Territorial Title Research Articles

Map evidence for the Philippines’ territorial claim in the South China Sea: a historical, cartographical and legal analysis

Based on international law and practices, a map by itself does not constitute an independent territorial title and has no independent probative value in territorial disputes. Regarding maps with inaccurate or unreliable sources of information, unofficial maps and official maps produced by one party aiming to enhance its position, international judicial and arbitration institutions tend to hold a very little credibility. The Institute of Maritime and Ocean Affairs (IMOA), an agency of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, and some Philippine political elites selected many of the maps for the 2014 exhibition. Although some maps or charts of Scarborough Shoal drawn by the Spanish colonists on display are official or semiofficial in nature, they do not mark the political boundaries of the relevant areas and are obviously inaccurate. The purpose of Spain’s charting in each expedition to Scarborough Shoal was to provide guidance on navigational safety, not to assert sovereignty. It is difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal from these maps and charts. The maps or charts displayed and drawn by cartographers from other countries, have many problems, such as insufficient accuracy, covering vast area more than the Philippine Islands and the lack of marking political boundaries and thus cannot prove that the Philippines has territorial sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal. Similarly, none of the maps and charts on display are sufficient to prove that the “Kalayaan Islands” belong to the Philippines.

독도주권과 일본의 본원적 권원 주장에 대한 국제법적 검토

It cannot but be noted that the Japanese Territorial Sovereignty Exhibition Hall, which reopened in 2020, has emphasized Japan's legal control over Dokdo and Kore a's illegal occupation since 1905. This is because not only is the history of Japan's continued invasion of Dokdo's sovereignty based on Japanese colonialism, which is the basis of the Japanese imperial ist invasion route, still ongoing, but also disproves that Japan's attempt to invade Dokdo Island is resuming in 1905. In the process of tracing and examining legal problems of the genealogy the researc h on the legal principle of titles of Japanese Society of international law, which is establishing the policy basis for Japan's claim to Dokdo based on Japanese colonialis m, the genealogy of Japan's claim to Dokdo is the 'theory of historical title' by Takeshi Minagawa,'the theory of original title' by Toshio Ueda, 'the theory of subsitutional title' by Kanae Daijudo, and 'the theory of common occupancy' by Gentaro Cerita. After the ‘the theory of effective territorial title’ based on 'the view of history on international law by Yoshio Hirose, which is the peak of the genealogy of the title of Dokdo sovereignty, international legal scholar such as Takashi Tsukamoto and Tetsuya Nakano, who appear as mainstream researchers, are cannot but be notedthat all classified as genealogy of 'the theory of original title on terra nullis' and are in line with the claims of the Territorial Sovereignty Exhibition Hall. In particular, Tsukamoto argues that it is necessary for Japan to reinforce uncertai n primitive title under modern international law through an territorial acquisition process based on effective possession such as occupation of territory with historical title in the 17th century. On that premise, it is analyzed that the issue of Korea's Dokdo name is used as the basis for terra nullis theory when examining Tsukamoto's historical perception related to the Dajokan Directive of State in 1877, Korean Empire Edict No. 41 in 1900, and Dokdo incorporation in 1905. However, Japan is also facing limitation s, such as diluting the problem of calling Ulleungdo Island to Takeshima in the the Dajokan Directive of State into confusion caused by the influx of Western maps due to its opening. On the other hand, unlike Takashi Tsukamoto, Tetsuya Nakano raises the preem ption theory based on the international law relationship after the Treaty of Ganghwa Island in 1876, on the premise of some insulation from the historical title, but since the 1904 Korea-Japan Protocol, it ignores the illegal problems of Japan's claim to Dokdo as a separate concept. His claim is clearly expressed in the issue of notification as a preemption requireme nt, and it is interpreted that there is no international law principle that it is an absolute requirement for the acquisition of a territorial power, while acknowledging the gener al protocol of the Berlin Conference in 1885 and the obligation of the International Law Society in 1888. In other words, Nakano criticized that there is no international case of reaffirming its own territory in order to confirm its territory in the modern international legalsystem based on the principle of sovereignty equality, but it is noteworthy that it violates the principle of sovereignty equality since the 1904 Protocol and claims that Japan's invasion of Dokdo and other invasions are based on legal rights under international law. To sum up, Takashi Tsukamoto has limitations in that it follows the legal problem s inherent in 'the theory of subsitutional title' by Kanae Daijudo and distorts Japan's confusion with the name of Dokdo. While Tetsuya Nakano insisting on the modern international legal system based on the principle of equality of sovereignty, it exposes the limitations of legalizing Japanese colonialism in issues such as the invasion of Dokdo sovereignty and notification issues. In addition, the same terra nullis insisters as Hirose Yoshio, should not be arbitraril y interpreted and used the Clipperton case, the Eastern Greenland case and the Mang kie Ecreo case, as cases which related to uninhabited islands, isolated locations and effective control. Therfore, it should be noted that the genealogy of the study related to the title of the Japanese Society of International Law, which has established the policy basis of Japan's claim over Dokdo, is consistent with Japanese colonialism as the essence of violence and greed proclaimed in the Cairo Declaration. Moreover, Japan's claim to Dokdo, which attempted to separate it on the premise of “legitimate theory of colonial rule” which raised by terra nullis insisters after ‘view of history on international law' by Hirose Yoshio, which is the epitome of the genealo gy of the title related to Dokdo sovereignty, is a legal distortion of international legal title and a serious legal infringement of Korea's Dokdo sovereignty. I would like to urge Japan's international legal responsibility for the 21st century peace community.

