau (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295
Ministry of Finance v Association of Italian Knights of the Order
of Malta (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
Ministry of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) . . . . .414, 722 Ministry
of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jama (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . .414, 722 Minquiers &
Ecrehos Case (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321, 351 Mizrihi v
Republic of Cyprus (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242 Mohegan
Indians v Connecticut (1705, 1743, 1773) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .268 Mokotso v
HM King Moshoeshoe II (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,357 Monastery
at St. Naoum (Albanian Frontier) (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 511, 514, 549
Table of Cases xli
Monetary Gold removed from Rome in 1943 (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41, 169, 520, 585
Montefiore v Belgian Congo (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277
Moore v Attorney General (1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .362
Mordovici v General Administration of Posts & Telegraphs (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .518
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co v Republic of Palau (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
Morgan Guaranty Trust v Republic of Palau (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .583, 655
Morocco Case (France v USA) (see Rights of Nationals of the United
States of America in Morocco (France v United States) )
Muller v Rockling Bros (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234
Murarka v Buckrack Bros (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .367–68
Murray v Parkes (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Muscat Dhows Arbitration (1904) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315, 321
MV Nonsuco Inc v IRC (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,373
Namibia Opinion (see Legal Consequences for States of the Continued

Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding
Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)
Nankive v Omsk All Russian Government (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .701
Nanni v Pace & Sovereign Order of Malta (1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44, 231, 233
Naqara v Minister of the Interior (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
National Bank of Egypt v Austria-Hungary Bank (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317
National Bank of Egypt v German Government (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317
Nationality (Secession of Austria) Case (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco (1923) . . . . . . .197, 267, 284, 303–04, 307
NATO Cases (Preliminary Objections) (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Nauru v Australia (see Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru
(Nauru v Australia) (Preliminary Objections) )
Ndlwana v Hofmeyr (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353
Nebraska v Wyoming & Colorado (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
New Jersey v Delaware (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
New Jersey v New York (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
New York Chinese TV Programs Inc v UE Enterprises Inc (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 205
New York v United States (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .488
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272
Newfoundland and Labrador/ Nova Scotia Awards (2001–2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Ng Fung Hong Ltd v ABC (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250
Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
Nicaragua Case (see Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v United States of America) )
Nissan v AG (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243, 494
Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .482
North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (1910) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,536
xlii Table of Cases
North Charterland Exploration Co v R (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Northern Cameroons (Cameroons v United Kingdom) (1963) . . . . . . . . .429, 567, 584,
596–97, 618, 661–62
Nottebohm Case (Second Phase) (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 52
NV Algemeine transport- en Expeditie Ondernenning Van Gend en Laos v
Nederlandse Tariefrommissie (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499
NY Hanseatic Corporation v FRG (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .460
Guts Ltd v AG (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,302
O'Conner v United States (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .642

O'Reilly v Fox Chapel Area School District (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Occidental Exploration & Production Co v Republic of Ecuador (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Oetjen v Central Leather Co (1918) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .652
Officier van Justitie v Kramer & ors (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499
Ol Le Ngojo v AG (1913) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269
Ominayak & Lubicon Lake Band v Canada (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279
'Open Skies' Case (see Commission v Austria & others (Re the 'Open
Skies' Agreements with the USA) )
Oscar Chinn Case (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277, 538
Oseri v Oseri (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434
Ottoman Debt Arbitration (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,676
Pablo Najera Claim (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317

Padri Benedetti v Nunzi (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
Panavezys-Saldutiskis Railway (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Parent v Singapore Airlines Ltd (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201, 205, 219–20
Parounak v Turkish Government (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288
Pauling v McElroy (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,600
Peinitsch v Germany (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Pellegrini v Italy (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
People of Saipan v United States Department of Interior (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .572
Phosphates in Morocco (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285, 295, 314, 315
Piccoli v Association of Italian Knights of the Order of Malta (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
Pinochet Case (see R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and
Others, Ex part Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) )
Polish Postal Service in Danzig (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
Polish Upper Silesia Case (see Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia)
Polish War Vessels in the Port of Danzig (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41, 240
Polish-Czechoslovakian Frontier (see Delimitation of the
Polish-Czechoslovakian Frontier (Question of Jaworzina) )
Ponce v Roman Catholic Apostolic Church (1907) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
Porter v United States (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,572
Table of Cases xiii

Portugal v Australia (see Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v Australia) )
Portugal v India (see Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory
(Portugal v India) )
Posadas v National City Bank of New York (1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373
Poznanski v Lentz & Hirschfeld (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53, 656
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .685
Princess Paley Olga v Weisz (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .653
Principality of Monaco v Mississippi (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .485
Printz v United States (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .488
Prosecutor v Furundzija (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Prosecutor v Rajíc (Trial Chamber) (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83, 134
Prosecutor v Simic (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Prosecutor v Tadid (Jurisdiction) (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .560
Prosecutor v Tadid (Trial Chamber) (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Prosecutor v Tadid (Appeals Chamber) (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82, 528
Qatar v Bahrain (see Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and

Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) )
Quebec Secession Reference (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119–20, 376, 389, 411–12
Queen (see R)
Queensland v Commonwealth (Daintree Forest) (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Questech v Ministry of National Defense of the Islamic Republic
of Iran (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,673, 679
R (Bancoult) v Foreign Secretary (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125, 303, 337, 646 R

v Bottrill ex parte Kuechenmeister (1947) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .453 R v
Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, Ex
part Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 R v
Burgess ex parte Henry (1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 R v
Christian (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .571, 587 R v
Graham Campbell, ex p Moussa (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 R v
IRC ex parte Caglar (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162 R v
Ketter (1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .570 R v
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte SP Anastasiou
(Pissouri) Ltd and others (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte
Indian Association of Alberta (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274, 371, 482 R v
Symonds (1847) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262
Rabang v Boyd (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373
Radio-Orient Company Case (1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .570
Railway Pension (Austria) Case (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .675
Railway Traffic Between Lithuania and Poland (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
xliv Table of Cases
Rainoldi v Ministero della Guerra (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Rajah Salig Ram v Sec of State (1872) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323
Rajíc Case (see Prosecutor v Rajíc)
Randall v Randall (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Rann of Kutch Arbitration (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267, 306–07, 322 Rasul
v Bush (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi, 72, 303 Re an
Inquiry by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .563–64 Re
Boedecker & Ronski (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197 Re
Companie des Eaux d'Hanoi (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .476 Re
Delacher (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .459 Re
Esposito (1899) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 Re
Hamou (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 Re
Ho (1975)
Re ILO Convention 170 on Chemicals at Work (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499 Re
Jackson & Roos (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .689 Re
Resolution to Amend the Constitution (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .371 Re
the European Road Transport Agreement (see Commission v Council (AETR) )
Re the OECD Understanding on a Local Cost Standard (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499 Re
WTO Agreements (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .499
Recidivism (Soviet Zone of Germany) Case (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .454
Reel v Holder (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
Reference re Newfoundland Continental Shelf (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359, 701
Reference re Secession of Quebec (see Quebec Secession Reference)
Reg v Governor of Belmarsh Prison (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Rendition of Suspected Criminal (Saar Territory) Case (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations
(1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29–30, 32, 43, 438, 493–94, 536
Reparations Commission v German Government (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .675
Republic of Somalia v Woodhouse Drake & Carey (Suisse) SA (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . .413
Republic of Transkei v Immigration and Naturalization Service (1991) . . . . . . . . . . .343
Republic of Vietnam v Pfizer, Inc (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .477, 715
Republic v Felsenstadt (1922) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .691
Republic v Pantol (1922) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .691
Republic v Weisholc (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .691
Restitution of Household Effects belonging to Jews deported from Hungary(1965) . . . . .87–
88 Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 (see Application for Revision of
the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case Concerning Application of
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections
(Yugoslavia v Bosnia and Herzegovina) )
Richardson v Forestry Comm (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Right of Passage Case (see Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian
Territory (Portugal v India) )
Table of Cases xlv
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco

(France v United States) (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . .192, 296, 267, 295–96, 262, 308,
305–06, 307, 308, 316, 510, 538–39
Robert E Brown Claim (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276
Rodriguez v Popular Democratic Party (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .627
Rogers v Lu (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219
Romania v Cheng (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Roselius & Co v Karsten & Turkish Republic (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .676
Rudolf Hess Case (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .685
Russian Government v Lehigh Valley Railroad Co (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .679
Russian Roubles (Attempted Counterfeiting) Case (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,679
S v Carracelas & ors (2) (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .595

S v Marwane (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343
Sabally & N'Jie v Attorney-General (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332
Saipan Stevedore v Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (1998) . . . . . . . . . . .
.655 Sale v Haitian Centers Council (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.642 Salimoff v Standard Oil Co (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.17 Santovincenzo v Egan (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.486 Sauser-Hall Arbitration (see Case of Gold Looted by Germany from Rome in 1943)
Scarfo v Sovereign Order of Malta (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223, 233
Sec of State in Council for India v Kamachee (1859) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323
Sechter v Minister of the Interior (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .518
Secretary of State for India v Sardar Rustam Khan (1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272, 327
Shehadeh v Commissioner of Prisons (1947) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,680 Shtraks v Government of Israel (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.564 Simic Case (see Prosecutor v Simic)
Simon v Taylor (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .681
Singh v State of Vinhya Pradesh (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284
Single German Nationality (Teso) Case (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .681–82, 687
Sirkar v Subramania Iyen (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284
Smith v Attorney-General, Bophuthatswana (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343
Smith v US (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Sobhuza II v Miller (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262, 287, 302
Soc Immobiliare Roma-Trieste v Stabilimento Tipografico Triestino
e Soc Editrice del 'Piccolo' (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.236 Società ABC v Fontana and Della Rocca (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.572 Società Teatro Puccini v Commissioner-General of the
Government for the Territory of Trieste (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.235–36 Socony Vacuum Oil Co Claim (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.79–80 Sokoloff v National City Bank (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.17 South West Africa (Status) (see International Status of South West Africa
(Advisory Opinion) (1950) )
xlvi Table of Cases
South West Africa (Hearings of Petitioners) (see Admissibility of Hearings of

Petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa (1956)
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa)
(First Phase/ Preliminary Objections) (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103, 587, 597
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa)
(Second Phase/ Merits) (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103, 108, 345, 359, 532, 580, 581,
587, 594, 597
Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc v Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd (1999) . . . .17
Sovereign Order of Malta v Brunelli, Tacali & Ors (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
Sovereign Order of Malta v Soc An Commerciale (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232, 233
Sovereignty over Ligitan Island and Sipadan Island (see Case concerning
Sovereignty Over Ligitan Island and Sipadan Island)
Spanish Civil War Pension Case (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims (1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305, 308, 315 State
of Missouri v Holland (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 State of
Spain v Chancery Lane Safe Deposit Ltd (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34–35 State v Banda
and 194 others (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342–43 State v Dosso
(1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .679 State v Hynes
(1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359 Statham v Statham
& Gaekwar of Baroda (1912) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318, 321 Status of the Saar Territory
Case (1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 Status Opinion (South West
Africa) (see International Status of South-West Africa (Advisory
Opinion) (1950) )
Statute of the Saar Territory (1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 Studer
Claim (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315 Sue v Hill
(1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .482 Sultan of Johore
v Abubakar (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 Suspine v CTC
(1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,373
Tadid Case (see Prosecutor v Tadid)

Taiwan v United States District Court (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206
Tangiora v Wellington District Legal Services Committee (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Tasmania v Commonwealth (Tasmanian Dams) (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 Tee-
Hit-Ton Indians v US (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270, 274 Temple
Case (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 Territorial
Jurisdiction of the Oder Commission (1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Territory (Trade
Marks) Case (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233–34 Teso Case (see Single
German Nationality (Teso) Case)
Texas v New Mexico (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 The
Arantzazu Mendi (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 The Bathori
(1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 The Blonde
(1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 The Case of
Tanistry (1608) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,278, 676
Table of Cases xlvii
The Fjeld (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434

The Flying Trader (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434
The Helena (1801) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92–93
The Holy See v Star Bright Sales Enterprises Inc (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.227 The Indian Chief (1801) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.327 The Ionian Ships (1855) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.316 The Jupiter (No 3) (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.653 The Laconia (1863) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.301 The Lotus (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41–42, 240,
595 The Madonna del Burso (1802) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.262 The Magellan Pirates (1853) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.262 The Sapphire v Napoleon III (1871) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.679 The Wimbledon (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69,
536 Theodore v Duncan (1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.359 Thome Guadalupe v Assoc Italiana di S Cecilia (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221–
22 Thomson v Thomson (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.486 Tinoco Arbitration (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23, 388,
680 TP Sankara Rao v Municipal Council of Masulipatam (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.367 Trafficante v Ministry of Defense (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.572 Trawnik v Lennox (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.685 Treatment of Polish Nationals in Danzig (1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239,
240 Trenta v Ragonesi (1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.222 Trésor Public v Air Laos (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.476 Treves Claim (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.91 Trial of Gauleiter Artur Greiser (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.241 Trinh v Citibank (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.476 Tunis and Morocco Nationality Decrees (see Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco)
Underhill v Hernandez (1897) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .652

United States ex rel Zeller v Watkins (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
United States Nationals in Morocco (see Rights of Nationals of the United States
of America in Morocco (France v United States) )
United States v Alaska (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
United States v Guerrero (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,582, 655
United States v Kagama (1886) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269, 274
United States v Krupp (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101–02
United States v Lara (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
United States v Murff (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219
United States v Palestine Liberation Organization (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
United States v Pink (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .545, 653
United States v Quinones (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .626
United States v Sanders (1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .468
United States v Shaughnessy (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,219
xlviii Table of Cases
United States v Shell (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .468

United States v Tiede (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .642
United States v Valentine (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .633
United States v Vargas (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .626
United States v Wheeler (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,273
Valk v Kokes (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .702

Vearncombe, Herbst, Clemens, Spielhagen v UK and Federal
Republic of Germany (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .684–85
Veysi Dag v Secretary of State for the Home Dept (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167
Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Voting Procedure Case (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113, 550–51, 588, 594
Vozneac v Autonomous Administration of Posts & Telegraphs (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,518
Wall Case (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) )
Wandeweghe v BCI (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .496
Warman v Francis (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269–70
Weber v USSR (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .679
Webster Claim (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
West Rand Central Gold Mining Co v R (1905) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276
Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41, 60, 116, 123–24, 237, 258,
259, 262, 265, 266–67, 384, 432, 479,
567, 602, 605, 613, 615, 616–17, 620,
621, 639 –40, 644, 646, 698 White
v McLean (1890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Wildermann
v Stinnes (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53, 518 Williams v Bruffy
(1877) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .652 Williams v Lee
(1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273 Winterbottom v
Vardan & Sons Ltd (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Wiparata v Bishop
of Wellington (1877) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265–66 Witrong & Blany
(1674) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278, 676 Worcester v State of
Georgia (1832) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269, 273–74, 300 Wulfsohn v RSFSR
(1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 23 Wurttemberg & Prussia
v Baden (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486 Yrisarri v Clement
(1825) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Zander Claim (1851) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .658

Zannoni v Sbisa (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
Ziat Claim (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315 Ziv
v Gubernik (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,434
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments
C.E Page Reference
1373 16 June Treaty of Alliance with Portugal 676

(Great Britain–Portugal)
1713 Jul 17 Treaty of Utrecht (Great Britain–Spain) 348, 643
1763 Feb 10 Definitive Treaty of Peace 377, 411

(France–Great Britain–Spain)
1774 Jul 10 Treaty of Kuçuk Kainardji (Russia–Turkey) 507
1778 Feb. 6 Treaty of Amity and Commerce 377
(France–USA)
1779 March 10 Treaty of Ainchi–Kavak (Russia–Turkey) 507

4 May Treaty of Poona (Portugal–Mahratta Empire) 615
1782 Oct 4 Treaty of Amity and Commerce 377
(USA–Netherlands)
30 Nov Preliminary Articles of Peace 377
(Great Britain–USA)
1792 Jan 9 Treaty of Jassy (Austria–Russia) 507
1812 May 16 Treaty of Bucharest (Russia–Turkey) 507
1814 May 30 Treaty of Paris (Austria–Great Britain–

Portugal–Prussia–Russia–Sweden–France) 285
1815 June 9 Final Act of the Congress of Vienna 505–6, 542

(Austria–France–Great Britain–Portugal–
Prussia–Russia–Sweden)
20 Nov Definitive Treaty of Peace (Austria, Great
Britain, Prussia and Russia–France) 734
1817 Nov 7 Treaty of Protection (Monaco–Sardinia) 734
1818 15 Nov Protocol of the Conference at Aix-la-Chapelle 543, 547, 548

(Austria–France–Great Britain–
Prussia–Russia)
1826 Apr 4 Sep St. Petersburg Protocol (Russia–Great Britain) 541

25 Treaty of Akkerman (Russia–Turkey) 507
1827 Jul 6 Treaty for the Pacification of Greece (France–
Great Britain–Greece) 541
1829 Sep 14 Treaty of Adrianople (Russia–Turkey) 507, 541

l Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments
C.E Page Reference
1830 Feb. 3 Protocol respecting independence of Greece 542

(France–Great Britain–Russia)
1831 15 Nov Treaty for the definitive separation of 543
Belgium from Holland (Austria–France–
Great Britain–Prussia–Russia–Belgium)
1839 Apr 19 Treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands 544
relative to the separation of their respective
territories (Belgium–Netherlands)
1840 6 Feb Treaty of Waitangi (Great Britain– 265, 268–9,
New Zealand) 272
1842 29 Aug Treaty of Nanking (China–Great Britain) 245
1846 15 Apr Convention between Austria, Prussia and 234

Russia for the Definitive Incorporation of
Cracow in Austria (Austria–Prussia–Russia)
1849 10 Apr Articles between Russia and Turkey for the more 507
effective protection of the immunities and
privileges of the principalities of Moldavia and
Wallachia (Treaty of Balta–Liman)
1852 Nov 20 Treaty relative to the Succession to the 542
Crown of Greece (Great Britain–Bavaria–
Russia–France–Greece)
1854 Mar 28 British Declaration of the Causes of 506
War against Russia
1856 March 30 Treaty of Paris (General Treaty for the 14, 507–8, 514,
Re-establishment of Peace) (Great Britain– 536
Austria–France–Prussia–Russia–
Sardinia–Turkey)
1862 March 22 Convention of Good Neighborhood 736
(Italy–San Marino)
1865 May 7 International Telegraph Union 493
1867 May 11 Treaty relative to the Grand Duchy of 733

