Originally Posted by shahzadrs
Q:--Discuss various modes of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by the states acknowledged in Int Law.
kindly can anyone answer this question, that what points should be included in the answer of this question.
State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
A territory is one of the fundamental elements of statehood. Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State. The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of the earth within which it exercises, subject to the limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of International Law. The exercise of such a supreme authority by a State over its own territory is known in International Law as “territorial sovereignty”.
Notably, the concept “territorial sovereignty” is confused with the concept “jurisdiction”. Some have used the two concepts interchangeably. However, there is a distinction between the two concepts. Territorial sovereignty signifies ownership and possession of a territory, which entitles a State to exercise its authority and jurisdiction over the territory. Jurisdiction justifies competence to affect peoples, properties and events within a territory.
Because “territorial sovereignty” and “jurisdiction” are two legal concepts connected to territory and can only be understood in relation to territory, therefore, in the following two sections “territorial sovereignty” and modes of acquiring territory are dealt with.
Sovereignty in regard to a territory is known as territorial sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State. It has a positive and a negative aspect. The first aspect relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with regard to its own territory, while the second aspect refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other States.
A State exercises its territorial sovereignty within its boundary. Boundary is an imaginary line that delineates the territorial limit of a State. Boundaries are of three dimensions. They include the State land and the maritime domain of its internal waters and territorial sea, the airspace and its subsoil. They are either natural topographical, having physical distinguishable features such as mountains, rivers or lakes, or imaginary and artificial such as lines of attitude and longitude, surveyor lines or posts. Both types have equal legal effects and usually based upon treaties or historical title.
The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its boundaries, over its contiguous zone, over its continental shelf and over its exclusive economic zone. Moreover, the sovereignty of State whether coastal or land-locked extends over its national vessels. The sovereignty of a State extends also to its national aircrafts.
The right to territorial sovereignty enables a State to exercise the fullest measures of sovereignty powers over its land territory, large measures over its territorial waters and air space, and smaller measures over its continental shelf and adjacent area. In addition, it enables a State to exercise sovereignty over vessels and aircrafts that fly its flag or carry its nationality, which are treated as its territory.
Corollary to the rights generated from territorial sovereignty, there are duties imposed upon a State. These duties involve the obligation to protect within its territory the rights of other States, together with the rights that each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory.
Many treaties and conventions have been concluded to regulate State sovereignty over land, sea, airspace and outer space. Over airspace and outer space, there are the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention), the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water,  and the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the Outer Space Treaty).
Over the sea, there is the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which replaced the 1956 Conventions related to the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the High Seas, the Continental Shelf, and Fishing and Conservation of living Resources of the High Seas. In Addition, there is the 1959 Antarctica Treaty.
Since the rights generated from the concept of territorial sovereignty can only be exercised in relation to a territory, it is necessary to know how a territory can be acquired.
Modes of Acquisition of Territory (Territorial Sovereignty)
The international rules related to territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman Law provisions governing ownership and possession. In addition, the classification of the different modes of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property.
Territory is the space within which the State exercises sovereign authority. Title to territory is acquired either through the claim of land not previously owned (terra nullius) or through the transfer of title from one State to another. Title acquired in the first category is called original title, while in the second category is called derivative title. Modes of original acquisition of territory include occupation, prescription and accretion. Derivative modes include cession (voluntary or forcible), and conquest and annexation. All these modes are dealt with in the following.
Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory. It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (terra nullius) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective. Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty. Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States. Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous. This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.
Prescription is a mode of establishing title to territory which is subject to the sovereignty of another State (not terra nullius) through peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty over a long period of time. It is the legitimization of a doubtful title by the passage of time and the presumed acquiescence of the former sovereignty. It differs from occupation. It relates to territory which has previously been under the sovereignty of another State. However, both modes are similar since they require evidence of sovereignty acts by a State over a period of time.
A title by prescription to be valid under International Law, it is required that the length of time must be adequate, and the public and peaceful exercise of de facto sovereignty must be continuous. The Possession of Claimant State must be public, in the sense that all interested States can be made aware of it. It must be peaceful and uninterrupted in the sense that the former sovereign must consent to the new sovereign. Such consent may be express or implied from all the relevant circumstances. This means that protests of whatever means by the former sovereign may completely block any claim of prescription.
As the requirement of adequate length of time for possession is concerned, there is no consensus on this regard. Thus, the adequacy of the length of period would be decided on a case by case basis. All the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the territory and the absence or presence of any competing claims will be taken into consideration.
Accretion is a geographical process by which new land is formed mainly through natural causes and becomes attached to existing land. Examples of such a process are the creation of islands in a rive mouth, the drying up or the change in the course of a boundary river, or the emerging of island after the eruption of an under-sea volcano. When the new land comes into being within the territory of a State, it forms part of its territory, and this causes no problem. However, in case of a drying or shifting of a boundary river, the general rule of International Law is that if the change is gradual and slight, the boundary may be shifted, but if the change is violent and excessive, the boundary stays at the same point along the original riverbed.