Learning from Graduate and Undergraduate Public Health Virtual Internship Experiences with State Title V Agencies During COVID-19, Summer 2020

BackgroundSince summer 2014, the National MCH Workforce Development Center has placed students from MCH public health graduate (Centers of Excellence and Catalyst) and undergraduate (MCH Pipeline) programs, all funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, in summer internships with state and territorial Title V agencies. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic the Title V MCH Internship Program was offered virtually.Participants and MethodsThis manuscript includes quantitative and qualitative data from 2017 to 2020 generated by both Title V MCH Internship student interns (n = 76) and their preceptors (n = 40) with a focus on a comparison between the 2020 virtual year and the 2017–2019 years.ResultsEvaluation data from the 2017 to 2020 Title V MCH Internship Program from both students and preceptors revealed the implementation of a robust and successful internship program in which students increased their confidence in a variety of team, mentorship, and leadership skills while gaining direct exposure to the daily work of state Title V agencies. However, students and preceptors identified more challenges during 2020 compared to previous years.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 Pandemic was both a disruption and a catalyst for change in education. While there were clearly some challenges with the pivot to a virtual Title V MCH Internship Program in summer 2020, students were able to participate in meaningful internship experiences. This success can be attributed to the ability of the internship sponsor to engage in best practices, including extensive planning and provision of ongoing support to the students. Going forward, it is recognized that virtual internships may facilitate access to agencies in distant locales, eliminating issues related to housing and transportation. When both virtual and in-person relationships are available, those responsible for internship programs, including the Title V MCH Internship, will need to weigh these type of benefits against the potential missed opportunities students may have when not able to participate in on-site experiences.

Occupancy, Land Rights and the Algonquin Anishinaabeg

AbstractThis article is about Indigenous territorial title and land rights, and specifically those of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation. In 1983, the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn, residing in the province of Ontario, petitioned the Crown to recognize Algonquin territorial title and rights to 36,000 square kilometres of their natal homelands in the Ottawa River watershed. With negotiations beginning in the early 1990s, an Agreement-in-Principle was developed and ratified in 2016, the penultimate step to the largest modern treaty in Ontario's history. In this article, we examine the argument for moral rights to territory, not in terms of the Canadian or international legal order, nor even through examining the documents and voice of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg, but through the lens of an argument that has been advanced as the basis of the international territorial rights of states. We argue that the justifications for state rights territory—grounded in the considerations that ensue from an analysis of occupancy groups—provides a stronger claim to territorial jurisdiction and title in the case of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation than the competing claim by the Canadian state.

Территориальная геральдика Московского царства в «Титулярнике» 1672 г.