Luxembourg (Austria, Belgium, France, Great
Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Prussia, Russia)
1871 13 March Treaty for the revision of the stipulations of the 508
Treaty of 30 March 1856 (Navigation of the
Black Sea and Danube)
(Austria–Hungary, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Italy, Prussia, Russia, Turkey)
22 Dec Treaty of Commerce (US–Orange Free State) 276
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments Li
C.E Page Reference
1874 Apr. 1 Treaty of Friendship, Establishment &

Commerce (Belgium–Orange Free State) 276
9 Oct Treaty of Berne (General Postal Union) 493
1878 March 3 Treaty of San Stefano (Russia–Turkey) 508–9

13 Jul Treaty of Berlin (Treaty for the Settlement of 504, 509, 514,
Affairs in the East) (Great Britain, 285, 508, 735
Austria–Hungary, France, Germany,
Italy, Russia, Turkey)
1881 3 Aug Convention between Great Britain and the 276, 690
Transvaal Burghers
1883 10 Mar Treaty relative to the navigation of the Danube

(Treaty of London) (Austria–Hungary, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, Turkey) 514–5
1884 Feb 27 Convention for the Settlement of the 276, 690
Transvaal Territory (Convention of London)
(Great Britain–South African Republic)
1885 Feb 26 General Act of the Conference respecting the Congo 301, 307, 509
1888 17 Sep Protectorate Agreement (Great Britain, 297–8

Datus and Chiefs of Rembau (Malay States) )
1892 March 22 Treaty Between Great Britain and the 291

Chief of Bahrain
1895 Apr 17 Treaty of Shimonoseki (China–Japan) 198, 207
1900 May 18 Treaty of Amity (Tonga–United Kingdom) 290
1903 Feb 23 Agreement for Coaling and Naval Stations 642

(Cuba–USA)
22 May Treaty between Cuba and the United States 72
determining their relationships
18 Nov Convention for the Construction of a 642
Ship Canal) (Isthmian Canal Convention)
(Panama–USA)
1905 Nov 17 Protectorate Agreement (Japan–Korea) 466
1906 Apr. 7 General Act of the International Conference at

Algeciras relating to the Affairs of Morocco 285, 294, 510
27 Apr Convention between Great Britain and 324

China (relating to Tibet)
1907 Aug 31 Convention between Great Britain and 324, 327
Russia relating to Persia, Afghanistan,
and Thibet
lii Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments

C.E Page Reference
1908 Apr 20 Agreement of 1908 amending Trade 324

Regulations in Tibet between Great Britain,
China and Tibet
1910 Aug 22 Treaty of Annexation (Japan–Korea) 466
1912 Mar 30 Treaty for the Organization of the Protectorate 294–6, 307,
(Treaty of Fez) (France–Morocco) 734
27 Nov Convention Respecting Relations in 734

Morocco (France–Spain)
1913 May 30 Treaty of Peace (Bulgaria, Greece, 357, 510, 727
Montenegro, Servia and Turkey)
17 Dec Protocol of Florence (Albania–Greece–Serbia) 511
1914 Jul 3 Simla Convention (China–Great Britain–Tibet) 325
1915 26 Apr Treaty of London (Secret Treaty of London) 511, 516, 532,
(France–Great Britain–Italy–Russia) 541
1916 May 16 Sykes–Picot Agreement (France–Great Britain) 422

1917 Nov 2 Balfour Declaration 361–2, 364, 366, 422–3
1918 March 3 Treaty of Brest–Litovsk (Austria–Hungary, 518

Bulgaria, Germany, Turkey, Russia)
17 Jul Treaty of Protective Amity (Monaco–France) 292–3, 517
1919 Apr 28 Covenant of the League of Nations
art 1(2) 176–7
art 4 545
art 5 545
art 16(4) 587
art 22 116, 422,
425–6, 428–9,
436, 441, 519,
533–4, 566,
568–70, 597,
574–5, 579,
587–8, 604–6
June 28 Treaty of Versailles 237–8, 240,
360–1, 363–4,
515–7, 520–1,
531, 533–5,
537, 545, 665,
692, 742–3
8 Aug Treaty of Peace (Afghanistan–Great Britain) 727
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments liii

C.E Page Reference
10 Sep Treaty of St Germain-en-Laye 63–4, 517, 531,

(Principal Allied and Associated Powers 535, 538, 549,
and Austria) 665, 675, 728
13 Oct Paris Convention for the Regulation of 365
Aerial Navigation
Nov. 27 Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine (Principal Allied 516–7, 531
and Associated Powers and Bulgaria)
1920 Feb. 9 Treaty concerning the Archipelago of 266
Spitsbergen (Norway–USA–Denmark–France–
Italy–Japan–Netherlands–Great Britain–
Sweden) (Svalbard Treaty)
June 4 Treaty of Trianon (Principal Allied and 516–7, 531,
Associated Powers and Hungary) 534–5, 549,
665, 675
10 Aug Treaty of Sèvres (Principal Allied Powers 422–3, and Turkey)
516–7, 533
25 Sep Treaty of Sib (Muscat–Oman) 325–6
14 Oct Treaty of Peace between Finland and Russia 531
(Treaty of Dorpat)
28 Oct Treaty of Paris (respecting Bessarabia) 518
(Romania and the Principal Allied Powers)
9 Nov Treaty of Paris (Danzig–Poland) 239
12 Nov Treaty of Rapallo (Italy–Yugoslavia) 534
1921 June 24 Resolution of the League of Nations (approving 111

Agreement between Sweden and Finland
relative to special rights in the Åland Islands)
23 Jul Definitive Statute of the Danube 515
25 Jul Treaty for Customs Union between
Luxembourg and Belgium 535
24 Aug Treaty of Peace (Austria–USA) 516
25 Aug Treaty of Peace (Germany–USA) 516
29 Aug Treaty of Peace (Hungary–USA) 516
20 Oct Convention relating to the Status of the Åland 111
Islands (neutrality provisions and
League guarantee) (British Empire, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,
Latvia, Poland, Sweden)
6 Dec Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between 331
Great Britain and Ireland
6 Dec Irish State Treaty (Great Britain–Ireland) 356, 363
liv Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments
C.E Page Reference
1922 Jul 24 Mandate Agreement (France in Lebanon 570

and Syria)
24 Jul Palestine Mandate (Great Britain in Palestine) 570
4 Oct Protocol of Geneva (respecting Austro– 63–4, 537–8
German political union)
10 Oct Treaty of Alliance (Great Britain–Iraq) 575
1923 Mar 2 Halibut Fisheries Treaty (Canadian– 360

United States)
24 Jul Treaty of Peace with Turkey (Treaty 288, 354,
of Lausanne) 364–5, 423,
430, 516–7,
531, 534,
588–9, 741
1924 Jan. 27 Treaty respecting Fiume (Italy–Yugoslavia) 534–5

8 May Convention Concerning the Territory of 237
Memel (British Empire, France, Italy, Japan
and Lithuania)
27 Sep Decision of the Council of the League 569, 575
(confirming Mandate of Great Britain in Iraq)
1925 5–16 Oct Treaties of Locarno (Belgium– 364
Czechoslovakia–Germany–Great Britain–
France–Poland)
1926 Jan. 13 Treaty amending the Treaty of Alliance of 1922 569
(Great Britain–Iraq)
22 June Boundary Agreement (South Africa–Portugal) 568
1928 Feb 20 Agreement between the United Kingdom and 423, 578
Transjordan respecting the Administration of the
Latter (United Kingdom–Transjordan)
20 Feb Treaty between Great Britain and Emir 571, 578
Abdullah (respecting Transjordan)
27 Aug Treaty between the United States and others 519
Powers providing for the renunciation of war as
an instrument of national policy
(Kellogg–Briand Pact)
1929 11 Feb Treaty between the Holy See and Italy establishing 222–5
the Vatican State (Lateran Treaty)
12 Oct Convention for the Unification of certain 206, 316
rules regarding International Transport
(Warsaw Convention)
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments lv
C.E Page Reference
1930 June 30 Treaty of Alliance (Great Britain–Iraq) 73, 575, 741

1932 Dec 9 International Telecommunications 493, 570
Conventions
1933 Dec 26 Convention on the Rights and Duties of 46, 436–40,

States (Montevideo Convention) 484
1934 May 29 Treaty of Relations (United States–Cuba) 642
1936 Sept. 9 Treaty of Alliance (France–Syria) 570, 741

13 Nov Treaty of Alliance (France–Lebanon) 570, 742
1939 March 31 Treaty of Friendship and Bon Voisinage

(Italy–San Marino) 289
23 Aug Secret Protocol to the Non-Aggression Pact 522
(Germany–USSR)
1941 14 Aug Atlantic Charter (UK–USA) 112, 519
1942 Jan. 29 Tripartite Treaty of Alliance (UK–USSR–Iran) 86

1943 30 Oct Moscow Declaration (UK–USA–USSR) 520
1944 12 Sep Protocol on the Zones of Occupation in 452, 459, 461

Germany and the Administration of
'Greater Berlin' (UK–USA–USSR)
1945 June 4 Berlin Declaration (France–UK– 453, 457, 523
USA–USSR)
26 June Charter of the United Nations 157, 170, 172,
504, 523, 545,
551, 677
art 1 639
art 1(2) 112, 114
art 2(4) 6, 131–47, 147
art 2(7) 304
art 3 177
art 4 174, 179–80,
190, 192
art 11 405
art 11(2) 175
art 17 550
art 17(2) 405, 557
art 23(1) 705
art 24 164
art 25 164
art 32 129, 175,
190–1, 385
lvi Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments
C.E Page Reference
26 June Charter of the United Nations (cont.)

art 33 220
art 35 326
art 35(2) 175, 190–1, 323
art 39 405, 522
art 42 552
art 51 131, 475
art 55 112, 114, 639
art 73 116–7, 603–6,
608, 611–3, 621
art 73(b) 114, 621
art 73(c) 621, 631
art 73(e) 117–8, 607–11,
622, 627, 746
art 74 606–7, 611
art 76(b) 114, 116, 566,
584
art 77(2) 117
art 77(1)(c) 117, 589, 600
art 78 601, 611
art 79 581
art 80 428–9, 436,
441–2
art 81 494
art 82 581, 590
art 85 590
art 85(1) 581
art 87(b) 574
art 93(1) 191
art 93(2) 175, 191–2
art 105 494
art 108 601
Chapter VI 527
Chapter VII 160, 162, 190,
403, 405, 494,
527, 557–8,
560, 563, 666,
689
Chapter IX 606
Chapter XI 113, 116–8,
125, 127, 129,
142, 169, 249,
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments lviii
C.E Page Reference
Chapter XI (cont.) 373, 390, 573,

603, 604–5,
606–12, 622,
624, 626,
632–4, 637,
642, 644–6, 750
Chapter XII 113, 117, 390,
560, 566, 591,
600, 604,
611–2, 614, 622
Chapter XIII 116, 560, 566,
600, 622
9 Jul Agreement on the Zones of Occupation in
Austria and the Administration of the City of
Vienna (USA–USSR–UK–France) 521
14 Aug Treaty of Alliance and Friendship
(China–USSR) 199
1946 Mar 6 Franco–Vietnamese Preliminary Convention and Annex

(France–Vietnam) 472
March 22 Treaty of Alliance (United Kingdom– 423–4, 578,
Transjordan) 741
11 Jun Headquarters Agreement between the 185
United Nations and Switzerland
28 Jun Agreement on the machinery of control in 521
Austria (UK–USA–USSR–France)
26 Jul Agreement regarding amendments to the 452
Protocol of 12 September 1944 on the zones of
occupation in Germany and the
administration of 'Greater Berlin'
(USA–USSR–UK–France)
1947 Feb 10 Treaty of Peace with Italy 81, 235, 327,

519–20, 522,
535, 550,
553–4, 657, 744
10 Feb Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria 519
10 Feb Treaty of Peace with Finland 519
10 Feb Treaty of Peace with Hungary 519
10 Feb Treaty of Peace with Roumania 519, 522
Apr 2 Trusteeship Agreement for the former Japanese 530, 581–3,
Mandated Islands (USA–Security Council) 589–91
30 Oct General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 251
lviii Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments
C.E Page Reference
31 Oct Agreement between the United States and the United 194
Nations Regarding the
Headquarters of the United Nations
29 Nov Future Government of Palestine, 424–36
GA Res 181(II) (Partition Resolution)
1948 Jan. 24 Franco–Lebanese Agreement 577

(France–Lebanon)
Feb. 4 Protocol to Specify the Line of the State 178
Boundary between the People's Republic of
Romania and the Union of Soviets
Socialist Republics
June 5 Declaration Regarding the Independence of 739
Viet-Nam
10 Dec Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 491, 604
GA res 217(III)
1949 Feb. 7 Franco–Syrian Financial Agreement 577
(France–Syria)
4 May Agreement relating to the removal of restrictions 459
on communication, transportation
and trade between Berlin and the Eastern
and Western Zones of
Germany (France–UK–USA)
14 May Principles Governing the relationship between 460
the Allied Kommandatura and
Greater Berlin
8 Aug Treaty of Friendship (Bhutan–India) 289
12 Aug Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the 82, 156–7, 233,
Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed 420, 440, 470,
Forces in the Field, Geneva 476, 495, 721
Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Sea; Geneva Convention relative to
the Treatment of Prisoners of War
12 Aug Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War 172–3, 562
Nov. 2 Round Table Conference Agreement 384
(Netherlands–Indonesia)
22 Nov Protocol relating to the incorporation of
Germany into the European Community of
Nations 454
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments lix
C.E Page Reference
1950 Jul 6 Agreement concerning the demarcation of the 525, 682

established and existing Polish–German State
frontier (Poland–GDR) (Treaty of Görlitz)
4 Nov European Convention on Human Rights 491
2 Dec Trusteeship Agreement (Italian Somaliland) 572
1951 12 Jan Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 663
Feb. 2 Treaty of Cession of the Territory of the
Free Town of Chandernagore (France–India) 748
18 Apr Treaty Establishing the European Coal and 496–7
Steel Community
23 May Agreement on Administration of Tibet 325
(China–Tibet)
Sept. 8 Treaty of Peace with Japan 78–9, 199–200,
207–11, 277,
468, 470, 477,
519–20, 522,
530, 589, 744
1952 Apr 28 Treaty of Peace (China–Japan) 200, 220

26 May Convention on Relations between the Three 454–5
Powers and the FRG (France–UK–USA–FRG)
26 May The Quadripartite Declaration on Berlin 460
(France–UK–USA–USSR)
1954 Jul 21 Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference 474

(accepted by France, UK, USSR, Cambodia,
Laos, China, North Vietnam (DRVN) )
5 Oct Memorandum of Understanding regarding 235–6
the Free Territory of Trieste (Italy–UK–
USA–Yugoslavia)
11 Nov Trade and Payments Agreement 693
(Great Britain–Poland)
2 Dec Mutual Defense Treaty (USA–China) 200, 220
1955 15 May State treaty for the re-establishment of an independent 33, 65, 106,
and democratic Austria 519, 521, 728
(Austria–France–USSR–UK–USA)
20 Sep Treaty concerning relations between the 455, 459
USSR and the GDR
1956 28 May Treaty ceding French Establishments in 748

India (France–India)
19 Oct Joint Declaration (USSR–Japan) 200
lx Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments

C.E Page Reference
1957 Mar 25 Treaty Establishing the European Economy 293, 351, 461,
Community 496–7, 499
25 Mar Treaty Establishing the European Atomic 496–7
Energy Community
1960 June 29 Treaty of Friendship, Assistance and 56, 659

Co-operation (Belgium–Congo)
16 Aug Treaty of Guarantee (Cyprus–Greece– 28, 106, 143–5,
Turkey–UK) 242–3, 490
16 Aug Treaty of Alliance (Cyprus–Greece– 242–3, 490
Turkey–UK)
14 Dec Declaration on the Granting of Independence 604, 638–9
to Colonial Countries and Peoples,
GA res 1514 (XV)
1963 Jul 31 Manila Accord (Singapore–Sarawak–Sabah– 640

Malaysia)
1964 June 12 Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and 455, 463

Co-operation (USSR–GDR)
1965 Nov 15 Convention on the service abroad of judiciary 206, 250

and extrajudicial documents in civil and
commercial matters
4 Dec Agreement establishing the Asian 203
Development Bank
21 Dec International Convention on the Elimination 345
of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
1966 Dec 16 International Covenant on Economics, 112, 125, 491

Social and Cultural Rights
16 Dec International Covenant on Civil and 112–3, 120–1,
Political Rights 125, 157, 248,
491
1969 May 23 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

arts 487
3 arts 34– 661
7 arts 40– 102
1 arts 44 105
art 52 131
art 53 100–2, 131
art 59 102
art 64 155
arts 65–6 101
art 71 105
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments lxi
C.E Page Reference
1970 Aug 12 Non-Aggression Treaty (FRG–USSR) 458

24 Oct Declaration on Principles of International 335, 418, 450,
Law concerning Friendly Relations and 622, 636
Co-operation among States in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations (Friendly
Relations Declaration)
7 Dec Treaty of Warsaw (Poland–FRG) 525
1971 Sept. 3 Quadripartite Agreement and Associated 461–3, 525

Arrangements (France–UK–USA–USSR)
1972 June 3 Final Quadripartite Protocol respecting 461

Berlin (France–UK–USA–USSR)
4 Jul Joint Communiqué on Basic Principles of 471
National Unity (North Korea–South Korea)
21 Dec Treaty on the Basis of Intra-German Relations 458–9, 681
(FDR–GDR)
1973 Jan. 27 Paris Peace Agreement (United States–Vietnam) 474–6

30 Nov International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment
of the Crime of Apartheid 345
1974 Mar 14 Protocol on the Exchange of Permanent

Missions (FRG–GDR) 458
26 Aug Agreement Granting Independence 181, 386

(Portugal, Guinea-Bissau)
31 Dec Treaty on recognition of India's sovereignty over Goa, 138
Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar

Haveli and related matters (India–Portugal)
1975 Feb 15 Covenant of the Commonwealth of the 582–3
Northern Mariana Islands with the
United States
1 Oct Treaty of Osimo (Italy–Yugoslavia) 236
1977 June 8 Protocol Additional to the Geneva 136, 420–1

Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating
to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts
Sept. 7 Panama Canal Treaty (USA–Panama) 642
1978 Aug 23 Vienna Convention on Succession of 36, 132, 671

States in Respect of Treaties
art 2(1)(b) 39
art 8 660
arts 15 481, 673
lxii Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments
C.E Page Reference
23 Aug Vienna Convention on Succession of States in

Respect of Treaties (cont.)
art 16 310
arts 16–33 481
arts 34(1) 714
arts 34–5 391
arts 35–8 481
1979 Jan. 7 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation 320

