Territory of state as indivisible whole and the norms of Constitution

In the study of the substantive legal grounds for the resolution of territorial disputes, the judicial form is characterized by the priority of the grounds of legal title (agreemental title, uti possidetis) based on international treaties, or legal acts of the state possessing sovereignty over the grounds of actual title (effective occupation and governning of the territory, tacit recognition, prescriptional acquisition). Like the initial occupation, the acquisition of territory on the basis of prescription has a long and effective occupation of territory as a prerequisite. The possession of alien or contested territory without a treaty may be legal and enforceable only when there is an inviolable, uninterrupted and undisputed exercise of possession. Where the disputable territory is in fact administrated by a state other than that which holds title, the International Court of Justice gives preference to the title holder.

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN RESOLVING AEGEAN DISPUTE

The articles states that the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Aegean has been the main contentious issue between Greece and Turkey for the past 50 years. It has been unsuccessfully brought before the International Court of Justice, has been repeatedly discussed in the Security Council and has given rise to at least one delimitation agreement. The key problem is Greece would like to resolve the Aegean Sea dispute by the International Court of Justice but if Turkey accepts Greek offer, which is to refer the Aegean Sea dispute before the International Court of Justice, it may not only impair the Turkish sovereignty over her territorial sea and continental shelf but also endanger the Turkish mainland security because of the Greek re-militarized operations. The purpose of this article is to study the practice of resolving maritime disputes by the international judicial bodies. Turkey is one of the 16 countries which have not signed or ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. International law offers various means which Greece and Turkey can employ in order to deal with the Aegean Sea dispute. The parties can establish an international boundary via delimitation, agree on a moratorium of petroleum operations or enter into a Joint Development Agreement. However, reality often imposes obstacles which law cannot surmount. All options require good faith and a mutual spirit of compromise between the concerned parties. Without an agreement, unilateral acts or claims have no legal value. The International Court of Justice has settled a number of maritime disputes in the course of its work. Despite its decisions on some cases were made not in favor of the disputing parties the role of the UN International Court of Justice in resolving interstate disputes and maintaining international law and order is quite significant. The procedure in the UN International Court of Justice is quite effective and allows it to perform the tasks set by the world community based on international legal instruments governing interstate relations in the field of international maritime law.

The Rule of Law and Good Governance at the United Nations during the COVID-19 Pandemic

This contribution discusses how the United Nations (UN) adapted to the working conditions under the COVID-19 pandemic while respecting the rule of law and good governance at different levels. The article first examines what the rule of law means in the UN context. On this basis, the article then considers the different COVID-19-related emergency measures taken by the UN with a focus on four of the UN principal organs: the Secretariat, the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the International Court of Justice. Overall, the UN has succeeded in maintaining public trust, including the trust of its member states, in responding to and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic because it continued to respect standards of good governance and the rule of law during the pandemic. Moreover, the UN has learned important lessons that will allow it to adapt even better to future emergencies.

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

The Legality of a Jewish State

In The Legality of a Jewish State, the author traces the diplomatic history that led to the partition of Palestine in 1948 and the creation of Israel as a state. He argues that the fate of Palestine was not determined on the basis of principle, but by the failure of legality. In focusing on the lawyer-diplomats who pressed for and against a Jewish state at the United Nations, he offers an explanation of the effort in 1947-48 by Arab states at the UN to gain a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice about partition and the declaration of a Jewish state. Their arguments at that time may surprise a twenty-first-century reader, touching on issues that are still at the heart of the contemporary conflict in the Middle East.

Trickle-down assurances: Could the central authority, treaty, or judiciary alleviate extradition issues amongst non-traditional treaty partners?

<p>As New Zealand is facing its first extradition matter with China, it is becoming an increasingly cumbersome matter for the Crown. The current set of diplomatic assurances offered by the Crown in Kim lacks efficient post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms. It also lacks accountability for the Crown if a requested-person’s assurance rights have been breached. This thesis suggests that new post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms should be introduced, such as the induction of the Ombudsman to perform their duties in off-shore prison facilities. This thesis is of the view that, contrary to the general opinions of NGOs, an extradition treaty with China is necessary (and perhaps long overdue). Not only for New Zealand’s commitment against transnational crimes, but also to protect stringent monitoring mechanisms for pre-and post-sentencing while addressing any future breaches by the Requesting-State under the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, especially when there is an option of adjudication under the International Court of Justice. This thesis concludes the Courts should also be more involved in the extradition process. While balancing the need for comity and mutual respect, but allowing the Courts to be able to assess assurance-related evidence if absolutely necessary.</p>

Trickle-down assurances: Could the central authority, treaty, or judiciary alleviate extradition issues amongst non-traditional treaty partners?

<p>As New Zealand is facing its first extradition matter with China, it is becoming an increasingly cumbersome matter for the Crown. The current set of diplomatic assurances offered by the Crown in Kim lacks efficient post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms. It also lacks accountability for the Crown if a requested-person’s assurance rights have been breached. This thesis suggests that new post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms should be introduced, such as the induction of the Ombudsman to perform their duties in off-shore prison facilities. This thesis is of the view that, contrary to the general opinions of NGOs, an extradition treaty with China is necessary (and perhaps long overdue). Not only for New Zealand’s commitment against transnational crimes, but also to protect stringent monitoring mechanisms for pre-and post-sentencing while addressing any future breaches by the Requesting-State under the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, especially when there is an option of adjudication under the International Court of Justice. This thesis concludes the Courts should also be more involved in the extradition process. While balancing the need for comity and mutual respect, but allowing the Courts to be able to assess assurance-related evidence if absolutely necessary.</p>