Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between Stability and Change: The Concept of Historical Consolidation of Title in the Acquisition of Territory Revisited

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Territorial disputes entail the serious risk of destabilising an international legal order. Given that many territorial disputes remain unsettled, a clarification of the rules governing the acquisition of territory should be crucial in international law. An essential issue of the international law of the acquisition of territory concerns the question of how one can strike a balance between the requirement of territorial stability and the need for taking account of changing situations involving territory. The concept of the historical consolidation of title, which will be examined in this article, provides a normative device to take account of temporal elements, that is, changing situations over time, in the process of the acquisition of territory. Thus the issue of the fundamental antithesis between stability and change vividly arises with regard to the concept of the historical consolidation of title. Thus, focusing on this antithesis, this study seeks to examine the concept of historical consolidation of title in the acquisition of territory. In particular, three issues must be examined: (1) features and criticisms of the concept of historical consolidation, (2) the relationship between the concept of historical consolidation and the Island of Palmas paradigm, and (3) the relationship between the concept of historical consolidation and the Burkina Faso/Mali paradigm. This article will reveal that the concept of the historical consolidation of title can be regarded as a corollary of the Island of Palmas paradigm. Given that the influence of temporal elements is unavoidable in the process of the acquisition of territory, the concept of the historical consolidation of title is in need of reassessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the purposes of this article, the terms ‘acquisition of territorial sovereignty’ and ‘acquisition of territory’ will be used interchangeably.

  2. Jennings stated that ‘the stability of territorial boundaries must always be the ultimate aim’. Jennings (2017), p. 87.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Kunz (1939), pp. 38–40; Virally (2010), p. 188.

  5. Jennings (2017), p. 105. See also Shaw (1996), p. 81.

  6. De Visscher (1953), pp. 244–245. According to Jennings, ‘title’ refers to ‘the vestitive facts which the law recognizes as creating a right’. Jennings (2017), p. 17. In practice, the term ‘title’ has more than one meaning. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Burkina Faso/Mali case, referred to two meanings of the concept of title, that is, ‘any evidence which may establish the existence of a right’ and ‘the actual source of that right’. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 554, at p. 564, para. 18. The former is called ‘title-proof’ and the latter is called ‘title-source’. Distefano (2006), pp. 1044–1045; Salmon (2001), pp. 1084–1085. For a thorough analysis of the concept of title, see Distefano (2002), pp. 58 et seq.

  7. De Visscher (1968), p. 209. For the original text, see de Visscher (1953), pp. 244–245. In the original text, ‘an expanse of sea’ refers to ‘un espace maritime’. Ibid., p. 244.

  8. De Visscher (1968), p. 209.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Ibid. See also Johnson (1955), pp. 222–225.

  11. See also Brownlie (2008), p. 157.

  12. Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment of 18 December 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 116, at pp. 138–139. See also Blum (1965), p. 335; Crawford (2012), p. 235.

  13. Jennings and Watts (1996), p. 708; Jennings (2017), p. 16; Malanczuk (1997), p. 147; Clapham (2012), p. 169; Shaw (2017), p. 367.

  14. Shaw (1986), p. 17; Jennings and Watts (1996), p. 679; Jennings (2017), p. 20.

  15. Fukamachi (1994), p. 83.

  16. Munkman (1972–1973), p. 94.

  17. Fukamachi (1994), pp. 83–84; Tanaka (2018), p. 101.

  18. Shaw (1982), p. 80.

  19. In supporting the concept of historical consolidation, Judge Koroma stated that ‘the categories of legal title to territory cannot be regarded as finite’. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma in Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 303, at p. 484, para. 26.

  20. Schwarzenberger (1957), p. 311. Schwarzenberger called this process ‘a perfection of title’. Ibid., p. 310. In this regard, Shaw has also observed that ‘title to territory in international law is more often than not relative rather than absolute’. Shaw (2017), p. 364. See also Sect. 3.2 of this article.

