PP-T01-Big and small states & the legality of the use of force in international law PDF

Big and small states & the legality of the use of force in international law Topic One Dr. Bashir AbulQaraya  Big and small states & the legality of the use of force in international law Big and small states The range of island disputes Several Dimensions...

Big and small states & the legality of the use of force in international law Topic One Dr. Bashir AbulQaraya  Big and small states & the legality of the use of force in international law Big and small states The range of island disputes Several Dimensions to the island disputes First Major Dimension Second Major Dimension Third Major Dimension The case of the Three Islands The legality of the use of force in the acquisition of a territory  Big and small states According to Michael Clarke, who was the Director of the Royal United Services Institute in London (RUSI), there is a long and well-established literature about the diplomacy and survival of small states in a world dominated by big states and super-states. It is a matter of constant fascination for scholars to explain why small states do not get gobbled up by bigger neighbours. The fact is that International Relations has been more interested in different issues while the phenomenon of the small state in world politics has become ever more apparent. There has been a failure to keep up our understanding as this has happened.  The range of Island disputes Island disputes are famously difficult political issues, and there are a lot of them in world politics affecting every region. They range from disputes between African nations over territories such as the Glorioso Islands or the Perejil Islands, to more famous disputes in the Asia-Pacific region over the Spratley Islands, the Kurile Islands, the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands, the Paracel Islands or even the Socotra Rock; to other island disputes in the Middle East such as the Khuriya Muriya Islands, not to mention the Isla Brasilera dispute between Brazil and Uruguay in Latin America or the famous Falkland/Malvinas Islands dispute between Argentina and Britain.  Several Dimensions to the island disputes Island disputes tend to be highly contentious because they represent displaced sovereignty They create sovereign rights, or some variation of them such as Protectorate or Commonwealth status, from which so much else flows. There are several dimensions to this sovereign identification.  First Major Dimension (1/2) A first major dimension to the displaced sovereignty is that island sovereignty creates claims to maritime jurisdiction around them, creating sovereign territorial waters. This generates authority over legal rights of passage through territorial waters, fishing rights within them and legal title to licenced exploitation of any hydrocarbon or mineral resources found under the seabed.  First Major Dimension (2/2) Disputes over hydrocarbon exploitation are certainly characteristic of island disputes within relatively shallow waters, such as the Gulf or the eastern Mediterranean. But they also apply increasingly in deep sea disputes such as in the south Atlantic or in the Indian Ocean where the technology now exists to lift such resources and where energy pricing increasingly makes it economically viable to exploit even deep seabed hydrocarbons.  Second Major Dimension (1/2) A second major dimension to the displaced sovereignty that island jurisdiction provides has a direct security element. Islands can be defence outposts that can host military hardware, staging posts and air bases, radars, listening stations and intelligence assets of all descriptions. They can provide extremely useful- and therefore extremely threatening to neighbours- military assets for a state, and perhaps also the allies of that state to use.  Second Major Dimension (2/2) For this reason, many states who occupy disputed islands are careful not to exploit their military utility too far, for fear that they become crisis points with other parties to that dispute. Claims to island sovereignty are one thing, but the deployment of military installations or forces on them is quite another.  Third Major Dimension (1/2) A third reason why island disputes are particularly interesting is because they are frequently at the intersection of legal norms and power diplomacy. In this respect, they are a good indicator of how the modern world is evolving and they tell us a great deal about current trends in the relations between big and small, strong and weak, states. Island disputes are always based on some competing claims in international law.  Third Major Dimension (2/2) In the case of populated islands, one state may claim prior occupation of an island while another claims the rights of self-determination for an existing population. Both parties may also claim widespread international recognition for their stated position. In such cases, the principle of self- determination for an existing population is very difficult to deny in international law since it has been enshrined in both the League of Nations and the United Nations for almost a century as one of the guiding legal principles of the modern international system.  The case of the Three Islands Some elements of the international precedents for the island disputes apply in the case of the Three Islands issue between Abu Dhabi and Iran. The sensitive dispute of the three islands in the respective contexts of the UAE and Iran as significant political actors in the Gulf, has a great deal to tell us about large and small states, legal claims and diplomatic balances.  The legality of the use of force in the acquisition of a territory (1/2) All decisions, conventions and treaties made by the international community since 1907 call to use peaceful means to solve regional and border problems between states. With the conclusion of the United Nations Charter in 1945 the use of force or threat of force became forbidden by contemporary international law within the international community, and it was no longer possible legally to accept conquest as a legal means of acquiring sovereignty over territory.  The legality of the use of force in the acquisition of a territory (2/2) The prohibition of force developed gradually within the international community. At the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, tentative and modest steps were taken to place the first legal restrictions upon the unqualified right of states to resort to force as an instrument of national policy. A resolution of the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907 declared annexations null and void in cases where the conqueror refused the request of the vanquished to refer their dispute to a court of arbitration. On the same occasion, further efforts were made to limit the use of force in relations between States.