MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Utterly Committed to Self-Determination; British MPs visit the Falklands.
Four British Members of Parliament have been in the Falkland Islands over the past week, whilst the House of Commons is in recess. The cross-party group includes two Labour and two Conservative MPs, with an FIG Representative from London accompanying them. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe UN General assembly has made it very plain. In decolonization cases there is “no alternative” to self-determination. A statement repeated every year. The Falklands are listed as a decolonization case at the UN.
Feb 16th, 2016 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When will Argentistan de-colonise Tierra del Fuego?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Double standards Lord Ton....
Feb 17th, 2016 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN doctrine should be adhered to concerning decolonisation....well, only the bits that you like...
Ignore the bits you don't ....like taking one of the options to actually de-colonise...
Chris : Hi David
Feb 17th, 2016 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0David : Hey Chris , what happens?
C : You've seen that we have a week off and I was thinking of a little vacation .
D : Vacation ? Where? I'm not spending money.
C : Do not worry , you will not spend a pound .
D : That's it? And I can go on vacation without paying anything ? Tell me , what 's the catch?
C : Easy ..! A group of Sudacas english speaking , they believe they are British, we were invited to the ghetto. The trip is all paid for by the islanders, we just have to go there , give slaps and tell him what they want to hear .
D : Are you sure .. ? Nobody is going to question we're going to lie this poor godforsaken people?
C: No , do not worry, UK does not care what happens in this remote place and less the world .
D : Excellent .. By the way we invite you to Guy and Peter , to an orgy with sheep between 4 .. ?
C: What a great idea , I love you ..!
Voice
Feb 17th, 2016 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which parts have been ignored?
Voice - actually, the options are up to the people concerned; in this case the Falkland islanders. Nothing to do with the UK.
Feb 17th, 2016 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0So which bits do you Think - sorry, old habits - the UK is ignoring?
Well done, you have been nominated for “ Fiction writer of the year award” And just an aside, why do you think that the de-colonisation committee meet every year to spout the same rubbish time after time, yes, you got it the various governments or rather YOU pay to attend it. A nice little jaunt No?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Turd Island, what are you on? Is there an off switch?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Turtle Island
Feb 17th, 2016 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh course this unlike Argentina whose PRESIDENT took 93 people with her to the C24 committee on decolonisation.
I know you don't want to remember that. I mean who would? Fancy a Head of State going to a minor committee that even minor government officials would normally avoid like the plague.
And I'm sure that the costs of transporting those 93 people, putting them up in hotels, ensuring that they had food and other 'expenses' were all paid out of the Presidents pocket (what with her becoming over 1000% richer whilst IN office). Oh wait, that's right. It was the Argentine taxpayer who had to stump up the money wasn't it? Including the hire of a private jet (from the British no less) to transport your insanely rich President to all of these meetings.
As for this. It is expected that British politicians and ministers will visit British territory.
Oooh, feel the burn. Yes Turtle Island, the Falklands are British territory. They were British territory long before Argentina existed, and they'll be British territory long after Argentina has disappeared up its own hoop.
@3. Yep. The UN doctrine includes association with another country. Or did you, conveniently, forget that?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4. Thank you. 1200 ground troops. 4 combat aircraft. 6 support aircraft. 2/3 warships. What terrible “lies”. By the way, we kill turtles.
@9 “...what with her becoming over 1000% richer whilst IN office...”
Feb 17th, 2016 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the amount of increase in declared net worth from 2003 to 2013, as it was reported in the media at the time, was 3200 percent. I believe that amount is not counting what the Kirchner children inherited on Néstor's death.
But then it looks like the declared amount for CFK in 2015 was 64 million ARS but if you check the declared amount when she took office it looks like it was 7 million at that time. Abogada exitosa, my arse.
I think the investigations and at least one prosecution are already underway involving ill-gotten gains of the Kirchner cabinet members, who also enjoyed astronomical increases in their net worth during the CFK government.
5
Feb 17th, 2016 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Skip
Independence..
Integration...
FREE Association...
