Talk:Uti possidetis juris

Issues with the article

please make contributions to this article, and help to improve it. There are a lot of things that can be expanded upon so please help. Lucas(CA)

there are also a lot of links that need to be put in. Thanks-Lucas(CA)

Surely "Success" is a bad name for a section that seems to list cases where it's led to war crimes?! Perhaps "Problems" might be better? But I know nothing about this so I haven't changed it myself. Andrewbt (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be explained how introduction of Uti Possidetis Juris in the case of Yugoslavia led to escalation of the civil war, because it was an antidemocratic act. It was directly against the will of the people which voted differently. In the case of Yugoslavia implementation of that principle ended in situation in which three opposing groups of people (Orthodox, Catholic and Muslims) were forced to live together, although the whole idea behind breaking of Yugoslavia was that these groups have shown that they cannot live together anymore and that they should be allowed to separate. Cheerz, Mike.

Could you produce one academic source that comments on the use of Utis Possidetis Juris in Yugoslavia? WCM_email 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the opinion of the Arbitration Committee for Yugoslavia: http://ejil.org/pdfs/3/1/1175.pdf

On the page 180, section ::The Question of Frontiers::, paragraph 3, you can read how it regarded the question of Yugoslavia. The Committee says that whatever the circumstances, 'the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers'. This blatant disregard of democratic will of the peoples of Yugoslavia was in conflict with what International community was trying to do at that moment - to allow peoples of Yugoslavia to live independent from each other, and consequently led into escalation of preliminary clashes into total war.

Another thing worthy mentioning was that it was not quite Uti Possideti Juris being introduced, although it was presented as such. There was no "Juris" in Yugoslav Constitution that defined borders of Federal Republics as a basis for any division, but that is a different question.

UPJ has nothing to do with the principle of self-determination, its a completely different legal concept. It was originally a loose agreement between South American states to define their borders along the administrative boundaries of the former Spanish Empire. WCM_email 18:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor am I saying that it does. There was no self-determination in Yugoslavia. UPJ was falsely used to make excuse for Yugoslavian war. That's the point.

Merge Proposal

• NO , which will be the title ? Uti Possidetis Juris and Uti Possidetis ? Although have a bit similar name are two VERY different concepts --Jor70 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Done, no need to keep this here. Much more articles and interwikis point to Uti possidetis. Any differences should be pointed out in the merged article. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• You cannot merge white and black based on the number of links. They are two completety different thngs Jor70 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• I've researched both and find that these can be merged without incident. Fine by me. - G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.162.187 (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm no expert on this subject, but it appears to me that if we were to merge the two articles together, it should be called Uti Possidetis, and not Uti Possidetis Juris as suggested by the present merge tags. Based on what I've read in the two articles, though, I do see reason to agree with the argument that these are actually two separate concepts. However, without merging, Uti Possidetis Juris would become merely a stub, so I think merging them into one article and having the differences clearly laid out would be a reasonable compromise. 142.103.207.10 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Page Uti possidetis juris says "Uti possidetis iuris is a principle of international law that states that newly formed states should have the same borders that they had before their independence.".

Page Uti possidetis says "Uti possidetis (Latin for "as you possess") is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless provided for by treaty.".

These look like similar but not the same concepts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I vote "NO". The one is for war between independent nations, the other for nations emerging out of colonial status. If you merge the pages, you will spend 2/3 of the new page pointing out the "any differences". Somercet (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This link contains info on how the concept of Uti possidetis juris evolved:

http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~phensel/Research/iowa06.pdf

Perhaps the editors might find something useful they can add to the page Dab14763 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs re-write

This article is very thin on cited sources, is superficial, and contains too many inaccuracies. It really needs to be re-written from scratch. If any editor wants to collaborate on this, I have accumulated a number of sources.Ttocserp 12:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That would very much depend on the quality of sources you propose to use. I am aware that a number of sources misrepresent what UPJ is and how it has been applied. I can also cite an ICJ judge who is very critical of such sources. Having just had a look at the article, there are some obvious omissions (such as the Conference of Lima in 1848. That said it is basically accurate and neutral. WCM_email 13:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC

Currently I have these:

• Allen, Stephen (2006). "Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger)". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 55 (3). Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law: 729–742. JSTOR 4092650.
• Bâli (2016). "Sykes-Picot And "Artificial" States". AJIL Unbound. 110: 115–119. JSTOR 10.2307/27003191.
• Bassett Moore, John (1904). Brazil and Peru Boundary Question. New York: Knickerbocker Press. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
• Bassett Moore, John (1913). Costa Rica-Panama Arbitration: Memorandum on Uti Possidetis. Rosslyn, VA: The Commonwealth Co. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
• Bethell, Leslie (2010). "Brazil and 'Latin America'". Journal of Latin American Studies. 42 (3). Cambridge University Press: 457–485. JSTOR 40984892.
• Crawford, James, ed. (2012). Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965417-8.