The article is devoted to the analysis of images of territorial coats of arms in the "Titulyarnik" of 1672. The "Titulyarnik," existing in several copies, is the most important source on the history of Russian heraldry. It is a complete visual embodiment of the complex of territorial coats of arms, formed via mentioning the corresponding lands in the royal title. By the early 1670s, the territorial title of the Russian tsars included over 30 names. It had significantly changed and had been supplemented in connection with the events of the war between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1654–67, which was successful and resulted in annexation of new territories. These territorial incorporations were interpreted by the Russian side as the return of the ancestral lands, the "fatherland" of the Muscovite sovereigns. The "Titulyarnik" became the second source after the Great Seal of Ivan the Terrible, in which the heraldic representation of the royal title was given in its entirety. The complex of territorial coats of arms underwent certain changes since the end of the 1570s, when the Great Seal of Ivan the Terrible had been created. These changes most probably took place under the first Romanovs, starting in the 1620s. At the same time, some coats of arms were re-drawn. In the "Titulyarnik," most of the territorial coats of arms were also changed. Moreover, the complex of territorial coats of arms was supplemented with completely new coats of arms. Iconographic and source analysis of the images of coats of arms and their comparison with earlier versions has allowed the author to identify some important patterns of their transformation. It has been determined that many territorial coats of arms of the "Titulyarnik" were significantly strengthened by Christian semantics. This was primarily done by addition of various Christian symbols to the coats of arms. The most important of these symbols was the cross, represented in its two forms — straight and x-shaped cross. Thus, the heraldic reform carried out in the "Titulyarnik" was consistent; it was associated with the need to emphasize the Orthodox nature of the Muscovite Tsardom as guardian and defender of the Christian religion. Christian semantics also appeared in the heraldic verses written by an unknown author in the 1670s. In these verses, the territorial coats of arms were described and their interpretation was given. Variants of the coats of arms presented in the "Titulyarnik" continued to exist in the period of the Russian Empire.

독도주권과 국제법적 권원의 계보에 관한 연구 -일본의 독도영유권 주장의 권원을 중심으로-

독도주권과 국제법적 권원의 계보에 관한 연구 -일본의 독도영유권 주장의 권원을 중심으로-

International Jurisprudence Concerning the Group or Unity Principle in Territorial Allocation

Abstract In the past one hundred years, a series of international cases have addressed the group or unity principle in the context of territorial allocation. This article provides an analysis of such jurisprudence, and concludes that this principle can act as a mediating principle to inform the interpretation and application of the primary rules relating to territorial acquisition, thus raising a presumption about the extent and scope of an established territorial title. By showing respect for the natural link between land territories that form an integral group or unity, this principle might provide an efficient and pragmatic approach to settling territorial disputes.

Some Benevolent Remarks Regarding the Theory of Historical Consolidation of Territorial Titles

Time plays an important role in territorial disputes, maritime and land alike, from three yet interrelated standpoints. First, critical date is a habitue of international adjudication so that it would be hardly impossible to conceive a judicial settlement of disputes without reference to it. Elsewhere, I noted that “[by] determining the date at which the dispute is definitively ‘crystallized’ – namely the main effect of critical date – a judicial organ will be able at the same time to set within the framework of inter-temporal law, the principles and rules applicable for the settlement of the dispute”.1 A the same time, the determination of the critical date allows the tribunal to distinguish between those facts that may be brought before it by the Parties to prove their claim and those that must be, in principle, be rejected for they are “carried with the sole purpose of establishing its sovereignty while the latter is precisely and overtly challenged by another state”.2 The second dimension is that of the evolution of applicable Law. Since public international law does evolve continuously, a legal fact which admittedly produces some legal effects at a given time (and thus at a corresponding phase of the evolution of the Law) must, in order for these effects to continue to exist, fulfill relevant conditions to this effect that the Law imposes. Hence, one ought to distinguish – with regard to territorial disputes in public international law – between the birth of the title (upon which stands territorial sovereignty)3 and its continued existence. In other words, the evolution of the law interacts with two different (temporal) stages in the life of a territorial title. Therefore, and as a general rule, it shall be noted that the need to uphold the title in conformity with the “legal systems prevailing at successive periods”4 of time flows from the composite structure of most (if not all) of the territorial titles. Law requires then that other “vesting facts” add up to the first “vesting fact”, having given birth to the original title, in order for the territorial title to strengthen and at the same time to be at consonance with the prevailing legal system, thence the close intertwining of the principle of inter-temporal law with the very notion of “better title”. The third dimension is that precisely of conflicting territorial titles over time and it will be the focus of this short study. It will be shown in the following pages that these three dimensions “Time” are intimately and ultimately intertwined.