(Brunei–UK)
5 Aug Peace Treaty Between the Polisario Front and the 647
Islamic Republic of Mauritania

13 Nov Convention on Long-Range 463
Transboundary Air Pollution

1981 Jan. 19 Claims Settlement Declaration (USA–Iran) 679
27 Jun African Charter on Human and People's Rights 125–6
14 Nov Agreements on a Proposed Confederation 490
(Senegal–Gambia)
17 Dec Agreement concerning the Establishment of a 490
Senegambia Confederation
17 Dec Protocols Concerning the Establishment of a 490
Senegambian Confederation
1982 Dec 10 United Nations Convention on the 47
Law of the Sea
1983 Apr. 7 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in 36, 671

Respect of State Archives, Property and
Debts
art 11 348
arts 14 481
art 15 481
art 16 481, 673
art 17 391, 481, 714
art 18 391, 481, 741
art 27 481, 673
art 28 481
arts 481
29 arts 30–1 481, 714
art 37 481, 673
art 38 481
arts 481
39 arts 40–1 481, 714
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments lxiii
C.E Page Reference
1984 Aug 13 Libya–Morocco Federation Agreement 490

19 Dec Joint Declaration of the Government of the 246–9, 642
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the Government of the
People's Republic of China on the
Question of Hong Kong
1986 Mar 21 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 101
Between States and International
Organizations or between International
Organizations
1988 15 Dec Question of Palestine, GA res 43/177 435–6, 440
1989 27 Jun ILO Convention No 169 concerning 121, 280–1

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
Independent Countries
11 Dec Treaty on the Zone of Cooperation in an area 169–70
between the Indonesian Provinces of
East Timor and Northern Australia,
Timor Sea (Australia–Indonesia)
1990 Apr 22 Agreement on the Establishment of the 706

Republic of Yemen (North Yemen–
South Yemen)
18 May Treaty Establishing a Monetary, Economic and 523, 525, 687
Social Union (FRG–GDR)
28 Aug Framework for a Comprehensive Politics 527
Settlement of the Cambodian Conflict
31 Aug Treaty on the Establishment of Germany 523–4, 526,
Unity (FRG–GDR) 686–8
12 Sep Treaty on the Final Settlement with 524, 685–8
Respect to Germany (FRG–GDR–UK–
France–USA–USSR)
25 Sep Agreement on the Settlement of Certain 525, 685
Matters Relating to Berlin
(FRG–France–UK–USA)
14 Nov Agreement in Relation to Ratification of the 526
Border Between Them (FRG–Poland)
19 Nov Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in 409
Europe
1991 15 Apr Headquarters Agreement of 15 April 1991
between UK and European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development 30
lxiv Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments

C.E Page Reference
June 3 Treaty Establishing the African Economy 493

Community
23 Oct Agreement on a Comprehensive Political 527, 600
Settlement of the Conflict in Cambodia
1992 Feb. 7 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) 496–7
18 Dec Declaration on Rights of Persons Belonging 492
to National or Ethnic and Religious and
Linguistic Minorities, GA res 47/135
1993 May 10 Convention for the Conservation of Southern 220
Bluefin Tuna
25 June Vienna Declaration and Program of 118
Action (United Nations World Conference on
Human Rights)
13 Sep Declaration of Principles on Interim 444
Self-Government Arrangements (Israel–PLO)
1994 Apr 15 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 250
World Trade Organization
26 Oct Treaty of Peace (Israel–Jordan) 424, 578
1995 Nov 10 Agreed Principles for the Interim Statute for 529
the City of Mostar
21 Nov General Framework Agreement for Peace in 25, 106, 400,
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton 407, 491,
Agreement) (Bosnia and Herzegovina– 528–9, 600
Croatia–FRY)
21 Nov Agreement on Military Aspects of the Peace 529
Settlement (Dayton Agreement Annex 1-A)
1996 Aug 23 Agreement on the Normalization of Relations 529, 690–1
between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
and the Republic of Croatia
31 Aug Joint Declaration and Principles for 409
Determining the Fundamentals for Mutual
Relations between the Russian Federation
and the Chechen Republic
1998 May 5 Noumea Accord (New Caledonia) 334, 632
23 Oct Wye River Memorandum (Israel–PLO) 444
1999 5 May Agreement between the Republic of 561

Indonesia and the Portuguese Republic on the
question of East Timor (Indonesia–Portugal)
Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments lxv
C.E Page Reference
June 9 Military Technical Agreement between the 558–9

International Security Force (KFOR) and the
Governments of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia
(KFOR–Yugoslavia–Serbia)
7 Dec Statute of the Brcko District of Bosnia and 529
Herzegovina
2000 Feb 10 Exchange of Notes constituting an 562

Agreement between Australia and UNTAET
concerning the continued Operation of the
Treaty between Australia and the Republic of
Indonesia on the Zone of Cooperation in an
Area between the Indonesians
Province of East Timor and Northern
Australia (UNTAET–Australia)
11 Jul Constitutional Act of the African Union 493
15 Oct Townsville Peace Agreement 490
(respecting Solomon Islands)

7 Dec Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union 496
12 Dec Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in 714
Relation to Succession of States
2001 Feb 26 Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on 496
European Union, the Treaties Establishing the

European Communities and certain related
acts
20 Jun Framework Agreement on the Status of 647
Western Sahara (proposed by UN
Secretary-General but rejected by Polisario)
29 Jun Agreement on Succession Issues 710
(Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia–
Macedonia–Slovenia–FRY)
12 Dec Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)
arts 4 480, 488
art 8 63
arts 10 659
arts 63
11 arts 14, 481
15 arts 16, 17, 18 63, 481
lxvi Select Table of Treaties and Other Instruments

C.E Page Reference
arts 19–24 481

arts 481, 704–5
25 arts 26 101, 481
arts 27–32 481
art 33 44, 481, 495
arts 34–7 481
art 40 101, 168
art 41 168
art 48 597, 663, 704–5
art 50(1)(d) 101
art 57 495
2002 24 Oct Treaty Intended to Adapt and Confirm the 328

Relations of Amity and Cooperation
between the French Republic and the
Principality of Monaco
2004 Apr 14 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly 328

Opinion No 250 (relating to application of
Monaco for membership)
29 Oct Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe 497
2 Dec Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity 485
of States and Their Property
Select List of Abbreviations
AdV Archiv des Völkerrechts

AFDI Annuaire Français de Droit International
A.J American Journal of International Law
AJ Supp American Journal of International Law, Supplement
Akehurst, Modern M Akehurst, A Modern Introduction to Introductory Law
(London, 6th edn, 1993)
Al-Baharna H Al-Baharna, The Legal Status of the Arabian Gulf States
(2nd edn, 1975)
ALJ Australian Law Journal
ALR Australian Law Reports
Am Pol Sc R American Political Science Review
Announcement Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International
Arangio-Ruiz G Arangio-Ruiz, L'État dans le sens de droit des gens et la

notion du droit international (Bologna, 1975; and in
(1975) 26 OzföR 3, 265)
ARSIWA International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility
of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
ASCL Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law
BFSP British and Foreign State Papers
Bibl Viss Bibliotheca Visseriana, Dissertationum Ius Internationale
Illustrantium
BPIL British Practice in International Law
Brierly, Collected Papers (ed H Lauterpacht and CHM Waldock, Oxford, 1958)
Brierly, Basis of Obligation JL Brierly, The Basis of Obligation in International Law
Briggs, Law of Nations HW Briggs, The Law of Nations. Cases, Nations
Documents and Notes (2nd edn, NY, 1952)
Brownlie, Principles Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford,
6th edn, 2003)
Brownlie, Use of Force Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by Force
States (Oxford, 1963)
BY British Yearbook of International Law
California WJIL California Western Journal of International Law
Can BR Canadian Bar Review
Can YIL Canadian Yearbook of international law
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
Charpentier J Charpentier, La Reconnaissance internationale et l'évolu-tion du
droit des gens (Paris, 1956)
lxviii Select List of Abbreviations
Chen, Recognition TC Chen, The International Law of Recognition

(ed. L. C. Green, London, 1951)
CILSA Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern
Africa
CMLR Common Market Law Reports
CMLR Common Market Law Review
Col. JTL Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
Crawford, Selected essays J Crawford, International Law as an Open System: Selected
essays (London, Cameron May, 2002)
Crawford, (2002) J Crawford (ed), The International Law Commission's articles on
state responsibility: introduction, text, and commentaries
(Cambridge, 2002)
CTS Consolidated Treaty Series
DDR German Democratic Republic
Dir Int Diritto Internationale
DPRK Democratic People's Republic of Korea
DRVN Democratic Republic of Vietnam
DSB Department of State Bulletin
Duursma, Microstates JC Duursma, Fragmentation and the International Relations
of Micro-States: Self-determination and Statehood
(Cambridge, 1996)
ECJ Rep European Court of Justice, Reports of the Jurisprudence of the
Court
EJIL European Journal of International Law
EPLF Eritrean People's Liberation Front
Fawcett, British JES Fawcett, The British Commonwealth in international
Commonwealth law (London, 1963)
For Aff Foreign Affairs (Washington)
FRG Federal Republic of Germany
FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
GAOR General Assembly Official Records
GDR German Democratic Republic
Grotius ST Transactions of the Grotius Society
Grotius SP CH Alexandrowicz, ed, Grotius Society Papers
Hackworth, Digest GH Hackworth, Digest of International Law (15 vols,
Washington, 1940–4)
HR Académie de Droit International, Recueil des cours
HC Deb House of Commons Debates (5th series unless otherwise
stated)
HL Deb House of Lords Debates
Higgins, Development R Higgins, The Development of International Law through
the Political Organs of the United Nations (London, 1963)
Select List of Abbreviations lxix
ICJ Rep International Court of Justice, Reports of Judgements,

Advisory Opinions and Orders
ICJ Rev Review of the International Commission of Jurists
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
ICLQ International and Comparative Law Quarterly

IFOR Implementation Force
ILC International Law Commission
INTERFET International Force in East Timor
HKLJ Hong Kong Law Journal
ILC Ybk Yearbook of the International Law Commission
PSAs International Legal Materials
ILQ International Law Quarterly
ILR International Law Reports
Indian JIL Indian Journal of International Law
Indian YIA Indian Yearbook of International Affairs
Int Aff International Affairs (London)
Int Conc International Conciliation
Int Org International Organisation

IR Irish Reports
Is Yb HR Israeli Yearbook of Human Rights
JDI Journal du Droit International (Clunet)
Jennings, Acquisition RY Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International
Law (Manchester, 1963)
JNA Yugoslav National Army
Kamanda, Legal AM Kamanda, A Study of the legal status of Status of
Protectorates protectorates in public international law
(Geneva, 1961)
Keesing's Keesing's Contemporary Archives
Kelsen, Principles Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (2nd edn, rev RW
Tucker, NY, 1966)
Kiss, Pratique AC Kiss, Repertoire de la pratique française en matière de
droit intentional public (7 vols, Paris, 1962–72)
KLA Kosovo Liberation Army
Lauterpacht, Papers E Lauterpacht, ed., International Law. Being the Collected
Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (Cambridge, vols 1–5,
1970–2004)
Lauterpacht, Recognition H Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law
(Cambridge, 1948)
Lauterpacht, Development H. Lauterpacht, Development of International Law by the
International Court (London, 1958)
LNOJ League of Nations Official Journal
LNTS League of Nations Treaty Series
lxx Select List of Abbreviations
LQR Law Quarterly Review

Marek, Identity K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in
Public International Law (Geneva, 1954)
Mendelson MH Mendelson, 'Acquisition of Membership in Selected
International Organizations' (Oxford, MSD Phil d 5229,
1971)
MLR Modern Law Review
Moore, Digest JB Moore, A Digest of International Law

(Washington, 8 vols., 1906)
Moore, IA JB Moore, International Arbitrations
Moore, Int Adj JB Moore, International Adjudications (Modern
(MS) Series)
NILR Netherlands International Law Review
NRG GF de Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités
NYIL Netherlands Yearbook of International Law
NYUJILP New York University Journal of International Law
and Politics
NZULR New Zealand Universities Law Review
OAS Organization of American States
OAU Organization of African Unity
O'Brien, New Nations WV O'Brien, ed, The New Nations in
International Law and Diplomacy (NY, 1965)
O'Brien & Goebel, 'Recognition' WV O'Brien & J Goebel, 'US Recognition Policy
and the New Nations', in O'Brien, ed, op. cit.
98–228
O'Connell, State Succession DP O'Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law
and International Law (Cambridge, 2 vols, 1967)
Oppenheim L Oppenheim, International Law—A Treatise
(1st edn, London, 1905; Vol I, 8th edn
(ed Lauterpacht), 1955; Vol II, 7th edn, 1952;
Vol I (9th edn, 1992))
OZf öR Österreichische Zeitschrifi fur öffentliches Recht
P.A Palestine Authority
PAS Proceedings of the American Society of International
Law
PLO Palestine Liberation Organization
PRC People's Republic of China
PRK People's Republic of Kampuchea
RDI Revue de Droit International (de la Pradelle)
Rdi Rivista di Diritto Internazionale
RDILC Revue de Droit International et de Legislation
Compare
Select List of Abbreviations lxxi
RDISDP Revue de Droit International, de Sciences

Diplomatiques et Politiques
Répertoire suisse P Guggenheim, ed, Répertoire suisse de droit
international public (1914–1939), I–IV (Basle,
1975)
Rep. MA T Reports of Decisions of Mixed Arbitral Tribunals
Restatement 2nd American Law Institute, Restatement, Second.
Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1965)
Restatement 3rd American Law Institute, Restatement, Third.
Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987)
RGDIP Revue Général de Droit International Public
RIAA Reports of International Arbitral Awards
RJPIC Revue Juridique et Politique Indépendance et
Cooperation
ROC Republic of China
SKIRT Republic of Korea
Rollet H Rollet, Liste des engagements bilatéraux et
multilatéraux au 30 juin 1972; accords et traits
souscrits par la France. (Paris, 1973)
Rousseau, DIP II Charles Rousseau, Droit international public,
Tome II Les sujets de droit (Paris, 1974)
RVN Republic of Vietnam
SAR Special Administrative Region
Schwarzenberger, International Law G Schwarzenberger, International Law as
applied by International Courts and Tribunals
(3 vols., London, 1957–1976)
Schwarzenberger, Manual G Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International
Law (6th edn, London, 1976) SCOR Security
Council Official Records
SFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Smith, GB & LN HA Smith, Great Britain and the Law of Nations
(2 vols., London, 1932)
SNC Supreme National Court
SNM Somali National Movement
Sørensen, Manual M Sørensen, ed, Manual of Public International
Law (London, 1968)
SWAPO South West African People's Organization
Talmon, Recognition S Talmon, Recognition of Governments (2001)
TTPI Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
UDI Unilateral Declaration of Independence
UNAMET United Nations Mission in East Timor
UNAMI United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq
lxxii Select List of Abbreviations

UNCIO United Nations Conference on International Organization,
San Francisco, 1945
United Nations, Repertory Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs
UN Juror Ybk United Nations Juridical Yearbook
UNMC United Nations Monthly Chronicle Repertory
UNMIK United Nations Interim Administrative Mission in
Kosovo
UNTAC United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia
UNTAET United Nations Transitional Administration in the East
Timor
UNTAG United Nations Transitional Assistance Group
UNTEA United Nations Temporary Executive Authority
UNTS United Nations Treaty Series
US Digest Digest of United States Practice in International Law
USFR Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States
U Toll LR University of Toledo Law Review
Verhoeven, Reconnaissance J Verhoeven, La Reconnaissance internationale dans la
pratique contemporaine: les relations publiques internationales
(Paris, 1975)
Whiteman, Digest MM Whiteman, Digest of International Law
(Washington, 15 vols., 1963–1973)
Ybk AAA Association des Auditeurs et Anciens Auditeurs de
l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye, Annuaire

YBWA Yearbook of World Affairs
ZaöRV Zeitschrifi für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und
Volkerrecht
Chapter 1
STATEHOOD AND RECOGNITION
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Statehood in early international law 6

(1) Doctrine 6
(2) Statehood in early international law:
aspects of State practice 10
1.3 Recognition and statehood 12

(1) The early view of recognition 12
(2) Positivism and recognition 13
(3) Statehood in nineteenth-century international law 14
1.4 Recognition of states in modern international law 17

(1) Recognition: the great debate 19
(i) The constitutive theory 19
(ii) The declaratory theory 22
(2) Conclusions 26
1.5 Certain basic concepts 28

