P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh, for heavens sake. And I even numbered them for you.
P F Tinmore, et al,
You are confused. When looking at sovereignty, you must examine it in both "theory" and how it is actually "practiced."
Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?
Ans
Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty by a state, they are:
1 Occupation
2 Annexation
3 Accretion
4 Cession
5 Prescription
Or! Stated another way:
Acquisition of Sovereignty said:
A number of methods of
acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognized by
international law as lawful methods by which a
state may acquire
sovereignty over
territory.
Prescription
Prescription is related to occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.
Prescription, in
international law, is
sovereignty transfer of a
territory by the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. It is analogous to the
common law doctrine of
easement by prescription for private
real estate. This doctrine legalizes
de jure the
de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.
SOURCE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know what other way there is.
Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.
The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.
There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.
The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.
(REMEMBERING)
A law only means something if it is realistically enforceable. Since the 1945 UN Charter was written, there have been a number of expansions that either used force, or coercion; or a combination of the two. Just to name a few of the anomalies:
- Russia and the Annexation of the Crimea (2014)
- The UN peace process (1991) stalled --- as of mid-2012, the UN is holding direct negotiations between Morocco and the Polisario, Independence Movement by guerrillas of the Polisario Front opened an insurgency.
- Indonesia and the Annexation of Western New Guinea (1969)
- Israel and the Annexation of the Golan Heights (1967)
- India and the Annexation of Goa (1961)
- Abyssinia and the Annexation of British Ogaden (1954)
- China and the Annexation of Tibet (1951)
- Jordan and the Annexation of the West Bank (1950)
The proscription against the acquisition of territory through the use of force is relatively new as international concepts go. The institution idea of legality derived from the UN Charter [
Chapter I, Article 2(4)], which was later restated by the
Security Council in Resolution 242 (1967) by stating that: "
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"... That raised the bar a bit, because the Charter stated:
- From the Preamble: "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and"
- Chapter I Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
(COMMENT)
Technically, a "Treaty" is just but ONE process in the procession of gaining territorial sovereignty by "
Cession."
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, there are two methods to acquire land: one by treaty and the other by fource.
Prescription
, in
international law, is
sovereignty transfer of a
territory by the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign,
without protest or other contest by the original sovereign.
And we see a lot of that from the Palestinians so that acquisition is illegitimate.
(COMMENT)
First, the Arab-Palestinians were NOT protecting or contesting sovereignty as an "original sovereign." They have not held any form of sovereignty for more than a eight centuries. So you would be incorrect there. The "original sovereign in this case would have been the Ottoman Empire, that surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers. The Allied Powers assumed control through the process of "Cession." Nowhere in the transfer were the Palestine people ever addressed. Nowhere in the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, or the Treaty of Lausanne, mention the inhabitance of the territory that was defined by the Allied Powers. Neither were the inhabitance mentions in terms of sovereignty or territorial compensation.
Second, "When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:
(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.
Now this is kind of interesting. This is the order of events.
APR 1950: The West Bank is Annexed by Jordan.
JUN 1967: Israel occupies the West Bank; and it becomes Israel occupied territory of Jordan.
JUL 1988: King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. The sovereignty abandons the West Bank, and Israel now Effectively Occupies the Politically Abandon Territory.
NOV 1988: PLO Declares Independence of West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Capital in Jerusalem.
It will become interesting to see when the ICC (International Criminal Court) defines the critical point, that becomes the time in which the understanding of the conditions are set. Would that be the Treaty dates with Egypt (1979) for the Gaza Strip; and the Treaty dates with Jordan (1994) pertaining to the West Bank. Or would it be the end of the 1973 Yom Kipper War, --- or --- when?
And would there be an argument that today's Palestine Arab is capable of effectively understanding and articulating the agreements and interpretations of 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 years ago? Once the Provisional Government of Israel declared Independence and then had to defend that action against the Arab Coalition Army, was that a defining moment?
We simply don't know.
Most Respectfully,
R
