International Court Of Justice And Sovereignty Of Nations

International Court of Justice and Sovereignty of Nations

The sovereignty of nations

The sovereignty of nations is a very long and complex issue in the whole history of humanity. Wars and conflicts have exploded, which even last in our days, because there is no agreement between delimiting the territory or waters that each nation claims as its own, which is further aggravated with the end of European colonialism and the beginning of territorial conflictsAmong the new states that arise from the old colonies. Examples in Africa, in America, or in Asia do not have plenty. I will allow myself in this essay to comment on two decisions of the International Court of Justice related to the subject, and I will try to deepen a little in them. Those chosen for these are the ruling of April 12, 1960, "Portugal against India", and the failure of February 20, 1969, "Continental Platform of the North Sea". Both rulings belong to the International Court of Justice, who has contentious jurisdiction with the UN Conformators.

Let’s start with the ruling "Portugal against India". In this there is a conflict between both states by the alleged right to the Portugal Paso over the territory of India to access the colonial enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Aveli, belonging to the Portuguese state, and thus be able to communicate them with their other coastal coastal territoryof Daman. For the aforementioned Portugal denounces several times before the International Court of Justice that India is preventing him from exercising this international custom of the right to the way, that the Portuguese state itself agreed with the United Kingdom when India was its colony.

In this case, the reason for the refusal of India for the access of Portugal in its territory is due to the fact that the latter plannedSeveral treaties previously signed between Portugal and the United Kingdom that prevented the mutual entry of armed forces into the territory of the other and the prohibition of the traffic of weapons by Portuguese civilians who trade with the enclaves. Finally the Court fails as in previous case, they did not see that India is depriving Portugal of any law.

If we analyze the ruling well we can see that there is a very interesting background in terms of the sovereignty of both nations, Portugal and India. On the one hand the occupation of Portugal of these enclaves in India continuing with colonialism and therefore being contrary to the right to self-determination of peoples, which is in international human rights treaties, such as the International Pact of Economic Rights,Social and cultural that recognizes it in its article 1. And on the other hand we see India submit its sovereignty to allow Portugal to cross its territory to sustain its enclaves, thus allowing the continuity of colonialism and violating the self-determination of the local population that is subjected to European hegemony.

Let’s talk about the ruling "Continental Platform of the North Sea". In this you can see again a matter of sovereignty, in this case due to the determination of the continental platform in the North Sea by the Netherlands, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany. Not there is an agreement between these states on how to delimit the continental platform, they went to the International Court of Justice. The Court analyzed different ways of delimiting the waters and just Denmark and the Netherlands proposed to use the principle of equidistance, which is in the Geneva Convention on the continental platform in its article 6. The Court considers that this proposal was not acceptable, since it would be against the spirit of the Convention and the article, since the use of the principle of equidistance is not obliged but that it is recommended. So the Court simply limited a recommendation on how to evaluate and mark the limits of the continental platform. The depth analysis of the continental platform, the resources existing in this, the size of the coasts of each country, are some of the issues to be taken into account for delimitation.

In this case we can see the search for a solution for this sovereign conflict by the sea, which luckily resorted to diplomatic roads. Very different would have been the stage if this were in the past, where wars for national and sovereign reasons were not few. For example, Germany of the past had a homogeneous and absolutist state power during the second Reich, at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. And in the first half of the twentieth century the third Reich appeared with a totalitarian and revenge policy, seeking greatness and importing little or nothing the human factor. In those times positivism was the main legal doctrine of world powers, with laws as contrary to the principles of iusnaturalism as the "anti -Judies" of the third Reich. We would have to wait until 1945, after so many aberrations committed, so that the states recognize the natural principles of human beings and so that they seek to guarantee them, the latter was achieved with the creation of international human rights rights, with the signature of the Charterof the UN and the subscription of international human rights treaties by most countries. To round the above, it is of great hope to know that today the states and human beings themselves, seek the solution of diplomatic conflicts, no longer through war and the suffering of the human being.

As we can see the sovereignty of countries and their inhabitants is something very important for each national identity. However, that cannot allow the submission of entire peoples or the solution of bilateral conflicts through weapons and death. Humanity has already taken a step forward in pursuit of mutual respect between countries and the rights of its inhabitants. Armed colonies and conflicts are still in the world, all we can expect is that they end soon and be the last. For the good of our future, our dignity, and our life.