6
Lord Ton
Why ask when you already know ...the Falklands haven't adhered to the decolonisation resolution and yet you think other parts are relevant...
Double standards...
Yaaaawn… zzz
Feb 17th, 2016 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”and Labour MP Peter Dowd (Bootle), went on to add that the Falklands’ right to determine their own future is enshrined in the doctrine of the United Nations and is, therefore, not an individual MPs choice.“
Feb 17th, 2016 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The UN doctrine should be adhered to concerning decolonisation....well, only the bits that you like...”
Where in that doctrine does it say the peoples of a NSGT, in order to be decolonised, can be transferred to another colonial power against their wishes?
Exactly-which is why even in the 1960s/1970s and early 1980s the UK government could not enforce leaseback or succumb to Argentine demands.
@12
Feb 17th, 2016 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What decolonisation resolution? Argentina wont talk to the FALKLANDERS.
@12. What decolonisation resolution? Are you ever going to answer that?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And argieland can shove its fist up its ass.
An MP from Bootle...best keep your eye on the Hotel Towels...
Feb 17th, 2016 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and anything that's not fastened down...
As for Dunoon's MP, he's with the Liberal Democrats! - Who? Does he wear a skirt?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guys were wearing skirts long before trousers were invented...
Feb 17th, 2016 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think Roman Centurions...
A little ventilation is good...you should try it and see how liberated you feel....
Yeah, but when you suffer from knacker droop and other afflictions like yersel' its gross.
Feb 17th, 2016 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still, there is the Scotch way of dealing with it. https://youtu.be/zDhETFcgWTE. :-)
So Voice, can you point me to any benchmarks on integration? Or free association?
Feb 17th, 2016 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would have thought that self-determination, being the over arching guidance in these matters, would therefore include status-quo?
As long as the status-quo was voiced in some form..... perhaps a referendum?
Or do we just keep giving them referenda until they get the answer 'correct' as the UN tried in Tokelau?
The UN will one day finally exam why these last few NSGT are not doing what previously dozens did so rapidly.
Decolonisation by decade:
1940s = 9
1950s = 14
1960s= 42
1970s = 18
1980s = 6
1990s = 2
2000s = 1
2010s = -1
Actually going backwards now!
I guess we might have to wait until 2018 for another change when New Caledonia has its referendum. But will its referendum he recognised if the UN doesn't organise it?
Difficult to keep up with the double standards at times.
20
Feb 18th, 2016 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds like you are speaking from experience Gramps...is it an old man thing...?
When I get to your age I'll let you know...
Wait a minute...you will be long dead...so I guess I won't..
21
I don't make the rules Skip...
The UN sees status quo as still being a form of colonialism...
The UN wishes to abolish all forms of colonialism...
The UK still controls the BOTS to a certain degree....
This is not acceptable...to the UN...
Anyway my point was Lord Ton is quick to quote the UN in support of the Falklands position, but at the same time ignoring the content...
So you can't find any benchmarks either?
Feb 18th, 2016 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seems the Decolonisation Commitee will just continue to justify its existence for another decade or two until someone works out that they aren't actually achieving anything.
The Falklands can wait. What's another decade or two when they get to exist under the status quo they prefer.
Guess 2018 is the next action-packed year for decolonisation.
Voice - “The Falklands haven't adhered to the decolonization resolution”
Feb 18th, 2016 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Really? How is that Voice? How have the Falklands failed in this regard? What is it that the decolonisation resolution tells them to do, that they have not done? Which part of the decolonisation resolution have they ignored? Indeed, which decolonisation resolution are you referring to?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Voice?
24
Feb 18th, 2016 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lord Ton
UNGA Res 1514 [XV] [14 December 1960]).
Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations,
Did this happen...No...
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541
Principle VI
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.
Did this happen...No...
In 2009, the Government of the United Kingdom (UK) suspended parts of the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), a British Overseas Territory, in response to allegations of systemic corruption in the territory. Direct rule from London was imposed over the democratically elected local government. This unilateral, top-down action removed the constitutional right to trial by jury, suspended the ministerial government and the House of Assembly, and charged a UK-appointed Governor with the administration of the islands.
