2019 paper Q no 6
 

CSS paper 2019, Q no 6: 'A state that first physically occupies the territory retains sovereignty over it forever'. To what extent is this statement true of the acquisition of territory in international law.

This question confuses many aspirants. IF anyone attempted this question then kindly discuss his/her answer/views here... Thank You

[QUOTE=Agha Shahriyar Khan;1092164]CSS paper 2019, Q no 6: 'A state that first physically occupies the territory retains sovereignty over it forever'. To what extent is this statement true of the acquisition of territory in international law.

This question confuses many aspirants. IF anyone attempted this question then kindly discuss his/her answer/views here... Thank You[/QUOTE]

Here's my explanation to this:
The above statement is not completely true, bcz acquisition of territory is ever-changing process. A sate can acquire territory by: one, [COLOR="red"]original modes of acquisition[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"](this is mere for understanding)[/COLOR]. Two, derivative modes of acquisition. The derivative modes are: Occupation, Prescription, Accretion, Cession, and Conquest & Annexation. Under the derivative modes, one state can acquire while other can lose territory and exercise its sovereignty over it. Thus, sovereignty can't be retained forever.
Hope it clears your concept. Fellows can shed light further.
P.S. criticism welcomed. :)

[QUOTE=The dream of rain;1092250]Here's my explanation to this:

The above statement is not completely true, bcz acquisition of territory is ever-changing process. A sate can acquire territory by: one, [COLOR="red"]original modes of acquisition[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"](this is mere for understanding)[/COLOR]. Two, derivative modes of acquisition. The derivative modes are: Occupation, Prescription, Accretion, Cession, and Conquest & Annexation. Under the derivative modes, one state can acquire while other can lose territory and exercise its sovereignty over it. Thus, sovereignty can't be retained forever.

Hope it clears your concept. Fellows can shed light further.

P.S. criticism welcomed. :)[/QUOTE]What is res nullius? A territory that is not sovereign and does not possess characteristics of statehood as mentioned in Montevideo convention. Before 1800, many island and territory was not sovereign and not even populated so any country or state that reached first time on that Res nullius , according to international law - especially according to customary International law- was become the part of country who first captured it. Hence, it is first and primitive mode of acquiring of state.


Sent from my Nokia 3.1 Plus using Tapatalk

This question first came into consideration during the Island of Palmas Arbitration where the Max Huber-Arbitrator set out the rules that not only occupation at first but to possess a title over a territory, the state must show "effective control" over the territory at the critical date. This is best explained in [I][B]Ademola Abass's book[/B][/I] in the chapter on [B]Territorial sovereignty[/B].

My approach was to negate the statement by explaining how territorial acquisition works as per International law.

The accepted and the now-illegal means of establishing sovereignty over territory were explained with examples.

Thanks