Sovereignty In International Law Research Articles

VERTICAL SOVEREIGNTY: WHAT MATTERS

Numerous academic works have explored the intricate concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction in relation to territory. However, customary international law recognises that a state's territory comprises land, airspace, and territorial seas, making the topic even more complex. This article investigates the significance of airspace in terms of a state's sovereignty, discussing the legal basis for a state's authority over its airspace to maintain economic and political control, peace, and stability. By examining international conventions, treaties, and cases, this study uses a juridical-normative methodology to comprehend the notion of airspace sovereignty in international law and identify what constitutes and instances of an infringement of a state's airspace sovereignty. Ultimately, this research aims to lay the foundations for insights into what matters for airspace sovereignty. The resolution highlights the significance of diplomacy and international cooperation in addressing issues related to the violation of territorial airspace.

Обмеження державного сувернітету в умовах глобалізації: теоретико-правовий аспект

In the article, the author discusses the current state and use of the concept of state sovereignty in international law. The author analyzes the issue of limiting sovereignty from the standpoint of real and recent examples in international practice. The article also attempts to trace the evolution of ideas about state sovereignty and analyzes various theoretical and legal approaches to the signs of sovereignty. It was determined that the specific forms of limitation of sovereignty are full and partial (as a result of annexation or gradual inclusion of the territory into another state), as well as voluntary and forced (voluntary entry into any supranational association, for example, the European Union, or restrictions imposed as a result of international interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria) restrictions. Based on the results, it is concluded that the observed erosion of the concept of state sovereignty threatens the destruction of the modern system of international relations and the erosion of the very concept of the state as we know and understand it today. One of the drivers of this process is globalization, within the framework of which the sovereign state becomes "redundant" and, in fact, "unnecessary", causing a quick return to the state "before Westphalia", characterized primarily by a huge number of political overlords, whose sovereignty has a weak connection with any separate formal state entities.

Analysis and Reflections on Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge

The judgment of the International Court of Justice over the dispute between Malaysia and Singapore concerning Pedra Branca offers quite different insights into general aspects of the rules governing the acquisition of territorial sovereignty in international law. The Court concluded in the case that at a typical time Johor understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca and that the authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom had sovereignty over the island, and the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain afterwards, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors reflects the pass of sovereignty. In this case, instead of weighing which is the stronger title, the Court emphasized the importance of consent in the field of territorial change and for the notions of abandonment and acquiescence as the legal foundations of this transfer of sovereignty. Based on the analysis on this case, some countries which face similar territorial disputes could acquire inspiration.

Indonesia’s Approach on Cyberattack Attribution through its Foreign Policy

<span lang="EN-US">It is clear that cybersecurity has now become a matter of increasing concern for Indonesian citizens, the private sector and the Indonesian government. Indonesia is ranked among the top countries from which cyberattacks are launched, while at the same time is itself very vulnerable to cyberattack. Indeed, Indonesia is currently in the early stages of developing a national cybersecurity strategy. The legal framework for cybersecurity in Indonesia is still weak that there is no clear classified security law or policy, and security practices are spread across different legislation while there are no specific cybersecurity provisions in place. Indonesia also lacks of national policy and strategy when it seeks to defend itself against cyberattack, particularly those hacking activities from foreign actors or state-sponsored groups. While majority of states in the world </span><span lang="EN-US">have two different approaches on cyberattack attribution from the context of sovereignty in international law, those applied sovereignty as a rule and as a principle, Indonesia has never </span><span lang="EN-US">stated clearly its position. Therefore, based on the analysis on how Indonesia’s approach on sovereignty through its foreign policy, from the perspectives of diplomacy practices and national policies, relevant sovereignty-violation cases, and its international framework and cooperation on cybersecurity, we may conclusively view that Indonesia appears to endorse the sovereignty-as-a-rule position, where it upholds the principle of respect for state sovereignty on cyberspace.</span>