(1) International personality (2) 28
The State (3) 31
Sovereignty (4) 32
State and government (5) 33
State continuity and State succession 35
The formation of a new State is . . . a matter of fact, and not of law.¹
[T]he existence of a State is a question of fact and not of law. The criteria
of statehood is not legitimacy but effectiveness...²
[N]otre pays s'est toujours fondé, dans ses décisions de reconnaissance d'un
État, sur le principe de l'effectivité, qui implique l'existence d'un pouvoir
responsable et independent s'exerçant sur un territoire et une population.³
¹ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 264, §209; (8th edn), vol 1, 544, §209. See also 9th edn) vol 1, 677, §241.
² Foreign Minister Eban (Israel), arguing against a request for an advisory opinion of the
International Court on the status of Palestine: SCOR 340th mtg, 27 July 1948, 29–30.
³ President Mitterand (France), with respect to Palestinian statehood, reported in Le Monde, 24
November 1988, 7, col 1.
4 The Concept of Statehood in International Law
1.1 Introduction
At the beginning of the twentieth century there were some fifty acknowledged States.
Immediately before World War II there were about seventy-five. By 2005, there were
almost 200—to be precise, 192. ÿThe emergence of so many new States represents
one of the major political developments of the twentieth century. It has changed the
character of international law and the practice of international organizations. It has been
one of the more important sources of international conflict.
But the fact that some development is of importance in international relations does
not entail that it is regulated by international law. And it has long been asserted that
'The formation of a new State is . . . a matter of fact, and not of law.'ÿThis position was
supported by a wide spectrum of legal opinion. For example, one of the most common
arguments of the declaratory theory (the theory that statehood is a legal status
independent of recognition) is that, where a State actually exists, the legality of its
creation or existence must be an abstract issue: the law must take account of the new
situation, despite its illegality.ÿ Equally, so it is said, where a State does not exist, the
rules treating it as existing are pointless, a denial of reality. The criterion must be
effectiveness, not legitimacy. On the other hand, according to the constitutive theory
(the theory that the rights and duties pertaining to statehood derive from recognition by
other States), the proposition that the existence of a State is a matter of fact seems
axiomatic. If 'a State is, and becomes, an International Person
ÿ That is to say, 191 UN Members plus the Vatican City. This does not include Taiwan, Palestine
or various claimant entities discussed in Chapter 9. See Appendix I, p 725 for a complete list.
ÿ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 264, §209(1); cf Erich (1926) 13 HR 427, 442; Jones (1935) 16 BY
5, 15–16; Marston (1969) 18 ICLQ 1, 33; Arangio-Ruiz (1975–6) 26 OzföR 265, 284–5, 332. See
also the formulation in Willoughby, Nature of the State, 195: 'Sovereignty, upon which all legality
depends, is itself a question of fact, and not of law.' See also Oppenheim (8th edn), vol 1, 544, §209;
and the somewhat different formulation in Oppenheim (9th edn), vol 1, 120–3, §34.
ÿ Cf Chen, Recognition, 38 ('a State, if it exists in fact must exist in law'). This proposition is a tau-
tology, and the problem of separate non-State entities was not at issue in the passage cited.
Elsewhere Chen accepts the view that statehood is a legal concept not a 'physical existence' (ibid,
63), as well as the possibility of the illegality of the creation or existence of a 'State' (ibid, 8–9). Cf
Charpentier, Reconnaissance, 160–7. Lauterpacht's formulation is preferable: 'The guiding juridical
principle applicable to all categories of recognition is that international law, like any other legal
system, cannot ignore facts and that it must be based on those provided they are not in themselves
contrary to international law' ( Recognition, 91). But in view of the gnomic character of this proposition,
it can hardly be regarded as a 'guiding juridical principle'. For Lauterpacht's interpretation of the
formula that the existence of a State is a matter of fact only see ibid, 23–4. 'To predicate that a given
legal result is a question of fact is to assert that it is not a question of arbitrary discretion...The
emphasis . . . on the principle that the existence of a State is a question of fact signifies that,
whenever the necessary factual requirements exist, the granting of recognition is a matter of legal duty'.
Statehood and Recognition 5
through recognition only and exclusively',ÿ and if recognition is discretionary, then rules
granting to an unrecognized community a 'right to statehood' are excluded.
Neither theory of recognition satisfactorily explains modern practice. The declaratory

theory assumes that territorial entities can readily, by virtue of their existence, be
classified as having one particular legal status: it thus, in a way, confuses 'fact' with
'law'.ÿ For, even if effectiveness is the dominant principle, it must nevertheless be a
legal principle. A State is not a fact in the sense that a chair is a fact; it is a fact in the
sense in which it may be said a treaty is a fact: that is, a legal status attached to a
certain state of affairs by virtue of certain rules or practices.ÿ And the declaratory
theorist's equation of fact with law also obscures the possibility that the creation of
States might be regulated by rules predicated on other fundamental principles—a
possibility that, as we shall see, now exists as a matter of international law. On the
other hand, the constitutive theory, although it draws attention to the need for cognition,
or identification, of the subjects of international law, and leaves open the possibility of
taking into account relevant legal principles not based on 'fact', incor-rectly identifies
that cognition with diplomatic recognition, and fails to consider the possibility that
identification of new subjects may be achieved in accordance with general rules or
principles rather than on an ad hoc, discretionary basis.
Fundamentally the question is whether international law is itself, in one of its most
important aspects, a coherent or complete system of law.¹ÿ According to predominant
nineteenth-century doctrine there were no rules determining what were 'States' for the
purposes of international law ; the matter was within the discretion of existing recognized
States.¹¹ The international law of that
ÿ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 109, §71; (8th edn), vol 1, 125–7, §71 (modified with emphasis on
limits to the discretion of the recognizing State). Cf Jennings and Watts, Oppenheim, 130–1, §40.
ÿ Cf Lauterpacht, Recognition, 45–50 for an effective critique of the 'State as fact' dogma. His dis-
missal of the declaratory theory results in large part from his identifying the declaratory theory with
this dogma.
ÿ Cf Kelsen (1929) 4 RDI 613, 613. Waldock (1962) 106 HR 5, 146 correctly describes the prob-
lem as a 'mixed question of law and fact'.
¹ÿ Cf Chen, Recognition, 18–19: 'to argue that a State can become a subject of international law
without the assent of the existing States, it is necessary to assume the existence of an objective
system of law to which the new State owes its being.' The point is that if the State owes its existence
to a system of law, then that existence is not, or not only,
a 'fact'. ¹¹ Cf Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 108, §71; contra (8th edn), vol 1, 126, §71: 'Others hold
the view that it is a rule of International Law that no new State has a right towards other States to be
recognized by them, and that no State has the duty to recognize a new State...[A] new State before
its recognition cannot claim any rights which a member of the Family of Nations has as against other
members.' Cf the heavily qualified statement in the 9th edn, vol 1, 132–3, §40.
period exhibited a formal incoherence that was an expression of its radical

decentralization.¹²
But if international law is still, more or less, decentralized in terms of its basic
structures, it is generally assumed that it is a formally complete system of law. For
example this is taken to be the case with respect to the use of force¹³ and nationality,¹ÿ
fields closely related to the existence and legitimacy of States. This work investigates
the question whether, and to what extent, the formation and existence of States is
regulated by international law, and is not simply a 'matter of fact'.
1.2 Statehood in early international law

(1) Doctrine¹ÿ It
is useful for reviewing the changing opinions on the topic since the seventeenth
century. Grotius, for example, defined the State as 'a complete association of free
men, joined together for the enjoyment of rights and for their common interest'.¹ÿ His
definition was philosophical rather than legal: the existence of States was taken for
granted; the State, like the men who composed it, was automatically bound by the law
of nations which was practically identical to the law of nature: 'outside of the sphere of
the law of nature, which is also frequently called the law of nations, there is hardly any
law common to all nations.'¹ÿ So the existence of States as distinct subjects of that
universal law posed no problem. Much the same may be said of Pufendorf, who
defined the State as 'a compound moral person, whose will, intertwined and united by
the pacts of a number of men, is considered the will of all, so that it is able to make
use of the strength and faculties of the individual members for the common peace and
security.'¹ÿ Pufendorf agreed both with Grotius and Hobbes¹ÿ that natural law and the
law of nations were the same:
Nor do we feel that there is any other voluntary or positive law of nations which has
the force of law, properly so-called, such as binds nations as if it proceeded from a
¹² The same incoherence has been noted in respect of the legality of war: Lauterpacht, Recognition, v–vi,
4–5; and the discretionary character of nationality: Brownlie (1963) 39 BY 284, 284; Principles (2nd edn), 73;
(6th edn), 69. Cf Briggs (1950) 44 PAS 169, 172.
¹³ Cf Charter Art 2(4); Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Rep 1949 p 4, 35. ¹ÿ Cf
Nottebohm Case, ICJ Rep 1955 p 4. ¹ÿ Cf Guggenheim (1971) 3 U Tol LR 203. ¹ÿ De Iure Belli ac
Pacis (1646), Bk I, ch I , §xiv. ¹ÿ Ibid. Grotius
excepts certain regional customs. For discussion of State sovereignty in Grotius see Dickinson, Equality of
States, 55–60; Kennedy (1986) 27 Harv ILJ 1, 5; Tuck, Rights of War and Peace, 82–96. ¹ÿ De Iure Naturae
et Gentium Libri Octo, Bk VII, ch 2, §13, para 672. ¹ÿ De Cive, ch 14, paras 4–5.
superior...[Convergences of State behavior] belong either to the law of nature or to the civil law
of different nations . . . But no distinct branch of law can properly be constituted from these,
since, indeed, those laws are common to nations, not because of any mutual agreement or
obligation, but they agree accidentally, due to the individual pleasure of legislators in different
states . Therefore, these laws can be and many times are changed by some people without
consulting others.²ÿ
By contrast Vitoria, lecturing a century earlier, gave a definition of the State

much more legal in expression and implication than either Grotius or
Pufendorf, though one still based on scholastic argument:
A perfect State or community . . . is one which is complete in itself, that is, which is not a part
of another community, but has its own laws and its own council and its own magistrates, such
as is the Kingdom of Castile and Aragon and the Republic of Venice and the like...Such a state,
then, or the prince thereof, has the authority to declare war, and no one else.²¹
Here we can detect the criteria of government and independence. Moreover,

Vitoria is writing not a general moral–theological treatise but one with a specific
purpose; his definition is also for a purpose, that is, to determine which entities
may declare war. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the writers of the naturalist
school were not concerned with the problem of statehood: any ruler, whether or
not independent, was bound by the law of nations, which was merely the application
of the natural law to problems of government.
The same may be said, although with some reservations and for different
reasons, of the writers of the early positivist period, of which Vattel was the most
influential. His Le Droit des gens, ou principles de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la
conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souvenirs is an extraordinary amalgam
of earlier views with deductions from the sovereignty and equality of States that
tended to overturn those views. For Vattel, 'Nations or States are political bodies,
societies of men who have united together and combined their forces, in order to
procure their mutual welfare and security.'²² The basic criterion is that such nations
be 'free and independent of one another '.²³ But a distinction is now drawn between
States, as defined, and 'sovereign States', even if the difference is still largely
terminological:
Every Nation which governs itself, under whatever form, and which does not depend on any
other Nation, is a sovereign State. Its rights are, in the natural order, the same as those of
every other State. Such is the character of the moral persons who live together
²ÿ Bk II, ch 3, §156.
²¹ De Indis ac de Iure Belli Relectiones (publ 1696, ed Simon); De Iure Belli, para 7, §§425–
6. ²² Le Droit des Gens (1758), vol I, Introduction, §1; ch I, §I. ²³ Introduction, §15.
in a society established by nature and subject to the law of Nations. To give a Nation
the right to a definite position in this great society, it need only be truly sovereign and
independent; it must govern itself by its own authority and its own laws.²ÿ
The novel element in this definition is the wide-reaching implications Vattel draws
from the notion of the equality of States, the effect of which is to make each State
the sole judge of its rights and obligations under the law of nations.
Thus, 'the Law of Nations is in its origin merely the Law of Nature applied to
Nations . . . We use the term necessary Law of Nations for that law which results
from applying the natural law to Nations...'²ÿ Although the positive law of nations
may not, in principle, conflict with this necessary law, the latter is 'internal' to the
State while the positive law is 'external', and other sovereigns are only entitled and
able to judge the actions of other independent States by this external standard: 'A
Nation is . . . free to act as it pleases, so far as its acts do not affect the perfect
rights of another Nation, and so far as the Nation is under mere obligations without
any perfect external obligation. If it abuses its liberty it acts wrongly; but other
Nations can not complain, since they have no right to dictate to it.'²ÿ Here a
deduction from 'sovereignty' overturns what has previously been held to be the
basis of the law of nations. But as yet, no further deduction is drawn from this
independence or sovereignty to deny the juridical existence of new States;
sovereignty is inherent in a community and is thus independent of the consent of
other States: 'To give a Nation the right to a definite position in this great society, it
need only be truly sovereign and independent...'²ÿ The link between these Earlier
views and the
nineteenth-century positivist view of statehood may be illustrated from Wheaton's
classic Elements of International Law. Under the influence of Hegel,²ÿ he came to
regard statehood for the purposes of international law as something different from
actual independence:
Sovereignty is acquired by a State, either at the origin of the civil society of which it
is composed, or when it separates itself from the community of which it was previously
²ÿ Introduction, Bk I, ch I, §4. But he subsequently stated that authority and laws are not enough for
sovereignty where there is no control over foreign affairs (treaties, making war, alliances): ibid, §11. ²ÿ
Introduction, §§6–7 (original emphasis). The 'necessary Law of Nations' was thus peremptory, ²ÿ
ie permanent and imprescriptible (§9). Ibid, §20.
²ÿ Ibid, Bk I, ch I, §4 (emphasis added).
²ÿ Grundlinien der Philosophie des Recht, vol VIII; Hegel, Werke (1854) VIII, Pt 3, para 331; cited by
Alexander (1958) 34 BY 176, 195: In Nisbet's translation the passage reads: 'The state has a primary
and absolute entitlement to be a sovereign and independent power in the eyes of others, ie to be
recognized by them. At the same time, however, this entitlement is purely formal, and the requirement
that the state should be recognized simply because it is a state is abstract. Whether the state does in fact have
formed a part, and on which it was dependent. This principle applies as well to
internal as to external sovereignty. But an important distinction is to be noticed...
between these two species of sovereignty. The internal sovereignty of a State does
not, in any degree, depend upon its recognition by other States. A new State,
springing into existence, does not require the recognition of other States to confirm
its internal sovereignty...The external sovereignty of any State, on the other hand,
may require recognition by other States in order to render it perfect and complete ...
[I]f it desires to enter into that great society of nations...such recognition becomes
essentially necessary for the complete participation of the new State in all the
advantages of this society. Every other State is at liberty to grant, or refuse, this recognition...²ÿ
As was to be expected, this view was combined with a denial of the universality of
international law³ÿ and of the law of nature as its foundation.³¹
It will be noted that, although Wheaton reproduces Vattel's 'internal/external'
terminology, he puts it to a different use. For Vattel the 'internal' law was the law of
nature, the necessary though imperfect element of the law of nations. Wheaton,
having dispensed with the law of nature, means by 'internal' those aspects of the
government of a State confined to its own territory and distinguished from 'foreign
affairs'.³² By Wheaton's time the positive law of nations was concerned essentially
with the latter; nor could there be anything
being in and for itself depends on its content—on its constitution and condition; and recognition, which
implies that the two [ie form and content] are identical, also depends on the perception and will of the
other state. Without relations with other states, the state can no more be an actual individual than an
individual can be an actual person without a relationship with other persons. [On the one hand], the
legitimacy of a state, and more precisely—in so far as it has external relations—of the power of its
sovereign, is a purely internal matter (one state should not interfere in the internal affairs of another ).
On the other hand, it is equally essential that this legitimacy should be supplemented by recognition on
the part of other states...When Napoleon said before the Peace of Campo Formio “the French Republic
is no more in need of recognition than the sun is ," his words conveyed nothing more than that strength
of existence which itself carries with it a guarantee of recognition, even if this is not expressly formulated.'
Hegel, Elements (1991), 366–67. ²ÿ Elements (3rd edn,
1846), Pt I, ch II, §6. For his earlier hesitations see the 1st edn (1836), Pt I, ch II, §§15–18. ³ÿ Ibid, Pt
I, ch I, §11: 'The
law of nations or international law, as understood among civilized, Christian nations, may be defined
as consisting of those rules of conduct which reason deduces, as consonant to justice, from the nature
of the society existing among independent nations; with such definitions and modifications as may be
established by general consent.' In the 3rd edition (1846), the definition was retained, as §14, but with
the qualification 'christian' omitted. This is consonant with treaty practice involving the Ottoman Empire
in the 1840s, which Wheaton discussed in the 3rd edition, Pt I, ch I, §13.
³¹ Ibid, Pt I, ch 1, §5 (quoting Hobbes on the law of nature and international law). There was no
changes between the 1836 and 1846 editions.
³² Vattel made the same distinction, although it is not developed and is inconsistent with other
elements of his work. For Vattel's influence see Ruddy, International Law in the Enlightenment, 119–44;
Tourmé-Jouannet, Emer de Vattel et l'émergence doctrinale du droit international classique, 319–40.
necessary obligations owed to States by virtue of their 'political existence'.

The law of nations was becoming an artificial system studied in basically
consensual areas of inter-State relations such as treaties, diplomatic relations
and commerce. Basic relations between States as such (in particular, the legality
of resort to war, and the very existence and survival of the State) were excluded
from its scope.³³
(2) Statehood in early international law: aspects of State practice

Despite its claims to universality, the early law of nations had its origins in the
European State-system, which existed long before its conventional date of origin
in the Peace of Westphalia (1648 ), ending the Thirty Years' War.³ÿ The effect
of the Peace of Westphalia was to consolidate the existing States and
principalities (including those whose existence or autonomy was recognized or
established) at the expense of the Empire, and ultimately at the expense of the
notion of the civitas gentium maxima—the universal community of mankind
transcending the authority of States.³ÿ
Within that system, and despite certain divergences, writers of both naturalist
and positivist schools had at first little difficulty with the creation of States. New
States could be formed by the union of two existing States. More common was
the linking of States in a personal union under one Crown (for example, Poland
and Lithuania in 1385; Aragon and Castile in 1479; England and Scotland in
1603); such unions often become permanent. Equally, it was agreed that princes
or rulers could create new States by division of existing ones. In Pufendorf's
words, '[A] king can convert one of his provinces into a kingdom, if he separates
it entirely from the rest of the nation, and governs it with his own administration,
and one that is independent from the rest.'³ÿ New States could also be formed
by revolution, as when Portugal (1640–8) and
³³ Thus international law abandoned the 'just war' doctrine and left the question whether to wage
war to the domestic jurisdiction of States. Hall, Treatise (8th edn), 82: 'International law has . . . no
alternative but to accept war, independently of the justice of its origin, as a relationship which the
parties to it may set up if they choose, and to busy itself only in regulating the effects of the
relationship'; Röling, in Miller and Feindrider, Nuclear Weapons and the Law, 181; Dinstein, War,
Aggression and Self-Defence (3rd edn), 71.
³ÿ On competing views as to the starting point of the European States system, see Koskenniemi
(1990) 1 EJIL 4.
³ÿ On the Peace of Westphalia see Nussbaum, Concise History of the Law of Nations, 115–18;
Rapisardi-Mirabelli (1929) 8 Bib Viss 5; Gross (1948) 42 AJIL 20; Braubach, Acta pacis Westphalicae;
Harding and Lim, Renegotiating Westphalia, 1; Steiger (1999) 59 ZaöRV609; Ziegler (1999) 37
Archiv der Völkerrechts 129. For the conventional view, see, eg, Schrijver (1999) 70 BY 65, 69;
Osiander (2001) 55 Int Org 251.
³ÿ Cf Pufendorf, De jure Naturae et Gentium, Bk VII, ch 3, §9, para 690.
the Netherlands (1559–1648)³ÿ broke away from Spain. What was unclear was
whether the revolutionary entity could be treated as an independent State before
its recognition by the parent State. Pufendorf thought not, on the grounds that '. . .
if a man who, at the time, recognizes the sovereignty of another as his superior, is
to be able to become a king, he must secure the consent of that superior who will
both free him and his dominions from the bonds by which they were tied to him.'³ÿ
Vattel was less categorical: a subject remained bound to the sovereign 'without
other conditions than his observation of the fundamental laws', and thus, in most
cases, secession was contrary to the basic compact that was the foundation of the
State. However, if a sovereign refuses to come to the aid of part of the nation, it
might provide for its own safety by other means.
It was for [this] reason that the Swiss as a body broke away from the Empire, which
had never protected them in any emergency. Its authority had already been rejected
for many years when the independence of Switzerland was recognized by the Emperor
and by all the German States in the Treaty of Westphalia.³ÿ
The Swiss cantons, referred to by Vattel, retained tenuous links with the Empire
until their complete independence was recognized at the Peace of Westphalia. Part
IV of the Treaty of Osnabrück stated:
And whereas His Imperial Majesty... did, by a Particular Decree... declare the said city
of Bazil, and the other Swiss Cantons to be in possession of a quasi-full Liberty and
Exemption from the Empire, and so no way subject to the Tribunals and Sentences of
the said Empire, it has been resolved that this same Decree shall be held as included
in this Treaty of
Peace...'ÿÿ In practice other States tended to conduct relations on an international

plane with the entity in revolt before its recognition by the parent State. The point was
clearly established in this sense following the breakaway of the South American
provinces from Spain in the 1820s.ÿ¹
³ÿ See Blok and Vetter (1986) 34 Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 708; Borschberg, Hugo
Grotius 'Commentaries in theses XI' (1994), 180–1.
³ÿ Pufendorf, De jure Naturae et Gentium (1688), Bk VII, ch 3, §9, para 690. ³ÿ Le Droit des Gens,
Bk I, ch 17, §202; cf Gentili, On the Law of War (1612), Bk I, ch XXIII, §§185–7. ÿÿ 1 CTS 119. Cf the unconditional reference
to the
Netherlands in Art 1: 'Premièrement declare ledit Seigneur Roy et reconnoit que lesdits Seigneurs États Generaux des Pays-
Bas Unis, et les Provinces d'iceux respectivement avec leurs Pays associeés, Villes et Terres y appartenants sont libres et
Souverains États . . .'.
ÿ¹ See Frowein (1971) 65 AJ 568; Smith, GB & LN, vol I, 115–70; Bethell (ed), The Independence of
Latin America. See also de Martens, Nouvelles Causes celebre du droit des gens (1843), vol 1, 113–
209, 370–498 (American War of Independence). Cf Wheaton, Principles, Pt I, ch II, §26.
The impression given by this brief review is that, despite the limited amount
of State practice, nothing in early international law precluded the solution of the
legal problems raised by the creation and existence of States. That impediment,
as we shall see, arose later with the application by nineteenth-century writers of
a thoroughgoing positivism to the concept of statehood and the theory of
recognition.
1.3 Recognition and statehood

