James Crawford: The Creation of States in International Law

I. Introduction
 [T]he existence of a State is a question of fact and not of law.
 50 states 75 (pre-WWII)  192 (2005)
 ISSUE: This work investigates the question whether, and to what extent, the
formation and existence of States is regulated by international law, and is not simply
a ‘matter of fact’ (eg How they acquired territory, what rights and duties they had or
owed to others as a result of events)
II. Statehood in early international law
Doctrine
 Definition of State
[philosophical]
o Grotius: ‘a complete association of free men, joined together for the enjoyment
of rights and for their common interest’
o Pufendorf: ‘a compound moral person, whose will, intertwined and united by the
pacts of a number of men, is considered the will of all, so that it is able to make
use of the strength and faculties of the individual members for the common
peace and security.’
 BOTH OF THEM: natural law=law of nations

[legal]

o Victoria: one which is complete in itself, that is, which is not a part of another
community, but has its own laws and its own council and its own magistrates
 Government + independence
 Purpose: WON can declare war
o Vattel: are political bodies, societies of men who have united together and
combined their forces, in order to procure their mutual welfare and security.
 Freedom + independence + sovereignty (independent of the consent of
other states; inherent)
 Effect: make each State the sole judge of its rights and obligations under
the law of nations
 Law of nations (law of nature applied to nature): internal to states;
Positive law: external
o Hegel: statehood different from actual independence
 Internal sovereignty not dependent on recognition of other States (diff
from external)
 Denial of universality of international law and of law of nature as
foundation: basic relations between states excluded from scope of law of
nations

Statehood in early international law: aspects of State practice

 Origin in European State-system: New States could be formed by:
 i. the union of two existing States/the linking of States in a personal union
under one Crown
ii. by division of existing ones
iii. by revolution (breaking away)
- ISSUE: WON the revolutionary entity could be treated as an
independent State before its recognition by the parent State?
 NO (Pufendorf): must secure the consent of that superior
who will both free him and his dominions from the bond
by which they were tied to him
 YES: in practice (eg breakaway of South America from
Spain)

III. Recognition and statehood

The early view of recognition
 Sovereignty in law of nations: only addressed in middle of 18th century
o Ratio: sovereignty came from within and did not require the recognition of
other States or princes
 Mid-18 century: detailed consideration of recognition in the context of recognition
th

of elective monarchs (recognition of governments)

o Recognition by third states: either illegal intervention or unnecessary
o de facto existence of sovereignty is sufficient
 Towards end of 18th century: recognition no separate place in works of writers

CONCLUSION THO: REJECTED STILL; Even if the law of nations was conceived as based on the
consent of States, this anti-naturalist trend was not yet allowed to extend to the field of
recognition.

Positivism and recognition

 Obligation to obey international law derived from the consent of individual States
o If a new State subject to international law came into existence, new legal
obligations would be created for existing States
 Require consent either to the creation of the State or to its being subjected to
international law

Statehood in nineteenth-century international law

 formation and even the existence of States was a matter outside the accepted scope
of international law
 Relevant positions:
1. International law was regarded as the law existing between civilized nations
o Law of Nations is the common consent of the civilized States, statehood
alone does not imply membership of the Family of Nations
2. States as such were not necessarily members of the society of nations
o Recognition made them members and bound them to obey international
law
  Nonrecognized states= not bound by international law + not civilized
nations
3. Only States then, or rather only those entities recognized as States and accepted
into international society, were bound by international law and were
international persons
o Not bound + no rights
o States solely and exclusively are the subjects of International Law
4. Binding force of international law derived from this process of seeking to be
recognized and acceptance
o International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it
is not recognized, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition.
5. How an entity became a State was a matter of no importance to international
law, which concentrated on recognition as the agency of admission into
‘civilized society’
o How they acquired territory, what rights and duties they had or owed to
others as a result of events before they were recognized, these were
irrelevant to international law: they were matters ‘of fact and not of law’

IV. Recognition of states in modern international law

 The effect of positivist doctrine was to place all the emphasis, in matters of statehood,
on the question of recognition
 Bouncing back and forth between executive and judiciary as to recognition
o Common law: if issue is international status, executive certification is binding
 Led courts to seek to distinguish between the ‘external’ and ‘internal’ consequences
of non-recognition
o courts are entitled to look at the state of affairs actually existing in a territory,
to see what is the law which is in fact effective and enforced in that territory,
and to give such effect to it
o effectiveness of foreign law should not depend on recognition
 Tension brought by 19th century doctrine: recognition as legal act in the international
sphere VS assumption of political leaders that they are free to recognize or not to
recognized on grounds of their own choosing

