State Territorial Integrity Research Articles

Brazilian criminal organizations as subjects of non-classical wars in the form of criminal rebellion

Modern criminal organizations are increasingly destabilizing both individual states and the international system in general. As they reach a certain level of development, they are able to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states through the establishment of control over parts of their territories. This can lead to a situation of criminal rebellion, understood as a mechanism of confrontation with the state under which organized crime begins to pose a challenge to the very existence of the latter. In this regard, the case of Latin American and Caribbean countries and, in particular, Brazil is of special interest. The first section examines academic discussions regarding the applicability of the concepts of ‘internal armed conflict’ and ‘unconventional warfare’ to the situation of criminal rebellion in Brazil. Special attention is paid to two key criteria — the intensity of violence and the organizational level of the belligerent parties. The author concludes that with regard to both these criteria, there is a state of unconventional warfare in Brazil in the form of a criminal rebellion that has reached the level of the internal armed conflict. The second and third sections of the paper examine the factors that contributed to the transformation of specific Brazilian criminal organizations — the ‘First Capital Command’ (PCC) and the ‘militias’ — into actors of a full-fledged criminal rebellion. In the case of the PCC, these factors include the adoption of more flexible network organizational principles and the guerrilla tactics, accompanied by the growing internationalization of criminal activities, against the backdrop of further militarization of the Brazilian police. In the case of the ‘militias’, the author focuses on the concept of ‘armed politics’, which describes a situation where organized crime pervades the entire state apparatus. The author concludes that the situation in Brazil shows all the signs of a criminal insurgency, when certain criminal organizations have reached such a level of organizational complexity that they are able to undermine the sovereignty of the state by establishing control over at least part of its territory and acting as a belligerent in the internal armed conflict. The specific of the situation in Brazil is that such an insurgency is carried out by non-state violent actors who formally do not pursue any political/ideological goals. However, due to their destructive potential they should be treated as if they had political goals.

Historical retrospective of the formation of the institution of autonomy and self-determination of peoples

This article examines the evolution of the concept of the right of nations to self-determination from the ideas of the Enlightenment to the modern enshrinement in international law. It traces the genesis of the ideas of popular sovereignty and natural human rights in such thinkers as Locke, Grotius, Vattel and Rousseau. The key stages of formation of the institution of national autonomy are analyzed: national liberation movements of the XVIII-XIX centuries, the activities of the League of Nations, the formation of the system of minority protection within the UN. Particular attention is paid to international documents that enshrined the right to self-determination - the UN Charter, Declarations, Covenants on Human Rights. Controversial issues of correlation of this principle with the territorial integrity of states are considered. It substantiates the relevance of finding compromise solutions to ensure stability in the realization of the right to self-determination through various forms of autonomy and the formation of new states.

Legal methods of comparative research: the latest role in the conditions of globalization processes

This article is devoted to the study of legal methods of comparative direction in the conditions of globalization. Special attention is paid to the question of the growth of the role of the comparative legal method, the methodology of its implementation, as well as the factors that determine the growth of its role. First, it was noted that after the Second World War, the generally recognized principles of international law were developed and written down in the UN Charter and other fundamental international legal documents. Acting as a product of customary international law, that is, as a result of the practice of civilized nations in relations between themselves and with societies, they have acquired a universal character, which puts them «at the top» of the world legal order. Such principles as respect for human rights, state sovereignty, territorial integrity of states have received universally recognized content. In many European states, they have «direct effect», acquiring a constitutional character. This means that a new phenomenon has been created within national legal systems, which really consists of a common archetype present in the constitutional system of every civilized state. The second, comparative law, is currently used as a tool for judicial investigation of a legal case, and therefore - the reasoning of a court decision. This approach is widespread in the practice of the highest courts of states and especially the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
 After the Second World War, there was not a single significant legislative project that was not, to one degree or another, accompanied by extensive legal methods of comparative research. This approach should be reflected in the practice of reforms in Ukraine. It is important to emphasize that the comparative approach is characteristic not only for science, but also for law-making and law-enforcing bodies (courts). An adequate methodology of the comparative legal approach takes into account a complex understanding of the law itself (written and unwritten), as well as its broad social context.
 In addition, the change in the nature of international law, the creation in the last three decades of full-fledged regional legal systems, for example, the European legal system, as well as the strengthening of their interaction with national legal systems, necessitate the use of so-called «vertical methods» of comparative research.

