The Prohibition of Annexation is Not the 'Foundational Principle' of the Post-WWII Order
This blog discusses the false assumption that the prohibition of annexation is the 'foundational principle of the post-WW II order'. It examines the authors' lack of a source for their claim and the implications of their argument.
Kevin Jon Heller
Professor of Intl Law & Security, University of Copenhagen, Centre for Military Studies. Special Advisor to ICC Prosecutor. Member, Doughty Street Chambers (UK)
-
The most basic assumption of the Hakimi/Wuerth article is false: that the prohibition of annexation is the "foundational principle of the post-WW II order." They have simply chosen that principle to justify Western uses of force -- Iraq, Kosovo (!), and Syria. https://t.co/rswbIe5gL2
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
Read the intro. Notice that the authors do not provide a source for their claim that "the norm at the core of the UN Charter system on the use of force [is] the prohibition of forcible annexations of foreign territory" -- a norm they repeatedly call the "holy grail."
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
But that's not surprising. What would they cite? Not Art. 2(4), because "territorial independence" is only one-half of the prohibition on the use of force -- the other half being, of course, "political independence." Art. 2(4) does not state or suggest a hierarchy between them.
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
Not the Friendly Relations Declaration. It simply restates the prohibition of the use of force -- both "territorial integrity" and "political independence." It even puts political independence *first* when it talks about any kind of interstate coercion being unacceptable.
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
Not the Definition of Aggression. It actually goes further than Art. 2(4) and the FRD, defining aggression as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State." So now sovereignty is added to the list.
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
Art. 3(a) deems aggression "[t]he invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State."
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
So annexation is given co-equal status with invasion and military occupation -- both of which apply, of course, to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023 -
Finally, notice the word that does not appear in the article: Israel. Even putting aside the West Bank and EJ, by the authors' own standards Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights violated "the foundational principle of the post-World War II order." Yet... silence.
— Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) March 20, 2023