Recognition: the great debate

 Effect/Conflict from 19th century doctrine: focus attention more or less exclusively on
the act of recognition itself, and its legal effects, rather than on the problem of the
elaboration of rules determining the status

i. The constitutive theory

 [definition] the theory that the rights and duties pertaining to statehood
derive from recognition by other States
 the existence of a State is a matter of fact seems axiomatic
  ascertainment requires the prior determination of difficult circumstances
of fact and law, there must be someone to perform that task (which are
states already existing—act in the matter as organs of the system)
o Not generally applicable
o [REJECTION]
1. If individual States were free to determine the legal status or
consequences of particular situations and to do so
definitively, international law would be reduced to a form of
imperfect communications, a system for registering the
assent or dissent of individual States without any prospect of
resolution
 Yet it is, and should be, more than this—a system with
the potential for resolving problems, not merely
expressing them
 there is nothing conclusive or certain (as far as other
States were concerned) about a conflict between
different States as to the status of a particular entity
2. If State recognition is definitive then it is difficult to conceive
of an illegal recognition and impossible to conceive of one
which is invalid or void.
 Yet the nullity of certain acts of recognition has been
accepted in practice
 otherwise recognition would constitute an alternative
form of intervention, potentially always available and
apparently unchallengeable
3. Relativism
 the legal existence of a state has a relative character. A
state exists legally only in its relations to other states.
 If ‘a State is, and becomes, an International Person through recognition
only and exclusively’, and if recognition is discretionary, then rules
granting to an unrecognized community a ‘right to statehood’ are
excluded
 [CRITICISM] incorrectly identifies that cognition with diplomatic
recognition, and fails to consider the possibility that identification of
new subjects may be achieved in accordance with general rules or
principles rather than on an ad hoc, discretionary basis

ii. The declaratory theory

 [definition] the theory that statehood is a legal status, a political act,
independent of recognition
 where a State actually exists, the legality of its creation or existence must
be an abstract issue: the law must take account of the new situation,
despite its illegality
  where a State does not exist, rules treating it as existing are pointless, a
denial of reality
 criterion must be effectiveness, not legitimacy
 assumes that territorial entities can readily, by virtue of their mere
existence, be classified as having one particular legal status
 fact= legal status/law
 statehood is opposable to non-recognizing States
 Recognition of governments =declaratory in effect; BUT NOT recognition
of new States
o Where an authority in fact exercises governmental functions
within an area already accepted as a State, there seems to be
nothing for recognition to constitute, at least at the level of
international personality. But the establishment of a new State
involves the demarcation of a certain area as a ‘State-area’
 The State exists by itself and the recognition is nothing else than a
declaration of this existence
 Moreover, States do not in practice regard unrecognized States as
exempt from international law; indeed failure to comply with
international law is sometimes cited as a justification for non-recognition.
 [CRITICISM] obscures the possibility that the creation of States might be
regulated by rules predicated on other fundamental principles

Conclusions

 Some continental writers, following de Visscher, have tended to regard recognition

as combining both declaratory and constitutive elements.
 ISSUE: WON the denial of recognition to an entity otherwise qualifying as a State
entitles the non-recognizing State to act as if it was not a State—to ignore its
nationality, to intervene in its affairs, generally to deny the exercise of State rights
under international law? NO. Constitutive position DENIED.
o But recognition still has important legal and political effects
 an institution of State practice that can resolve uncertainties as to
status and allow for new situations to be regularized
 Recognition= compelling evidence of its status
 Collective recognition is ancillary and is not a substitute for action by the competent
authorities
 CONCLUSION: Status of an entity as state= independent of recognition (in principle) ;
differences in theory are less in practice ASSUMING THERE EXISTS IN INT’L LAW A
WORKABLE CRITERIA FOR STATEHOOD  if none, constitutive theory returns

V. Certain basic concepts

 personality, sovereignty, the state/government distinction, continuity and succession

