No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis. By Suzanne N. Lalonde. Montreal, Ithaca NY: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002. Pp. xii, 347. Index. U.S.$75, Can$75, £57.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Recent Books on International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004
References
1 See, e.g., Julio, A. Barberis, La regla del Uti Possidetis en las controversies limítrofes entre Estados Hispanoamericanos, in Liber Amicorum. Colección De Estudios Jurídicos en Homenaje al Prof. Dr. D. José Pérez Montero 126 (1988)Google Scholar; Julio, A. Barberis, Les règies spécifiques du droit international en Amérique latine, 235 Recueil des Cours 85 (1992 IV)Google Scholar; Marcelo, G. Kohen, L’uti possidetis revisité: L’arrêt du 11 septembre 1992 dans l’affaire El Salvador/ Honduras, 97 Revue Générals de Droit International Public 939 (1993)Google Scholar; Marcelo, G. Kohen, Possession Contestée et Souveraineté Territoriale (1997)Google Scholar; Giuseppe, Nesi, L’ uti Possidetis iuris nel diritto Internazionale (1996)Google Scholar; Sánchez Rodríguez, Luis I. , L’ uti possidetis et les effectivés dans les contentieux territoriaux et frontaliers, 263 Recueil Des Cours 149 (19971)Google Scholar.
2 See, e.g., José, L. Suarez, El uti possidetis y los límites americanos, in Diplomacia Universitaria Americana. Argentina en el Brasil. Ciclo de Conferencias 41 (1918)Google Scholar; Ayala, Eusebio, Le Principe de l’ «uti possidetis et le règlement des questions territoriales en Amérique, 8 Revue de Droit International 456 (1931)Google Scholar; M. Waldock, C. H., Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies, 1948 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 325 Google Scholar.
3 Démembrements d’Etats et Délimitations Territoriales: L’utipossidetis en question (S) (Corten, Olivier, Delcourt, Barbara, Klein, Pierre, & Levrateds, Nicolas., 1999)Google Scholar.
4 113 Consol. T.S. 332, 371.
5 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal./ Hond.;Nicar. intervening), 1992 ICJ rep. 351 (Sept. 11)Google Scholar.
6 Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, League of Nations O.J. Spec. Supp. 3 (1920)Google Scholar.
7 Boundary Dispute Concerning the Taba Area (Egypt v.Isr.),20 R.I.A.A. 1 (1988).
8 Dubai/Sharjah Border Arbitration, 91 ILR 543 (1981)Google Scholar.
9 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, 19 R.I.A.A. 149 (1985)Google Scholar.
10 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, 20 R.I.A.A. 119 (1989)Google Scholar.
11 Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso/Mali), 1986 ICJ Rep. 554 (Dec. 22)Google Scholar.
12 On the de facto interpretation, preeminence is given to actual possession. On the de jure interpretation, it is the legal title that prevails.
13 Conference on Yugoslavia, Arbitration Commission, Opinion Nos. 1-7 (Jan. 11, 1992), 8-10 (July 4,1992), reprinted in 31 ILM 1488 (1992)Google Scholar.
14 In Démembrements d’Etats et délimitations territoriales, supra note 3, see “L’application de l’ uti possidetis juris au démembrement de la Yougoslavie: règie coutumière ou impératif politique?” by Barbara Delcourtand “Heurs et malheurs du principe de 1’ uti possidetis: le cas du démembrement de l’U.R.S.S.” by Laurence Weerts.
15 Steven, R. Ratner, Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States, 90 AJIL 590, 617 (1996)Google Scholar.