العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolTERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
'Territorial integrity' is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states. Conversely it states that border changes imposed by force are acts of aggression.
In recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement"[1] Territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention collided in the Kosovo War.
Although first mentioned with the appearance of Westphalian sovereignty in 1648, territorial integrity was a concept mostly honored in breach until the end of World War II. With the formation of the United Nations (UN) and, later, such organizations as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (now OSCE), territorial integrity became a part of international resolutions. The Helsinki Final Act dealt with both ''inviolability of frontiers'' and ''territorial integrity of States'', among other things.
The recent (post-WWII) strict application of territorial integrity has given rise to a number of problems and, when faced with reality "on the ground", can be seen as too artificial a construct.[2]
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, speaking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 25 January 2001, argued for a more flexible approach to territorial integrity, in line with historical norms, saying: ''Let us accept the fact that states have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created them. Hardly any Member State of the United Nations has existed within its present borders for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy.''[3]
At the 2005 World Summit, the world's nations agreed on a "Responsibility to Protect" giving a right of humanitarian intervention. These developments point to a more flexible application of the concept of territorial integrity, easing the strict adherence and taking into account the ''de facto'' status of the territory and other factors present on a case by case basis.[4] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on April 28, 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"[5] The first major test of the Security's resolve to enforce this resolution against the objections of a host country claiming that it is an infringement of their sovereign rights (under Article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter) is the Darfur crisis.[6][7]
1. UN Charter Chapter XI
2. Stuart Elden (University Of Durham) ''Boundaries-in-the-making (Part 1): Critical perspectives on national borders'' paper presented on 4 June 2005 to the Association of American Geographers 2005 Annual Meeting
3. The four pillars of Pridnestrovie's statehood
4. Annan calls for endorsement of Responsibility to Protect
5. Resolution 1674 (2006) on the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine website
6. UN Charter: Chapter I
7. Gamal Nkrumah and Eric Reeves Head-to-head: Darfur situation website of the BBC, Nkrumah and Reeves debated Darfur's complex issues
In recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement"[1] Territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention collided in the Kosovo War.
| Contents |
| History of territorial integrity |
| Territorial integrity in a changing world |
| References |
History of territorial integrity
Although first mentioned with the appearance of Westphalian sovereignty in 1648, territorial integrity was a concept mostly honored in breach until the end of World War II. With the formation of the United Nations (UN) and, later, such organizations as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (now OSCE), territorial integrity became a part of international resolutions. The Helsinki Final Act dealt with both ''inviolability of frontiers'' and ''territorial integrity of States'', among other things.
Territorial integrity in a changing world
The recent (post-WWII) strict application of territorial integrity has given rise to a number of problems and, when faced with reality "on the ground", can be seen as too artificial a construct.[2]
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, speaking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 25 January 2001, argued for a more flexible approach to territorial integrity, in line with historical norms, saying: ''Let us accept the fact that states have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created them. Hardly any Member State of the United Nations has existed within its present borders for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy.''[3]
At the 2005 World Summit, the world's nations agreed on a "Responsibility to Protect" giving a right of humanitarian intervention. These developments point to a more flexible application of the concept of territorial integrity, easing the strict adherence and taking into account the ''de facto'' status of the territory and other factors present on a case by case basis.[4] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on April 28, 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"[5] The first major test of the Security's resolve to enforce this resolution against the objections of a host country claiming that it is an infringement of their sovereign rights (under Article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter) is the Darfur crisis.[6][7]
References
1. UN Charter Chapter XI
2. Stuart Elden (University Of Durham) ''Boundaries-in-the-making (Part 1): Critical perspectives on national borders'' paper presented on 4 June 2005 to the Association of American Geographers 2005 Annual Meeting
3. The four pillars of Pridnestrovie's statehood
4. Annan calls for endorsement of Responsibility to Protect
5. Resolution 1674 (2006) on the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine website
6. UN Charter: Chapter I
7. Gamal Nkrumah and Eric Reeves Head-to-head: Darfur situation website of the BBC, Nkrumah and Reeves debated Darfur's complex issues
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