(1) The early view of recognition
Although the early writers occasionally dealt with problems of recognition, it had
no separate place in the law of nations before the middle of the eighteenth
century. The reason for this is clear: sovereignty, in its origin merely the location
of supreme power within a particular territorial unit (suprema potestas),
necessarily comes from within and does not require the recognition of other
States or princes. As Pufendorf stated: '. . . just as a king owes his sovereignty
and majesty to no one outside his realm, so he needs not obtain the consent
and approval of other kings or states, before he may carry himself like a king
and be regarded as such...[I] t would entail an injury for the sovereignty of such
a king to be called in question by a foreigner.'ÿ² The doubtful point was whether
recognition by the parent State of a new State formed by revolution from it was
necessary, and that doubt related to the obligation of loyalty to a superior, which,
it was thought, might require release: the problem bore no relation to constitutive
theory in general. The position of recognition towards the end of the eighteenth
century was as stated by Alexandrowicz: 'In the absence of any precise and
formulated theory, recognition had not found a separate place in the works of
the classical writers whether of the naturalist or early positivist period ...'.ÿ³
When recognition did begin to attract more detailed consideration, about the
middle of the eighteenth century, it was in the context of recognition of monarchs,
especially elective monarchs: that is, in the context of recognition of governments.
Von Steckÿÿ and later Martensÿÿ discussed the problem and reached similar
conclusions. Recognition, at least by third States in the case of secession from a
metropolitan State, was either illegal intervention or it was
ÿ² De Iure Naturae et Gentium, Bk VII, ch 3, §9, para 689. ÿ³ (1958) 34 BY 176, 176.
ÿÿ Versuche über verschiedene Materienpolitikcher und rechtlicher Kenntnisse
(1783). ÿÿ A Compendium of the Law of Nations (1789), 18 ff.
unnecessary.ÿÿ As one writer put it, '. . . in order to consider the sovereignty of
a State as complete in the law of nations, there is no need for its recognition by
foreign powers; although the latter may appear useful, the de facto existence of
sovereignty is sufficient.'ÿÿ Thus, even after the concept of recognition had become
a separate part of the law, the position was still consistent with the views held by
the early writers.
The writers of the early period of eighteenth century positivism, whenever faced with the
eventuality of recognition as a medium of fitting the new political reality into the law, on
the whole rejected such a solution, choosing the solution more consistent with the natural
legal tradition. Even if the law of nations was conceived as based on the consent of
States, this anti-naturalist trend was not yet allowed to extend to the field of recognition.ÿÿ
(2) Positivism and recognition But

this was a temporary accommodation. According to positivist theory, the obligation
to obey international law is derived from the consent of individual States. If a new
State subject to international law came into existence, new legal obligations would
be created for existing States. The positivist premise seemed to require consent
either to the creation of the State or to its being subjected to international law so
far as other States were concerned. It would be interesting to trace the evolution of
international law doctrine from the essentially declaratory views of Martens and
von Steck to the essentially constitutive ones of Hall and Oppenheim.ÿÿThe
important point, however, is that the shift in doctrine did occur, although it was a
gradual one, in particular because, while States commonly endorsed the positivist
view of international law, their practice was not always consistent with this
profession. Thus unrecognized States and native peoples with some form of regular
government were given the benefits of, and treated as obliged by, the whole body
of international law.ÿÿ The problem was largely doctrinal, but doctrine was,
nonetheless, influential. For if one starts from the premise that 'Le droit des gens
est un droit contractuel entre des États',ÿ¹ the conclusion as to recognition and
statehood seems inevitable:
. . . le droit international, qui est contractuel et qui a par conséquent la liberté immanente
de s'étendre aux partenaires de son choix, comprend tels États dans sa communauté et
ÿÿ Alexandrowicz (1958) 34 BY 176, 180 ff and authorities there cited.

ÿÿ Saalfeld, Handbuch des positivism Voikerrechts, 26; cited by Alexandrowicz, (1958) 34 BY 176,
189. ÿÿ Ibid, 191. Cf also Alexandrowicz (1961) 37 BY 506. ÿÿ Wheaton's view that the 'external'
sovereignty of a State is, but its 'internal' sovereignty is not dependent upon recognition may be
taken as an intermediate point. ÿÿ Smith, GB & LN vol I, 14–18;
Davidson (1994) 5 Canterbury LR 391. See also Chapter 6. ÿ¹ Redslob (1934) 13 RDI 429,
430.
n'y acceuille pas tels autres...[L]a reconnaissance est un accord. Elle signifie l'exten-sion de la
communauté de droit international à un nouvel État.ÿ²
(3) Statehood in nineteenth-century international law It is useful
to attempt a summary of the position with regard to statehood and recognition in the
late nineteenth century. There was of course no complete unanimity among text-
writers: nevertheless what we find is an interrelated series of doctrines, based on the
premise of positivism, the effect of which was that the formation and even the existence
of States was a matter outside the accepted scope of international law. Oppenheim's
International Law provides the clearest as well as the most influential expression of
these interrelated doctrines.
The main positions relevant here were as follows: (1)

International law was regarded as the law existing between civilized nations.
In 1859 the British Law Officers spoke of international law 'as it has been previously
recognized and now subsists by the common consent of Christian nations'.ÿ³ Members
of the society whose law was international law were the European States between
whom it evolved from the fifteenth century onwards and those other States accepted
expressly or tacitly by the original members into the society of nationsÿÿ—for example
the United States of America and Turkey.ÿÿ As the basis of the Law of Nations is the
common
consent of the civilized States, statehood alone does not imply membership of the
Family of Nations. Those States which are
ÿ² Redslob (1934) 13 RDI, 431. The essential problem relates to the duties of the new State rather than
its rights. Existing States could consent to the rules of law in respect of yet-to-be-created States, but those
States could not for their part so consent (eg, Anzilotti, Corso di Diritto Internazionale(3rd edn), vol I, 163–
6 cited Jaffé, Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations, 90n) and mutuality was required, as in any contract.
Cf, however, Lauterpacht, Recognition, 2. See further Devine (1984) 10 S Af YBIL 18, Hillgruber (1998) 9
EJIL 491, 499–502. ÿ³ Cited by Smith, GB & LN, vol I, 12, 14. ÿÿ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 17, §12; (8th
edn), 18, §12: 'New States which came into existence and were through express or tacit recognition
admitted into the Family of Nations thus consented to the body of rules for international conduct [1st edn:
'in existence'; 8th edn: 'in force'] at the time of their admittance.' The 9th edition treats the matter as follows:
'Thus new states which came into existence and were admitted into the international community thereupon
became subject to the body of rules for international conduct in force at the time of their admission.' Ibid,
vols 1, 14, §5; see also ibid, vol 1, 29, §10.
ÿÿ On Turkey's 'membership' see General Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia,
Russia, Sardinia and Turkey for Re-establishment of Peace, Paris, 30 March 1856, 46 BFSP 12, esp para
VII, in which the allied monarchs 'déclarent la Sublime Porte admise à participer aux avantages du droit
public et du concert Européens.' See also Smith, GB & LN, vol I, 16–17; Hall, International Law (2nd edn),
40; Wood (1943) 37 AJ 262; Hillgruber, Die Aufnahme neuer Staaten in die Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft,
394. In European Commission of the Danube, PCIJ ser B no 14 (1927), 40,
members are either original members because the Law of Nations grew up gradually
between them through customs and treaties, or they are members as having been
recognized by the body of members already in existence when they were
born.ÿÿ (2) States as such were not necessarily members of the society of nations.
Recognition, express or implied, made them members and bound them to obey
international law. ÿÿ States not so accepted were not (at least in theory) bound by
international law, nor were the 'civilized nations' bound in their behavior towards them,
as was implied by their behavior with regard to Africa and China.ÿÿ (3) Only
States then, or rather only those entities recognized as States and accepted into
international society, were bound by international law and were international persons.
Individuals and groups were not subjects of international law and had no rights as
such under international law. 'Since the Law of Nations is based on the common
consent of individual States, and not of individual human beings, States solely and
exclusively are the subjects of International Law'.ÿÿ
(4) The binding force of international law is derived from this process of seeking to be
recognized and accepted.
Thus new States which came into existence and were admitted into the international community
thereupon became subject to the body of rules for international conduct in force at the time of
their admittance.ÿÿ
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognized,
but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a
State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.ÿ¹
Art VII of the Treaty of Paris was said to have effected 'the elevation of the position of Turkey in Europe'. Among
the enormous literature on the extension of international law beyond Europe see Andrews (1978) 94 LQR 408;
Grewe (1982) 42 ZaöRV 449; Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht; Sinha, Legal Polycentricity
and International Law; Onuma (2000) 2 J Hist IL 1. On inter-national law in relation to specific regions and States,
see, eg, Eick, Indianerverträge in Nouvelle-France: ein Beitrag zur Völkerrechtsgeschichte; Ziegler (1997) 35
Archiv des Völkerrechts 255; Ando (ed), Japan and International Law.
ÿÿ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 17, §12; (8th edn), vol 1, 125, §71. See also 9th edition, vol 1, 14, §5. ÿÿ
Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 17, §12, 108, §71; (9th edn), vols 1, 14, §5, 128, §39. ÿÿ Oppenheim
(1st edn), vol 1, 34, §28; (8th edn), vol 1, 50, §28. Lauterpacht omitted the sen-tence 'It is discretion, and not
International Law, according to which the members of the Family of Nations deal with such States as still remaining
outside that family' and characterized 'the question of membership of the “Family of Nations ” . . . a matter of purely
historical interest.' Cf ibid (9th edn), vol 1, 87, §22. ÿÿ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 18 (§12). By 'States' Oppenheim
apparently
meant 'recognized States'. ÿÿ Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 17, §12; (9th edn), 14, §5. ÿ¹ Oppenheim (1st edn),
vol 1, 110, §71. The second sentence only is in the 8th edn, vol 1, 125, §71. US Secretary of State Webster put it
as follows: 'Every nation, on being received at its own request, into the circle of civilized governments, must
understand that she not only attains rights of
This satisfied the positivist canon that could discover the obligation to obey
international law only with the consent of each State.
(5) According to how an entity became a State was a matter of no importance to
international law, which concentrated on recognition as the agency of admission into
'civilized society'—a kind of juristic baptism, entailing the rights and duties of
international law. Unrecognized entities had not agreed to be bound by international
law, and neither had the existing community of recognized States accepted them or
agreed to treat them as such. Nascent States (States 'in statu nascendi') were not
international persons. How they acquired territory, what rights and duties they had or
owed to others as a result of events before they were recognized, these were irrelevant
to international law: they were matters 'of fact and not of law'.
The formation of a new State is, as will be remembered from former statements, a
matter of fact, and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that
such new States become a member of the Family of Nations and subject to
International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State's territory is
recognized as the territory of a subject of International Law, and it matters not how
this territory was acquired before the recognition.ÿ²
Phillimore: 'The question as to the origin of States belongs rather to the
province of Political Philosophy as well as of International Jurisprudence.'ÿ³
Hence the acquisition of territory by a new State was not regarded as a mode
of acquisition of territory in international law, although revolt was a method of
losing territory. 'Revolt followed by secession has been accepted as a mode of
losing territory to which there is no corresponding mode of acquisition.'ÿÿ
sovereignty and the dignity of national character, but that she binds herself also to the strict and
faithful-ful observance of all those principles, laws and usages which have obtained currency among
civilized states...'. Letter to Mr Thompson, Minister to Mexico, 15 April 1842. Moore's Digest, vol I, s
1, 5–6. ÿ² Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 264, §209; (8th edn), vol 1, 544, §209. In the 9th edition,
vol 1, 677, §241, the position is reformulated thus: 'When a new state comes into existence, its title
to its territory is not explicable in terms of the traditional “modes” of acquisition of territory ...The new
state's territorial entitlement is more to do with recognition; for, as soon as recognition is given, the
new state's territory is recognized as the territory of a subject of international law; although, questions
of succession and of the legal history of the territory may also be involved where particular
boundaries, or the precise extent of the territory, are doubtful or disputed.' See also ibid (9th edn),
vol 1, 120, §34: 'A state proper is in existence when a people is settled in a territory under its own
sovereign government.' ÿ³ Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law (2nd edn), vol I, 79. ÿÿ
Oppenheim (1st edn), vol 1, 297–8, §246; (9th edn), vol 1, 717, §276. See also ibid (9th edn), vol
1, 717, §276, to similar effect but with the following qualification: 'It is perhaps now questionable
whether the term revolt is entirely a happy one in this legal context. It would seem to indicate a
particular kind of political situation rather than a legal mode of the loss of territorial sovereignty. If a
revolt as a matter of fact results in the emergency of a new state, then this matter is the situation
discussed [under the category 'acquisition'].'
1.4 Recognition of States in modern international law

It is against this background that the modern law of statehood and its relationship
with recognition must be examined. The effect of positivist doctrine was to place all
the emphasis, in matters of statehood, on the question of recognition.
Indeed the courts of many States still refuse to determine for themselves any
questions of statehood, even where the matter is between private parties,ÿÿ on the
ground that status is necessarily determined by executive recognition.ÿÿ They will
sometimes be able to avoid the harmful effects on private rights of the political act
of recognition by means of construction.ÿÿ The executive may leave the matter for
the courts to decide.ÿÿ But as a matter of the common law, at least, where the
international status of any entity is squarely in issue executive certification is
binding.ÿÿ
This has led courts to seek to distinguish between the 'external' and 'internal'
consequences of non-recognition. In Hesperides Hotels, Lord Denning asked
ÿÿ And even where the results were unfortunate: the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals held that,
absent recognition, notified to the court by the executive branch, Hong Kong could not be treated as a State for
jurisdictional purposes, and a corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong, thus 'stateless', was unable
to maintain an action in US federal court. Matimak Trading Co v Khalily, 118 F 3d 76 (2nd Cir, 1997, McLaughlin,
CJ). The Third Circuit took the view that Hong Kong corporations could be treated as UK subjects and the
problem thus avoided: Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc v Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd, 181 F 3d
410 (3rd Cir 1999, Becker, CJ). The Supreme Court resolved the matter in favor of federal jurisdiction: JP
Morgan Chase Bank v Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd, 536 US 88, 122 S Ct 2054 (Souter J 2002). ÿÿ
This was not always so: Yrisarri v Clement (1825) 2 C & P 223, 225. For an
illuminating dis-cussion of the case in which Lord Eldon laid down the orthodox common law rule see Bushe-
Foxe (1931) 12 BY 63; (1932) 13 BY 39. See also Jaffé, Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations, 79.
ÿÿ Luigi Monta of Genoa v Cechofracht Co Ltd [1956] 2 QB 522 (term 'government' in a charter party);
Kawasaki Kisn Kabashiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Co Ltd [1939] 2 KB 544 ('war'), 9 ILR 528. For
an extreme case of 'construction' see The Arantzazu Mendi [1939] AC 256, 9 ILR 60, criticized by Lauterpacht,
Recognition, 288–94.
ÿÿ Duff Development Co v Kelantan Government [1924] AC 797, 825 (Lord Sumner); and cf the certifi-cate
in Salimoff v Standard Oil Co, 262 NY 220 (1933) just before US recognition of the Soviet government. ÿÿ
Luther v Sagor[1921] 3 KB 532; but cf Carl Zeiss Stifftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967]
1 AC 853, 953–4 (Lord Wilberforce), 43 ILR 23. For more recent cases, see, eg, Caglar v HM Inspector of
Taxes, 1996 Simon's Tax Cases 150; 108 ILR 150. The American position was historically less rigid: Wulfsohn
v RSFSR, 234 NY 372 (1923); Sokoloff v National City Bank, 2 ILR 44, 239 NY 158 (1924); Bank of China v
Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co, 209 F2d 467 (1953). US courts often defer to executive determinations
(eg, Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc, 917 F 2d 278, 291–
3 (Ind, 1990) 108 ILR 488; Smith, (1992) 6 Temple ICLJ 169, 178–90), but not always: Efrat Ungar v Palestine
Liberation Organization, 402 F3d 274, 280 (1st Cir, 31 March 2005, Selya, CJ) (slip op), 14: '[T]he lower court's
immunity decision neither signaled an official position on behalf of the United States with respect to the political
recognition of Palestine nor amounted to the usurpation of a power committed to some other branch of
government.
After all, Congress enacted the [Anti-Terrorism Act], and the President signed it. The very purpose of the law is
to allow the courts to determine questions of sovereign immunity under a legal, as opposed to a political, regime.'
Whether the law of the 'Turkish Federated State of Cyprus' could be applied to
a tort claim even though the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had certified
that the United Kingdom did not recognize that entity as a State:
The executive is concerned with the external consequences of recognition, vis-à-vis

other states. The courts are concerned with the internal consequences of it, vis-à-vis
private individuals. So far as the courts are concerned, there are many who hold that
the courts are entitled to look at the state of affairs actually existing in a territory, to
see what is the law which is in fact effective and enforced in that territory, and to give
such effect to it—in its impact on individuals—as justice and common sense require:
provided always that there are no considerations of public policy against it.
The distinction has also been expressed as one between private international
law and the law or practice of foreign relations:
[P]rivate international law is designed to find the most appropriate law... and it is not
concerned with adjusting the mutual relationship of sovereigns. Therefore, foreign law
applied under private international law principles should not be limited to the law only
of a recognized State or Government; effectiveness of foreign law should not depend
on recognition.ÿÿ
Indeed legislation has sometimes had to be passed authorizing courts to treat

unrecognized entities as 'law areas' for various purposes, in order to separate
non-recognition from its consequences.ÿ¹
However desirable it may be that the courts of a State should speak on
matters of statehood with the same voice as the government of that State, in the
international sphere the intimate connection established by nineteenth-century
doctrine between recognition and statehood has done much harm. A tension is
thereby created between the conviction that recognition is at some level a legal
act in the international sphere,ÿ² and the assumption of politics
ÿÿ District Court of Kyoto, Judgment of 7 July 1956, quoted in Peterson, Recognition of

