STATE TERRITORY

Introduction 

For being a state there must be a government in effective control of territory. Territorial  sovereignty covers all land, internal waters, territorial sea and also the airspace above them. A  state doesn't have sovereignty over its ocean floor or exclusive economic zone. Instead, it's  ‘sovereign rights’ over the previous and sovereign rights and certain other rights and  jurisdiction over the latter. 

Most of the law of nations on territory results from disputes between states on ownership. These  days, they tend to be more over land or maritime boundaries, or islands or small areas of land.  Although it's to not be found on most maps, Hans Island maybe a 3 sq. km barren, uninhabited  island off the northernmost tip of western Greenland within the Kennedy Channel between  Greenland and Canada. Both Denmark and Canada claim it. Although the island is ice-covered,  the expected effect of world warming could make the encircling area more accessible for the  exploitation of natural resources. As assertions of ownership, both states have recently stepped  up naval visits to the island. Canada also has disputes or potential disputes with Russia and also  the US over much larger Arctic regions. 

The Concept of Territory in The Law of Nations 

International law relies on the concept of the state. The state in its turn lies upon the inspiration  of sovereignty, which expresses internally the supremacy of the governmental institutions and  externally the supremacy of the state as a legal person. But sovereignty itself, with its retinue  of legal rights and duties, is founded upon the very fact of territory. Without territory, a legal  person cannot be a state. it's undoubtedly the essential characteristic of a state and also the one  most generally accepted and understood. There are currently some 200 distinct territorial units,  everyone subject to different territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. 

The rules laid down by municipal legislation and judicial decisions regarding the transfer and  control of land within a selected state are usually highly detailed, for they handle one in all the  essential resources and wealth-creating factors of the state. Land law has often reflected the 

facility balance within a society, with feudal arrangements being succeeded by free-market  contracts and latterly the introduction of comprehensive provisions elaborating the rights and  duties of landlords and their tenants, and also the development of more sophisticated  conveyancing techniques. A variety of legal interests are capable of existing over land and also  the possibility exists of dividing ownership into different segments. The treatment of territory  in the law of nations has not reached this sophisticated stage for a variety of reasons,  particularly the horizontal system of territorial sovereignty that subsists internationally as  distinct from the vertical order of land law that persists in most municipal systems. there's thus  a critical difference within the consequences that result from a change within the legal  ownership of land in the law of nations and municipal law. In the law of nations, a change in  ownership of a selected territory involves also a change in sovereignty, within the legal  authority governing the world. This suggests that the nationality of the inhabitants is altered,  as is that of the system under which they live, work and conduct their relations, whereas in  municipal law no such changes are involved in an alteration of legal ownership. Accordingly,  the law of nations must also handle all the assorted effects of a change in territorial sovereignty  and not confine its attention to the mere mechanism of acquisition or loss of territory. 

Territorial Sovereignty 

Judge Huber noted within the Island of Palmas case that: 

sovereignty regarding some of the surface of the world is the legal condition necessary  for the inclusion of such portion within the territory of any particular state. 

Brierly defined territorial sovereignty in terms of the existence of rights over territory instead  of the independence of the state itself or the relation of persons to persons. It was some way of  contrasting ‘the fullest rights over the territory known to the law’ with certain minor territorial  rights, like leases and servitudes. Territorial sovereignty incorporates a positive and negative  aspect. the previous relates to the exclusivity of the competence of the state regarding its  territory, while the latter refers to the requirement to safeguard the rights of other states. 

The essence of territorial sovereignty is contained within the notion of title. This term relates  to both the factual and legal conditions under which territory is deemed to belong to at least  one particular authority or another. In other words, it refers to the existence of these facts required under the law of nations to entail the legal consequences of a change within the  juridical status of a selected territory. because the International Court noted within the Burkina  Faso/Mali case, the word ‘title’ comprehends both any evidence which can establish the  existence of a right and also the actual source of that right. 

The New States and Title to Territory 

The problem of how a state acquires its territory in the law of nations may be a difficult one  and one which will ultimately only be explained in legal–political terms. While with long established states one may dismiss the question on the idea of recognition and acceptance, new  states pose a distinct problem since, under classical law of nations, until a replacement state is  made, no legal person is living competent to carry the title.  

None of the standard modes of acquisition of territorial title satisfactorily resolves the dilemma,  which has manifested itself particularly within the post-Second war period with the onset of  decolonisation. The international community has traditionally approached the matter of latest  states in terms of recognition, instead of in terms of acquisition of title to territory. this suggests  that states have examined the relevant situation and upon ascertainment of the factual  conditions have accorded recognition to the new entity as a theme of law of nations. There has  been relatively little discussion of the strategy by which the new entity itself acquires the legal  rights to its lands. The stress has instead been on compliance with factual requirements as to  statehood coupled with the acceptance of this by other states. 

– Shishir Yadav, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow