East Timor, the U.N. System, and Enforcing Non-Recognition in International Law

This Article seeks to assess how the U.N. system has enforced regimes of non-recognition under international law. Claims by certain communities to constitute states and claims by some states to hold title to certain pieces of territory have met with opposition from various quarters. At times, the United Nations has attempted to organize international non-recognition of such claims. The claim by the state of Indonesia to hold title to East Timor presents a vivid and important example of an attempt to set up a regime of non-recognition by the United Nations. The Article examines how the United Nations addressed the Indonesian claim and inquires whether this amounted to a self-enforcing regime of non -recognition. The Article examines in detail U.N. practice in other regions of the world, including Katanga, Rhodesia, the South African Homelands, Namibia, Israel, Cyprus, and Kuwait, in which the United Nations legislated rules of non-recognition. In light of these examples, the Article concludes with a discussion of the East Timor case, in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that U.N. resolutions had not in fact created an international rule of recognition or non-recognition regarding the status of East Timor. Nonetheless, the Article speculates that the ICJ may have left open the possibility of adjudication of claims of illegal recognition, thus creating a future mechanism of regulating controversial claims concerning territory and statehood

Frozen Conflicts and International Law

Scholars (mostly in international relations and politics) and policymakers (in various countries) have referred to a series of conflicts in the space of the former USSR as “frozen conflicts.” Because some now speak of new “frozen conflicts” emerging, it is timely to ask what— if any— legal meaning this expression contains. Moreover, how we characterize these conflicts affects legal and other procedures the parties and others might apply to resolve them. Beyond the open questions of semantics and taxonomy, the so-called “frozen conflicts” merit attention because of their salience to the dispute settlement machinery that they so largely have frustrated

Frozen Conflicts and International Law

Scholars (mostly in international relations and politics) and policymakers (in various countries) have referred to a series of conflicts in the space of the former USSR as “frozen conflicts.” Because some now speak of new “frozen conflicts” emerging, it is timely to ask what— if any— legal meaning this expression contains. Moreover, how we characterize these conflicts affects legal and other procedures the parties and others might apply to resolve them. Beyond the open questions of semantics and taxonomy, the so-called “frozen conflicts” merit attention because of their salience to the dispute settlement machinery that they so largely have frustrated

International Responsibility and the Admission of States to the United Nations

The present Article considers what identifiable substantive obligations might be relevant to admission; whether admission as practiced has resulted in a breach of obligation; and whether any such breach might impose international responsibility on the international actors involved in the decision to admit new States. The Article further considers what future reparative obligations such responsibility might entail