  21. Schwarzenberger (1957), p. 311. See also Blum (1965), pp. 336–337; Shaw (1986), p. 18.

  22. Johnson (1955), p. 223.

  23. Ibid.

  24. Jennings (2017), p. 40.

  25. Ibid., p. 39.

  26. Brownlie (2008), p. 157 (footnote omitted).

  27. Ibid.

  28. Johnson (1955), p. 225.

  29. Ibid. (emphasis in original).

  30. Jennings (2017), p. 40.

  31. Ibid., p. 39 (emphasis in original).

  32. Ibid., p. 41.

  33. Shaw (1986), p. 19. In this connection, Shaw stated that ‘[e]ffectiveness, therefore, rather than consolidation would be the appropriate term’. Shaw (2017), pp. 376–377.

  34. Shaw (1986), p. 19.

  35. Jennings (2017), p. 41. See also Crawford (2012), p. 236.

  36. Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 829, at p. 839. See also p. 840.

  37. Ibid., p. 845. The distinction between the creation of rights and the existence of rights was also made by the arbitral tribunal in the Island of Clipperton case, even though the tribunal did not refer to the Island of Palmas arbitration. Affaire de l’île de Clipperton (Mexique contre France), 28 janvier 1931, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 1105, at p. 1109. See also Dickinson (1933), pp. 130–133.

  38. This paradigm is linked to Max Huber’s approach to international law. For Max Huber’s approach, see Delbrück (2007), pp. 97 et seq.; Klabbers (1992), pp. 197 et seq.

  39. Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 839.

  40. Ibid. In this connection, it cannot pass unnoticed that Max Huber did not regard ‘native princes or chiefs of peoples’ as subjects ‘recognised as members of the community of nations’. Ibid., p. 858.

  41. Ibid., p. 839.

  42. In this regard, Fernand de Visscher stated that ‘elle [la souveraineté] est aujourd’hui une fonction positive ayant sa raison d’être dans l’intérêt général’. De Visscher (1929), p. 740.

  43. See also Huh (2012), pp. 138–141.

  44. Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 867.

  45. Ibid., p. 857.

  46. Ibid., p. 855.

  47. In the Island of Palmas arbitration, the relativity of title derived from the terms of the compromise, which ‘presuppose for the present case that the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) can belong only either to the United States or to the Netherlands and must form in its entirety a part of the territory either of the one or of the other of these two Powers’. Thus, according to Huber, ‘[t]he possibility for the Arbitrator to found his decision on the relative strength of the titles invoked on either side must have been envisaged by the Parties to the Special Agreement’. Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 869. The relativity of legal title has more than one meaning, though. See, Brownlie (2008), pp. 154–156; Huh (2012), pp. 140–141.

  48. Brownlie (2008), p. 155.

  49. This point was affirmed by Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment of 5 April 1933, A/B 53, PCIJ Reports 1933, p. 22, at p. 46; Affaire de l’île de Clipperton (Mexique contre France), Award of 28 January 1931, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 1110.

  50. Schwarzenberger (1957), p. 311.

  51. Ibid., p. 310.

  52. Johnson (1955), p. 225.

  53. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma in Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 474, at p. 484, para. 26.

  54. In this connection, Schwarzenberger considered that ‘the more absolute a title becomes, the more it rests on multiple foundations’. Schwarzenberger (1957), p. 311.

  55. De Visscher (1968), p. 209.

  56. See also Huh (2012), pp. 181–185. Indeed, de Visscher seemed to link the dictum of the Island of Palmas arbitral award to the concept of historical consolidation, stating that: ‘Un acte isolé d’appréhension physique ne suffit pas à conférer la souveraineté territoriale. Il ne produit cet effet que s’il est suivi d’actes établissant un contrôle d’une certaine continuité. En d’autre termes, la prise de possession originelle doit se doubler d’une consolidation, laquelle en définitive est le fondement de son effectivité’ (emphasis added; footnote omitted). De Visscher (1967), p. 103.

  57. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 12, at p. 36, para. 67; Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 840.

  58. Decision regarding delimitation of the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, Decision of 13 April 2002, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 25, p. 83, at p. 116, para. 3.29.

  59. Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea and Yemen), 9 October 1998, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 22, p. 209, at p. 268, para. 239.

  60. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma in Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 485, para. 28. In this case, the majority considered that a period of some 20 years is ‘far too short’. Judgment, ibid., p. 352, para. 65.

  61. For an analysis of the critical date, see Fitzmaurice (1993), pp. 260–284; Goldie (1963), p. 1251; Shaw (1996), pp. 130–131; Distefano (2018), pp. 398–410.

  62. Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 845 and p. 864.

