Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:06:35.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law. By Karen Knop. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pp. xxii, 434. Index. $75, £55.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Gregory H. Fox
Gregory H. Fox*
Affiliation:
Wayne State University Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Books on International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 229 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Thomas, M. Franck, Post-modem Tribalism and the Right to Secession, in Peoples and Minorities in International Law 3 (Brolmann, Catherine, Lefeber, Rene, & Zieck, Marjoleine eds., 1993)Google Scholar; Thomas, M. Franck, The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, 86 AJIL 46 (1992).Google Scholar

2 Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (1994).Google Scholar

3 1975 ICJ Rep. 12 (Oct. 16).

4 Oct. 19, 1981, 91 ILR 543.

5 Conference on Yugoslavia, Arbitration Comm’n Op. No. 2 (1992), reprinted in 31 ILM 1497 (1992).

6 1995 ICJ Rep. 90 (June 30).

7 No. 169, June 27, 1989.

8 UN Doc. E/CN.4/SUB.2/1994/2/Add.l (1994).

9 In regard to the Draft Declaration, for example, Knop writes that the “issue of secession to be resolved in die declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples was whether to recognize a right to secede and if so, on what basis” (p. 262). And in contrasting two possible readings of the approach of the chair of the Indigenous Peoples Working Group, Knop identifies as a “difficulty” the fact that one reading “seems to justify a more limited right of secession” than the other (p. 273).

10 This practice is exhaustively reviewed by Crawford, James in State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 85 (1999).Google Scholar

11 Organization of African Unity, Border Disputes Among African States, July 21, 1964, OAU Doc. AHG/Res. 16(1), reprinted in Basic Documents on African Affairs 360, 361 (Ian Brownlie ed., 1971).

12 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Application of the Philippines for Permission to Intervene, Sep. Op. Franck, J. ad hoc, para. 15 (Int’l Ct. Justice Oct. 23, 2001).