No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Concept of Effectiveness as applied to Territorial Sovereignty over Sea-Areas, Air Space and Outer Space
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
Effectiveness is in essence the expression of the relation between the facts and what is considered as law at a certain moment. This relation can be seen in two ways: on the one hand, the factual circumstances can be completely in accordance with the law in force at a certain moment; on the other hand, there can be a divergence between the two elements. If the first case arises there is no real problem. It is completely different, however, when there is tension between the law and the facts. Such tensions are inherent in every community, even in highly-developed ones. For every community is continuously moving. Due to the repeatedly changing factual circumstances this change is based on the always altering relations between the interests of the members of a community. Moreover, new facts ask for modification of the old rules or creation of new rules.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1962
References
1. Ch. de Visscher, , “Observations sur l'effectivité en droit international public”, Revue générale de droit international public 1958, p. 601Google Scholar: “L'effectivité suggère à la fois une certaine tension et celle d'une ultime adéquation entre le fait et le droit”.
Krüger, H., “Effektivität”Google Scholar, Strupp-Schlochauer, , Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. I, Berlin 1960, p. 410Google Scholar: “Unter dem Begriff Effektivität fasst man im Völkerrecht eine Reihe von Phänomenen und Problemen zusammen, die zwar in jeder Rechtsordnung auftreten, im Völkerrecht aber einen besonderen Akzent tragen. Bei alledem geht es im Grunde genommen immer um das Verhältnis von Recht und Wirklichkeit, insbesondere um die Frage, wie weit sich das Recht durch die Wirklichkeit bestimmen lassen darf, ohne sein Wesen als Norm und seine Aufgabe der Normierung der Wirklichkeit preiszugeben”.
2. Tucker, R. W., “The principle of effectiveness in international law”, Law and politics in the world community, 1953, p. 34.Google Scholar
3. von der Heydte, F. A., “Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Macht im “klassischen” und im “neuen” Völkerrecht”, Rechtsfragen der internationalen Organisation. Festschrift für Hans Wehberg, 1956, p. 174Google Scholar u.f.: “Recht und Macht sind nicht kontradiktorische Gegensätze; sie sind Pole einer dialektischen Spannung, die nur in der Beziehung zueinander bestehen. Das Recht bedarf der Macht. Eine Norm, die mit dem Anspruch auftritt, Recht zu sein, muss nicht nur mit einer Rechtsfolge verbunden, sondern sie muss auch durchsetzbar sein…”.
4. Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, 2 09 1960.Google Scholar
5. American Journal of International Law, 1928, p. 867.Google Scholar
6. PCIJ Series A/B nr. 53.
7. United Nations Reports of international Arbitral Awards II, p. 1105.Google Scholar
8. ICJ Reports 1955, p. 4.Google Scholar
9. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 104, p. 244.Google Scholar
10. Art. 5 reads: “Each State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship; in particular, the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag.”
11. Brierly, J. L., “Règles générales du droit de la paix” Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international, 1936, IV, p. 159Google Scholar: “Nous sommes ici encore une fois en présence de l'application de la maxime—Ex facto ius oritur—: l'état riverain pendant une longue durée de temps a occupé cette baie, en manifestant l'intention et le pouvoir d'y exercer son autorité, les autres états ont acquiescé à cette occupation, en conséquence, le droit imprime son cachet au fait accompli”.
12. Charpentier, J., La reconnaissance internationale et l'évolution du droit des gens, Paris 1956, p. 153Google Scholar: “Telles sont les difficultés auxquelles se heurte l'introduction dans le droit international d'un principe de légalité: il ne peut triompher du fait illégal qu'appuyé sur la force: à défaut et à la longue le fait d'origine illégale est validé par la prescription”.
13. Chen, T. Ch., The international law of recognition, London 1951, p. 421Google Scholar: “Yet, unless the existing legal order is supported by an overwhelming physical force, there is the possibility that an illegal fact, if sustained and promising permanence, may, although created by a single State, have to be tolerated and form a part of the new legal order”.