  63. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment of 5 April 1933, A/B 53, PCIJ Reports 1933, p. 45.

  64. Fitzmaurice (1993), p. 260.

  65. Thirlway (2013), p. 569. See also Distefano (2018), p. 399.

  66. Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 659, at pp. 697–698, para. 117. Strictly speaking, not all acts after the critical date become irrelevant. The parties’ acts after the critical date can be considered, provided that ‘such acts are a normal continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for the purpose of improving the legal position of the Party which relies on them’. Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 682, para. 135. See also Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom, Judgment of 17 November 1953, ICJ Reports 1953, p. 47, at p. 59. In addition, the arbitral tribunal in the Taba case held that ‘[e]vents subsequent to the critical period can in principle also be relevant, not in terms of a change of the situation, but only to the extent that they may reveal or illustrate the understanding of the situation as it was during the critical period’. Case concerning the location of boundary markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, Award of 29 September 1988, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 20, p. 1, at p. 45, para. 175. See also Distefano (2018), pp. 407–410.

  67. Fitzmaurice (1993), p. 261.

  68. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment of 5 April 1933, A/B 53, PCIJ Reports 1933, p. 44.

  69. Ibid., p. 46.

  70. Ibid., pp. 46–48.

  71. Ibid., pp. 48–51.

  72. Ibid., pp. 51–54.

  73. Ibid., pp. 54–62.

  74. Ibid., pp. 62–64.

  75. Ibid., p. 46.

  76. Ibid.

  77. Ibid.

  78. Ibid. (emphasis added).

  79. Ibid., p. 64.

  80. De Visscher (1967), p. 106.

  81. Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom), Judgment of 17 November 1953, ICJ Reports 1953, p. 47, at p. 53.

  82. Ibid., p. 56.

  83. Ibid., p. 57.

  84. Ibid., p. 56.

  85. Ibid., pp. 58–59, 64, 66, and 71.

  86. Ibid., p. 67.

  87. Ibid., p. 70.

  88. Ibid., p. 71.

  89. Ibid., p. 72.

  90. The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch) between India and Pakistan (India v. Pakistan), Award of 19 February 1968, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 17, p. 1.

  91. Wetter (1971), p. 346.

  92. The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch) between India and Pakistan (India v. Pakistan), Award of 19 February 1968, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 17, p. 554.

  93. Ibid. (emphasis added).

  94. Ibid., p. 528.

  95. Ibid.

  96. Decision regarding delimitation of the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, Decision of 13 April 2002, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 25, p. 113, para. 3.15.

  97. Ibid., pp. 116–117, para. 3.29.

  98. Ibid., pp. 118–132, paras. 4.1–4.59.

  99. Ibid., p. 132, para. 4.60.

  100. Ibid., p. 138, para. 4.85.

  101. Ibid. See also pp. 110–111, para. 3.8.

  102. Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea and Yemen), 9 October 1998, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 22, p. 209, at p. 216, para. 7 (emphasis added). See also p. 239, para. 106.

  103. In this connection, the arbitral tribunal questioned the applicability of the principle of uti possidetis to the Eritrea/Yemen case, indicating that ‘the question of the intertemporal law and the question whether this doctrine of uti possidetis, at that time thought of as being essentially one applicable to Latin America, could properly be applied to interpret a juridical question arising in the Middle East shortly after the close of the First World War’. Ibid., p. 238, para. 99.

  104. Ibid., p. 268, para. 239.

  105. Ibid., p. 269, para. 241 (emphasis added). See also p. 239, para. 106.

  106. Ibid., p. 312, para. 451.

  107. See also Huh (2012), p. 258.

  108. Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea and Yemen), 9 October 1998, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 22, p. 326, para. 507.

  109. Ibid., p. 326, para. 508.

  110. Distefano (2006), p. 1067.

  111. For the Burkina Faso/Mali paradigm, see Kohen (2004), pp. 563–565.

  112. Kohen (2018), pp. 164–167.

  113. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment of 11 December, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 351, at pp. 398–399, paras. 61–62.

  114. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 303.

  115. Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 678, para. 126.

  116. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment of 12 July 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 127, para. 77.

  117. Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 706, para. 151.

  118. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624, at pp. 645–657, paras. 39–84.

