'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.
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