KONDISI FAKTUAL DAN FAKTOR-FAKTOR PENENTU PEMENUHAN PENDIDIKAN DASAR DAN MENENGAH DI KAWASAN PERBATASAN

The factual conditions and determining factors for the fulfillment of the right to primary and secondary education are a re-actualization of state sovereignty. State sovereignty is the result of a reflection, abstraction and contemplation of a country's ability to maintain and maintain its existence in international law and relations. State sovereignty builds arguments about the laws and legal systems that apply in a country, including the fulfillment of the right to education in Indonesia. State sovereignty is a legal prescription to make, implement and enforce the law on people, objects and legal actions in the field of education in accordance with applicable standards and laws. Legal rights and obligations are formed and interact with each other in the legal system of a country so that the factual conditions and determining factors for the right to primary and secondary education in border areas are the sovereignty of the Indonesian state itself in accordance with the international agenda accepted by Indonesia in the field of education. The concept of state sovereignty is one of the most important elements in determining rights and obligations in international law. State sovereignty in international law establishes a standard identity of subjects of international law. State sovereignty is a legal prescription to make, implement and enforce the law on people, objects and legal actions. The prescription creates an agreement between the right holder and the right holder. The truth and fulfillment of the law becomes the standardization of state behavior towards its citizens or individual groups within the country within the framework of the protection, fulfillment and promotion of human rights in its territory or jurisdiction, including the right to basic and secondary education in the border areas of the Indonesian state.

The Sovereignty of the Air Space and Its Protection in the Perspective of International Law: Some Aliens Intervention in Southeast Asian Countries

State sovereignty in international law is not a solution, in the international world as a legal entity that acts as a subject of international law. This also happens between one country or another, which can then be announced the deeds agreed to by each country are not appropriate, because they must be approved by the deeds of other countries or we can call it the Relativity of State.There are three thoughts in understanding the concept of state sovereignty over developing air space. The first is that air space cannot be used or used by anyone because in principle, the state does not have sovereignty. Secondly, special rights such as freedom of air that do not limit the height of the airspace boundary are obtained by the State of the Netherlands. And finally, the principle that the state has freedom of airspace, but there is a territory or territorial zone that gives certain rights to the under the state that can be implemented. This research has the purpose of being able to know and analyze how the regulation and accountability of the state in an effort to protect and maintain the country's sovereignty over air space viewed from the perspective of international law. The research method used in this study is the normative juridical library method, where this normative juridical research is a study using literature with primary data such as laws and regulations, the scientific work of scholars, as well as from several books. Then it will be explained or described in a deductive description supported by literature study. Based on the results of research and discussion, we can find out that the thinking on the concept of state sovereignty territory starts from the three theoretical ideas mentioned earlier. Then put together in international agreements as stated in the 1944 Chicago International Civil Aviation Convention especially the definition of state sovereignty over air space, paragraph 1 which reads "the contracting states recognize that every state has complication and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory". The state is fully responsible for the maintenance and protection of the country's sovereign territory over air space.

The Changing “Landscape” of Sovereignty Viewed through the Lens of International Tax: Reterritorializing the Offshore

AbstractThis article reviews the “gaps” that allow for the creation of the “offshore” in international law and argues that these are instead constituted by constraints on our spatial imaginary of law than by any “real” gaps between state jurisdictions. The modern practices of sovereignty by states and non-state actors are at odds with the implicit geography of international law that assumes a static and fixed concept of territory. By rethinking the relevant legal spaces of international law and the sovereign practices that constitute the supposedly deterritorialized offshore, we can see that the offshore is actually onshore somewhere; we can reterritorialize the supposed deterritorialized competences. This article identifies a desynchronization between state territories and the actual exercise of sovereignty that presents as pseudo deterritorialization. Yet if both the concept of sovereignty and the implicit geography of international law confirm and reinforce one another in international law discourse, international lawyers are blind to the changing “landscape” of sovereignty in international law.

The Dynamics of Self-determination in the Context of Statehood and Sovereignty in International Law

The dynamics of self-determination have increasingly demanded the attention of academics, policymakers, and the international community in general. This can be attributed to the new age of the communications revolution; peoples are increasingly aware of state systems and how they can be recognized and respected within a state system. These people, largely with peculiarities, whether to be recognized within a state or internationally, are now pushing to exercise what they perceive as their right to self-determination, which in their calculation includes the right to independent statehood; in international law, do these groups have this right? Is this new call a result of the dissolution of imperial powers, neo-decolonization or just increased international consciousness on the subject matter? How should the intelligentsia and the international community approach this issue in our modern-day? History has shown that self-determination movements often resort to violence to achieve targeted aims and objectives. The origins of these movements have continued to be a subject of debate within international relations and international law as well; however, the outside world continues to pay little attention to this thorny matter until conflict breaks out, leaving similarly ambitious groups with the mindset that violence is the only practical course of action. The issue of self-determination is often assessed from a formal, legalistic viewpoint. While most knowledgeable actors continue to address the issue mildly, it should be known that in practicality, the issue is far trickier than it looks on paper. Self-determination encompasses so many issues—including individual and minority rights, autonomy, state repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the intelligentsia and the international community should see this issue as one that cannot be treated lightly, at least for the sake of protecting lives and property. This paper extensively discusses the concept of statehood in international law, including the issue of state-building and the criteria for the rise of a state established in law. It further examines and interrogates the Montevideo Convention; also, this work explores the recognition of statehood in its classical and modern understanding as it relates to prevailing legal theories.

Historical Comparison of Sovereignty in International Law

The current article aims to study on the concept of sovereignty in international law. To this end, sovereignty is historically examined and compared in different legal doctrines. In fact, there is a verity of legal theories on the formulation and conceptualization of sovereignty. The dominant perspective of the contemporary legal doctrines sees sovereignty as wornout and outdated concept which belongs to classical legal doctrines. This article argues such accounts and shows how the concept of sovereignty survived through historically legal developments and has still been influential in the sphere of international law. Although the main legal events comprising Westphalian truce, world wars, the foundation of United Nation organization and so on have changed the nature and content of sovereignty in the history of international law, it has remained as a fundamental principle of international law. The lack of correct understanding of this concept can reinforce the obstacles for legal modeling and doctrines. So, through such a historical comparison, the research elaborates the reconceptualization process in the concept of sovereignty and elucidates how sovereignty means in the contemporary international law and how this concept defined by the modern legal doctrine influences international law and globally affects the legal order among states. Discussing the different legal doctrines on the concept of sovereignty in different historical periods, the article reveals the present considerations on sovereignty in contemporary international law.

Visualizing international studies on cyberspace sovereignty: concept, rationality, and legitimacy

Abstract This study visualizes the international cyberspace sovereignty studies collected in Web of Science Core Collection to construct knowledge bases, development status, and dynamic trends drawing on scientometric method by instrument CiteSpace (5.7.R5). The findings show that the international studies on cyberspace sovereignty have phased and interdisciplinary characteristics. Its research theories, perspectives, and methods will be affected by practical and legal environment in the international contexts. Additionally, this study discusses its rationality to gain the concept through temporal evolution, spatial variation, and linguistic rank; explores its legitimacy through existing necessity, Common Law of Nature spirit and Positive Law foundation; and finally puts forward its implementation path. Furthermore, the logical basis and jurisprudential basis have established the status of cyberspace sovereignty in international law.

Spatio-Temporal Dimensions of Indigenous Sovereignty in International Law

The sovereignty of indigenous peoples has long been a matter of debate. This chapter investigates the spatio-temporal dimensions of indigenous sovereignty in international law. The topic holds both theoretical relevance and contemporary practical significance, as it can inform and transform ongoing debates on the rights of indigenous people. The chapter highlights the importance of history in any serious and constructive consideration of the territorial and spatial dimensions of sovereignty. It also highlights that a just or at least fair resolution of any question relating to sovereignty, including its territorial dimension, must fully consider competing stories, histories, and temporalities of sovereignty. This method of analysis infuses the concept of sovereignty with inter-civilisational connotations, which are often neglected in current debates. The chapter supports the emergence of novel concepts, such as parallel sovereignty, to complement and give further impulse to the self-determination of indigenous peoples within the state. This reflection appeals to the experiences and histories of non-Western cultures and civilisations, thereby opening new avenues for informing future theory and practice of international law.

GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION (GDPR) DAN KEDAULATAN NEGARA NON-UNI EROPA

Generally, the GDPR applies to data processing activities conducted by organisations established in the European Union (EU). But in certain activities, GDPR may also apply outside EU according to extra-teritorial principle. This principle has correlation to concept of sovereignty in international law. This article aims to examine whether a state must abide to GDPR when the requirement fulfiled or should the states use their sovereignty as a basis to deny it. This article is normative legal research. It focus on case-law, statutes and other legal source as primary and subsidiary source. The analysis is deductive by reasoning from more general to more specific. The result show that extra-teritorial principle under GDPR is in accordance to international law. The practice is common in the world in order to protect the citizen and national interest from any threat from abroad. The chance of overlapping between this principles with state’s sovereignty is hardly to occur as the principle only works when the interest of European citizen violated.