  119. For a thorough commentary on this case, see Mendelson (2004), pp. 223 et seq.

  120. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 349, para. 62. See also CR 2002/12 (Brownlie), pp. 36–55, paras. 68–173; Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, vol. 1, pp. 419–433, paras. 17.17–17.72.

  121. Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, vol. 1, pp. 433–437, paras. 17.73–17.85; Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 350, para. 62.

  122. Ibid., p. 352, para. 65.

  123. Ibid. See also Kohen (2004), pp. 576–578.

  124. Judge Koroma argued that ‘[t]he “important variables” of the so-called established modes of acquisition, which the Court did not define, are not absent in historical consolidation’. Thus Judge Koroma supported historical consolidation as a mode of acquiring title to territory. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma in Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, pp. 484–485, para. 26.

  125. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 344, para. 55.

  126. Ibid., pp. 354–355, para. 70.

  127. Ibid., pp. 412–413, para. 218; CR 2002/9 (Brownlie), p. 19, para. 8.

  128. They included: (1) the collection of taxes by Nigerian authorities, (2) the establishment of health centres, (3) the use of Nigerian currency for both public and commercial purposes, and (4) the use of Nigerian passports by residents of Bakassi. Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, p. 223, paras. 10.25 et seq; CR 2002/9 (Brownlie), pp. 49–65, paras. 155–228; Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, pp. 412–413, para. 218.

  129. Ibid., p. 414, para. 220.

  130. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 586–587, para. 63. In the Burkina Faso/Mali case, the ICJ defined ‘effectivités’ as ‘proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the region during the colonial period’. Ibid., p. 586, para. 63. In subsequent cases, the concept of ‘effectivités’ also covers the post-colonial period. In the 2002 Indonesia/Malaysia case, for instance, the ICJ ruled that Malaysia has title to Ligitan and Sipadan on the basis of the effectivités. The effectivités concerned activities by Malaysia in its own name and as the successor of the State of Great Britain. Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 625, at pp. 685–686, paras. 148–149. See also Salmon (2001), pp. 411–412.

  131. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 586–587, para. 63. See also Kohen (2004), pp. 563–565; Huh (2012), p. 231; Tanaka (2018), p. 103 and p. 108.

  132. The concept of ‘title’ is not uniform in the jurisprudence. Originally the concept of ‘title’ in the Burkina Faso/Mali case referred to the basis on which the implementation of the principle of uti possidetis is grounded. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 586, para. 63. In Cameroon v. Nigeria, however, Cameroon’s ‘title’ to the Bakassi Peninsula did not concern the principle of uti possidetis, but title derived from a treaty. By the same token, in the 2002 Indonesia/Malaysia case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis was not at issue and the parties based their titles on legal instruments. Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 643, paras. 32–33. In the 2012 Nicaragua v. Colombia case, both a treaty and the principle of uti possidetis were examined as a source of the title of the parties. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, pp. 645–651, paras. 39–65. Accordingly, the concept of a ‘title’ is not always intended to refer to the principle of uti possidetis.

  133. The second parameter was confirmed by the ICJ in the Burkina Faso/Niger case and the arbitral tribunal in the Croatia/Slovenia Arbitration. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment of 16 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 44, at p. 79, para. 78; Arbitration Between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, Award of 29 June 2017, para. 340, available at https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/3/.

  134. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 455, para. 325(III)(A).

  135. Ibid., pp. 354–355, para. 70.

  136. Ibid., pp. 354–355, para. 70.

  137. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ajibola in Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 538, at p. 589, para. 153.

  138. Ibid., pp. 585–586, para. 145.

  139. Ibid., p. 589, para. 154.

  140. Tanaka (2018), p. 109.

  141. Judge Yusuf, in the Burkina Faso/Niger case, identified two objectives of the principle of uti possidetis. The first is to ensure that there is no terra nullius and the second is to establish a method for boundary delimitation. Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf, Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment of 16 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 137, paras. 11–12. See also the Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Abi-Saab in Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 661, para. 13. Generally on the principle of uti possidetis, see Kohen (1997), pp. 425 et seq.

  142. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 566, para. 23.

