Print

Print
Uhm... As a very interested party on borders and sovereignty, what really comes to mind is United Nations HQ in New York City.

The United States gave up sovereignty to a parcel of land in the midst of Manhattan.

Sooo, I would dare say, if a country is willing, it can be done, by treaty, of course.

Thoughts, please!

David A. Parish
Geneseo, New York
(Which is no where near UN HQ in New York)

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

From: Anton Florian Zeilinger <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:37:38 +0000
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Maintaining the higher ground v. Stemming the Tide

Dear Gbenga,
 
thank you for that interesting news item and your observations.
 
I think one has to differentiate between the purchase of property by a state in the territory of another state and the transfer of sovereignty in connection with a pecuniary compensation.
 
If I understood it correctly, the Maldives are hoping to acquire property under the relevant national property laws and under the sovereignty of the respective state (e.g. Australia).
 
As you point out correctly, the term "sale" or "purchase" has also been used for cessions that involve the compensatory transfer of money. Even though this type of cession is called a sale it must be noted that what is sold is more than just the land, but the sovereign title to it with all the rights and duties this entails. The price will often have little or no relation to the actual proprietary value of the territory involved.  Lately, i.e. since the beginning of the 20th century, this type of cession has not been of importance. Apart from the examples you already mentioned, the purchase of the Philippines by the U.S. in 1898 in the peace treaty after the Spanish-American war, also comes to mind.

I think so far the Maldives are not planning to acquire sovereign territory abroad, but who knows? It would be possible under international law, although it could get complicated when the territory involved is already inhabitated (self-determination issues...).
 
This issue also raises other points in international law - if indeed the waters should rise so high that the islands become uninhabitable (God forbid that this happens), what happens to the status of the state involved? Has it therefore lost one of the prerequisites of statehood as the territory is not inhabited and not governable? Does it remain a state? What happens to the maritime zones? Do the islands become "rocks" if they are no longer able to sustain human habitation?
 
What happens if the islands are entirely submerged? Does the state lose its statehood and become a non-state sovereign entity, something similar to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta? Again, what about the maritime zones?
 
I think all of these issues are ay of yet unsolved, but I am afraid that they may become pertinent in the future!
 
All the best,
 
Anton Zeilinger
 
Vienna, Austria


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:17:16 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Maintaining the higher ground v. Stemming the Tide
To: [log in to unmask]


Dear Friends,

 

An interesting story emerged in the papers and news yesterday regarding the proposal by the Maldives to establish a contingency fund which would allow it to buy land in another country should it be inundated by climate change-induced rising water levels. India, Sri Lanka or Australia are within contemplation.  (See further http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1084390/Maldives-buy-new-homeland-rising-sea-levels-threaten-tourist-paradise.html )

 

On the one hand this is perhaps one of the clearest examples of the human instinct for self preservation. On the other hand the lawyer in me foresees many problems. Is there any other example like this in recorded history (i.e. where one state has, or expressed a desire in the future to, purchase territory abroad in the emergence of a crisis?  Should we be prepared for more? ? The only examples that spring to mind - US buying Alaska and the Louisiana Territory - are useful but not exactly analogous.  I understand the Tuvala islands have struck a deal with New Zealand which allows for a limited number of climate change refugees to enter on a yearly basis - a different response to the same problem. Would there be bitter battles for the higher grounds? How does one stem the tide? Are we living in ‘interesting times’ or what?



Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
Lecturer in International Commercial Law,
Kent Law School,
Eliot College,
University of Kent,
Canterbury,
Kent CT2 7NS, UK.

Phone:
Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817)
Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817
Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831

Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm




Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!