Governments, 149, 243 n 77.
ÿ¹ See, eg, the extended definition of 'foreign state' in the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (UK). See
also Foreign Corporations Act 1991 (UK); Foreign Corporations (Application of Laws) Act 1989 (Cth).
These Acts, although general in terms, were passed to deal with the situation of Taiwan, an issue
dealt with by the US through special legislation, the Taiwan Relations Act, 22 USC §3301. See New
York Chinese TV Programs, Inc v UE Enterprises, Inc, 954 F 2d 847 (2d Cir 1992), cert denied, 506
US 827 (1992); Millen Industries Inc v Coordination Council for N American Affairs, 855 F 2d 879
(1988), 98 ILR 61. Other jurisdictions have simply accepted Taiwan acts and laws without legislative
man-date: Romania v Cheng, 1997 Carswell NS 424 (Nova Scotia SC ); Chen Li Hung v Tong Lei Mao [2000]
1 HKC 461. On Taiwan see further Chapters 5 and 10.
ÿ² Eg, among earlier writers, Kelsen (1941) 35 AJ 605; Schwarzenberger, International Law, vol I,
127–36, 134; Lauterpacht, Recognition, 6 ff.
leaders that they are, or should be, free to recognize or not to recognize on the
grounds of their own choosing.ÿ³ If this is the case, the international status and
rights of whole peoples and territories will seem to depend on arbitrary decisions
and political contingencies .
(1) Recognition: the great debate

Before examining State practice on the matter, it is necessary to refer again to the
underlying conflict over the nature of recognition. A further effect of nineteenth-
century practice has been to focus attention more or less exclusively on the act of
recognition itself, and its legal effects, rather than on the problem of the elaboration
of rules determining the status, competence and so on of the various territorial
governmental units.ÿÿTo some extent this was inevitable, as long as the constitutive
position retained its influence, for a corollary of that position was that there could
be no such rules. Examination of the constitutional theory is, therefore, first of all
necessary.
(i) The constitutive theoryÿÿ

The tenets of the strict constitutive position, as adopted by Oppenheim and others,
have been referred to already. Many of the adherents of that position are also
positivist in outlook.ÿÿ On the other hand, it is possible to reconcile the declaratory
theory with some versions of positivism, and many writers have adhered to both
positivism and the declaratory theory.ÿÿ Moreover, Lauterpacht , who was not a
positivist, was one of the more subtle proponents
ÿ³ Cf the statement of Sir Percy Spender, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, cited in O'Connell (ed), International
Law in Australia, 32; and US Ambassador Warren Austin, SCOR 3rd yr 294th mtg, 16. See also MJ Peterson (1982) 34
World Politics 324. ÿÿ Cf Bot, Non-Recognition and Treaty Relations, 1. ÿÿ
Constitutive writers include the following: Le Normand, La
Reconnaissance Internationale et ses Diverses Applications; Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre (5th edn), 273;
Anzilotti, Corso di Diritto Internazionale (3rd edn); Kelsen (1941) 35 AJ 605; Lauterpacht, Recognition; Schwarzenberger,
International Law (3rd edn), vol I, 134; Patel, Recognition in the Law of Nations, 119–22; Jennings (1967) 121 H.R.
327, 350; Verzijl, International Law, vol II, 587–90 (with reservations); Devine [1973] Acta Juridica 1, 90–145. Hall's
position is of interest: 'although the right to be treated as a state is independent of recognition, recognition is the
necessary evidence that the right has been acquired': International Law (8th edn, 1924, Higgins ed), 103. Cf also the
German argument in the Customs Union Case, PCIJ ser C no 53, 52–3. Schachter argues that Secretariat practice (in
one case, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1947) is implicitly constitutive: 25 BY (1948)
91, 109–15. This is doubtful. It is also argued that the Permanent Court adopted a constitutive position in Certain
German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, PCIJ Ser A No 7 (1926), 27–9, but this was in the context of the belligerency
of the Polish National Committee, not the existence of Poland as a State. ÿÿ Lauterpacht, Recognition, 38–9; but cf
Jaffé, 80–1. ÿÿ Cf Chen, Recognition, 18 n 41.
of a form of the constitutive position.ÿÿ He expressed the most persuasive

argument for that position in the following way:
[T]he full international personality of rising communities... cannot be automatic...

[A]s its assertion requires the prior determination of difficult circumstances of fact
and law, there must be someone to perform that task. In the absence of a preferable
solution, such as the setting up of an impartial international organ to perform that
function, the latter must be fulfilled by States already existing. The valid objection is
not against the fact of their discharging it, but against their carrying it out as a matter
of arbitrary policy as distinguished from legal duty.ÿÿ
In other words, in every legal system some organ must be competent to

determine with certainty the subjects of the system. In the present international
system that can only be done by the States, acting individually or collectively.
Since they act in the matter as organs of the system, their determinations must
have definitive legal effect.
It should be emphasized that this argument is not generally applicable in
international law. Determining the legality of State conduct or the validity of the
termination of a treaty often involves 'difficult circumstances of fact and law', but
it has never been suggested that the views of particular States are 'constitutional'.
If individual States were free to determine the legal status or consequences of
particular situations and to do so definitively, international law would be reduced
to a form of imperfect communications, a system for registering the assent or
dissent of individual States without any prospect of resolution. Yet it is, and
should be, more than this—a system with the potential for resolving problems,
not merely expressing them.
It may be argued that determining the subjects of international law is so
important that, exceptionally, there must exist some method of conclusive
determination for this purpose. Yet there is nothing conclusive or certain (as far
as other States were concerned) about a conflict between different States as to
the status of a particular entity, and there is no reason why they should be bound
either by the views of the first State to recognize or of the last to refuse to do so.
Does the fact that Belize was not recognized by Guatemala,ÿÿ Macedonia by
ÿÿ Lauterpacht, Recognition, 2 distinguishes two assertions of orthodox constitutive theory: viz

'that, prior to recognition, the community in question possesses neither the rights nor the obligations
which international law associates with full statehood; [and]...that recognition is a matter of absolute
political discretion as distinguished from a legal duty owed to the community concerned.' He adopts
the first but not the second of these. In fact neither is distinctly positivist: what is so is their
combination. cf Kunz (1950) 44 AJ 713; Higgins,
Development, 136. ÿÿ Recognition, 55 (emphasis in original). Cf Kelsen,
(1941) 35 AJ 605, 606–7. ÿÿ See (1992) 63 BY 633–4; 243 HC Debs, vol 243, WA, col 5, 9 May 1994.
Greeceÿ¹ or Liechtenstein by Czechoslovakia and its successorsÿ² means that these

entities did not exist, were not States, had no rights at the time?
Moreover, questions of status do not seem qualitatively different, either in theory
or practice. International law has relatively few subjects, and the status of most of
them is not open to doubt. By contrast problems relating, for example, to the legality
of the use of force occur frequently and are often difficult and controversial. It is not
suggested that individual State pronouncements on that subject are 'constitutive' of
legality, for the recognizing State or more generally.
Two further arguments add decisive support to the rejection of the constitutional
position. First, if State recognition is definitive then it is difficult to conceive of an illegal
recognition and impossible to conceive of one which is invalid or void. Yet the nullity
of certain acts of recognition has been accepted in practice, and rightly so;ÿ³ otherwise
recognition would constitute an alternative form of intervention, potentially always
available and apparently unchallengeable.
Lauterpacht himself allowed the possibility of an invalid act of recognition,ÿÿ but if
that is the case then the test for statehood must be extrinsic to the act of recognition.
And that is a denial of the constitutive position.
A second difficulty with the constitutive position is its relativism. As Kelsen points
out, it follows from constitutivist theory that '. . . the legal existence of a state... has a
relative character. A state exists legally only in its relations to other states. There is
no such thing as absolute existence.'ÿÿ No doubt international relations are full of
contingency, but to those who do not share Kelsen's premises this seems a violation
of common sense.ÿÿ Lauterpacht, who accepts the relativity of recognition as inherent
in the constitutive position, neverthe-less refers to it as a 'glaring anomaly',ÿÿ a
'grotesque spectacle' casting 'grave
ÿ¹ Even after the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (known as FYROM) was admitted to the UN (GA res
225, 8 April 1993) it remained for a time unrecognized by Greece. See Riedel (1996)
45 Sudöst-Europa 63; Craven (1995) 16 AYIL 199; Pazartzis (1995) 41 AFDI 281.
ÿ² For the Czech position, see Statement by the Czech Republic in reply to the Statement by the Principality of
Liechtenstein, Plenary meeting of the 10th OSCE Economic Forum, 29 May 2002; for the Liechtenstein position,
see Review of the Implementation of OSCE Commitments in the Economic and Environmental Dimension, Statement
to Agenda Point OSCE document EF.DEL/12/04, 4 June 2004.
ÿ³ See Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the US, §202, Comment f, 'Unlawful recognition-
tion or acceptance', and further Chapter 3.
ÿÿ
Recognition, 234 n3 (Italian and German recognition of the Franco regime 'illegal ab initio'); cf ibid, 95 n2. ÿÿ
Kelsen (1941)
35 AJ 605, 609. On Kelsen's position see Pauly, in Diner and Stolleis (eds), Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, 45,
46–7.
ÿÿ Cf Verhoeven, Reconnaissance, 714–15. Kelsen himself was previously a declaratist: (1929) 4 RDI 613, 617–
18: 'en présence des règles positives incontestables du droit international, [on] ne peut l'État nouveau ait des droits
et des obligations internationales avant même d'être reconnu par nier que les anciens États.' ÿÿ
Recognition, 67.
reflection upon international law'.ÿÿ Moreover, in his view '[i]t cannot be explained
away . . . by questionable analogies to private law or to philosophical relativism.'ÿÿ
But if a central feature of the constitutive position is open to such criticism the
position itself must be flawed.ÿÿ Aside from
other objections,ÿ¹ Lauterpacht's own position is dependent on
a straightforward statement about State practice:
. . . much of the available evidence points to what has here been described as the
legal view of recognition. Only that view of recognition, coupled with a clear realization
of its constitutive effect, allows us to introduce a stabilizing principle into what would
otherwise be a pure exhibition of power and a negation of order...ÿ²
But State practice demonstrates neither acceptance of a duty to recognize,ÿ³

nor a consistent constitutive view of recognition. Moreover, Lauterpacht's
argument, which in the passage cited was plainly de lege ferenda,ÿÿ assumes
the insufficiency of the declaratory view of recognition.
(ii) The declaratory theory

According to the declaratory theory, recognition of a new State is a political act,
which is, in principle, independent of the existence of the new State as a subject
of international law.ÿÿ In Charpentier's terminology, statehood is opposable to
non-recognizing States.ÿÿ This position has the merit of avoiding the logical
ÿÿ Recognition, 78.
ÿÿ Ibid. Lauterpacht proposed the collectivization of recognition as a solution. Developments in that direction
are addressed in Chapters 4 and 12, below. ÿÿ A hybrid position
would be to require recognition by one or several States as a prerequisite: eg, Green, International Law, 34:
'Unrecognized by at least one State, the entity will have no claim to be considered as a subject of international
law.' But why should any one State be allowed to change the legal position of others by an isolated and perhaps
aberrant act of recognition? And what should the first recognizing State do, if it is seeking to act in accordance
with international law? On Green's view, the first State to recognize acts unlawfully—in which case the origins of
every State must be illegitimate. ÿ¹ Eg, the difficulty of a duty to recognize an entity that has, prior to recognition,
ex hypothesis
no rights: see Recognition, 74–5, 191–2. In Lauterpacht's view the duty is owed to the society of States at
large: that society is 'entitled to claim recognition', but this is an unenforceable or imperfect right. This is a mere
construct, bearing no relationship to State practice or general legal opinion. Cf Chen, Recognition, 52–4. ÿ²
Recognition, 77–8. But cf ibid, 78: 'We are not in a position to say...that there is a clear and uni-form practice of
States in support of
the legal view of recognition...'. ÿ³ The United Kingdom alone seems to have accepted a duty to recognize:
(1951) 4 ILQ 387–8, and even its statement is not an assertion of the
constitutive theory. Cf Verhoeven, Reconnaissance, 576–86; Rich (1993) 4 EJIL 36. ÿÿ Cf Recognition, 78. ÿÿ
See Chen, Recognition, for a full discussion of this position. Green's annotations to the published edition are
consistently constitutivist: in this respect Green follows Schwarzenberger rather than Chen. ÿÿ Charpentier,
Reconnaissance, 15–68, 160–7.
and practical difficulties involved in constitutive theory, while still accepting a role for
recognition as a matter of practice. It has the further, essential, merit of consistency
with that practice, and it is supported by a substantial body of opinion. The following
passage from Taft CJ's in the Tinoco Arbitration is frequently cited as the classic
statement of the declaratory position:
The non-recognition by other nations of a government claiming to be a national personality, is

usually appropriate evidence that it has not attained the independence and control entitling it by
international law to be classed as such. But when recognition vel non of a government is by
such nations determined by inquiry, not into its de facto sovereignty and complete governmental
control, but into its illegitimacy or irregularity of origin, their non-recognition loses something of
evidential weight on the issue with which those applying the rules of international law are alone
concerned . . . Such non-recognition for any reason... cannot outweigh the evidence disclosed . . .
as to the de facto character of Tinoco's government, according to the standards set by
international law.ÿÿ
But this was a case of recognition of governments, and it is arguable that while
recognition of governments may be declaratory in effect, recognition of new States
goes further. Where an authority in fact exercises governmental functions within an
area already accepted as a State, there seems to be nothing for recognition to
constitute, at least at the level of international personality. But the establishment of a
new State involves the demarcation of a certain area as a 'State-area' for the purposes
of international relations, with consequent legal effects. In such a case it might be
argued that recognition, at least in the non-formal sense of 'treating like a State', is
central rather than peripheral to international capacity.ÿÿ
ÿÿ (1924) 18 AJ 147, 154; cf also Hopkins Claim (1927) 21 AJ 160, 166. The matter was put even
more strongly by Commissioner Wadsworth in Cuculla v Mexico, Mex-US Cl Com (1868), in respect
of the premature and unauthorized recognition by the US Minister of the Zuloaga Government as the
de facto Government of Mexico: 'Where then, is the evidence of the de facto government? The
possession of the capital will not be sufficient, nor recognized by the American minister with or without
the appraisal of his government. Recognition is based upon the pre-existing facts; does not create the fact.
If this does not exist, the recognition is falsified . . . If, therefore, the Zuloaga movement in Mexico
was the government de facto, it was because the facts existing at the time made it so. If it was a
government, the government in Mexico, it was because it claimed and possessed the sovereignty
over that independent nation we call 'the Republic of the United Mexican State.' Moore, IA III, 2873,
2876–7. See also Wulfsohn v RSFSR, 138 NE 24, 25 (1923); app diss 266 US 580 (1924): 'The
results we reach depend upon more basic considerations than recognition or non-recognition by the
United States. Whether or not a government exists clothed with the power to enforce its authority
within its own territory, obeyed by the people over whom it rules, capable of performing the duties
and fulfilling the obligations of an independent power, able to enforce its claims by military force, is a
fact not a theory. For its recognition does not create the state
although it may be desirable.' ÿÿ See Le Normand, 268, cited by Chen, Recognition, 14 n 1.
But neither legal opinion nor State practice draws from this the conclusion that the several acts of
recognition by other States constitute the entity being recognized or are conclusive as to its status. As a
German–Polish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal stated in reference to the existence of the new State of Poland:
'. . . the recognition of a State is not constitutive but merely declaratory. The State exists by itself and the
recognition is nothing else than a declaration of this existence, recognized by the States from which it
emanates.'ÿÿ Less well known in this context is the Report of the Commission of Jurists on the Åland
Islands.
The passage of the Report dealing with the independence of Finland enumerated the
various recognitions given to Finland, but went on to say that:
these facts by themselves do not suffice to prove that Finland, from this time onwards, became
a sovereign State . . . [T]he same legal value cannot be attached to the recognition of new States
in war-time, especially to that accorded by belligerent powers, as in normal times . . .
In addition to these facts which bear upon the external relations of Finland, the
very abnormal character of her internal situation must be brought out.
This situation was such that, for a considerable time, the conditions required for the
formation of a sovereign State did not exist.¹ÿÿ
Evidently the Commission, while accepting the legal value of recognition as evidence,
were not prepared to accept it as conclusive, but instead referred to the 'conditions
required for the formation of a sovereign State'.¹ÿ¹
On this matter the Arbitration Commission established to advise the European
Peace Conference on Yugoslavia was categorical. In its first opinion, on 29 November
1991, the Commission stated that 'the effects of recognition by other States are purely
declaratory.'¹ÿ² This was reiterated in further opinions.¹ÿ³ It has, however, been
suggested that the actual practice of States respecting the dissolution of Yugoslavia
may have been constitutive in effect;
ÿÿ Deutsch Continental Gas Gesellschaft v Polish State (1929) 5 ILR 11,

13. ¹ÿÿ LNOJ, Sp Supp 4 (1920),
8. ¹ÿ¹ The Report of the Commission of Rapporteurs is less explicit. Certain passages are at least
capable of a constitutivist interpretation: eg, 'The recognition of the Finnish State by the Powers
gave her admission into the community of nations, as fulfilling the conditions necessary for this
official confirmation of an independent existence, one of the most important of which is the
possession of frontiers which are
quite determined.' LN Council Doc B7: 21/68/106 (1921), 23. But the crucial element in the
Rapporteurs' argument was the continuity between the independent State of Finland after 1917, and
the autonomous State of Finland before 1917. This continuity was regarded as a continuity of legal
personality, despite the absence of recognition of pre-1917 Finland: cf the reference to 'an
autonomous Finland which . . . on the 6th December 1917, proclaimed her full and entire
independence of Russia, detached herself from the latter by an act of her own free will, and became
thereafter herself a
sovereign State instead of a dependent State' (ibid, 22). ¹ÿ² Opinion 1,
Badinter Commission, 29 November 1991, 92 ILR 165. ¹ÿ³ Opinions 8 and 10: 92 ILR 201 (4 July 1992); ibid, 206–8
indeed the debate continues to rage between those who attribute the troubles of
Yugoslavia to premature recognition and those who blame European governments for
not intervening earlier and more decisively.¹ÿÿ It is difficult to reach a conclusion on this
without examining in detail the bases for some of the particular claim to statehood, a
matter addressed in Chapters 12 and 17. But overall the international approach to the
dissolution of Yugoslavia, unhappy as it has been, does not support the constitutive
theory,¹ÿÿ still lacks demand that we adopt it as a general matter. The International
Court in the Bosnian Genocide case, although not addressing the matter of recognition
directly,¹ÿÿ may be seen, by implication, to have favored the view that statehood and
its attendant rights exist independently of the will of other States. The Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (FRY) had argued that the Court was not competent to adjudicate
questions under the Genocide Convention, because the FRY and Bosnia-Herzegovina
had not recognized each other at the time proceedings were instituted. The Court
dismissed this argument on the basis that (as mutual recognition had been subsequently
given in the Dayton Accord)¹ÿÿ any defect was merely procedural and could be repaired
simply by refiling the claim, which would relate back to alleged acts of genocide
occurring previously to 1995.¹ÿÿ The result is consonant with the declaratory view: the
rights of Bosnia-Herzegovina (under the Genocide Convention or otherwise) were
opposable to the FRY from the time the former became a State, whether or not the
FRY had yet recognized it as such.
Among writers the declaratory doctrine, with differences in emphasis, predominates.

Brownlie states the position succinctly: 'Recognition, as a public act of state, is an
optional and political act and there is no legal duty in this regard. However, in a deeper
sense, if an entity bears the marks of state-hood, other states put themselves at risk
legally, if they ignore the basic obligations of state relations.'¹ÿÿ
¹ÿÿ On recognition of constituent entities emerging from the former SFRY see Hillgruber (1998)
9 EJIL 491; Warbrick and Lowe (1992) 41 ICLQ 473, Craven (1995) 66 BY 333, Crawford, Selected Essays,
213–21. ¹ÿÿ Thus
Macedonia was not recognized for some years (due to political problems with Greece), yet it was treated by
all as a State. Serbia and Montenegro was not recognized as the continuation of the old SFRY, and most States
had limited diplomatic relations with it as a result. But its statehood was never in doubt.
¹ÿÿ 'For the purposes of determining its jurisdiction in this case, the Court has no need to settle the question
of what the effects of a situation of non-recognition may be on the contractual ties between parties to a multilateral
treaty.' ICJ Rep 1996 p 595, 613. ¹ÿÿ General Framework
Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 14 December 1995, 35 ¹ÿÿ ICJ Rep 1996 p 595, 612–13.
ILM 75.
¹ÿÿ Principles (2nd edn), 94; (6th edn), 89–90 (emphasis in original); see also cf (2nd edn), 90–3; (6th edn),
86–8. Among older authorities, those supporting the declaratory position include: Erich
Moroever States do not in practice regard unrecognized States as exempt

from international law;¹¹ÿ indeed failure to comply with international law is
sometimes cited as a justification for non-recognition. And they do in fact carry
on relations, often substantial, with such States, extending even to joint
membership of inter-State organizations such as the United Nations.¹¹¹
Recognition is usually intended as an act, if not of political approval, at least of
political accommodation.¹¹²
(2) Conclusions
It is sometimes suggested that the 'great debate' over the character of recognition
has done nothing but confuse the issues, that it is mistaken to categorize
recognition as either declaratory or constitutive in accordance with some general
theory. According to Brownlie:
in the case of 'recognition', the theory has not only failed to enhance the subject but
has created a tertium quid which stands, like a bank of fog on a still day, between the
observer and the contours of the ground which calls for investigation. With rare
exceptions the theories on recognition have not only failed to improve the quality of
thought but have deflected lawyers from the application of ordinary methods of legal analysis.¹¹³
(1926) 13 H.R. 427, 457–68; Jaffé, Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations, 97–8; Borchard (1942) 36 AJ 108; Brown
(1942) 36 AJ 106; Kunz (1950) 44 AJ 713; Chen, Recognition; Marek, Identity and Continuity, 130–61; Charpentier,
Reconnaissance, 196–200; Lachs (1959) 35 BY 252; Waldock (1962) 106 HR 147–51; Brierly, Law of Nations (6th
edn), 139; Higgins, Development, 135–6; Starke, Studies in International Law, 91–100; O'Connell, International
Law (2nd edn), vol I, 128–34; Fawcett, The Law of Nations (2nd edn), 49, 55; Akehurst, Modern Introduction (3rd
edn), 60–3. See also the Resolutions of the Institut du Droit International(1936): 'La reconnaissance a un effet
déclaratif.
L'existence de l'État nouveau avec tous les effets juridiques qui s'attachent à cette existence n'est pas affectée
par le refus de reconnaissance d'un ou plusieurs États': Wehberg (ed), Institut de Droit International, Table Général
des Résolutions 1873–1956, ii; and cf Brown [1934] Annaire 302–57.
Among more recent writers see Davidson (1980) 32 NILQ 22; Menon, (1989) 67 RDISDP 161, 176; Weston, Falk
and D'Amato, International Law and World Order(2nd edn), 847; Verhoeven (1993) 39 AFDI 7; Warbrick, in Evans
(ed), Aspects of Statehood and Institutionalism in Contemporary Europe, 9; Emanuelli, Droit international public,
189 (para 385). See also Restatement 3rd, §202, Reporters' Note 7 (1987): 'This section tends towards the
declaratory view . . .'; and, ibid, §202, comment b: 'An entity that satisfies the requirements of §201 is a state
whether or not its statehood is formally recognized by other states.'
¹¹ÿ Cf the Protocol of the London Conference, 19 February 1831: 18 BFSP 779, 781 (concerning Belgium);
Marek, Identity and Continuity, 140. Non-recognition of North Korea and of Israel was not regarded as precluding
the application of international law rules to the Korean and Middle East wars: Brownlie, Use of Force, 380. See
also Briggs (1949) 43 AJ 113, 117–20; Charpentier, Reconnaissance, 45–8, 56–8; Whiteman, 2 Digest, 604–5.
¹¹¹ See Bot, Non-Recognition and Treaty Relations; Whiteman, 2 Digest, 524–604, and for the older practice
see Moore, 1 Digest, 206–35; Hackworth, 1 Digest, 327–63. ¹¹² Cf Lachs
(1959) 35 BY 252, 259; Higgins, Development, 164–5; Verhoeven, Reconnaissance, 721. ¹¹³ Brownlie (1982)
53 BY 197, 197.
Some continental writers, following de Visscher, have tended to regard recognition

as combining both declaratory and constitutive elements.¹¹ÿ One can sympathize
with these views, but at a fundamental level a choice has to be made. The question
is whether the denial of recognition to an entity otherwise qualifying as a State
entitles the non-recognizing State to act as if it were not a State—to ignore its
nationality, to intervene in its affairs, generally to deny the exercise of State rights
under international law. The answer must be no, and the categorical constitutive
position, which implies a different answer, is unacceptable.
But this does not mean that recognition does not have important legal and
political effects.¹¹ÿ Recognition is an institution of State practice that can resolve
uncertainties as to status and allow for new situations to be regularized.
That an entity is recognized as a State is evidence of its status; where recognition
is general, it may be practically conclusive. States, in the forum of the United
Nations or elsewhere, may make declarations as to status or 'recognize' entities
the status of which is doubtful:¹¹ÿ depending on the degree of unanimity and other
factors this may be evidence of a compelling kind.¹¹ÿ Even individual acts of
recognition may contribute towards the consolidation of status: in Charpentier's
terms, recognition may render the new situation opposable to the recognizing
State.¹¹ÿ
In some situations, the term 'recognition' may also be used to describe acts that
are proper speaking constitutive of a particular State; for example, a multilateral
treaty establishing a new State will at the same time extend the
¹¹ÿ De Visscher, Problems d'interpretation judiciaire en droit international public, 191; de Visscher, Théories et Réalités (4th rev
edn), 258; Salmon, La Reconnaissance d'État, 19 ff. Cf Charpentier, Reconnaissance. Verhoeven, Reconnaissance, 548 refers in the
same vein to a 'dialectical relationship' between recognition and the criteria for statehood, although his basic position remains
declaratist: ibid, 545, 714–15, 720, esp 547–8: 'Force est en effet de convenir que pareille aptitude n'est originellement q'une virtualité
qui doit être impérativement présumée dés l'instant où sont réunis les critères traditionnels de l'État, sans reserve d'une verification de
la “viabilité” de l'Etat, sous reserve d'une verification de la proposition illustre néanmoins indirectement cette caractéristique
fondamentale de l'effectivité étatique, d'être principalement une effectivité par rapport à autrui, qui privilégie autant qu'elle problématise
l'autorité “externe” par rapport à l' autorité interne. Cette effec-tivité par rapport á autrui introduit une relation dialectique entre
l'effectivité purement matérielle et la reconnaissance qu'elle conditionne, qui complique singulièrement la verification de celle-lá. Il
n'est en effet guère douteux que dans la réalité des rapports internationaux la reconnaissance comme fait a fréquemment une portée
constitutive et devient l'élément d'une effectivité qui théoriquement la conditionne.' ¹¹ÿ Cf Restatement 3rd, §202, comment c. ¹¹ÿ Eg,
GA res 195 (III) declaring the Republic of Korea and its government to be representative
of the State of Korea.

¹¹ÿ Admission to the United Nations is a strong form of 'collective recognition': see Chapter 4. ¹¹ÿ
Charpentier, Reconnaissance, 217–25.
signatories' recognition of that State.¹¹ÿ But the constitutive acts here are those
involving the establishment of the State, the stipulation of its constitution, the
definition of its borders, etc. Collective recognition is ancillary and is not a
substitute for action by the competent authorities.¹²ÿ
The conclusion must be that the status of an entity as a State is, in principle,
independent of recognition, although the qualifications already made suggest
that the differences between declaratory and constitutive schools are less in
practice than has been depicted. But this conclusion assumes that there exist in
international law and practice workable criteria for statehood. If there are no
such criteria, or if they are so imprecise as to be practically useless, then the
constitutive position will have been returned, as it was, by the back door.¹²¹ The
question whether such criteria exist will be discussed in the next chapter .
1.5 Certain basic concepts

Certain basic concepts—personality, sovereignty, the state/government
distinction, continuity and succession—recur throughout this work and require
some brief initial explanation.
(1) International personality¹²² The

term 'international personality' has been defined as 'the capacity to be bearer of
rights and duties under international law'.¹²³ Such definitions only tend to be
obscure: any person or aggregate of persons has the capacity to be given rights
and duties by States,¹²ÿ and in an era of human rights, investment protection
and international criminal law, everyone is at some level 'the bearer of rights and
duties' under international law.¹²ÿ Yet there is clearly a distinction
¹¹ÿ Eg, the recognition of Cyprus by the Treaty of Guarantee, Art II, 16 August 1960, 382 UNTS 3. ¹²ÿ For
collective action in the creation of States see further Chapter 12. ¹²¹ Cf Anzilotti,
Corso di Diritto Internationale (3rd edn) , vol I, 163–6. ¹²² See, eg, Kelsen,
Principles of International Law (2nd edn), 573–4; Barberis, Festschrift für Hermann Mosler, 25; Cassese,
International Law in a Divided World, 74–104; Jennings and Watts, Oppenheim (9th edn), 119–20 (§33), 330–1
(§103); Hickey (1997) 2 Hofstra LPS 1; Charlesworth and Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law, 124–5;
Shinoda, Re-examining Sovereignty, 17–18; Raic, Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (2002), 10–18;
Brownlie, Principles (6th edn), 648–50 (respecting personality of international organizations); Shaw, International
Law (5th edn), ¹²³ Schwarzenberger, Manual, 53. 175–201. ¹²ÿ Cf Danzig Railway Officials, PCIJ ser b No 15
Selected (1928) 17–18. ¹²ÿ See Crawford,
Essays, 17, 26–9; Brownlie, Principles (2nd edn), 73, (6th edn), 69: 'The
state is a type of legal person recognized by international law. Yet, since there are other types of legal persons
so recognized...the possession of legal personality is not in itself a sufficient mark of statehood.'
between being a beneficiary of rights or a bearer of duties, on the one hand, and
being an active participant on the international level, on the other. Individuals and
companies can bring claims in international forums established by treaty (and not
only as delegates of the States parties to these treaties¹²ÿa ). But it remains true
that these forums are created and ultimately controlled by States or by
intergovernmental organizations, and it is these entities that remain the gatekeepers
and legislators of the international system.¹²ÿ As an aspect
of the developments in doctrine and practice in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, international legal personality came to be regarded as
synonymous with statehood.¹²ÿ For example, it was never definitively settled
whether the League of Nations had international personal-ity.¹²ÿ The question
arose with respect to the United Nations soon after its foundation: could the United
Nations bring a claim for injury (a) to itself and (b) to its agents caused by the
conduct of a non-member State? In the Reparations Opinion the International
Court gave an affirmative answer in both respects. It reformulated that question in
the following terms:
. . . Whether the Charter has given the Organization such a position that it possesses,
in regard to its Members, rights which it is entitled to ask them to respect. In other
words, does the Organization possess international personality? This is no doubt a
doctrinal expression, which has sometimes given rise to controversy. But it will be
used here to mean that if the Organization is recognized as having that personality, it
is an entity capable of availing itself of incumbent obligations upon its Members.¹²ÿ
As to whether the United Nations might claim reparations for injury to its agents
committed by nationals of a non-Member state, the Court gave an affirmative
answer, stating that '...fifty States, representing the vast majority of the members of
the international community, limit the power, in conformity
¹²ÿa See Occidental Exploration & Production Co v Republic of Ecuador, 'the investor is given direct
standing to pursue the state.' [2005] EWCA Civ 1116, Times, 23 Sept 2005 (Mance LJ), para 16.
¹²ÿ See Oppenheim (9th edn), 119–20, §33; Malanczuk, in Weiss et al (eds), International Economic
Law With a Human Face, 64; Brownlie, in Evans (ed), Aspects of Statehood and Institutionalism in
Contemporary Europe, 5; Virally (1985) 183 HR 9, 71–2. ¹²ÿ Crawford,
Selected Essays (2002) 17, 19; Nijman, in State, Sovereignty, and International Governance, 109.
¹²ÿ Williams, Some Aspects of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 38, 43; Zimmern, The League
of Nations and the Rule of Law 1918–1935, 277–85; Brierly (1946) 23 BY 83, 85.
¹²ÿ Reparations Case, ICJ Rep 1949, p 174, 178 (emphasis added). On the legal personality of inter-
national organizations generally, see Menon (1992) 70 RDI 61; Bederman (1996) 36 Va. JIL 275; Seidl-
Hohenveldern and Loibl, Das Recht der Internationalen Organisationen, (6th edn), 43; Lim, in Harding
(ed), Renegotiating Westphalia, 53, Amerasinghe, Principles of the International Law of International
Organizations (2nd edn), ch 3. Regarding the legal personality of particular organizations, Bernhardt
(1982) 18 Europarecht 199; Khodakov (1993) 7 Emory ILR 13; Head (1996) 90 AJ 214, 221; Packer
and Rukare (2002) 96 AJ 365.
with international law, to bring into being an entity possessing objective

international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone,
together with the capacity to bring international claims'.¹³ÿ A distinction is thus
drawn between 'objective international personality' and personality recognized
by particular States only. It would appear that the former exists wherever the
rights and obligations of an entity are conferred by general international law, and
the latter where an entity is established by particular States for special
purposes.¹³¹ States clearly are included in the former category-gory: the former
Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta is an example of the
latter.¹³²The Court held that, by virtue of the importance of its functions and the
extent of its membership, the United Nations was also in the former category, an
'objective' legal person .¹³³
There is thus a distinction between 'general' (or 'objective') and 'special' (or
'particular') legal personality. General legal personality arises against the world
(erga omnes): particular legal personality binds only consenting States. But no
further implications may be drawn from the existence of legal personality: the
extent of the powers, rights and responsibilities of any entity is to be determined
only by examination of its actual position.¹³ÿ And, as with other
¹³ÿ ICJ Rep 1949 p 174, 185.

