Page 57 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

a title by prescription. Paper protests may undoubtedly be either an overt invasion of another state's territory or
effective for a certain length of time to preserve the claim from what might perhaps be regarded as a legitimate act of
of the dispossessed state. lf,however, the latter makes no self-defense. Two examples suffice to illustrate these
effort to carry its protests further, by referring the case to points.
the United Nations or by using other remedies that may (1) The status of Goa. On December 18, 1961, In-
be open to it, paper protests will ultimately be of no avail dian troops invaded the territories of Goa, Damao, and
to stop the operation of prescription. 18 Thus, it was Diu, comprising the Portuguese State of India. In a letter
largely for the purpose of avoiding any risk of the ex- to the President of the Security Council, the Permanent
tinguishment of its claims by prescription that in 1955 the Representative of Portugal requested him ". . . to con-
United Kmgdom filed a unilateral application with the vene the Security Councii immediately to put a stop to the
I.C.J., challenging alleged encroachment by Argentina condemnable act of aggression of the Indian Union, or-
and Chile on the Falkland Islands Dependencies. 19 dering an immediate cease-frre and the withdrawal forth-
c. Accretion. Accretion is the expansion of a state's ter- with . . . of all the invading forces of the Indian Union. " 23
ritory by operation of nature; that is, by the gradual shift- The following excerpts are from the Security Council's
ing of the course of a river, the recession of the sea, or the debate.
building up of river deltas. This concept is generally free of Mr. ha [India]: . . . I have already said that this is a colonial question,
controversy and is mostly spoken to in terms of land, in the sense that part of our country is illegally occupied by right of con-
river, and lake boundaries. 20 quest by the Portuguese. The fact that they have occupied it for 450
years is of no consequence because, during nearly 425 or 430 years of
d. Cession. Cession of temtory involves the transfer of that period we really had no chance to do anything bemuse we were
sovereignty by means of an agreement between the ceding under colonial domination ourselves. But during the last fourteen years,
and acquiring states. It is a derivative mode of territorial from the very day when we became independent, we have not ceased to
acquisition. The cession may comprise a portion only of demand the return of the peoples under illegal domination to their own
the territory of the ceding state, or it may comprise the countrymen, to share their independence, their march forward to their
destiny. I would like to put this matter very clearly before the Council:
totality of its territory. In this latter situation, as for exam- that Portugal has no sovereign right over this territory. There is no legal
ple, in the treaty of August 22, 1910, between Japan and frontier-there can be no legal frontierdetween India and Goa. And
Korea, the ceding state disappears and becomes merged since the whole occupation is illegal as an issue--it started in an illegal
into the acquiring state. The consent of the population of manner, it continues to be illegal today and it is even more illegal in the
light of resolution 1514 0[I5 GAOR, Supp. 16(A/4684), at 66
ceded territory has generally not been considered essential
@ec. 14, 1960), entitled "Declaration on the Granting of Independ-
to the validity of the cession; however, it should be noted ence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"]-there can be no question
that the last instances of cession were frequently condi- of aggression against your own frontier, pl against your own people,
tioned upon the will of the people as expressed in a whom you want to liberale.
plebiscite. 21 Moreover, acquisition of territorial That is the situation that we have to face. If any narrow-minded
legalistic considerations-considerations arising from international law
sovereignty by means of cession is now generally con-
as written by European law writers--should arise, these writers were,
sidered to be a thing of the past, a concept no long applica-
after all, brought up in the atmosphere of colonialism. I pay all respect
ble to today's international community. due to Grotius, who is supposed to be the father of international law,
e. Conquest. With the formation of the U.N.and the and we accept many tenets of international law. They are certainly
specific prohibitions against the use of force contained regulating international life today. But the tenet which . . . is quoted in
within its Charter, 22 war has been outlawed as a legiti- support of colonial Powers having sovereign rights over territories which
they won by conquest in Asia and Africa is no longer acceptable. It is the
mate instrument of national policy. Consequentially, logic European concept and it must die. It is time, in the twentieth century,
would dictate that a state can no longer acquire that it died. . . .
sovereignty over territory by conquering an enemy and Mr. Garin [Portugal]: . . . Indian attempts to annex the territories of
the other sovereignties in the neighbourhood cannot fmd any legal
declaring an intent to annex this state. Reality, however, justif~cation. Such attempts could be legitimized only by the other
does not allow for such legal simplicity. Despite the sovereignties concerned, if they agreed to a formal transfer of their ter-
universally accepted prohibition against the use of force, ritories, but only if the transfer coqld be voluntary, never compulsory,
conflict still occurs and often results in a change in ter- much less by means of an armed aggression. It matters little whether
ritorial sovereignty of an undefined nature. Moreover, those other sovereignties are held by whites or coloured people or, as in
this shift in territorial control may occur as a result of the case of the Portuguese State of India, by both whites and coloured
people together. It likewise matters little if the temtories belonging to
those other sovereignties are large or small in size. The principle of
'8. J. Brierly. The Law of Nations 167-71 (6th ed. Waldock 1963). sovereignty ought to be respected. The Indian Union has not done this
19. The dispute between the U.K.and Argentina over the Falkland
Islands continues to exist. See The Washiiton Post, Dec. 10, 1972, 4 in respect of the Portuguese State of India and is, therefore, guilty 0f.a
G, at 1, col. 1. Likewise, Arab states continue to lodge official protects base breach of international law.
It has been said here that international law in its present form was
in the U.N. with regard to the Israeli occupation of certain Arab territo-
made by Europeans. I submit that, so long as it is not replaced, it must
ry.
be accepted and followed by civilized nations, and I am not aware that
20. See 2 M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, 1084-85 international law relating to sovereignty has been changed so far . . .
(1963) (hereinafter cited as 2 M. Whireman). Mr. Stevenson [United States]: . . . [Wlhat is at stake today is not co-
21. 1 G.Hackworth, Digest of In&?rMHoMI Law 421-22 (1940).
22. Specifically, U.N.Charter Art. 2, paras 3 and 4. 23. U.N. Doc. S/5030 (1961).