Has Argentina decolonised Tierra del Fuego? Has it transferred all powers to the native indigenous peoples of that colony and allowed them full independent governance? Until it does so, Argentina has hardly any sort of moral high ground on these matters.
Feb 18th, 2016 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Has the price of eggs gone up...?
Feb 18th, 2016 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's right...I wasn't talking about eggs...
I'm simply tickled at your having brought up the subject of rising egg prices in Argentina. It must be addressed.
Feb 18th, 2016 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The cost for a dozen eggs here in southern Argentina has gone up more than 18 percent in the last three months. I suspect that effect will continue and we'll probably see the price of eggs up maybe 50 percent or so by the end of the year.
And now back to our regular programme.
Voice - in 1514 you are referring to the obligations of the Administrative Power, not those of the Islanders. And as for options, you have missed off the 4th adopted by the UN GA in Res 2625. Which the Islanders have embraced.
Feb 18th, 2016 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What have the Turks & caicos got to do with it?
Lord Ton
Feb 19th, 2016 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 02625 is not a decolonisation resolution...
Nowhere in that resolution does it say that applies to NSGT's the only mention of NSGT's is to separate them from the administering power...
The Turks and Caicos Islands example shows why you and all other BOT's are still on the list...
I thought that was obvious...
Voice
Feb 19th, 2016 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am quite surprised that you say “2625 is not a decolonisation resolution” and I look forward to your verbal semantics in trying to support that claim.
'The territory of a colony or other Non Self Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non Self Governing Territory have exercised their right of self determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.'
That self determination is actually acknowledged as possible through the following options:
'The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self determination by that people.'
This actually tells you what qualifies as self determination. Not even you will argue that NSGT are not entitled to self determination as stated in the UN Charter.
Because the UN hasn't in 70 years done so!
Is a referendum accepting the status quo not fulfilling the option of 'the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people'?
If you feel this doesn't apply to NSGT, then the part that states 'In their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles.' should help you to find the connection.
Perhaps you just argue for the sake of arguing because this one is a little far even for you.
2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation AMONG STATES in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
Feb 19th, 2016 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Among Colonies..?
You are quoting out of context..
EVERY STATE has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.
The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
EVERY STATE HAS the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination...etc...
The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; etc.
NOTHING IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING OR ENCOURAGING ANY ACTION WHICH WOULD DISMEMBER OR IMPAIR, TOTALLY OR IN PART, THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OR POLITICAL UNITY OF SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES ETC.
EVERY STATE shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.
Summary.
Every State technically has the right, to become smaller Independent States, free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people, but this is not encouraged and NSGT's belonging to the State will not be affected by it...
@25 Voice
Feb 19th, 2016 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”(b) Free association with an independent State”
So how have the Falkland Islands not got free association with the UK?
Get over it, Argentistan.
Feb 19th, 2016 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no tooth fairy.
You're not getting the East Falkland. You're not getting West Falkland. You're not getting Lennox. You're not getting Picton. You're not getting Nueva. So grow up and stop crying over something that is not going to happen.
You've done everything possible to convince the islanders that they want no part of your slimy, thieving, greaseball ways. And you've made Argentistan look the complete fool at every opportunity, reinforcing the universal perception that you cannot be taken seriously.
Don't you understand that everyone is laughing at you?
Voice
Feb 19th, 2016 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You interpretation would have been stronger if not for the following words in the resolution:
'The establishment of a sovereign and independent State....'
If as you interprete, the resolution only pertains to actual sovereign and independent STATES, then how can it list the ESTABLISHMENT of one.
If a State is already a state in the legal sense, then it is ALREADY established as sovereign and independent.
So the UN created a resolution to give States permission to be what they already were?
Singular.
It doesn't say the ''The establishment of a sovereign and independent States....' as is required when you claim “Every State technically has the right, to become smaller Independent States...”
That would require the plural STATES in that sentence.
