User:Ttocserp/Uti possidetis juris

Uti possidetis juris (also uti possidetis iuris, and often shortened to uti possidetis where the context permits no ambiguity) is a doctrine in public international law for defining international boundaries. Where two neighbouring states have emerged from colonial rule, or more generally, where two states have emerged from a larger, antecedent polity e.g. former Yugoslavia, the rule is that the internal boundary defined by the former colonial power (or by the antecedent polity) ought to be respected. The precise limits of the doctrine remain to be defined and accepted in the customary law of nations.

The doctrine has been criticised, first for denying to emergent peoples the right to self-determination (as in Africa), and secondly as leading in some cases to avoidable conflict and bloodshed (as in former Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union).

Etymology
The phrase uti possidetis originated in Roman private law, and meant (very approximately) "As you possess, so shall you possess". Later it was transferred to international law by way of analogy, though the analogy was misleading. it had several meanings, some obsolete today; as to these, the main article should be consulted.

This article is about the current doctrine, more correctly denoted uti possidetis juris to distinguish it from those, but often with the qualifying word omitted where no ambiguity is thought to be possible.

Origins of the doctrine
The doctrine originated among the newly independent states of former Spanish America, though it did not gain broad international recognition at the time. Later, in the 20th century, it was pressed into service when a need arose to define international frontiers between the newly emergent African states.

It should be noted, however, than in both cases the context was voluntary and consensual. The new African states, or more precisely the new elites who administered them, well understood the former colonial boundaries were arbitrary. But no African nation declared its intention to press for the rectification of frontiers. All of these new states were anxious to avoid international conflicts, and in this instance they were prepared to pay the price. It might be that a definite, traditional ethnic group would be split between two states.

Tutsi and Hutu of Rwanda

. In the Cairo Declaration (below) they unanimously accepted the former colonial boundaries should prevail; there was no dissension about it; the problem, where there was one, being simply to determine precisely where thse ran.

This may be contrasted with certain Asian boundaries, as in Kashmir, where the new states certainly did not accept the colonial boundaries should be sacrosanct. There was no Asian (or European) Cairo declaration.

(a) Did not apply to half of South America
xxx c

(b) Seldom provided a clear border in practice
xxx

(c) Was not uniformly adopted by the Hispanic states
xxx

Africa
xxx

Asia
xxx

Dissolution of Yugoslavia
xx

Dissolution of Soviet Union
xxx

Criticisms
xxx xxx xxx

This doctrine of customary international law originated in Hispanic America. In border disputes, while the Portuguese method was to rely on effective possession, the Hispanic tradition was to examine the legal documents. When the Spanish empire in America collapsed, "each of the new sovereignties which emerged, originally or later, tended to follow the lines of cleavage which in the colonial period had divided Spanish administrative units: vice-royalties, captaincies-general, or provinces". Hence the new states, when settling their mutual boundaries, quite often instructed arbitrators to use the uit possidetis at the date of independence. "The assumption involved in the original use of the term in Hispanic America was that it is possible, by a careful study of Spanish decrees, to trace a definite line of division between the colonial administrative units as of the period of independence — an assumption rarely warranted by the facts".

This method was no panacea for Spanish. for example, the Spanish Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata split up into Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay.

For example, Argentina and Paraguay had good faith competing claims to two territories: the Misiones (about the size of the state of Maryland); and the Gran Chaco (about the size of California).