Where a new territory is added, mainly through natural causes, to territory already under the sovereignty of the acquiring State, the acquisition and title to this territory need no formal act or assertion on part of the acquiring State.
Cession of territory is a transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another. Its basis lies in the intention of the concerned parties to transfer sovereignty over the territory in question, and it rests on the principle that the right of transferring its territory is a fundamental attribute of the sovereignty of a State. It occurs by means of an agreement between the ceding and the acquiring States. The cession may comprise a portion of the territory of the ceding State or the totality of its territory. In the latter case, the ceding State disappears and merges into the acquiring State.
Cession of territory may be voluntary as a result of a purchase, an exchange, a gift, a voluntary merger, or any other voluntary manner, or it may be made under compulsion as a result of a war or any use of force against the ceding State. History provides a great number of examples of cession. Examples of voluntary cession are the United States’ purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, the exchange of a portion of Bessarabia by Romania to Russia in exchange for Dobrudja in 1878, the France’s gift of Venice to Italy in 1866, and the voluntary merger of the Republic of Texas into the United States in 1795. Examples of cession as a result of a war are the cession to Germany by France of the region of Alsace- Lorraine in 1871, and the merger of Korea into Japan in 1910.
(5) Conquest and Annexation
Conquest is an act of defeating an opponent State and occupying all or part of its territory. Annexation is the extension of sovereignty over a territory by its inclusion into the State. Under traditional International Law, conquest did not of itself constitute a basis of title to the land. It was merely a military occupation. If followed by a formal annexation of the conquered territory, then it was called subjugation and could be considered a valid derivative title to territory. Accordingly, conquest followed by annexation constituted a mode to transfer the title of the conquered territory to the conqueror. Like compulsory cession, conquest followed by annexation would transfer territory by compulsion, but unlike cession, it involved no agreement between the concerned parties.
While the acquisition of territory through conquest followed by annexation was an accepted mode of acquiring title to territory under traditional International Law, it is no longer legal at modern times. The acquisition of territory through the use of force is outlawed by paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliged the member States to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This same principle is reaffirmed in the 1970 General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. This Declaration adds that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from such act shall be recognized as legal.
Although today conquest is not a legal mode of acquiring title to territory, it does give the victor certain rights under International Law as regards the occupied territory, such as rights of belligerent occupation. The territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign because sovereignty does not pass by conquest to the occupying State, although it may pass in certain cases where the legal status of the territory occupied is in dispute prior to the conquest.
At present times, acquisition of territory following a war would require further international action in addition to internal legislation to annex. Such further international action would be either a treaty of cession by the former sovereign or international recognition.
Modern examples of annexation following conquest are Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and the East Jerusalem, and Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In case of the Iraqi annexation, the Security Council adopted the resolution 662 of 1990 declaring that this annexation “has no legal validity and is considered null and void”, and called upon all States not to recognize this annexation and to refrain from actions which might be interpreted as indirect recognition.
Corresponding the modes of acquiring territory, there are modes of losing it. Territory may be lost by express declaration or conduct such as a treaty of cession or acceptance of cession, by conquest, by erosion or natural geographic activities, by prescription or by abandonment.
 See L. Oppenheim, 1 International Law, p. 563, eds. R.J. Jennings and A.D. Watts, 9th ed. London (1992).
 See J.L. Brierly, Law of Nations, p. 142, 4th ed., Oxford (1949).
 See Shaw, pp. 411-12.
 Id. p. 412.
 Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 143.
 Id. pp. 143-4
 Text in 15 U.N.T.S. 295.
 Text in 480 U.N.T.S. 43.
 Text in 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
 Text in 21 I.L.M. (1982), 1261.
 Text in 402 U.N.T.S. 71.
 See generally Brownlie, pp. 126-57; and Shaw, pp. 417-43.
 See Shaw, p. 412.
 Bledsoe & Boczek, pp. 155-6.
 Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 149; and Shaw, p. 424.
 See Shaw, pp. 424 and 432-6; Brownlie, pp. 133-6.
 See Shaw, pp. 425-6
 Id. 426. See generally id. pp. 426-41; and Brownlie, pp. 145-50.
 Shaw, p. 419.
 See id. pp. 419-20.
 See Brownlie, p.144.
 See C.H. Hackworth, 1 Digest of International Law, 421, U.S. Government Printing Office (1940).
 See Hackworth, pp. 421-2.
 Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 144.
 See id. pp. 144-5; and Shaw, pp. 421-2
 Shaw, pp. 422.
 Bledsoe & Boczek, p. 140.
 See Shaw, pp. 422-3.
 G.A. Res. 2625 of October 24, 1970, 25 GAOR, Supp. 28, U.N. Doc. A/8028, at 121 (1970).
 See principle (a).
 See M. McDougal and F. Feliciano, Law and Minimum World Public Order, pp. 733-6 and 739-44, New Haven (1961).
 Shaw, p. 424.
 S.C. Res. 662 of 1990, paras. 1 and 2.
 Shaw, pp. 442-3.