International personality
 [definition] the capacity to be bearer of rights and duties under international law
 o Active participants
 objective international personality VS personality recognized by particular States only
o objective international personality: exists wherever the rights and
obligations of an entity are conferred by general international law (STATES
INCLUDED HERE)
 General legal personality: arises against the world
o personality recognized by particular States only: exists where an entity is
established by particular States for special purposes
 Particular legal personality: binds only consenting states

The State
 the term … is used in the sense commonly accepted in international practice
 to refer merely to statehood ‘for the purposes of international law’ assumes that a
State for one purpose is necessarily also a State for another (true in MOST but not ALL
cases)

Sovereignty
 [definition in most common modern usage] term for the ‘totality of international
rights and duties recognized by international law’ as residing in an independent
territorial unit—the State
o refers not to omnipotent authority—the authority to slaughter all blue-eyed
babies, for example—but to the totality of powers that States may have
under international law
o Attribute and not a precondition for statehood
o [criticism of the definition] It evokes the anachronistic idea of the total
independence and autonomy of the state, and has no real meaning today
 Objectionable in the abuse of the term (eg ‘State A is sovereign therefore its conduct
is unquestionable’)
 Not to be confused with:
i. question of supreme competence within a particular State:
‘sovereignty of Parliament’ could coexist with the effective
abandonment of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom
ii. exercise of ‘sovereign rights’: a State may continue to be sovereign
even though important governmental functions are carried out on its
behalf by another State or by an international organization. And,
finally, ‘sovereignty’ does not mean actual equality of rights or
competences

State and government

 [definition] organ by which the State acts in international relations
 State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes
in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government

State continuity and State succession

  Distinction between State personality (which includes the topics of identity and
continuity of States) and that of State succession
o State succession depends upon the conclusion reached as to State
personality

MALCOLM SHAW, Recognition in INTERNATIONAL LAW

 Recognition is not merely applying the relevant legal consequences to a factual situation, for
sometimes a state will not want such consequences to follow, either internationally or
domestically
 [definition] a statement by an international legal person as to the status in international law of
another real or alleged international legal person or of the validity of a particular factual situation

Recognition of States

 Two theories as to the nature of recognition:

 Constitutive: maintains that it is the act of recognition by other states that creates a
new state and endows it with legal personality and not the process by which it
actually obtained independence
o [criticism] an unrecognised ‘state’ may not be subject to the obligations
imposed by international law and may accordingly be free from such
restraints + complication when recognition is not universal (not all states
recognize it)
 Declaratory: maintains that recognition is merely an acceptance by states of an
already existing situation
o new state will acquire capacity in international law not by virtue of the
consent of others but by virtue of a particular factual situation
 legally constituted by its own efforts and circumstances and will not
have to await the procedure of recognition by other states
 brought about by supremacy of the state + lack of central guidance
in the international community
 Actual practice leads to a middle position between these two perceptions
 Act of recognition by one state of another indicates that the former regards the latter
as having conformed with the basic requirements of international law as to the
creation of a state
 Recognition is constitutive in a politic sense marks new entity out as a state within the
international community and is evidence of acceptance of its new political status by the society
of nations (not legally thought because rights and duties do not arise as a result of recognition)
o IN PRACTICE THO: leans toward declaratory approach (bec rights and duties
binding upon them)
 Constitutive interpretation preference examples:
i. The creation of a new state, or the establishment of a new government by
unconstitutional means, or the occupation of a territory that is legally claimed
a. the new entity or government will be insecure and it is in this context that recognition
plays a vital role
 i. not be able to deny later the factual position it has recognised
ii. the practice in many states whereby an unrecognised state or government cannot claim
the rights available to a recognised state or government before the municipal courts
a. act of recognition itself entails a distinct legal effect and that after recognition a state
or government would have enforceable rights within the domestic jurisdiction that it
would not have had prior to the recognition
 While recognition may cure difficulties in complying with the criteria of statehood, a situation
where the international community is divided upon recognition will, especially in the absence of
UN membership, ensure the continuation of uncertainty
 Recognition is an active process and should be distinguished from cognition, or the mere
possession of knowledge
o not enough for the recognising state simply to be aware of the facts, it must
desire the coming into effect of the legal and political results of recognition

