Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:29:33.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Deconstruction of the Notion of Acquisitive Prescription and Its Implications for the Diaoyu Islands Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2012

ZHANG Zuxing
ZHANG Zuxing*
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-Sen University, People's Republic of China
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Acquisitive prescription” should be denied as a rule of international law governing the acquisition of territorial sovereignty. It is useless in practice and confusing in theory. Replacing it should be the concepts of “historical title” and “tacit agreement”, which would thus expand the traditional five modes for legally acquiring territory to six. This rearrangement would be useful for us to get a clear and correct understanding of this part of international law, and would thus enable international law to play a positive role in dealing with territorial disputes. It would also prevent, hopefully, an exacerbation of the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan as caused by a misunderstanding of this part of international law.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 2012 , pp. 323 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor, School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Sun Yat-Sen University, People's Republic of China. This research is funded by the Foundation for the Humanitarian and Social Science Research of the Ministry of Education of PRC (Project Number 11 YJAZH 123). I am sincerely grateful for the critical comments of the reviewers of the Asian Journal of International Law. The views are the author's own.

References

1. BROWNLIE, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) at 150Google Scholar.

2. BROWNLIE, Ian, The Rule of Law in International Affairs (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998) at 153–155Google Scholar.

3. Robert JENNINGS, “The Acquisition of Territory in International Law” in JENNINGS, Robert, Collected Writings of Sir Robert Jennings (Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998)Google Scholar, 952–953.

4. Hugo GROTIUS, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres, trans. by Francis W. Kelsey, Vol. 2 Book 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925) at 226Google Scholar.

5. Emerich de VATTEL, The Law of Nations (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008) at 334–335Google Scholar.

6. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), [2008] I.C.J. Rep. 12 at 32 (referring to Meerauge Arbitral Award (Austria/Hungary), 13 September 1902) [Pedra Branca Case].

7. Ibid., at 37.

8. See e.g. Grotius, supranote 4 at 227, stating that

[I]t is plain that a king can acquire a right as against a king, and an independent State as against an independent State, not only by express agreement, but also by abandonment of ownership and the occupation which follows it or assumes a new force from it.

9. Vattel, supra note 5 at 336Google Scholar.

10. Grotius, supra note 4 at 224–225Google Scholar.

11. Pedra Branca Case, supra note 6 at 50.

12. Ibid., at 96.

13. Vattel, supra note 5 at 337Google Scholar.

14. D.H.N. JOHNSON, “Acquisitive Prescription in International Law” (1950) 27 British Year Book of International Law 332 at 346.

15. HALL, William Edward, A Treatise of International Law, 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1917) at 120–121Google Scholar.

16. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Bukina Faso/Republic of Mali), [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 554 at 586–7.

17. Brownlie, supra note 1 at 150Google Scholar.

18. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 625 at 674 [Ligitan and Sipadan Case].

19. Jennings, supra note 3 at 954Google Scholar.

20. Grotius, supranote 4 at 224. I acknowledge that respected colleagues may hold views opposite to mine and find that Grotius's position is sound. I would like to explain my position. To me, for the abandonment of territorial sovereignty, the decisive factor is the consent of states, which has nothing to do with a definite length of time. States may adopt different lengths of time for different situations. It is impossible to give a definite length of time for all situations.

21. Ibid., at 228–9.

22. Vattel, supra note 5 at 338Google Scholar.

23. Johnson, supra note 14 at 353–354Google Scholar.

24. Grotius, supra note 4 at 226Google Scholar.

25. Vattel, supra note 5 at 336Google Scholar.

26. Grotius, supra note 4 at 226Google Scholar.

27. Vattel, supra note 5 at 336–337Google Scholar.

28. Pedra Branca Case, supra note 6 at 68, 87.

29. Case Concerning Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 209 at 217.

30. Ibid., at 227.

31. Ibid., at 230.

32. Ligitan and Sipadan Case , supra note 18 at 678.

33. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 30.

34. Pedra Branca Case, supra note 6 at 29.

35. Ibid., at 145−6 (dissenting opinion of Judge Dugard).

36. Ibid., at 171 (separate opinion of Judge Sreenivasa Rao).

37. Ibid., at 119–20 (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Simma and Abraham).

38. Ibid., at 121.

39. Ibid., at 51.

40. Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia),[1999] I.C.J. Rep. 1045 at 1101.

41. Ibid., at 1106.

42. Ibid., at 1105.

43. Ibid., at 1103.

44. Ibid., at 1105.

45. Jennings indicated the Island of Palmas case as evidencing a decision based on prescriptive title; Jennings, supra note 3 at 954. But, in that case, the arbitrator found no original title on the part of Spain—at most an “inchoate title” was found—and also no illegality on the activities on the part of the Netherlands, whose possession was regarded as peaceful.

46. “Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Dec. 30, 1971” [1972] 15 Peking Review [Beijing Zhoubao] 12.

47. “Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (as of 17 May 2012), online: MOFA 〈www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html〉.

48. L.F.E. GOLDIE, “The Critical Date” (1963) 12 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1251 at 1255.

49. Ibid., at 1284.

50. JENNINGS, supra note 3 at 967–968Google Scholar.

51. Pedra Branca Case, supra note 6 at 155 (separate opinion of Judge Sreenivasa Rao).

52. Ibid., at 119 (joint dissenting opinion of Judges Simma and Abraham).

53. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening),[2002] I.C.J. Rep. 303 at 354–5.

54. Carlos RAMOS-MROSOVSKY, “International Law's Unhelpful Role in the Senkaku Islands” (2008) 29 University of Pennsylvania of International Law Journal 906.