Constitutional law in the system of international law

The article analyzes the processes of constitutionalization of international law. The purpose of the study is to substantiate the functions and principles of international law that determine the actions of subjects of international legal relations, to assess the potential of constitutional international law to ensure the constitutional legal order. The methodological strategy is built on the synthesis of general scientific and special private law methods. The main emphasis is placed on three main aspects of the constitutionalization of international law: the general values of the international community, the law-making process at the global level of subjects of international law, considered through the prism of the theory of sovereignty. The problem of finding the methodology of constitutional international law is raised. The general values of the international community as a basic prerequisite for the formation of international constitutional law are analyzed, the actions of subjects of international law are evaluated through the prism of the theory of sovereignty, the peculiarities of the norm-making process at the international level in the context of the formation of international constitutional law and the issue of the distribution of competence between different levels of the multi-level system of modern constitutionalism are investigated . The main principles of international constitutionalism are highlighted: limitation of state power in order to ensure human rights, non-use of force or threat of force, territorial integrity of states and inviolability of borders, democratization of social relations, transparency of legislative norms. Observance of these principles acquires constitutional significance in international law. The conclusions indicate the possibility and necessity of distinguishing international constitutional law as an independent field within the framework of international law due to the uniformity of its legal regulation. Considering the consequences of globalization, there is a need to replace the fragmented order based on regional, political, economic, national or cultural characteristics with a global legal order, which is ensured by the constitutionalization of international law.

Mapping the Landscape of the Inherent Right to Self-Determination of Peoples within Sovereign States

This essay explores the vexing question of the right to self-determination with particular reference to developments under both general international law and African regional law. It recognises the tension between the right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of states while arguing that the right to self-determination for peoples within sovereign independent states fits into emerging normative developments in international law practice and politics in Africa and beyond. These normative developments are a pointer that state-centric principles of territorial integrity are not inviolable. Meanwhile, they are also indices for identifying the limits of uti possidetis vis-à-vis the fundamental right of self-determination.

Scylla and Charybdis: The Self-Determination of Peoples Versus the Territorial Integrity of States

Scylla and Charybdis: The Self-Determination of Peoples Versus the Territorial Integrity of States

Scylla and Charybdis: The Self-Determination of Peoples Versus the Territorial Integrity of States

Scylla and Charybdis: The Self-Determination of Peoples Versus the Territorial Integrity of States

The USSR and the problem of Northern Epirus at the Paris Peace Conference of 1946

The article is devoted to the study of an important problem of the territorial affiliation of Northern Epirus at the Paris Peace Conference of 1946 and the role of Soviet diplomacy in its solution. The interests of Greece, Albania, the USSR and the Western powers in this region, the military and political-diplomatic confrontation of Greece, on the one hand, Albania, on the other, as well as the influence of the factor of the Soviet state in resolving the issue of Northern Epirus are considered. The purpose of this article is to study the national-territorial claims of Greece to Northern Epirus, which were discussed at the Paris Peace Conference. Based on the review of documentary archival materials in the course of the study, the author of the article came to the conclusion that in the process of resolving the issue of the status of Northern Epirus, Greece failed. The evaluation of the results of the efforts of the USSR government to protect the territorial integrity of Albania is given. The active participation of the USSR was aimed at maintaining peace in the region. Comparing the positions of the parties, the author shows the course of the political struggle around the adoption of final decisions on the status of Northern Epirus. The methodological basis of the research is the principles of historicism and consistency, which involve the consideration of phenomena and facts in their entirety and development in accordance with the conditions of a particular historical epoch. The principle of objectivity is also used. The relevance of the research problem is explained by the need to ensure the territorial integrity of states and the normalization of ethnic relations in them. The scientific novelty of the study consists in the fact that, based on the involvement of archival documentary materials, an attempt was made to study the question of the status of Northern Epirus in 1946 in the context of the approval of territorial changes after World War II. In the scientific literature, this problem has not been specifically posed in such a perspective until now.

ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ ПРАКТИКА ПРИМЕНЕНИЯ И ТОЛКОВАНИЯ ПРИНЦИПОВ ПРАВА НАРОДОВ НА САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ И ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОЙ ЦЕЛОСТНОСТИ ГОСУДАРСТВ

The opposing positions of countries on the application of the principles of the peoples’ right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of states are considered. The purpose of the article is to prove that the positions taken by countries are not determined by international legal norms or a custom, but by political necessity. Research methods: comparative, historical, systematic methods and content analysis of documents. The main results of the work are the following provisions. The situation with the secession of Kosovo from Serbia, the recognition of Kosovo's independence by a number of states was the first precedent in the application of the principles of the peoples’ right to self-determination. Then, first of all, the Western countries adopted an atypical position for them to deny the inviolability of the borders of the state of Serbia. On the other hand, these same countries are characterized by persistent non-recognition and disregard for the independence declarations of Pridnestrovie, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to the results of the study, the author came to the following conclusion. Research results. The author proved that in the situation with Kosovo, the countries of the West made a strategic mistake in the political interpretation of the principles of the peoples’ right to self-determination and territorial integrity of states. This bloc of states has shown that in practice it is ready to deviate from predictable and legally correct interpretations of the principles under consideration, moreover, under the influence of political expediency.