14. Salvioli, G., “Les règles générales de la paix”, Recueil des Cours de L'Académie de droit international, 1933, V, p. 53.Google Scholar
15. Bellini, V., “II principio generale dell'effettività nell'ordinamente internazionale”, Annuario di diritto comparativo e di studi legislativi, 1951, p. 343–344.Google Scholar
16. de la Muela, A. Miaja, El principio de efectividad en derecho internacional, Valla-dolid 1958, p. 13.Google Scholar
17. Guggenheim, P., “La validité et nullité des actes juridiques internationaux”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international, 1949, I, p. 231Google Scholar: “Dans la pratique des relations internationales le principe fondamental Ex iniuria ius non oritur est dans une large mesure combattue par la règle opposée Ex factis ius critur. La réalité sociale n'admet pas un divorce permanent entra la validité et l'effectivité. La validité d'une norme doit correspondre à son effectivité, son ineffectivité à sa nullité. Le fait accompli de la conquête et de l'annexion contraires à la volonté de l'état ayant subi l'acte nul et l'acte illicite se transforme—comme toute révolution réussie en droit interne—en un titre juridique déployant les effets d'un acte valable”.
18. Kelsen, H., Principles of international law, New York 1956, p. 215Google Scholar: “Under general international law, the States are obliged to respect the international integrity of the other States, but a violation of this obligation does not exclude the change of the legal situation. The principle advocated by some writers—Ex iniuria ius non oritur—does not or not without exceptions, apply in international law.”
19. Tucker, R. W., op. cit., p. 38–39Google Scholar: “The position that illegal acts cannot produce results beneficial to the wrong-doer is based, however, not on the correct assumption that States are competent, under certain conditions, to determine the validity of those situations, resulting from the unilateral action of a State, but rather on the highly questionable assumption that the principle—Ex iniuria ius non oritur—must of necessity, be considered as a rule of positive international law.
20. Verdross, A., Völkerrecht, Wien 1959, p. 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “Daraus ersehen wir, dass das Völkerrecht das Recht der territorialen Souveränität auch dann aufrecht erhält, wenn die Ausübung dieses Rechtes durch eine rechtswidrige Annexion unmöglich gemacht wurde. Ein solcher Zustand kann aber nicht ewig dauern, da sonst die Rechtssicherheit erschüttert werden würde. Früher oder später muss daher entweder der frühere Zustand wiederhergestellt oder aber der neue Zustand anerkannt und dadurch saniert werden”.
21. Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in international law, Cambridge 1947, p. 413Google Scholar: “Illegal acts cannot produce legal consequences beneficial to the wrongdoer”.
22. Langer, R., Seizure of territory, Princeton 1947, p. 290Google Scholar: “… That the world be nor ruled by the Prusso-Teutonic slogan, Macht geht vor Recht, but by the maxim of the Pax Romana, Ex iniuria ius non oritur”.
23. Chen, T. Ch., op. cit., p. 420.Google Scholar
24. Lauterpacht, H., op. cit., p. 413.Google Scholar
25. In his separate opinion in the Fisheries case also Judge Hsu Mo states: “I need only point out that individuals, by undertaking enterprises on their own initiative, for their own benefit and without any delegation of authority by their government, cannot confer sovereignty on the State, and this despite the passage of time and the absence of molestation by the people of other countries”. ICJ Reports 1951, p. 157Google Scholar—Judge Lord McNair in his dissenting opinion in the same case: “Another rule of law that appears to me to be relevant to the question of historic title is that some proof is usually required of the exercise of State jurisdiction, and that the independent activity of private individuals is of little value unless it can be shown that they have acted in pursuance of a licence or some other authority received from their governments or that in some other way their governments have asserted jurisdiction through them”. ICJ Reports 1951, p. 184.Google Scholar—On the other hand Judge Levi Carneiro in his individual opinion in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case states: “Such individual actions are particularly important in respect of territories situated at the border of two countries which both claim sovereignty in that region”. ICJ Reports 1953, p. 105.—Google Scholar
26. Schwarzenberger, G., “Title to territory. Response to a challenge”, American Journal of International Law, 1957, p. 312Google Scholar: “De facto exercise of jurisdiction also prevails over a naked title of sovereignty if such an abstract title remains unimplemented by any actual display of State authority”.
27. League of Nations Documents. Codification Conference 1930, C74M39 1929, V, p. 174.Google Scholar
28. See note 27.
29. Fulton, T. W., Sovereignty of the sea, Edinburgh/London 1911, p. 671.Google Scholar
30. Fulton, T. W., op. cit., p. 671.Google Scholar
31. Laws and Regulations of the regime of the territorial sea. United Nations legislative series. New York 1957, p. 35, 36.Google Scholar
32. ICJ Reports 1951, p. 142.Google Scholar
33. ICJ Reports 1951, p. 136–137.Google Scholar
34. British Agression in Icelandic waters. Reykjavik 1959, p. 17.Google Scholar The Icelandic Fishery Question. Memorandum submitted by the Government of Iceland to the General Assembly 1958. Thordarson, G., Les eaux territoriales d'Islande en ce qui concerne la pêche, Reykjavik 1958, p. 139.Google ScholarGoy, R., “The Icelandic fisheries question”, Journal du droit international 1960, p.373, 385.Google ScholarRousseau, Ch., “Chronique des faits internationaux”, Revue générale de droit international public 1958, p. 699–713.Google ScholarAlexander, L. M., “Offshore claims and fisheries in North-West Europe”, Yearbook of World Affairs, 1960, p. 244.Google Scholar
35. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 94, p. 30.Google Scholar