“Atlantic Еxpansion” and International Legal Basis for Reunification of the Crimea with Russia

Transatlantic expansion in Europe in order to move NATO’s strategic positions to the borders of Russia together with the inspirited Washington-Brussels duo, the “Ukrainian crisis”, is the main destabilizing factor for the security in the European region. In context of preventing threats to the Russian Federation it should be perceived through the declaration of will by the people of the Crimea, who used their right for self-determination and for their future as part of the Russian state and return of the Crimea to Russian fatherland. The article includes “three groups” of international legal grounds for the reunification of the Crimea with the Russian Federation: territorial succession, secession (but not annexation) and a territorial title. Justification for a fully legal inclusion of the Crimea into Russia as a state of historical sovereignty, unlike Ukraine, which historically never existed as an independent state, without legal claim for the Crimea, which was part of the Ukraine due to an anticonstitutional voluntarism of the soviet ruling of that time.

Источники по титульной геральдике Московского царства XVI – первой половины XVII в.

The article is devoted to the analysis of sources containing information on the land heraldry of the Tsardom of Moscovy, which reflected territorial title of the Russian rulers. The historiography usually mentions 5–6 artefacts and pictorial sources with images of such coats of arms. In fact, the complex of these sources can be significantly expanded. The author has managed to collect information about ten artefacts, two visual and four written sources, which allow to follow the evolution of the title heraldry in pre-Petrine Russia starting from the 16th century. Furthermore, two seals descriptions containing information about land coats of arms remain unpublished. The analysis of sources leads to the following conclusions. The beginning of the Russian title heraldry dates back to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. It was probably connected with refining of his territorial titles after the Livonian War. The Great Seal of Ivan the Terrible (late 1570s) has a set of title seals with images, most of them quite simple. These emblems reflect mainly natural or economic features of specific lands. Some emblems are purely symbolic, some borrow directly from Western European heraldry. These title emblems (called seals prior to the 18th century) continued up to the Romanovs’ reign. For instance, the front of the seal of Ivan the Terrible became a source for title emblems reproduced on the armor of Pseudo-Demetrius I, which was made by Western European masters. They probably took their cue from an imprint of the front side of the seal sent with the order. Emblems from the reverse side of the seal were not reproduced on the armor. Under Mikhail Fyodorovich (apparently, in late 1620s) the complex of title emblems underwent its first significant transformation. Some emblems continued to the end of the 16th century, some were formed anew. The new system of title emblems translated into a description of seals made after the Moscow fire of 1626. This document is also yet unpublished. The reform of the title seals may have been associated with making of a new complex of royal regalia in late 1620s. The new seals appeared in the composition of the cover for tsar’s saadak (quiver), which, apparently, was made at the same time.

Uti Possidetis Iuris in the Twenty-First Century: Consensual or Customary?

The doctrine of uti possidetis iuris provides that, in the succession of States arising from secession or disintegration, territorial title is delimited between successors according to internal borders at the time of succession. Although it is commonly accepted that the concept originated in the nineteenth-century successions in the Spanish Americas and was generally adopted by the twentieth-century decolonization successors in Africa, international law scholars have been divided on whether the doctrine has thereafter evolved into a universal rule of customary international law that presumptively binds successors but is rebuttable by common agreement. This article argues that the ‘presumption’ of binding application is not supported by precedent and is inconsistent with the principle of consent. Rather, the law of State succession is neutral on the delimitation of successors’ frontiers: uti possidetis iuris is one of several methods of territorial delimitation that may be adopted by their common consent.

국제판례상 실효적 지배의 개념과 독도에 관한 고찰

The concept of effective control is a crucial element for the acquisition as well as maintenance of territorial title. The general meaning of the concept has been described as 'an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and State functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis'. The concept has been developed through some significant international cases such as the Island of Palmas case (1928), Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933), Minquiers and Ecrehos case (1953), Burkina Faso/Mali case (1986) and Nicaragua/Colombia case (2012). In relation to Dokdo, the concept has an important bearing in regard to Korea's claims of territorial sovereignty over the island. This paper reviews the definition, components and ramifications of the effective control with regard to the acquisition and maintenance of territorial title through analyzing the relevant judgements of international courts and tribunals. Furthermore, it exams the legal ramifications of the current effective control on Dokdo and makes some suggestions for the strengthening of Korea's position on the island.

