Page 39 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

pendent state has individual legal characteristics resulting those of a state that is landlocked. The rights of a state that
from its origins, the treaties it has entered, and the stage of is a member of an international organization, such as the
its development. 7 United Nations, are different in some ways from those of
d. A well-known British case, Dyff Development Co. nonmembers. Every state to some extent either cir-
Ltd. v. Government of Kelantan, 8 illustrates this point. cumscribes or increases its rights and duties by the treaty
The House of Lords affirmed an order staying proceedings commitments into which it has entered. 10 Thus, it has
against the Government of Kelantan (a princely Malay been contended that the principle of equality simply
State under British protection) on the ground that Kelan- means application of the law in conformity with the law,
tan was a sovereign state over which the court had no ju- i.e., that in applying the law only those differences shall be
risdiction. This result was reached even though, by agree- regarded which are recognized in the law itself. 11
ment between the two states, the British government had Second, only states may be parties in cases before the
assumed the conduct of Kelantan's foreign affairs, and International Court of Justice. 12 This rule, however, does
even though the agreement severely limited the control of not bar the United Nations from seeking advisory opin-
the Sultan of Kelantan over his country's internal affairs. ions of the Court. 13
Kelantan had contracted away to a great deal of its independ- Third, every state, whatever its other duties may be,
ence, but it had not forfeited its status as a sovereign has the duty to respect the rights enjoyed by every other
power. Similarly, the states that have joined the European state in accordance with international law. 14 The right of
Economic Community have obviously contracted away, each state to exercise its sovereign power does not author-
for so long as they remain members of the Community, a ize it to commit unlawful acts against another state. 15
substantial degree of their independence. Yet they remain Fourth, sovereignty entails the power to exclude states
sovereign states in their dealings with one another and from exercising their sovereign functions within the ter-
with other states. ritory of another state. This is a universally accepted core
3-4. Legal Consequences of Statehood. Once the neces- principle of international law. Thus, for example, in 1957
sary qualifications for statehood are present (i.e., there ex- the U.S. Department of State instructed the American
ist the elements of territory, people, government, and
10. See Preparatory Study Concerning a Draft Declaration on the
engagement in foreign relations), the question arises as to Rights and Duties of States (memorandum submitted by the Secretary-
what legal consequences normally follow from this. The General) U.N. Doc. AICN 4/2, at 66 (1948).
potential ramifications are myriad; it is feasible here to 11. See Kelsen, The Drqft Declaration on Rights and Duties of
refer only to a few of the more basic legal consequences of States, 44 Am. J. Int'l L. 259, 269 (1950). The considerations men-
statehood. tioned in the text above detract from the plausibility of the Draft
Recommendations on Equality of States, adopted on April 22, 1966, by
First, all states are legally equal, i.e., all states have
the 1966 Special Committee on Principles of International Law Con-
equality before the law. 9 This principle is expressly recog-
cerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, U.N. Doc.
nized in Article 2(1) of the Charter of the United Nations: A/6230, at 176, 183 (1966), Article 1 of which states, inter alia, that all
"[Tlhe Organization is based on the priniciple of the states "have equal rights and duties." This document nevertheless rep-
sovereign equality of all its members." Yet, although ev- resents a useful attempt to flesh out the meaning of "sovereign
ery state is juristically equal in the sense that no state has equality."
Articles 1 and 2 thereof read as follows:
greater sovereignty or greater right to equal protection of 1. All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights
law than any other, it is not empirically true that all states and duties and are equal members of the international community,
have equal rights and duties. The rights and duties of a notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political, or
state that has a seacoast are necessarily different than other nature.
2. In particular, sovereign equality includes the following ele-
7. See Advisory Opinion on Nationality Decrees in Tunis and ments:
Morocco, [I9231 P.C.I.J., ser. B, No. 4, at 27. Examples of protectorates (a) States are juridically equal.
and of other kinds of openly-avowed dependent states are few at pres- (b) Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.
ent. Andorra is under the joint protectorate of France and Spain, San (c) Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other
Marino under the protectorate of Italy, and Monaco under that of States.
France. As Brierly points out, the "growth of national sentiment in all (4The territorial integrity and political independence of the
parts of the world makes any extension of the status unlikely." Brierly, State are inviolable.
supra note 2, at 136. Of course, a relation of dependency sometimes ex- (e) Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its
ists between two states hi fact, but for political reasons is not avowed. political, social, economic and cultural systems.
For example, the U.S. at one time exercised extensive control over (t) Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith
some of the nominally independent states of Central America. Id. at with its international obligations and to live in peace
134. The Soviet Union today exercises far-reaching control over some with other States.
of the nominally independent states of Eastern Ewope. The American 12. Statute of The International Court of Justice, Art. 38-1.
Indian nations or tribes are generally considered to be "domestic 13. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered
dependent nations." W.Bishop, International Law Cases and Materials in the Service of the United Nations, [I9491 I.C.J. 174.
315 (3d ed. 1971) [hereinafter cited as Bishop]. 14. See Charter of the Organization of American States, Art. 10, 2
8. [I9241 A.C. 797. U.S.T. 2394, 119 U.N.T.S. 3, as amended21 U.S.T. 607 (1967).
9. See Convention on Rights and Duties of States, supra note 2, 1s. This principle is expressed in article 14 of the Charter of the
art. 4. Organization of American States, supra note 14.