36. The Times, 03 13, 1961.Google Scholar Icelandic Fishery settlement.
37. François, J. P. A., “La deuxième conférence sur le droit de la mer”, Netherlands International Law Review, 1960, p. 250.Google Scholar
38. Mateesco, N., Vers un nouveau droit international de la mer. Paris 1950.Google ScholarYepes, J. M., “Les nouvelles tendances du droit international de la mer et le droit international Américain”, Revue Générale de droit international public 1956, p. 45.Google Scholar
39. Sayan, E. Garcia, Notas sobre la soberania maritima del Peru. Defensa de las 200 millas de la mar Peruano ante recientes transgresiones, Lima 1955, p. 48–49.Google Scholar Laws and regulations on the regime of the territorial sea. United Nations Legislative Series. New York 1957, p. 724.Google Scholar
40. Sayan, E. Garcia, op. cit., p. 51–57.Google Scholarde Azcárraga, J. L., “Onassis Walfänger und der völkerrechtliche Begriff der Hoheitgewässer”, Archiv des Völkerrechts, 1956, p. 41.Google Scholar
41. The Times, 09 29, 1960.Google Scholar “Oslo agrees to fishing rights compromise”.
42. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 1959, p. 83–87.Google Scholar
43. Oda, Shigeru, “New trends in the regime of the seas,” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 1957–1958, p. 74, 75.Google Scholar
44. Colombos, C. J., The international law of the sea, 1959, p. 64.Google Scholar
45. Ch. Rousseau, , “Extension des eaux territoriales soviétiques dans la baie de Wladiwostock”, Revue générale de droit international public 1958, p. 63.Google ScholarOhira, Zengo, “Fishery problems between the Soviet Union and Japan,” Japanese Annual of International law, 1958, vol. II, p. 1.Google ScholarAnatolyev, A., “Peter the Great Bay as historical bay of the Soviet Union, Izvestia, 02 22, 1959, p. 5Google Scholar (The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, vol. X, Nr. 8, 04 2, 1958, p. 15–16).Google ScholarPierre, A., “Les eaux soviétiques s'etendent-elles à toute la baie de Pierre-le-Grand”, Le Monde diplomatique, 1958, 04, Nr. 48.Google Scholar
46. Oda, Shigeru, op. cit., p. 77–80.Google Scholar
47. Pundeff, M., “Bulgarian Decree on territorial waters”, American Journal of International Law 1952, p. 330.Google Scholar
48. American Journal of International Law, Supplement Official Documents 1940. p. 17–18.Google Scholar
49. McDougal, M. and Schlei, N. A., “The hydrogen bomb tests in perspective: lawful measures for security”, Yale Law Journal, 1954–1955, p. 680.Google Scholar
50. Gidel, G., “Explosions nucléaires expérimentales et liberté de la haute mer”, Grundproblemen des internationalen Rechts. Festschrift Jean Spiropoulos, p. 183.Google Scholar
51. McDougal, M. and Schlei, N. A.. Op. cit., p. 676, 678, 710.Google Scholar
52. Margolis, E., “The hydrogen bomb experiments and international law”, Yale Law Journal 1954–1955, p. 646–647.Google Scholar
53. Gidel, G.. Op. cit., p. 198.Google Scholar
54. Colombos, C. J.. Op. cit., p. 26–27.Google Scholar
55. Bynkershoek, C. v., De Dominio Maris Dissertatio.Google Scholar 1703-chapter II. Questiones Juris Publici, 1737-Lib. I, C. VIII.Google Scholar
56. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 112, p. 934.Google Scholar
57. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 128, p. 505.Google Scholar
58. Goedhuis, D., “The air sovereignty and the United States. Influence on its future development”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1955, p. 213.Google Scholar
59. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 148, p. 39.Google Scholar
60. Sauveplanne, J. G., “Het rechtsregiem van de lucht en de ruimte erboven”, Volkenrechtelijke opstellen ter ere van de noogleraren B. M. Telders, F. M. Baron van Asbeck en J. H. W. Verzijl, Zwolle 1957, p. 161.Google ScholarHingorani, R. C., “La souveraineté sur l'espace exo-atmosphérique”, Revue Générale de l'Air, 1957, p. 250.Google ScholarZylicz, M., “Sur quelques problèmes de droit astronautique”, Revue générale de droit international public 1958, p. 658.Google Scholar
