International Law and the Will of the People in Post-Conflict Rebuilding

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Saul
2021 ◽  
pp. 481-495
Author(s):  
Edward Kolla

Moments of infraction of international law can generate new law. These can also be important examples of contingency in the history of international law, if the process occurs as an unintended consequence of actors’ aims. The French Revolution was just such an instance. The transmission of sovereignty from the person of the king to the collective populace of France was a central feature of the Revolution. Unplanned by revolutionaries, the principle of popular sovereignty bled into international law and became a new justification for claims to territory—a precept which, by the twentieth century, came to be called national self-determination. This chapter explores how the will of the people became a force in international law, inadvertently from the perspective of revolutionaries, as a result of changing public opinion, claims of jurisprudential and moral legitimacy, and military force.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jure Vidmar

AbstractThe secession of Crimea and—more broadly—the conflict in Ukraine reopened questions concerning the limits of a democratic expression of the will of the people and the use of force in order to procure annexation of a territory belonging to another State. This article seeks to clarify the law governing the change of the legal status of a territory through secession and merger with another state. It argues not only that the right of self-determination does not grant an entitlement to alter the legal status of a territory, but also that general international law does not prohibit such an alteration. The rules of international law favor the stability of theexistinginternational borders and thus the territorial status quo, but this does not mean that a unilateral attempt at altering an existing territorial arrangement automatically constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Any change of the legal status of a territory becomes illegal, however, upon anoutsideuse of force. Such an illegality cannot be “cured” by a democratically expressed will of the people.


1928 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edgar Turlington

According to the theory accepted by the American and English courts, and by nearly all the American and English writers on international law, war between nations is war between their individual citizens. It makes of the citizens or subjects of one belligerent, enemies of the citizens or subjects of the other. The whole nation is embarked in one common bottom and must be reconciled to submit to one common fate. The government at war is the representative of the will of all the people and acts for the whole society. According to the rival theory, which, though first put forward by Rousseau merely as a philosophical principle, has been accepted by a large number of Continental jurists as a fundamental principle of international law, war is a relation between states in which individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men nor even as citizens, but simply as soldiers. Under the Anglo-American theory, the private property of the nationals of each belligerent, on land or sea, is in principle subject to capture and confiscation by the other belligerent.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Offe

The “will of the (national) people” is the ubiquitously invoked reference unit of populist politics. The essay tries to demystify the notion that such will can be conceived of as a unique and unified substance deriving from collective ethnic identity. Arguably, all political theory is concerned with arguing for ways by which citizens can make e pluribus unum—for example, by coming to agree on procedures and institutions by which conflicts of interest and ideas can be settled according to standards of fairness. It is argued that populists in their political rhetoric and practice typically try to circumvent the burden of such argument and proof. Instead, they appeal to the notion of some preexisting existential unity of the people’s will, which they can redeem only through practices of repression and exclusion.


Author(s):  
Zyad Samir Al-Dabagh

The process of building peace and laying its foundations within the societies of the world, especially those newly emerging from the stage of conflict, are among the important and indispensable matters. Without peace, opportunities diminish in obtaining the essentials of a safe and normal life, and without peace, societies cannot It works and advances towards a better future. However, peacebuilding operations in many societies emerging from conflict or those in which they live may face a set of challenges and obstacles that constitute a major obstacle to them, which necessitates searching for the best ways and means by which these obstacles can be addressed in order to build a real and effective peace that is reflected Positively on the people of those societies.


Author(s):  
Hermann Heller

This 1927 work addresses the paradox of sovereignty, that is, how the sovereign can be both the highest authority and subject to law. Unlike Kelsen and Schmitt who seek to dissolve the paradox, this text sees the tensions that the paradox highlights as an essential part of a society ruled by law. Sovereignty, in the sense of national sovereignty, is often perceived in liberal democracies today as being under threat, or at least “in transition,” as power devolves from nation states to international bodies. This threat to national sovereignty is at the same time considered a threat to a different idea of sovereignty, popular sovereignty—the sovereignty of “the people”—as important decisions seem increasingly to be made by institutions outside of a country’s political system or by elite-dominated institutions within. This text was written in 1927 amidst the very similar tensions of the Weimar Republic. In an exploration of history, constitutional and political theory, and international law, it shows that democrats must defend a legal idea of sovereignty suitable for a pluralistic world.


Author(s):  
Patrick Sze-lok Leung ◽  
Anthony Carty

Okinawa is now considered as Japanese territory, without challenge from most world powers. However, this is debatable from a historical viewpoint. The Ryukyu Kingdom which dominated the islands was integrated into Japan in 1879. The transformation is seen by Wang Hui as a process of modernization. This chapter argues the issue from an international law perspective. It shows that Ryukyu was an independent State as demonstrated by the 1854 Ryukyu–US Treaty, although it sent regular tributes to China. The Japanese integration by coercion is not justifiable. The people of Ryukyu were willing to continue being a tributary State rather than part of Japan. Britain, as the greatest colonial power, did not object. China and the US attempted to intervene in this affair, but no treaty has so far been concluded. Therefore, the status of Ryukyu/Okinawa remains unresolved and may need to be revisited, while putting the history context into consideration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document