¹³¹ There does not appear to be any general practice of recognition by States of the legal
personality of international organizations. The USSR sought for years (and unavailingly) to deny the
existence of the European Communities; that episode does not seem to have generated imitators.
Distinguish, however, headquarters agreements between international organizations and host
countries, eg, Headquarters Agreement of 15 April 1991 between UK and European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, UKTS No 45 (1991), (1991) 62 BY 576 and the position respecting
the European Union. HC Debs, vol 240, WA, col 291, 23 March 1994; Parl Papers 1992–3; (1992)
63 BY 660–1.
¹³² The position of individuals or corporations as bearers of rights under international law is a
distinct one. They may have standing under treaties, and they may certainly have rights, especially
under international human rights instruments. That does not make them in any meaningful sense
'international legal persons'. As holders of rights and even obligations they do not cease to be
subject to the State of their nationality, residence or incorporation, as the case may be. On the
position of individuals under international law see Janis (1984) 17 Cornell ILJ 61; Orentlicher (1991)
100 Yale LJ 2537; Vazquez (1992) 92 Col LR 1082; Meron (2000) 94 AJ 239; Dolzer (2002) 20
Berkeley JIL 296. Compare St Korowics (1956) 50 AJ 533.
¹³³ For criticism see Schwarzenberger, International Law, vol I, 128–9, 469–71, 523, 596.
Brownlie describes the passage cited as 'an assertion of political and constitutional fact rather than
a reasoned conclusion', but regards it as 'appropriate and necessary' in the special circumstances:
Principles (2nd edn), 670; (6th edn), 661. Cf also Oppenheim (8th edn), vol 1, 407 (§168), 880
(§492), 928–9 (§522); ibid, (9th edn), vol 1, 18 (§7), 1203 (§583), 1263 (§627).
¹³ÿ See further O'Connell (1963) 67 RGDIP 5; Lauterpacht (1947) 63 LQR 433, (1948) 64 LQR
97; Siotto Pintor (1932) 41 H.R. 245; Aufricht (1943) 37 Am Pol Sci R 217; Scelle, in Lipsky (ed),
Law and Politics in the World Community, 49.
questions, it is not in the bulk of cases but, rather, in the marginal ones that the
more difficult questions are likely to arise.¹³ÿ
(2) The State In
a sense, the whole of this work is an attempt to define and elucidate the concept of
statehood as it operates in present-day international law. In particular, the criteria for
statehood, ancient and modern, are examined in detail in Chapters 2 and 3. Despite
its importance, statehood 'in the sense of international law' has not always been a
clearly defined concept. Although the United Kingdom and Indian Governments
thought a definition of the term 'State' a prerequisite for the proposed Draft Declaration
on the Rights and Duties of States,'¹³ÿ the International Law Commission (ILC)
concluded:
that no useful purpose would be served by an effort to define the term 'State'. . . In the
Commission's draft, the terms . . . is used in the sense commonly accepted in international practice.
Nor did the Commission think that it was called upon to set forth . . .the qualifications to be possessed
by a community in order that it may become a State.¹³ÿ
This rather bland rejoinder concealed considerable disagreement as to the

definition of both 'State' and 'Nation' and their relationship.¹³ÿ As we shall see, to
refer merely to statehood 'for the purposes of international law' assumes that a
State for one purpose is necessarily also a State for another.
This may be true in most cases but not necessarily in all. The 'A' Mandated
territories were treated as States for the purposes of nationality, but were much
less certainly States for other purposes. The Free City of Danzig was a State for
the purposes of Article 71(2) of the Rules of the Permanent Court; Whether it was
a State for all purposes has been doubted. Many legal issues subsumed under the
rubric of 'statehood' may be able to be resolved in their own terms—often this will
take the form of interpretation of a treaty or other document. But at a basic level
and for many purposes it still makes a big difference whether an entity is or is not
a State. The matter is pursued in the next chapter.
¹³ÿ See, eg, Tabory in Shapira (ed), New Political Entities, 139 (Palestine); Morin (1984) 1 Rev
Québéquoise IN 163 (Quebec); Mushkat (1994) 24 HKLJ 328 (Macau); Crawford, Rights in One
Country (Hong Kong). ¹³ÿ ILC, Preparatory Study, A/CN.4/2, 1948, 50. ¹³ÿ ILC, Report 1949: A/
925, 9. ¹³ÿ See ILC YBk, 1949, 61–8, 70–1, 84–6, 138, 173.
(3) Sovereignty
The term 'sovereignty' has a long and troubled history, and a variety of meanings.¹³ÿ In
its most common modern usage, sovereignty is the term for the 'totality of international
rights and duties recognized by international law' as remaining in an independent
territorial unit—the State.¹ÿÿ It is not itself a right, nor is it a criterion for statehood
(sovereignty is an attribute of States, not a precondition). It is a somewhat unhelpful, but
firmly established, description of statehood; a brief term for the State's attribute of more-
or-less plenary competence.
Unsurprisingly, the term has drawn criticism. According to Charney: 'The word
“sovereignty” should be stricken from our vocabulary. It evokes the anachronistic idea of
the total independence and autonomy of the state, and has no real meaning today. Use
of the word calls to mind a fundamentalist view that is difficult to debate in light of its
emotive baggage.'¹ÿ¹ But the term seems to be ineradicable, and anyway its eradication
might only make matters worse.
Better, one might think, 192 sovereigns than one or a few. Associated with the concept
of sovereign equality, the term is a normative one and may be unobjectionable. What is
objectionable is the abuse of language involved in statements of the form 'State A is
sovereign therefore its conduct is unquestionable' (a statement normally used to defend
the conduct of one's own State, not that of others). As a United States court observed:
We cannot accept...[a] definition of sovereignty as the 'supreme, absolute, and

uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed.' [Appellant] would
have us believe that sovereignty is an 'all or nothing' concept. . . we disagree . . . [T]his
¹³ÿ See 10 Enc PIL 397, 399; Wildhaber, in Macdonald and Johnston (eds), The Structure and Process of International
Law, 425; Hinsley, Sovereignty (2nd edn 1986), 224–35; Kranz (1992) 30 Archiv des Völkerrechts 411; Bartelson, A Genealogy
of Sovereignty; E Lauterpacht (1997) 73 Int Affairs 137; Dupuy, Dialectiques du droit international; Merriam, History of the
Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau; Rawls, Law of Peoples, 27, 79; Jackson (2003) 97 AJ 782; Sarooshi (2004) 25
Michigan VIL 1107; Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, 3–25. ¹ÿÿ Cf Reparations Case, ICJ Rep 1949 p 174, 180.
See generally Whiteman, 1 Digest 233–82; Korowicz, Organizations
internationales et souveraineté États membres; Sukiennicki, La Souveraineté des Etats en droit internationale moderne;
Crawford, Selected Essays, 95. Kamal Hossain, 'State Sovereignty and the UN Charter' (MS DPhil d 3227, Oxford, 1964)
distinguishes three meanings of sovereignty: (1) State sovereignty as a distinctive characteristic of States as constituent units
of the international legal system; (2) Sovereignty as freedom of action in respect of all matters with regard to which a State is
not under any legal obligation; and (3) Sovereignty as the minimum amount of autonomy which a State must possess before it
can be accorded the status of a 'sovereign state'. There is a fourth meaning: sovereignty as plenary authority to administer
territory. The first meaning seems to be reflected in the following UK Government statement: 'Sovereignty is an attribute which
under international law resides inherently in any independent state recognized as such. By virtue and in the exercise of their
sovereign authority, states conduct dealings with one another internationally.' HL Debs, vol 566, WA 85, 16 October 1995. ¹ÿ¹
Charney (1997) 91 AJ 394, 395 (cited Henkin).
argument ignores the distinction between sovereignty, or the legal personhood of

the nation, and jurisdiction, or the rights and powers of the nation over its inhabitants.
It is uncontrovertible that nations, even though they are recognized as full members
of the international community, must modify their internal affairs as a result of their
participation in the international community.¹ÿ²
In any event, as a matter of international law no further legal consequences

attach to sovereignty than attach to statehood itself. The question of sovereignty in
international law is not to be confused with the constitutional lawyer's question of
supreme competence within a particular State: the 'sovereignty of Parliament' could
coexist with the effective abandonment of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.¹ÿ³
Nor is it to be confused with the exercise of 'sovereign rights': a State may continue
to be sovereign even though important governmental functions are carried out on
its behalf by another State or by an international organization. And, finally,
'sovereignty' does not mean actual equality of rights or competences. The actual
competence of a State, for example, to wage war, may be restricted by its
constitution,¹ÿÿ or by treaty¹ÿÿ or even by a particular international rule.¹ÿÿ As a
legal term 'sovereignty' refers not to omnipotent authority—the authority to slaughter
all blue-eyed babies, for example—but to the totality of powers that States may
have under international law.¹ÿÿ By contrast, as a political term its connotations
are those of untrammeled authority and power and it is in such discourse that the
term can be problematic.¹ÿÿ
(4) State and government¹ÿÿ

One of the prerequisites for statehood is the existence of an effective governance;
and the main—for most purposes the only—organ by which the State
¹ÿ² Heller v US, 776 F 2d 92, 96–7 (3rd Cir 1985). ¹ÿ³
Cf Harris v The Minister of the Interior [1952] 2 SA (AD) 428. The confusion was reflected in the
plaintiff's argument in Blackburn v AG [1971] 1 WLR 1037, 52 ILR 414. On the 'sovereignty of parliament
' in relation to the incorporation of European law into UK law, see Akehurst (1989) 60 BY 351.
¹ÿÿ
Eg, The Philippines by the Constitution of 1935 as amended, Art II(3).
¹ÿÿ
Eg, Austria by the State Treaty of 1955, 217 UNTS 223, Art 13.
¹ÿÿ
Eg, Switzerland, by the 'public law of Europe': McNair, Law of Treaties, 50. ¹ÿÿ
The utility of the term is not increased by a good deal of writing loosely suggesting the eclipse of
States, the lapse of sovereign equality and the value of 'relative' sovereignty. See, eg, Simonovic (2000)
28 Georgia JILC 381; Wriston (1993) 17 Fletcher Forum World Aff 117, 117; Schreuer (1993)
4 EJIL 447–71; Cullet (1999) 10 EJIL 549, 551; Williams (2000) 26 Rev Int Stud 557, 557–73. See also
Kingsbury (1998) 9 EJIL 599. ¹ÿÿ Cf
Westlake, International Law, vol I, 237 (cited in translation in the French Counter-Mémoire, The Lotus,
PCIJ ser C, no 13-II, 275); Hart, The Concept of Law (1961), 217–18. See also Reisman (1990) 84 AJ
866; Henkin (1999) 68 Fordham LR 1; Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy.
¹ÿÿ See Whiteman, 1 Digest 911–16; Jennings (1967) 121 H.R. 350–2; Arangio Ruiz (1975)
OZFÖR 265, 260; Verhoeven, Reconnaissance, 66–71.
acts in international relations is its central government.¹ÿÿ There would thus

seem to be a close relationship between the concepts of government and statehood.
According to O'Connell: 'Until the middle of the nineteenth century, both types of
change [change of State and change of government] were assimilated, and the
problems they raised were uniformly solved. With the abstraction of the concept
of sovereignty, however, a conceptual chasm was opened between change of
sovereignty and change of government.'¹ÿ¹ This 'post-Hegelian'¹ÿ² development
O'Connell criticizes as 'dogmatic' and 'arbitrary'.¹ÿ³ In the context of succession
to obligations—that is, in the context of the legal effects of changes in State or
government—it is more useful and more important in his view to pay regard not
to any such distinction but to the real changes or continuities in political, social
and administrative structure.¹ÿÿ He thus advocates a return to the eighteenth-
century position of practical assimilation of changes of State and government.¹ÿÿ
It is true that some
changes of government have greater and more traumatic effects than most
changes of statehood (as with Russia in the period after the Revolution of 1917).
Nonetheless it is a reasonable assumption that changes in statehood are more
likely to have greater social and structural importance than changes in
government. In any event, international law does distinguish between change of
State personality and change of the government of the State.¹ÿÿ There is a
strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and
obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in
which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not
affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming
to represent the occupied State.¹ÿÿThe legal position of government-in-exile is
dependent on the distinction between government and State.¹ÿÿ So also is the
characterization of a lengthy conflict such as the Spanish Civil War as a 'civil'
rather than as 'international' war.¹ÿÿThe concept
¹ÿÿ Cf Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia) (Preliminary Objections), ICJ Rep 1996
p 595, 621–2 (citing Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art 7(2)(a)). ¹ÿ¹
State Succession (1967), vol I, 5–6. ¹ÿ² Ibid, vol 1, vi. ¹ÿÿ Ibid, vol ¹ÿ³ Ibid, vol I, 7; II, vi.
II, vi. ¹ÿÿ Ibid, vol I 1, 7. ¹ÿÿ Wright (1952) 46
AJ 299, 307; Jessup, Modern Law of Nations, 43. ¹ÿÿ The occupation of
Iraq in 2003 illustrates the difference between 'government' and 'State'; when Members of the Security
Council, after adopting SC res 1511, 16 October 2003, called for the rapid 'restoration of Iraq's
sovereignty', they did not imply that Iraq had ceased to exist as a State but that normal governmental
arrangements should be restored. See Grant (2003) 97 AJ 823, 836–7.
¹ÿÿ Whiteman, 1 Digest 921–30; Oppenheimer (1942) 26 AJ 568–95; Verhoeven, Reconnaissance,
76–83. On governments-in-exile, see Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law. For the
special case of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, see Grant (2001) 1 Baltic YBIL 23, 41–
9. ¹ÿÿ For the distinction between government and State in the Spanish Civil War, see Government of
Spain v Chancery Lane Safe Deposit Ltd; State of Spain v Chancery Lane Safe Deposit Ltd, The Times,
of representation of States in international organizations also depends upon the

distinction.¹ÿÿ
Moreover, in arguing for a closer identification of 'State' and 'government', O'Connell
sought to maximize the extent to which treaty and other obligations are transmitted
from one State to its successor.¹ÿ¹ In other words he was trying to draw from the
relative stability secured by the principle of State continuity a similar stability for the
law of State succession. But the law of State succession has developed otherwise:¹ÿ²
it has come to be accepted that successful States, in particular newly independent
States, have substantial freedom as to the succession of treaty rights and obligations,
although with certain exceptions.¹ÿ³ To obliterate the distinction between 'change of
State' and 'change of government' would now only weaken the stability of legal relations.
(5) State continuity and State succession There
is then a clear distinction in principle between the legal personality of the State and its
government for the time being.¹ÿÿ This serves to distinguish in turn the field of State
personality (which includes the topic of identity and continuity of States) and that of
State succession.¹ÿÿ State succession depends upon the conclusion reached as to
State personality.¹ÿÿ This is not to say,
26 May 1939; noted (1944) 21 BY 195. See also Spanish Civil War Pension Case (1978, Federal Social
Court, FRG) 80 ILR 666, 668–70. ¹ÿÿ
The transition of the FRY (Serbia & Montenegro) from predecessor to successor State is dis-
cussed in Chapter 17.
¹ÿ¹ Cf State Succession, vol I, 30–5. The argument, for opposite reasons, was advanced by La Forest
(1966) 60 PAS 103; cf the reactions of Briggs, ibid, 125, Aufricht, ibid, 126. ¹ÿ²
See Crawford, Selected Essays, 243 for a detailed study in the context of O'Connell's own work
and that of the ILC.
¹ÿ³ In recent practice the recognition of newly emerging States has often been conditional on their
acceptance of obligations arising under certain treaties to which the 'parent' State had been party. The 1991
EC Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union provided that
States accepted 'all relevant commitments with regard to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation as well
as to security and regional stability' '31 ILM 1486'. European States required, under the rubric of disarmament,
that States established on the territory of the former Soviet Union accept the obligations contained in the
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which the Soviet Union had signed on 19 November 1990
(30 ILM 1 ( 1991)). See, eg, 63 BY 637 (EC Presidency statement regarding Kyrghyzstan and Tadzhikistan,
specifying requirement to observe, inter alia, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe). This
practice has tended to be specific and of variable quality; its impact on general issues of treaty succession
is doubtful.
¹ÿÿ Cf O'Connell, State Succession, vol I, 3; O'Connell, 1972 Grotius SP 23, 26–8; Charpentier,
Reconnaissance, 15–16.
¹ÿÿ Marek, Identity and Continuity, 9–14, describes the two as 'mutually exclusive'; cf Pereira, Succession
d'États en Matière de Traité, 7–11. The ILC resisted attempts at eroding the distinction in its work on State
succession: see, eg, ILC Ybk, 1974/II(1), 14–16, 30–1.
¹ÿÿ Hall, International Law (8th edn), 114, cited O'Connell, State Succession, vol I, 3.
however, that the topic of State succession is irrelevant to this study. Views
taken of particular State succession situations may illuminate related problems
of personality. In some areas, at least, the principles and policy considerations
involved are similar. The problem of 'State succession' in the case of devolving
territories such as the British Dominions, 1919 to 1945, was in part a matter of
succession and in part a matter of personality or agency. Nonetheless the
concepts of continuity and succession remain distinct, and blurring them serves
no useful goal.¹ÿÿ
¹ÿÿ For the outcome of the ILC's work on State succession see Vienna Convention on Succession of States
in respect of Treaties (1978) (entered into force 6 November 1996), 1946 UNTS 3, (1978)
17 ILM 1488; Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts
(1983), (1983) 22 ILM 298, A/CONF/117/15, 7 April 1983.

James Crawford - The Creation of States in International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

James Crawford - The Creation of States in International Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

James Crawford - The Creation of States in International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

The Creation of States

The Creation of States

CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD

Published in the United States by

© James Crawford 2006

The moral rights of the author have been asserted

First published 2006 All

rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed

ISBN 0–19–826002–4 978–0–19–826002–8

Preface to the Second Edition

vi Preface to the Second Edition

Preface to the Second Edition vii

So while I repent decisions and equivocations, I defend the history. But I

From the Preface to the First Edition

Since the development of the modern international system, statehood has

³ Jennings, Acquisition of Territory, 11–12; Brownlie, Principles (2nd edn), 74.

x From the Preface to the First Edition

Superimposed on these classifications of the methods of the creation of States are

From the Preface to the First Edition xi

of the Charter (non-self-governing territories) has attracted a substantial body of

Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, preambular paragraph

Table of Cases xxix

PART I: THE CONCEPT OF STATEHOOD IN

1. Statehood and Recognition 3

4. Issues of Statehood Before United Nations Organs 5. The 174

Criteria for Statehood Applied: Some Special Cases 196

PART II: MODES OF THE CREATION OF STATES

6. Original Acquisition and Problems of Statehood 7. 257

Dependent States and Other Dependent Entities 282

PART III: THE CREATION OF STATES IN

12. International Dispositive Powers 503

14. Non-self-governing Territories: The Law and Practice of

PART IV: ISSUES OF COMMENCEMENT,

Select Bibliography 760

Table of Cases xxix

PART I: THE CONCEPT OF STATEHOOD IN

1. Statehood and Recognition 3

(4) Capacity to enter into relations with other States 61

(e) The 'safeguard clause' 118

4. Issues of Statehood Before United Nations Organs 174

(iii) Renewed controversy during the 1990s: the

PART II: MODES OF THE CREATION OF STATES

7.3 Other Cases 320

(ii) The Philippines (iii) 372

(2) Application of international humanitarian law in

11.2 Federation, confederation and other forms of

PART III: THE CREATION OF STATES IN

(b) Internationalized territories (c) 522

(b) The Security Council (ii) 552

(2) Nauru 598

14. Non-self-governing Territories: The Law and Practice of

PART IV: ISSUES OF COMMENCEMENT,

(3) Extinction by voluntary dissolution: the Czech

Select Bibliography 760

A/ S Tallinna Laevauhisus & Ors v Tallinna Shipping Co (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 AB v MB

xxx Table of Cases

Antolok v United States (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,600