Which isn't there.
So in your interpretation then is that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and yet this resolution gives self determination to..... who? If territorial integrity cannot be partially or totally disrupted by any other State then this resolution, which is supported by States, cannot support such a concept.
So who is the self-determination aimed at?
Is it perhaps aimed at the territories that is has now conveniently listed as having a “status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering”.
Because if that is the case then territorial integrity is not in question for those areas as they are now “seperate and distinct” and therefore they can exercise self-determination as it doesn't affect “the territory of the State administering” them.
It is a nice try Voice but you can't say on one hand that States are sovereign and that no State can interfere in their internal affairs and THEN limit them on what they can do should they wish to change their sovereignty. That's just illogical.
You are grasping at straws Skip...it doesn't need an S it's legal jargon...like “by that people.” in normal prose it would be “by those people”
Feb 20th, 2016 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 01514 and 1541 and any other resolution that addresses Decolonisation makes it quite clear what the options of an NSGT are, because those resolutions are specifically addressing the remaining colonies and Decolonisation
It's in the title...
2625 is Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation AMONG STATES!!!
Not among colonies...
Nowhere in 2625 does it State that NSGT's have the option of “the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people ”
The three options have already been given in 1541...
Like all others desperate to add an extra option by quoting out of context...you can't make it say what it doesn't...
The UN have witnessed States dissolving and becoming other States and also emerging into other political status (Countries) that have not been recognised by the International Community.
This resolution attempts to address this situation...whilst protecting NSGT's that may be under their Administration...
The UK will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Feb 20th, 2016 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah still don't see it Voice
Feb 20th, 2016 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0How can a UN resolution formulate how States may emerge and evolve and then only apply that to States that it has clearly just mentioned cannot be constrained by others due to non-interference.
Because non-interference in internal affairs means that it is impossible for the UN or other States to restrict existing States on how they may emerge and evolve....... unless there are parts of those States that are “seperate and distinct”.
I know how you will keep arguing over this for weeks but you can't refute that the UN clearly states in this resolution the policy of non-interference and yet you seem to believe that this resolution somehow binds States by ignoring this very idea.
It is not I that is grasping at straws, Voice. Considering how many you have grasped over the years (accelerating lately) you must have quite the haystack now (please also feel free to digress by dissecting my mixed metaphors and the differences between straw and hay - a very standard trick of yours).
For instance, if the UK ignored the referendum result for Scotland, there is nothing that the UN could do as this is an internal affair and the UN is bound by non-interference and must respect the territorial integrity of the UK. However should the UK ignore a referendum in any of its NSGT then by this resolution the UN is not bound by the policy of non-interference and territorial integrity because it clearly states those territories are “seperate and distinct”.
But you believe this resolution applies against the first example and not the second? So NSGT by their very nature are denied rights assigned to existing States because they did not attain the status of a State by that date?
You are capable of amazing linguistic gymnastics but even you must see the holes in your claim?
However it is still nice to see you supporting self-determination for the Falkland Islanders as this resolution affirms.
36 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 20th, 2016 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0”SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CONTINUING RIGHT'. EXPRESSION OF THE POPULAR WILL; 53 Article 1(3) grants peoples of dependent territories (non-self-governing and trust territories) the right freely to decide their international status, in other words, whether to form a State or to associate with an existing sovereign“.
”3.2 Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975
In the Court’s opinion the right of that population to self-determination constituted a basic assumption of the questions put before it. 29 It further noted that the Decolonization Declaration was complemented by General Assembly resolution 1541(XV) which contemplated three possibilities for the decolonization process of non-self-governing territories, namely (a) emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) free association with an independent State; or (c) integration with an independent State.“ ”Only with the formulation of the concept of self- determination of peoples was decolonization able to grasp at a legal justification” p.233
David J. Bederman The Spirit of International Law
”International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights …
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
You might see it Skip if you apply a little logic...
Feb 20th, 2016 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0193 Countries have to agree on the wording in these resolutions...
They go through countless drafts before being submitted to the vote...