How Sovereign Is a State From Foreign Intervention? Gambia as a Case Study

This paper examines to what extent is Gambia sovereign from foreign intervention. It considers the legality or otherwise of ECOWAS’ military intervention in the recent post-election/ political crisis in Gambia. Bearing in mind that national sovereignty in international law is not absolute as International Humanitarian Law, Human Right and International Criminal Law have provided exceptions, this paper highlight situations which permit foreign intervention in a state and considers the various argument of writers on the legality/illegality of ECOWAS’ military intervention in Gambia. The paper argues that ECOWAS’ military intervention lacks the requisite authorisation of the UN Security Council who by its resolution permitted the application of political measures only. ECOWAS also failed to meet the requirement for the application of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Gambia. More so, intervention on the basis of restoring democracy is void of legal backing as the enabling protocol permits ECOWAS to apply sanctions on member-state where democracy is abruptly brought to an end. On the whole, this paper concludes that though ECOWAS’ military intervention is justifiable in view of the situation in Gambia, it however lacked the requisite legal backing. The paper recommends that in situations where intervention is not based on humanitarian reason to necessitate the application of R2P, military intervention should have the requisite authorisation of the UN Security Council and the application of force should be the last option having exhausted all other means of dispute resolution.

Is the ‘Living Instrument’ Approach of the European Court of Human Rights Compatible with the ECHR and International Law?

The article offers a rebuttal of prominent criticisms directed against the ‘living instrument’ interpretative approach of the European Court of Human Rights. The article initially introduces the basic application of the interpretative approach as adopted by the Court and then considers whether it is compatible with the Convention and broader International Law. The article argues that the Preamble, subsequent State practice and preparatory work offer inconclusive evidence to both critics and supporters of the ‘living instrument’. However, the interpretative approach can claim democratic endorsement through States, while arguments based on the necessity to consider domestic interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) cannot support a restrictive interpretation as a matter of International Law. The ‘living instrument’ further appears compatible in the context of state sovereignty in International Law, and broader institutional concerns with the role of judges in the adjudication of rights. Ultimately, the ‘living instrument’ interpretative approach therefore appears legal under the Convention and relevant International Law.

The Soviet Intervention in Hungary (1956)

The nascent prohibition on the use of force, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, faced a significant challenge at the end of its first decade. In late October 1956, the Soviet army crushed a burgeoning rebellion in Hungary, ostensibly upon the invitation of the Hungarian government, and allegedly in conformity with the provisions of the Warsaw Pact. While the intervention was widely condemned, international law could not prevent the Soviet invasion nor secure the USSR's withdrawal from Hungary. Seven decades later, this Chapter analyzes the Soviet intervention under jus ad bellum. It focuses on the positions of relevant actors in real-time, as well as on the enduring aspects of the affair. As the Chapter reveals, the Hungary intervention presented dilemmas that plague the international law on the use of force even in contemporary times. It raised questions that remain burning today, such as the role of consent in legalizing external forcible intervention, the ability of international law to face superpowers, and the dialectics between effectiveness and legitimacy in the determination of lawful authority during internal strife. Although international law has ultimately failed Hungary, the international discourse on the affair was distinctly legal, and - perhaps surprisingly - was very much centered on the language of international human rights. The conflation of the law on the use of force and considerations of human rights, perhaps, was a harbinger to the contemporary debate on the meaning of sovereignty in international law, especially in an increasingly divided world.