ОСНОВНІ ЗАСАДИ ФУНКЦІОНУВАННЯ МЕХАНІЗМІВ ПУБЛІЧНОГО УПРАВЛІННЯ У СФЕРІ

The article considers the principles of functioning of public mechanisms in the field of foreign economic security of EU member states. In particular, ensuring EU security is determined by a number of conceptual provisions: the indivisibility of security and its development on the basis of integration processes; scale and constant development of security programs; using national aspects to solve regional problems; equality of status and decision- making based on consensus; coordination of efforts in the field of common interests; territorial integrity of states and non-interference in each other's internal affairs; the formation of a market economy and the development of civil society. It has been established that scientists and politicians of EU countries do not single out the concepts of "foreign economic security", but operate with the concepts of "security", "national security" and "economic security", while really mean in their content and problems of foreign economic security. Have been found EU members to have different levels of economic security. Relatively stable economic systems in the EU (Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, France) are mainly focused on improving the efficiency of the economy and at the same time maintain the existing level of personal economic security of its citizens. The relatively new EU member states (Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states) have already completed first-generation reforms and are in the final stages of security sector reforms. It is concluded that the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine changes the security vectors in Europe. It has become clear that the current system of international security is not able to deter the aggressor and protect against real threats to individual countries. Only an effective combination of military force, diplomatic instruments and a strong economy can guarantee the realization of national interests, national ideas and national goals. This is the path Ukraine must take in its European aspirations, creating conditions for comprehensive protection of its own statehood and cultural and historical identification.

Podstawy prawne zbiorowej odmowy uznania państw na forum organizacji uniwersalnych - studium przypadków

The article aims to study the cases of collective non-recognition of certain States by the League of Nations and the United Nations, and to determine the legal basis of the measures adopted. The author divides the legal grounds for non-recognition into substantive and formal ones. In the course of the case study, four substantive grounds are identified, more than one of which was violatedduring the process of creation of each non-recognized State: the ban on the use of force, the territorial integrity of States, the right to self-determination and the prohibition of apartheid andracial discrimination. The examination of formal grounds reveals that the virtually universal compliance with UN calls might have been driven not only by binding resolutions but also by thetreaties, customary norms and peremptory norms, binding different UN members and nonmembers to a varying extent. Still, since the non-recognized States were neither members of the UN nor were bound by respective treaties, the illegality of their creation may only be explained with reference to violation of the peremptory norms and, in some cases, of the customary norms of international law.

International Aspects of Separatism in Contemporary Biafra

In the 21st century, the world at large and Africa in particular have encountered the rise of separatism, which has become one of the major challenges to stability. In Africa, over 20 countries face separatist movements, some of which demand full secession, while the rest - greater autonomy within the existing state. Most of Africas secessionist projects remain insignificant in scope and ineffectual, largely due to the absence or weakness of external support for separatists and to the commitment of the international community to preserve, with rare exceptions, the territorial integrity of states. The paper analyzes the reasons for the revival of the movement for the secession of Biafra decades after the end of the civil war between the central government of Nigeria and the separatists and looks into the international aspects that could fuel the conflict and exacerbate the military-political situation in West Africa, which is already turbulent due to the activities of Boko Haram terrorist group, other Islamist groupings in the Sahel, Cameroonian separatists of Ambazonia, etc. The present paper attempts to fill the gap in Russian Africanist literature on the current situation in Biafra, which is especially urgent due to the growing threat of separatism in Africa. Employing the historical approach, the authors analyze the nature of external involvement in the 1967-1970 Nigerian conflict, as well as methods of contemporary Biafran separatists, who seek international support. The paper concludes that due to various internal circumstances, as well as the practical lack of external material assistance, the establishment of a new Republic of Biafra will remain a utopian project for at least a decade, although separatist sentiments is likely to spread and hinder the achievement of internal political stability in West Africa, which is ridden with an increasing number of hot spots.

The Contemporary Meaning of the Self-Determination of Peoples and Its Limitations

The self-determination of peoples is considered to be one of most important principles of international law. It is enshrined in the UN Charter and numerous international instruments, and the ICJ has confirmed its status as a right of erga omnes character. The right of self-determination under international law served as the legal basis for independence of the colonial peoples, and it has been accepted that it has continued application and effect in the post-colonial era. However, precise nature and content of the right outside the colonial context remains elusive. That is mainly because the right to self-determination was originated from a moral or political concept that had no concrete legal meaning, and the international instruments through which the right has been developed have failed to provide precise definition of the right to self-determination. First of all, there is no consensus on the definition and scope of “people”, and the right to self-determination may have quite different meaning depending on the understanding of a “people”. Further, it is difficult to determine concrete and enforceable rights that emanate from self-determination of peoples. It seems that the right of self-determination has very limited application and meaning in the contemporary world. Many agree that the external aspect of the self-determination has lost much of its relevant in the contemporary world, especially because the territorial integrity of states has been accepted as a limitation to right of self-determination, and right to self-determination does not translate into the right to secede. However, there has been arguments that “remedial secession” should be possible in exceptional cases of gross human rights violation and denial of self-determination. On the other hand, the view that the right to self-determination has evolved into internal self-determination, which essentially means the right to democratic governance. However, a close scrutiny of these attempts to give continued relevance and meaning to the right to self-determination reveals that they lack state practice and opinio juris necessary for customary international law. When abused for political or nationalistic purposes, the right to self-determination can be a dangerous concept as the international community has recently witnessed through a series of events in Ukraine. That is why it is important to embrace clear meaning of the right to self-determination as is, in its limited sense without any embellishments.

Statism’s Catch-22: An Austro-Libertarian Analysis of 'Self-Determination of Peoples' under International Law

“Self-determination of peoples” is a relatively new international law principle which has gone through numerous changes in its history, making it an elusive concept. The principle has received interest the last 30 years, prompted at first by the Soviet breakup, more recently by growing nationalist movements, and most recently by states’ totalitarian measures enforced in the name of combating COVID-19. Important issues concerning the future of self-determination’s status in and impact on the international system remain. This paper outlines and analyzes the history of self-determination using a three-phase framework. In Phase One, the principle was a non-legally binding political principle. In Phase Two, the principle became legally binding but was limited to the decolonization context. In Phase Three, the principle becomes a universally accepted human right that some judges and jurists argue has become a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), which no state can violate under any circumstances. This historical inquiry reveals that the principle has always been asserted and argued against by states with the goal of maintaining or gaining power for themselves. This paper then summarizes the principle’s modern incarnation as a human right under international law, whereby “peoples” – i.e., the entire population of a state’s territory – have the right to both “external” and “internal” self-determination. “External” self-determination is the right of a people to have a state with independent international status. “Internal” self-determination means that the people in the state must be free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, while having adequate ability to participate in government. Self-determination and secession are often paired together, but current international law does not directly allow or disallow secession. This paper then delineates theoretical issues the modern incarnation of the self-determination principle poses for statism and the international system, including: how to define “peoples” under the principle; what the relationship of the principle to states’ sovereign territorial integrity should be; how to redraw state boundaries after a successful secession; whether radical self-determination leads to violent conflict; and what is the relationship of unfettered secession to liberal-democratic theory that much of the international system is based upon. Then, this paper applies Austro-libertarian theory to these issues, arguing that: the principle relies on an unfounded collectivist conception of rights; the international system slavishly adheres to the incoherent concept of states’ sovereign territorial integrity; the principle, when its inconsistencies are removed, must theoretically justify unfettered secession; and the conflation of democracy with both liberalism and government by consent keeps properly understood self-determination from being achievable in fact. This paper concludes that the modern self-determination principle’s theoretical deficiencies and inconsistencies present a catch-22 dilemma for the international system. Either self-determination must be extended to take supremacy over state territorial integrity, or it must be rejected explicitly and entirely. Either choice, or trying to split the difference between them, incentivizes delegitimization of statism and the international system.

Approaches to international information security and the discourse of cyberspace

This paper investigates the notion of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states in cyberspace by carefully examining the information security debate. Nowadays, issues related to infosec are posing fundamental challenges to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation-states. Our analysis has attempted to answer the critical question, which aspect makes infosec the most pressing issue of the 21st century? The United States, The Russian Federation, and China are the three technologically superior nations and are included in the study to compare their understanding of infosec issues. The authors have typically relied on their expertise to interpret primary and secondary data because of descriptive discourse. Moreover, the study is efficiently conducted through a deductive approach and has applied non-kineticism as a theoretical model. The results showed that due to the compelling non-kinetic application of infosec, the debate at international forums had become a victim of geopolitical considerations. Results also revealed that the discourse of infosec needs to be disassociated from social freedom as it has been adopted for military application and requires a national security perspective to confine the course of security implications. In abstract, the notion of infosec has given birth to new contestation in the domain of cyberspace that altogether would lead the competition into the ‘digital battlefield.’

Affirmative Action in Regional Policy and its Consequences for the National Safety

A regional policy is one of the important tools of supporting the state territorial integrity. Approaches and principles applied, and methods and tools employed are directly dependent on the historical track and socio-economic reality within a country, as well as on the geopolitical situation in the world. A regional policy of any contemporary state, including the Russian State, should take into account the challenges engendering threats to the national safety and territorial integrity of a country under the turbulent conditions and in the situation of the world order re-formatting. The basic concepts of a regional policy in the geopolitical turbulence circumstances should be guided by the strategic goal of preserving the national unity. Use of affirmative action within the regional policy of contemporary states, according to the authors’ opinion, engenders some threat to the territorial integrity because it generates certain prerequisites for separatism. The analysis of the cases of affirmative action used by some foreign states within the framework of their regional policy helps to estimate potential threats that the Russian State can meet with while realizing its regional policy.

The Human Dimension of Peace and Aggression

Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter), the current international legal framework has drastically changed. In its traditional understanding, aggression is ‘the supreme international crime’ aimed at protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. On the other hand, the UN Charter endorses an understanding of peace in the negative sense, i.e. as mere absence of war. As human rights have gained momentum, they have helped reshaping the legal landscape, a phenomenon referred to as the humanization of international law. How do peace and aggression fit within the humanized legal framework? This article will investigate the effects of the humanization of international law on peace and aggression. Specifically, a new trend is emerging, whereby it seems that human rights, more than the maintenance of peace per se, are increasingly seen as the pivotal aim of the current legal framework. Ultimately, this analysis will question whether this is a welcomed development and will highlight its risks.

Acquisition of Legitimacy in Self-Determination Conflicts

We have entered to an era in which the conflicts have become one of the most intensely perceived security problems of the contemporary world. Their nature is usually violent, accompanied by human casualties, which may escalate to humanitarian crises and may cause population migration, the formation of radical groups, economic decline, and eventually the fragmentation threat to the state territorial integrity. As a power-sharing formula, ‘Acquisition of Legitimacy Approach’ as a new Formula for Global Peace and Security Corporation has proposed to assist the State and sub-state entity involved in sovereignty conflicts, and future peace negotiators to identify an emerging approach, which may be well suited to help them in the resolution of their particular conflict. This article will demonstrate that the new formula may be attractive enough to those seeking to exercise the newly recognised right of remedial secession, who have grown unsatisfied with the prospect of simple autonomy. Accordingly, this theory would grant independence and statehood to those peoples that have been labelled as peaceful, that have engaged through peaceful means with the international community to assert their independence, such as Kosovar, Albanians or the East Timorese, would have earned their right to exist as sovereign independent States.

Territorial Integrity of States and the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination: Why They Do Not Contradict Each Other

Territorial Integrity of States and the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination: Why They Do Not Contradict Each Other

The right of peoples to self-determination and territorial integrity of states in the estimates and conclusions of the Venice commission

The article analyzes the thematic reports and conclusions of the European Commission for democracy through law Venice Commission on the issue of self determination of peoples and territorial integrity of the state The author made a convoy of thematic reports of the Commission and its conclusions on the Crimean referendum in The nbsp article nbsp shows nbsp that nbsp in nbsp the nbsp interpretation nbsp of nbsp the nbsp Venice nbsp Commission nbsp the nbsp right nbsp to nbsp self determination is limited only by national and cultural rights and is understood as the internal self determination of the people within the existing borders of the state and cannot be an external self determination through secession The author on the basis of the legal analysis of the reunification of Crimea with Russia in contrast to the nbsp conclusion nbsp of nbsp the nbsp Venice nbsp Commission nbsp came nbsp to nbsp the nbsp conclusion nbsp that nbsp it nbsp is nbsp the nbsp will nbsp of the people is absolute unlimited Hence the principle of popular sovereignty is primary and the territorial integrity of the state in crisis and destabilizing situations is secondary It can be limited by the will of the people This is possible when the withdrawal of a territory from one state and its accession to another state takes on the character of an armed conflict