Countries like Russia, China, Middles Eastern Countries are not represented by the people, the governments of these countries and all Countries do not want revolutions, they do not want the control of States dissolving into smaller States...
Who votes on these resolutions...the People or representatives of the Governments that control (Govern) the people...
These resolutions are always ambiguous and leave a lot to interpretation...
There is also usually a caveat mentioned after them...
Self determination for all peoples...yet no definition of peoples..
Self determination, yet support for territorial integrity...
Did Ukraine have the right to prevent Crimea from exercising self determination...?
Who did the UN support...
Scotland had no legal provision to even have a referendum on Independence the UK Parliament had to OK it first....
Yet apparently the UN says all peoples have the right...
Same with Spain and Catalonia...Spain is refusing the right based on Territorial Integrity....
The UN resolutions are nonsense and have been purposely ambiguous and left open to interpretation by the Countries that wish to exercise control...
If it is not clearly stated...it means nothing...
Three options for NSGT's have been stated previously...
2625 Does not at any point give NSGT's a fourth option...
If it did give NSGT's that fourth option it could opt for Status Quo which would mean partial control of an NSGT...The UN are totally against this interference...they have clearly stated this in all resolutions...
Also if the fourth option was accepted...the UN would already have removed the remaining NSGT's from the list....
Now do you see the logic...?
40 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 20th, 2016 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is you who has raised the issue of interpretation.You can muddy the waters all you want. But it has been interpreted by the ICJ. (General Assembly Resolution 2625(XXV) of 25 October 1970): “..., all peoples have the right freely to determine.., their political status ...and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with provisions of the Charter.”
MEANING OF “PEOPLE” TO WHOM THE RIGHT INHERES
The UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the study of the Concepts of Right of peoples, in 1989, ..the “Justice Kirby definition”, a 'people’ is: “a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features:(a) a common historical tradition;...(d) linguistic unity;...(f) territorial connection;(g) common economic life.” 8
In addition to the above description, the UNESCO Experts added that: “the group must be of a certain number which need not be large…” ; and “the group must have institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity.”
The right of peoples to self-determination is a legally recognised right in international law. The UNESCO International Meeting of Experts in 1989 “found that the right to self-determination is conferred on the peoples by international law itself and not by states”. The erga omnes (universality) character of the right appears to have been endorsed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Thus, in the case of Portugal Vs. Australia (the East Timor case) 25,the ICJ stated that:“Portugal’s assertion that the right of peoples to self-determination as it evolved from the Chapter and from the United Nations practice, has erga omnes character is irreproachable.” https://www.academia.edu/2967647/RIGHT_OF_PEOPLES_TO_SELF-DETERMINATION_IN_THE_PRESENT_INTERNATIONAL_LAW
Now do you see the logic…?
Reading too much of the opinions of a Nigerian solicitor I see...
Feb 21st, 2016 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0UNESCO is not the UNGA and doesn't make resolutions...
Also The US renounced their membership in disgust in 1984 and the UK in 1985..
So save those fanciful definitions as unsupported claptrap...
By an agency with no power or support to define anything...
..and if I want to listen to a Nigerian spinning yarn...I'll answer my landline...
42 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 21st, 2016 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course you ignore the point that the interpretations of the resolutions has been made by the ICJ. “2. The Right to Self-Determination Within the UN Legal Framework
...Respect for the principle of the self-determination of peoples was first included in UN Charter7 and was later codified in both International Covenants, that on Civil and Political Rights and that on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.8
The modern meaning of the right to self-determination, as embodied in common Article 1 to both Covenants, consists of the right of all peoples to determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural
development. ...
6. Concluding Remarks
...Seemingly, in the Court’s view erga omnes obligations with respect to the right to self-determination include the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding its implementation. ...”
Self-Determination through the Lens of the International Court of Justice by Gentian Zyberi
The provision “dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states” cannot be used by Argentina as it is a 1945 creation Charter of the United Nations, which is barred from being applied retroactively to its creation. “...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. …”
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!