ПОНЯТТЯ ДЕРЖАВНОГО СУВЕРЕНІТЕТУ В МІЖНАРОДНОМУ ПРАВІ

In the article is studied of concept ≪state sovereignty≫, his international legal properties and features of conception of state sovereignty in an international law on the modern stage. The special value undertaken a study acquires in connection with a loss Ukraine of sovereignty above separate parts of territory of Ukraine. Given the international legal acts, which contain legal opinion of the events of 2014 in Crimea. The legal envisaged concept of state sovereignty is absent in an international law formally. The analysis of doctrine approaches of lawyers-specialists in international law is conducted to the concept ≪state sovereignty≫. The analysis of legal literature witnessed, that a concept ≪state sovereignty≫ in an international law is characterized by next signs: political and legal independence, value as primary international legal subject; needed for exceptional supremacy of state power and envisages insubordination of power of other state; conditioned by legal equality of the independent states and is in basis of modern international law. State sovereignty is characterized international legaland internal aspects. Under the external aspect of sovereignty is understood independent of other subjects of international law. The internal aspect of territorial supremacy means the right of the state exercise its authority within its territory Sovereign equality is a concept, what derivant from a concept ≪sovereignty≫. But in most international legal acts, the concept of ≪state sovereignty≫ is used primarily in combination with the principle of territorial integrity of states. Principle of territorial integrity essentially comes forward as a major backer-up of state sovereignty, as exactly territory is an obligatory sign of any state, sphere of action of his sovereignty. The concept of state sovereignty in international law is based on the principles of international law, primarily the non-use of force and threat of force in international relations, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, inviolability of borders and territorial integrity of states. At the national level, appropriate to speak of sovereignty as a property of the state, and at the international level, the principle of respect for state sovereignty. Thus, state sovereignty remains the base of the international legal system. The most serious crime against state sovereignty in an international criminal law is a crime of aggression. In the framework of international law, it is expedient to develop more effective mechanisms for the protection of state sovereignty, taking into account the need to protect it from contemporary forms of manifestation of an international crime ≪aggression≫, which is accompanied by information, trade, as well as ≪hybrid≫ wars.

In Defense of Sovereignty, in the Wake of Tallinn 2.0

One of the gentle surprises of the release of the Tallinn 2.0 Manual is that it has prompted a rich debate over the nature of sovereignty in international law. In hindsight, this should not be too surprising. The modern, Westphalian project of international law is built in large measure around the state and its borders. The emergence of a technology that so readily defies those borders was bound to kick up some interpretive dust. And it appears to have done even more than that. Depending on your perspective, the Tallinn translation of international law to the cyber domain has either forced a reconsideration or surfaced a latent dispute over whether sovereignty is a binding rule of international law at all.

A Study on the Application of Food Sovereignty in International Law

The purpose of the present investigation will be to analyse Food Sovereignty in the light of international law. It constitutes at its heart a legal analysis of this concept, observing exactly how it has been developed until the present moment. By so doing, we will be capable of familiarising ourselves with its legal strengths and inconsistencies, along with showing what might be the way to take so that its proposals and aims obtain the greatest possible legal viability. The complete legal construction of Food Sovereignty has not been carried out. Moreover, one can say that the movement for the defence of Food Sovereignty has focused above all on constructing a discourse of a political nature. It is desired to achieve a ruling as detailed and broad as the program that defends Food Sovereignty, it is worthwhile to propose the creation of a branch within international law, which could be denoted as International Law for the Rural World. Especially as the preoccupation for rural territories is the element that is present in every aspect of this broad political program that defends Food Sovereignty.

Communities of Interest in the Nordic Management of International Watercourses

This article takes a closer look at water cooperation among Nordic countries, and in particular the newly established Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District. It addresses the effectiveness of water governance within the structure chosen for managing the River Basin District and compares this with the main features of the community of interest approach in international water law. Serving as backdrop for this comparison is the earlier Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission, which was considered a pioneer project of common water management, and the common values that unite the Nordic countries. Cooperation over shared water resources challenges the principle of territorial sovereignty in international law, and requires engaged cooperative regimes. While Norway and Finland have excellent opportunities to create a progressive water management regime, their current solution has some significant shortcomings.

CUSTOMARY LAW IN INVESTMENT REGULATION

This article explores the expression of State sovereignty through customary norms in a regulatory space dominated by investment treaties. It argues that, because most of the actionable concepts expressing sovereignty in international law are general (not specific to a “branch”) andcustomary, misunderstanding the role of customary law in investment regulation amounts to confining sovereignty to a few narrow carve-outs and exceptions in investment treaties. However, customary concepts operate autonomously and in parallel to treaties, unless specifically excluded by the latter. The lex specialis principle does not necessarily command the exclusion in toto of relevant customary rules. The article discusses the work of the Institut de Droit International in this regard and then analyses the investment case law relating to the application of the police powers doctrine, necessity, countermeasures and transnational public policy. It shows that failure to address specifically the articulation of treaty and customary norms even in the event the former apply as lex specialis is subtly eroding, without clear legal grounds,the customary expression of sovereignty in foreign investment disputes.