Recognition of governments

 Recognition will only really be relevant where the change in government is unconstitutional
 Recognition may be of a de facto government or administration or of a government or
administration in effective control of only part of the territory of the state in question
 Recognition constitutes acceptance of a particular situation by the recognising state both in terms
of the relevant factual criteria and in terms of the consequential legal repercussions
 [Doctrine of Effective Control] Certain criteria have emerged to cover recognition of illegal
changes in government
o once a new government effectively controlled the country and that this seemed likely
to continue, recognition should not be withheld
 test employed was whether or not the new government enjoyed, ‘with a
reasonable prospect of permanence, the obedience of the mass of the
population...effective control of much of the greater part of the territory of the
state concerned’
o However, where the degree of authority asserted by the new administration is
uncertain, recognition by other states will be a vital factor.
 But where the new government is firmly established, non-recognition will not
affect the legal character of the new government.
o an indication of the importance of the factual nature of any situation
 A change in government, however accomplished, does not affect the identity of the state itself.
o The state does not cease to be an international legal person because its government is
overthrown
 Recognition of a state will affect its legal personality, whether by creating or
acknowledging it, while recognition of a government affects the status of the
administrative authority, not the state.
 Recognition of the government implies recognition of the state, but it does not work the other
way
 [Tobar doctrine or the so-called doctrine of legitimacy] governments which came into power by
extra-constitutional means should not be recognised, at least until the change had been accepted
by the people
 o [criticism] amounts to the promotion of non-recognition in all revolutionary situations
and it is, and was, difficult to reconcile with reality and political consideration
 [Estrada Doctrine] the automatic recognition of governments in all circumstances
o [criticism] unrealistic, particularly where there are competing governments

De facto and de jure recognition

 Recognition de facto implies that there is some doubt as to the long-term viability of the
government in question
o de facto recognition does not of itself include the exchange of diplomatic relations
 Recognition de jure usually follows where there cognizing state accepts that the effective control
displayed by the government is permanent and firmly rooted and that there are no legal reasons
detracting from this; doubts are overcome to extend formal acceptance
o Only a government recognized de jure may enter a claim to property located in the
recognising state

Premature recognition

 will need to consider carefully the factual situation and the degree to which the criteria of
statehood have been fulfilled
 Recognition may also be overdue, in the sense that it occurs long after it is clear as a matter of
fact that the criteria of statehood have been satisfied

Implied recognition

 Through actions
 Because this facility of indirect or implied recognition is available, states may make an express
declaration to the effect that a particular action involving another party is by no means to be
interpreted as comprehending any recognition
 Examples of implied recognition:
i. message of congratulations to a new state upon attaining sovereignty
ii. issuing of a consular exequatur
o the accepted authorization permitting the performance of consular functions, to a
representative of an unrecognised state
iii. conclusion of a bilateral treaty between the recognising and unrecognized state
iv. voted in favour of membership in the UN of the entity in question
 NOT necessarily implied recognition:
i. making of claims by a state against an entity
ii. both states have taken part in negotiations and signed a multilateral treaty

Conditional recognition

 [definition] the practice of making the recognition subject to fulfilment of certain conditions (eg
good treatment of religious minorities)
 However, breach of the particular condition does not invalidate the recognition.

Collective recognition
  amount to recognition by means of an international decision
 However, it rapidly became clear that member states reserved the right to extend recognition
to their own executive authorities and did not wish to delegate it to any international institution

Withdrawal of Recognition

 more easily achieved with respect to de facto recognition

o as that is by its nature a cautious and temporary assessment of a particular situation
o Where a de facto government loses the effective control it once exercised, the reason for
recognition disappears and it may be revoked
o It is in general a preliminary acceptance of political realities and may be withdrawn in
accordance with a change in political factors
 Withdrawal of recognition of one government without recognising a successor is a possibility
 One must not confuse the ending of diplomatic relations with a withdrawal of recognition

Non-recognition (also called Stimson doctrine: after American Secretary of State who put it forward)

 [definition] a factual situation will not be recognised because of strong reservations as to the
morality or legality of the actions that have been adopted in order to bring about the factual
situation
o legal rights cannot derive from an illegal situation
 The role of non-recognition as an instrument of sanction as well as a means of pressure and a
method of protecting the wronged inhabitants of a territory