  143. Ibid., p. 568, para. 30.

  144. Ibid. See also the Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment of 12 July 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 109, para. 26. However, it is not suggested that a boundary on the basis of the principle of uti possidetis is fixed forever. It can be changed through peaceful procedures, such as an explicit or implicit agreement. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment of 11 December, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 401, para. 67. See also Abi-Saab (2007), pp. 663–665; Shaw (1996), pp. 141–150.

  145. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 414, para. 221. According to Brownlie, the permanent population of Nigeria living in the Bakassi territory was 156,000. CR 2002/9 (Brownlie), p. 65, para. 226.

  146. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 414, para. 221.

  147. See also Oduntan (2015), pp. 238–239.

  148. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 457, para. 325(V)(C). The importance of human factors in the settlement of territorial or frontier disputes was highlighted by Judge Cançado Trindade. See the Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade in Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment of 16 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 97.

  149. In this regard, Jennings has written that in considering the procedure of legislation for territorial change, ‘the modes of loss of title become at least equally important’. Jennings (2017), pp. 104–105.

  150. Generally on this issue, see Kohen (2013), pp. 151 et seq.

  151. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 35, para. 60.

  152. Ibid., p. 23, para. 59.

  153. Ibid., pp. 23–24, paras. 62–68.

  154. Ibid., p. 37, para. 68.

  155. Ibid., p. 25, para. 69.

  156. Huh (2015), pp. 721–722.

  157. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 31, para. 98.

  158. Ibid., p. 32, para. 100.

  159. Ibid., p. 36, para. 117.

  160. Ibid., p. 36, paras. 118–119.

  161. Ibid., p. 50, para. 121.

  162. Ibid., p. 51, para. 122.

  163. For Malaysia’s claim, see Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. I, pp. 53–81, paras. 104–177; Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, pp. 33–37, paras. 63–72; CR 2007/25 (Kohen), pp. 62–63, paras. 85–91. For Singapore’s claim, see Memorial of Singapore, pp. 86–87, paras. 5.112–5.114; CR2007/21 (Brownlie), pp. 34–69, paras. 1–154. See also Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 46, para. 150.

  164. Ibid., p. 49, para. 162.

  165. According to the Court, ‘[t]hat statement has major significance’. Ibid., p. 96, para. 275.

  166. Ibid., p. 56, para. 192.

  167. Ibid., p. 56, para. 196 (emphasis added).

  168. Ibid., pp. 61–62, para. 222. However, this interpretation was criticized by Judge ad hoc Dugard. Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard in Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, pp. 136–137, para. 10.

  169. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 62, para. 223; p. 63, para. 230.

  170. Ibid., pp. 64–74, paras. 231–272.

  171. In the view of the Court, the following actions by Singapore can be seen as conduct à titre de souverain: (1) investigation of shipwrecks by Singapore in the waters around Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, (2) Singapore’s exercise of exclusive control over visits to the island, (3) the installation by Singapore of military communications equipment on the island in 1977, and (4) a proposed reclamation by Singapore to extend the island. In addition, the Court considered that the following actions of the parties give some weight to Singapore’s case or signify the failure of Malaysia’s argument. They include: (1) the display of the British and Singapore ensigns on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, (2) the delimitation of Malaysia’s territorial sea in 1969, (3) the inclusion of Horsburgh lighthouse as a “Singapore” Station in the 1959 Malaysian report and the 1966 joint report and its omission from the 1967 Malaysian report, and (4) official maps. Ibid., pp. 64–74, paras. 231–272.

  172. Ibid., p. 95, para. 274.

  173. Ibid., p. 96, para. 275.

  174. Ibid., p. 96, paras. 276–277. However, the ICJ held that the particular circumstances concerning Pedra Branca which had come to affect the passing of title to the island to Singapore did not apply to other maritime features, namely, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. It accordingly concluded that original title to Middle Rocks should remain with Malaysia as the successor to the Sultan of Johor. Ibid., pp. 77–78, paras. 289–290. Further, see Tanaka (2008), pp. 10–11.

  175. Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard in Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, pp. 140–141, para. 19; Declaration by Judge Ranjeva, ibid., p. 103, para. 2.

  176. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 50, para. 121.

  177. Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard in Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, pp. 147–148, para. 37. See also the Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Simma and Abraham, ibid., p. 119, para. 10.

  178. Distefano (2006), p. 1067.

  179. Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands v. United States), Award of 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2, p. 839.