Some International Law Issues concerning the Territorial Title of Kando

Some International Law Issues concerning the Territorial Title of Kando

The Conceptualization (Construction) of Territorial Title in the Light of the International Court of Justice Case Law

The present article aims to examine a set of legal constructions related to the concept of legal title in territorial disputes. Any international jurist cannot but strongly feel the need of a theoretical approach and framework explaining the acquisition and loss of territorial sovereignty. This conceptualization will be put to the test in the light of the ICI's case law, especially, but not exclusively, the most recent ones. To this end, the article is structured in three main parts in addition to introduction: the first will be devoted to the building of a comprehensive concept of territorial title while rejecting the traditional ‘modes of acquisition’ of territorial sovereignty (part 2). Part 3 will deal with the legal processes through which territorial titles are actually created, extinguished, or modified: roughly speaking, this happens by an international agreements (legal acts) or by virtue of norm-creating facts. Last, but not least, we shall examine – in part 4 – the highly debated and sensitive topic of the relations between effectiveness and formal legal title from the standpoint of the establishment or loss of territorial sovereignty. As we have endeavoured to show in this writing the concept of legal title reunites and resolves the tension between fact (effectiveness) and formal gegal title (law). In this respect four situations will be put under scrutiny in order ultimately to test our construction of a new concept of territorial title.

Legal Pluralism as a Source of Conflict in Multi-Ethnic Societies

This contribution takes the case of a conflict about land to show how opportunities offered by legal pluralism can be used as a political instrument and how this threatens political stability and the practice of democracy. The analysis attempts to show that it is not an extensive legal pluralism in itself which has led to ‘ethnic’ conflict, but the practice of using law as a political instrument. The outline of the ‘ethnic clashes’ of 1991 between Gonja and Nawuri in Northern Ghana takes account of the historical, social and legal context to analyse the structural roots of the conflict and to point to its broader political dimension. It shows how colonial legal concepts of territorial rule and title to land were used by local leaders to deepen and consolidate already unequal inter-group power relations in their favour. It also analyses how these legal changes ‘loaded’ their relationship with a variety of meanings, suggesting in the social domain a relationship between masters and slaves and leading on the political level to an exclusion of Nawuri leaders from modern and hybrid institutions which would otherwise have provided a link to the ‘modern’ administration. The central questions are: Is it inevitable that law in multi-ethnic societies such as Ghana becomes a source of conflict? What role is played by the state? What is the impact of the state’s legal policy? And to what extent can so-called ‘traditional’ law be reformed and rearranged if it is understood as an element of culture? These questions are considered in the light of the perception that an open approach in dealing with a plurality of law is constitutive for a democracy which is guided by the idea of legitimacy and justice.

Bougainville and Papua New Guinea: Complexities of Secession in a Multi-Ethnic Developing State

The claims made by Bougainville's secessionist leaders correspond with five theoretical perspectives on the morality of secession – based, respectively, on notions of political consent, national identity, cultural preservation, distributive justice and territorial title. Each is tackled in turn, as a means to both assessing the justness of the Bougainvillean case, while also testing the limits of applicability of the moral perspectives themselves. Overall, it is concluded that the complexities of the Bougainville/Papua New Guinea case militate against outright separation. Rather, a balanced resolution of injustices is more likely to be attained by modifications to institutions and patterns of distribution within the existing state. Furthermore, this highly complex case throws up important challenges from which normative theory can profitably learn.

Island of Palmas Arbitration Case. [Case No. 73

113Acquisition of Territorial Title — Presumption of Existence of Sovereignty Arising from Display of Sovereignty

The Original Home of the Hittites and the Site of Kussar

The original home of the founders of the royal dynasties of the Hittites was the country of Kussar. It was of Kussar and Kussar only that Khattusilis, the ancestor of Subbi-luliuwas, the founder of the second dynasty, was king (KB. iii, p. 30); so, too, was “the lord” Labarnas or Tabarnas, the founder of the first dynasty (c. 1900 b.c.). From his death-bed in the city of Kussar Khattusilis I issued his last testament to his son and successor Mursilis I, and the only territorial title of the unnamed “great king” in whom Dr. Forrer is probably right in seeing Mursilis I is “king of Kussari”. The state records carefully preserved the annals of a still earlier monarch, Anittas “king of Kussara”, who describes in them his conquest of the Hittite-land.

Territorial title of a peer

Territorial title of a peer

The territorial title of a peer

The territorial title of a peer