Legal Effects of Recognition

i. Internationally
 legal acknowledgement of a factual state of affairs
 an unrecognised state must be deemed subject to the rules of international law
 States which have signed international agreements are entitled to assume that
states which they have not recognised but which have similarly signed the
agreement are bound by that agreement
 may affect the unrecognised state in asserting its rights or other states in
asserting its duties under international law, but will not affect the existence of
such rights and duties

ii. Internally
 recognition is fundamentally a political act it is reserved to the executive
branch of government
o judiciary must as a general principle accept the discretion of the executive
and give effect to its decisions
 To this extent, recognition is constitutive, because the act of recognition itself
creates legal results within the domestic jurisdiction
 It may sue in the domestic courts and be granted immunity from suit in certain
instances
  it will be entitled to possession in the recognising state of property belonging
to its predecessor
 Its own legislative and executive acts will be given effect to in the courts of the
recognising state and its own diplomatic representatives will be able to claim
the various immunities accorded to the official envoys of a recognised state
iii. The UK
 Have adopted the attitude over many years that an entity unrecognised by the
Foreign Office would be treated before the courts as if it did not exist and
accordingly it would not be able to claim immunity before the courts
 unable to appear before the courts as a plaintiff in an action
 Recognition: it will be accorded upon the evidence of effective control
 Luther v Sagor
o operations and produce of a timber factory in Russia owned by the
plaintiffs, which had been nationalized in 1919 by the Soviet government
 defendant company purchased a quantity of wood from the USSR
and this was claimed in England by the plaintiffs as their property
since it had come from what had been their factory
 It was argued by them that the 1919 Soviet decree should be
ignored before the English courts since the United Kingdom had
not recognised the Soviet government
 In the meantime the UK recognised the Soviet government de
facto and the Foreign Office informed the Court of Appeal of this
in writing
 The result was that the higher court was bound to take note of
the Soviet decree and accordingly the plaintiffs lost their case,
since a court must give effect to the legislation of a recognised
state or government
 Hailee Selassie case
o the Emperor of Ethiopia was suing a British company for money owing to
him under an agreement. The problem was that when the action was
brought, the UK had recognised the Italian forces as the de facto
authority in Ethiopia while Haile Selassie was still recognised as the de
jure sovereign
o The Court held that since the case concerned a debt recoverable in
England and not the validity of acts with regard to persons or property
in Ethiopia, the de jure authority, Emperor Haile Selassie, was entitled to
the sum due from the company, and the de facto control of the Italians
did not affect this
o However, before the defendant’s appeal was heard, the United Kingdom
extended de jure recognition to the Italian authorities in Ethiopia. The
Court of Appeal accepted that this related back to, and was deemed to
operate as from the date of, the de facto recognition. Since this had
occurred prior to the case starting, it meant that the Italian government
was now to be recognized as the de jure government of Ethiopia, before
 and during the time of the hearing of the action. Accordingly, Haile
Selassie was divested of any right whatsoever to sue for the recovery of
the money owing.
 the actions of a de facto authority with regard to people and property within this
sphere of control will be recognised in an English court, but where property is
situated and recoverable in England, the de jure sovereign will have precedence
 courts had to give effect not only to acts done by the new government after
recognition, but also to acts done before the recognition ‘in so far as those acts
related to matters under its control at the time when the acts were done’
 It was stated that while the recognition of the new government had certain
retroactive effects, the recognition of the old government remained effective
down to the date when it was in fact withdrawn
 Where something outside the effective control of the new government is
involved, it would appear that the recognition does not operate retroactively and
that prior to the actual date of recognition one would have to accept and put into
effect the acts of the previous de jure government
 [exception to ‘no recognition, no existence’ rule]
o where the issue concerns the lawful acts of a person recognised as
existing in English law, they will be justiciable before the English courts
and will not be tainted by illegality because the unrecognised state can
be associated with the actions
o a corporation incorporated in a territory not recognized by the UK
government as a state would be regarded as having legal personality
within the UK where the laws of that territory were applied by a settled
court system
 in deciding whether a regime was the government of a state, the court would
have to take into account the following factors:
(a) whether it is the constitutional government of the state;
(b) the degree, nature and stability of administrative control, if any, that it of
itself exercises over the territory of the state;
(c) whether the UK government has any dealings with it, and if so the nature of
those dealings; and
(d) in marginal cases, the extent of international recognition that it has as the
government of thes tate

iv. The USA

 Only a recognised state or government can in principle sue in the US courts
o Applies irrespective of the state of diplomatic relations, providing there
is no war between the two
o However, an unrecognised state or government may in certain
circumstances be permitted access before the American courts (case to
case basis)
 executive must have the power to deal with unrecognised
governments and that therefore the absence of formal
 recognition did not necessarily result in a foreign government
being barred from access to US courts (case law)
 However, where the executive has issued a non-
recognition certificate and makes known its view that in
the instant case the unrecognized party should not be
permitted access to the courts, the courts appear very
willing to comply
 Courts greater latitude than executive
 Prior: such rules adopted by the Confederate states as were not hostile to the
Union or the authority of the Central Government, or did not conflict with the
terms of the US Constitution, would be treated as valid and enforceable in the
courts system
 Two factors to be noted in determining extent to which acts of unrecognized state
may be enforced in courts of US:
1. The declaration of the executive is binding
2. Location of the property in question
- tendency to avoid the enforcement of acts and decrees affecting
property situated outside the unrecognised state or government

UNITED NATIONS

 Security Council: Its powers are concentrated in two particular categories, the peaceful
settlement of disputes and the adoption of enforcement measures EXECUTIVE ORGAN
 GA: parliamentary body of the UN organization (192 members)
 UNGA functions: not exhaustive (see Charter)
a) clarifying treaty obligations
b) recommendation (except if SC already acting upon it except for that appropriation case)
c) notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of
international peace and security which are being dealt with by the Security Council
o No coercive powers but help shape principles within which international security operates
o Enjoy the benefit of having the floor to talk and grandstand which the UNSC does not
have (a lot of back-channeling)  has the platform to discuss certain things and stir these
 Any dispute likely to lead to a conflict between members was to be dealt with in one of three
ways: by arbitration, by judicial settlement or by inquiry by the Council of the League
 An Agenda for Peace (by SecGen): sought to categorize types of actions that the org was
undertaking or could undertake:
1. Preventive Diplomacy: was action to prevent disputes from arising between states, to
prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter
when they occur
o This included efforts such as fact-finding, good offices and goodwill missions
2. Peacemaking: involves action to bring the hostile parties to agreement, utilising the peaceful
means elaborated in Chapter VI of the Charter
o deployment of a UN presence in the field
3. Peacebuilding: is action to identify and support structures that will assist peace
 4. Peace Enforcement: is peacekeeping not involving the consent of the parties (chapter VII
powers)
 maintenance of international peace and security and disputes solved ‘by negotiation, inquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements or other peaceful means’
 Chapter VI: Pacific settlement of disputes (not binding)
 Chapter VII: action relating to threats to or breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression (binding)
 The role of the General Assembly increased after 1945 due to two factors:
o first, the existence of the veto in the Security Council rendered that organ powerless in
many important disputes since the permanent members (USA, UK, USSR (now Russia),
France and China) rarely agreed with respect to any particular conflict; and
o second, the vast increase in the membership of the UN had the effect of radicalising the
Assembly and its deliberations.
 [Peacekeeping forces] Such United Nations forces are not intended to take enforcement action,
but to act as an influence for calm by physically separating warring factions
o dependent upon the consent of the state upon whose territory they are stationed and
can in no way prevent a determined aggression
o often for intra-disputes
 The fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law...are applicable to United
Nations forces when in situations of armed conflict they are actively engaged therein as
combatants, to the extent and for the duration of their engagement. They are accordingly
applicable in enforcement actions, or in peacekeeping operations when the use of force is
permissible in self-defence.
 UN missions may not only be used now to stabilize a tense situation in the traditional exposition
of the peacekeeping approach, they may also be utilised in order to carry out key administrative
functions; verify peace agreements both international and internal; monitor the implementation
of human rights accords; supervise and monitor elections; train and oversee police forces; oversee
withdrawal and demilitarisation arrangements, and assist in demining operations.
 Three particularly important principles of peacekeeping:
1. consent of the parties
2. impartiality
3. non-use of force.
 UN system for maintenance of peace and security: COMPREHENSIVE in provision and UNIVERSAL
in application  collective security system
o Key: determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of
aggression
 Aggression: use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the United Nations
Charter
 the Council may delegate its enforcement powers to member states