61. Aaronson, M., “Earth satellites and the law”, The Law Times, 08 26, 1955. p. 115.Google Scholar
62. Huber, E., “Recht und Weltraum,” Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht, 1958, p. 77.Google Scholar
63. Hingorani, R. C.. Op. cit., p. 250.Google Scholar
64. Jacobini, B., “Effective control as related to the extension of sovereignty in space”, Journal of public law, p. 104, 115, 119.Google ScholarVerdross, A., Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, 1955, p. 199.Google ScholarHaley, A., “Droit de l'espace et métadroit: Limites de juridiction”, Revue générale de l'air, 1957, p. 177.Google ScholarCastrén, E., “Situation juridique de l'espace atmosphérique en droit international”, Hommage d'un génération des juristes au Président Basdevant, Paris 1960, p. 85–95.Google ScholarKnauth, A. W., Legal problems of outer space in relation to the UN. 1958, p. 8.Google ScholarBöhme, K. H., “Lufthoheit und Weltraumflug”, Zeitschrift für Luftrecht, 1956, p. 191–192; p. 189Google Scholar: “ad coelum” means “ad absurdum”. Meyer, A., “Anmerkung von Alexis Meyer bei Cooper's Rechtliche Probleme des Weltraums”, Zeitschrift für Luftrecht, 1956, p. 180.Google Scholar
65. Sotille, A., “Ballons stratosphériques en droit international aérien”, Revue de droit international et des sciences diplomatiques et politiques, 1956, p. 365.Google ScholarSaporta, M., “Crise de croissance du droit international aérien”, Revue générale de l'air 1955, p. 195.Google ScholarAaronson, M., op. cit., p. 116.Google ScholarCooper, J. G., “Rechtliche Probleme des Weltraums”, Zeitschrift für Luftrecht 1956, p. 180.Google Scholar
66. Guettard, J., “Les ballons météorologiques”, Annuaire français de droit international, 1956, p. 307.Google ScholarHaley, A., op. cit., p. 176.Google ScholarSauveplanne, J. G., op. cit., p. 157, 164.Google ScholarZylicz, , op. cit., p. 661.Google ScholarKucherov, S., “Sowjetische Souveränitäts-Anspruche in der Stratosphere”, Ost Europa 1957, p. 508.Google Scholar
67. Schachter, O., “Legal aspects of space travel”, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 1952, p. 15.Google ScholarCraig, D. B., “National sovereignty at high attitudes”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1957, p. 396.Google ScholarBecker, L., “Major aspects of the problem of outer space”. Department of State Bulletin, 1958, I, p. 962Google Scholar: US proposal to the UN of Jan. 14, 1957: “… the first step towards the objective of assuring that future developments in outer space would be devoted exclusively to peaceful and scientific purposes would be to bring testing of such objects under international inspection and participation”, p. 962: 01 1958Google Scholar President Eisenhower in a letter to Boelganin: “I propose that we agree that outer space should be used only for peaceful purposes.”
68. Meyer, A., op. cit., p. 180.Google ScholarCheng, B., “From air law to space law”, Current legal Problems, 1960, p. 248.Google Scholar
69. Sauveplanne, J. G., op. cit., p. 163.Google Scholar
70. Jessup, Ph. and Taubenfeld, H. J., Controles for outer space and the Antarctic analogy, New York 1959, p. 255–256.Google Scholar
71. Department of State Bulletin 1962, p. 185.Google Scholar
72. Knauth, A. W., op. cit., p. 13.Google ScholarJenks, C. W., “International law and activities in space”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1956, p. 113, 114.Google Scholar
73. Internationalization of celestial bodies is advocated by Knauth, , op. cit., p. 9Google Scholar; Jenks, , op. cit., p. 113Google Scholar; Schachter, , op. cit., p. 16Google Scholar; Cheng, however, states that effective occupation can be used as a criterion: “Recent developments in air law”, Current Legal Problems, 1956, p. 215Google Scholar;op. cit., p. 234.Google Scholar
74. Murchison, J. T., The contiguous airspace zone in international law, Ottawa 1956Google Scholar, Martial, J. A., “State control of the airspace over the territorial sea and contiguous zone”, Canadian Bar Review. 1952, p. 245–263.Google Scholar
75. Murchison, J. T., op. cit., p. 75, 76.Google Scholar