Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: url, title. URLs might have been anonymized. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Whoop whoop pull up | #UCB_toolbar |
||
Line 5:
{{PropertyLaw}}
The '''right of conquest''' is a [[right]] of ownership to land after immediate possession via [[force (law)|force]] of arms. It was recognized as a principle of [[international law]] that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath of [[World War II]] following the concept of [[crimes against peace]] introduced in the [[Nuremberg Principles]]. The interdiction of territorial conquests was confirmed and broadened by the [[Charter of the United Nations|UN Charter]], which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the [[territorial integrity]] or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the [[United Nations]]." Although civil wars continued, wars between established states have been rare since 1945. Nations that have resorted to the use of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right of [[collective defense]].<ref name=Christiansen2016>{{cite book|author=Silke Marie Christiansen|title=Climate Conflicts – A Case of International Environmental and Humanitarian Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BKcqDAAAQBAJ
==History and arguments==
Line 16:
Until 1945, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest had to be conducted according to the existing [[laws of war]]. This meant that there had to be [[military occupation]] followed by a peace settlement, and there was no reasonable chance of the defeated sovereign regaining the land. While a formal [[peace treaty]] "makes good any defects in title",{{sfn|Korman|1996|p=127}} it was not required. Recognition by the losing party was not a requirement: "the right of acquisition vested by conquest did not depend on the consent of the dispossessed state".{{sfn|Korman|1996|p=128}} However, the alternative was [[annexation]] (part or in whole) which if protested as unlawful, a peace treaty was the only means to legitimize conquest in a time of war. Essentially, conquest itself was a legal act of extinguishing the legal rights of other states without their consent. Under this new framework, it is notable that conquest and subsequent occupation outside of war were illegal.{{sfn|Korman|1996|p=128}}
In the post-World War II era, not all wars involving territorial acquisitions ended in a [[peace treaty]]. For example, the fighting in the [[Korean War]] paused with an [[armistice]], without any peace treaty covering it. North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea and the United States as of 2022.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/why-korean-war-never-technically-ended|title=The Korean War never technically ended.
==See also==
| |||