(sorry, I don't own the current edition of Brownlie)

• Epps, Valerie (2004). "Review: Title to Territory in International Law: A Temporal Analysis by Joshua Castellino and Steve Allen". The American Journal of International Law. 98 (4). Cambridge University Press: 869–872. JSTOR 3216726.
• Fisher, F. C. (1933). "The Arbitration of the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Dispute". The American Journal of International Law. 27 (3). Cambridge University Press: 403–427. JSTOR 2189971.
• Lalonde, Suzanne (2002). Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: the Role of Uti Possidetis. McGill—Queen's University Press. ISBN 0-7735-2424-X. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
• Leigh, Monroe (1987). "Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) 1986 ICJ Rep. 554". The American Journal of International Law. 81 (2). Cambridge University Press: 411–414. JSTOR 2202413.
• Navari, Cornelia (2014). "Territoriality, self-determination and Crimea after Badinter". International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-). 90 (6). Oxford University Press: 1299–1318. JSTOR 24538667.
• Nessi, Giuseppe (2011). "Uti possidetis Doctrine". In Wulfrum, Rüdiger (ed.). The Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law (PDF). Vol. X. Oxford. Retrieved 3 April 2022.
• Phillipson, Coleman, ed. (1916). Wheaton’s Elements of International Law (5th English ed.). London: Stevens. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
• Ratner, Steven R. (1996). "Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States". The American Journal of International Law. 90 (4). Cambridge University Press: 590–624. JSTOR 2203988.
• Rossi, Christopher R. (2016). "A Case III Suited for Judgment Constructing 'A Sovereign Access to the Sea' in the Atacama Desert". The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 48 (2): 28–86. JSTOR 26788298.
• Sarvarian, Arman (2015). "'Uti Possidetis Juris' in the Twenty-First Century: Consensual or Customary". International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 22 (4, Special Issue: Self-determination, Resources and Borders). Brill: 511–532. JSTOR 24676568.
• St. John, Ronald Bruce (1977). "The Boundary Dispute Between Peru and Ecuador". The American Journal of International Law. 72 (2). Cambridge University Press: 322–330. JSTOR 2199534.
• Summers, James (2015). "Self-determination, Resources and Borders: Introduction to the Special Issue". International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 22 (4). Brill: 459–466. JSTOR 24676565.
• Shany, Yuval (2014). "Does International Law Grant the People of Crimea and Donetsk a Right to Secede? Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 Events in Ukraine". The Brown Journal of World Affairs. 21 (1). Brown Journal of World Affairs: 233–243. JSTOR 24591044.
• Sumner, Brian Taylor (2004). "Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice". Duke Law Journal. 53 (6). Duke University School of Law: 1779–1812. JSTOR 40040452.
• Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of International Law with a sketch of the history of the science. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard. Retrieved 7 April 2022.

Critique invited. Ttocserp 10:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

My main concern is that UPJ is frequently misrepresented as a means of territorial inheritance, whereas it was originally formed as a rough and ready agreement between South American states at the Conference of Lima in 1848 as a means to resolve border disputes. The parties agreed to settle their borders at the administrative boundaries of the former Spanish Empire, choosing 1810 as the year for which to "fix" borders. However, not all former Spanish territories signed it; a notable exception being Argentina, which initially refused to accept it. My second concern is there are some who assert the ICJ has imposed UPJ as a means of resolving disputes, however, this is not the case. It has only ever been accepted in cases where both parties have accepted it as a principle. So whilst it was originally applied, relatively unsuccessfully in South America, it's use has been extended to some African states.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the paper by Paul Hensel of Florida State University: Territorial Integrity Treaties, Uti Possidetis, and Armed Conflict over Territory. The co-authors include Michael E. Allison and Ahmed Khanani. Paper presented at the 2006 Shambaugh Conference "Building Synergies: Institutions and Cooperation in World Politics," University of Iowa, 13 October 2006. I have a PDF copy if you need it.

I did see you had done some preliminary work in a sandbox, if you need a hand structuring your rewrite give me a shout. WCM_email 12:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC

1. I couldn't agree with you more. Omitting these things commonly trivialises the topic.

2. Thank you, I have Hensel et al now.

3. Let me get in touch with you when I've done some more preliminary work.

BTW, I rewrote the article Uti possidetis; you might want to have a quick look; any criticisms welcomed.Ttocserp 13:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Title change

There is no reason to use a capital 'u' in the title. I suggest it is changed to lower case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

For that matter, there's no reason Wikipedia has the article Cat (instead of cat), Dog (instead of dog) or Holomorphic curve (instead of holomorphic curve), except for the boring convention that, absent a special reason (e.g. eBay, iPhone), the names of encyclopaedia articles always start with a capital. Uti possidetis juris is not and never was a phrase in classical or medieval Latin, so we needn't get into that.Ttocserp 14:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The term is foreign, fixed, and stands outside normal rules of English, not unlike the terms you use as examples: iPhone, eBay. Look at [1] or [2] as two examples among many. If you wanted to start an English sentence with such a term you would use lower case, or more prudently you would rearrange the word order to avoid the problem. When upper case is used in sources it is when the whole phrase is capitalised, in full or in part with the first letter of each word. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the term is not "foreign" (bejasus!). Go and spend three or six years learning some international law, including the difference between Uti possidetis juris and uti possidetis; who invented the former, and how recently. I don't do freebies.Ttocserp 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Roll into Uti Possidetis

This really needs to be a subsection of Uti Possidetis. The paragraph that exists there is already 50% of this article and has more references. Mcdruid (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say no because they are two different things. This article doesn't describe UPJ at all well - Hensel at al is referenced and he is one of the better authors on the topic [3]. As a legal principle, it was a rough and ready agreement between South American states agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848. There a number of states agreed they would define borders according to the administrative boundaries of the Spanish Empire as it existed in 1810. It has been extended to Africa by the International Court of Justice but only in cases where both sides agreed to it as a guiding principle. Despite claims to the contrary it is not a general principle of Intl Law, nor does it offer a means of inheritance from the Spanish Empire as for example Argentina now claims (incidentally not a signatory to the Treaty). The article needs a radical rewrite but I've hesitated to do so for a long time because I know from bitter experience that various nationalists will come out of the woodwork to press various nationalist claims and TBH life is too short. WCM_email 07:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ttocserp: how did your rewrite go? WCM_email 07:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to but felt discouraged.Ttocserp 07:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I can understand that, its an uphill struggle for editors genuinely interested in writing neutral prose, when faced with nationalist editing you often get labelled just because you're associated with it. WCM_email 08:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I know the feeling. As I see it, this article adds almost nothing to the UP article and can easily be subsumed into it.Mcdruid (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The article does a poor job of explaining UPJ, however, it is a different topic. So a merger makes no sense. WCM_email 08:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Palestine

to the best of my knowledge Uti possidetis juris was, in fact, NOT applied to Palestine, and this is precisely the issue that many proponents of the pro-israel narrative seem to have with the designation of the West bank and other territories captured in the war of 67 as "occupied", and perhaps this also deserves its own separate section in the article - not as a POV of the conflict, but being that it sheds light on the principle and how it's been applied in specific circumstances. I'm not qualified to edit this article, but perhaps someone can study this PDF (it's long) and incorporate the necessary elements https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/58-3/58arizlrev633.pdf MoshiachNow (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The article makes a number of fundamental errors. UPJ is not considered customary International Law and the authors appear to have confused UPJ with the UN's decolonisation doctrine expressed in UNGA 1514. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will not consider application of UPJ in a case unless a) the parties to an action agree that the principle is relevant and can be considered; or b) one of the parties has accepted or relied upon the principle before. UNGA 1514 maintains that decolonisation must occur with the boundaries of an existing colony; a doctrine originally devised to stop European powers hanging onto to parts of their former colonial possessions. The article later states that in the Burkina Faso and Mali case the ICJ would have imposed UPJ; this is simply untrue. The second major mistake is that UPJ confers upon Israel the Gaza strip and the West Bank as part of the borders of Mandatory Palestine. This is a legal fiction, although both sides do not in general recognise the demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements as the borders of Israel, they have come to be recognised Internationally as the borders of Israel. Israel has no basis in International Law to claim those territories.

I'm very surprised that the Arizona Law Review would accept this article, whilst it may be long it incorporates multiple errors of fact. Personally I would dismiss it as propaganda dressed as a legal fiction justifying the annexation of territory. As such I would strongly urge this is not added to the article. WCM_email 12:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)