  180. Ibid., p. 840.

  181. See also Distefano (2018), p. 415.

References

  • Abi-Saab G (2007) Le principe de l’uti possidetis, son rôle et ses limites dans le contentieux territorial international. In: Kohen MG (ed) Promoting justice, human rights and conflict resolution through international law: Liber amicorum Lucius Caflisch. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 657–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum YZ (1965) Historic titles in international law. Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2008) Principles of public international law, 7th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2012) Brierly’s law of nations, 7th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher F (1929) L’arbitrage de l’île de Palmas (Miangas). Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 56:735–762

    Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher C (1953) Théories et réalités en droit international public. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher C (1967) Les effectivités du droit international public. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher C (1968) Theory and reality in public international law. Translated by Corbett PE. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück J (2007) Max Huber’s sociological approach to international law revisited. Eur J Int Law 18:97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson EE (1933) The Clipperton Island case. Am J Int Law 27:130–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Distefano G (2002) L’ordre international entre légalité et effectivité. PUF, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Distefano G (2006) The conceptualization (construction) of territorial title in the light of the International Court of Justice case law. Leiden J Int Law 19:1041–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Distefano G (2018) Time factor and territorial disputes. In: Kohen MG, Hébité M (eds) Research handbook on territorial disputes in international law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 397–416

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice G (1993) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice, vol 1. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukamachi T (1994) Some reflections on title to territory in international law. J Law Polit 61:67–105 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldie LFE (1963) The critical date. Int Comp Law Q 12:1251–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huh S (2012) The acquisition of territory in international law: the effectiveness and legitimacy of territorial control. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Huh S (2015) Title to territory in the post-colonial era: original title and terra nullius in the ICJ judgments on cases concerning Ligitan/Sipadan (2002) and Pedra Branca (2008). Eur J Int Law 26:709–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (2017) The acquisition of territory in international law, with a new introduction by Marcelo G. Kohen. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY, Watts A (1996) Oppenheim’s international law, 9th edn, vol 1: Peace parts 2–4. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DHN (1955) Consolidation as a root of title in international law. Camb Law J 13:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (1992) The sociological jurisprudence of Max Huber: an introduction. Austrian J Public Int Law 43:197–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (1997) Possession contestée et souveraineté territoriale. PUF, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2004) La relation titre/effectivités dans le contentieux territorial à la lumière de la jurisprudence récente. Revue générale de droit international public 108:561–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2013) Original title in the light of the ICJ judgment on sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. J Hist Int Law 15:151–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2018) Titles and effectivités in territorial Disputes. In: Kohen MG, Hébié M (eds) Research handbook on territorial disputes in international law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 145–168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz JL (1939) The problem of revision in international law (‘peaceful change’). Am J Int Law 33:33–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law, 7th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson M (2004) The Cameroon-Nigeria case in the International Court of Justice: some territorial sovereignty and boundary delimitation issues. Br Year Book Int Law 75:223–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munkman ALW (1972–1973) Adjudication and adjustment: international judicial decision and the settlement of territorial and boundary disputes. Br Year Book Int Law 46:1–116

  • Oduntan G (2015) International law and boundary disputes in Africa. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon J (2001) Dictionnaire de droit international public. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1957) Title to territory: response to challenge. Am J Int Law 51:308–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (1982) Territory in international law. Neth Yearb Int Law 13:61–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (1986) Title to territory in Africa: international legal issues. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (1996) The heritage of states: the principle of uti possidetis juris today. Br Year Book Int Law 67:75–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2017) International law, 8th edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2008) Passing of sovereignty: the Malaysia/Singapore territorial dispute before the ICJ. Hague Justice J 3:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2018) Bakassi decision: international law and the acquisition of sovereignty over land territory. In: Egede EE, Igiehon MO (eds) The Bakassi dispute and the International Court of Justice: continuing challenges. Routledge, London, pp 100–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2013) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice, vol 1. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Virally M (2010) La pensée juridique. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetter JG (1971) The Rann of Kutch arbitration. Am J Int Law 65:346–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Yoshifumi Tanaka

Authors
  1. Yoshifumi Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshifumi Tanaka.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tanaka, Y. Between Stability and Change: The Concept of Historical Consolidation of Title in the Acquisition of Territory Revisited. Neth Int Law Rev 68, 189–217 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00194-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00194-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation