LAC 4223

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW I

Legality of Acquisition of Territory by Conquest: A Case Study

MUHAMMAD ‘ARIF BIN MUHAMAD ZAMANI 1141955

ABDUL ADIEKA AMIRUL B. HARDIE AMIRUL AMBI 1141961

Prepared for:

DR. HENDUN ABD. RAHMAN SHAH

Abstract:

This case study is to determine the legality of acquisition of territory by conquest. Here, this
case study will start with the development of conquest from the medieval times until the
modern colonialism and new imperialism. Then, it will also discuss the occasions that led to
the proscription of conquest and the current legal status of conquest. Lastly, this case study will
examine the practice of conquest in recent times and the legal systems that are governing it.

Keywords: Conquest, State Territory, Annexation, Acquisition.

Introduction

According to International law, state occupies a definite part of the surface of the earth;

within which it normally exercises. This definite part is subject to the limitation imposed by

international law jurisdiction over persons and things to the exclusion of the Jurisdiction of

other state. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933 states that a definite territory is one

of the most important components of a state to be the subject of International law. Thus, state

territory is the defined portion of the globe which is subject to the sovereignty of that state.

There are few ways to acquire territory to a state. Among the modes are occupation,

prescription, accretion, cession, and conquest. Occupation is the appropriation by a state which

it intentionally acquires sovereignty over such territory as it is at the time not under the

sovereignty. On the other hand, prescription is peaceable exercise of de facto sovereignty for a

very long period over territory subject to the sovereignty of another.

Cession is the transfer of territory, usually by treaty, from one State to another. This

transfer sometimes is the result from a war or sometimes from peaceful negotiations, and it

may either be gratuitous or for some consideration. There may sometimes be exchange of

territory or sales of territory. For accretion, it is normally the result of operation of nature. Here,

state territory increases due to factors such as drying up of a river or the recession of the sea.

Another example is the new land created over the sea due to the volcanic action.

Conquest, the case study that we are going to discuss, means the subjugation and

assumption of control of a place or people by military force. In international law, conquest is

the taking possession of territory through military force in time of war especially by a victorious

at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical

appropriation of territory, or annexation, is followed by subjugation (bringing under control).

Contrary to the other modes of territory claiming, conquest now has been made illegal and

greatly affected by the Charter of United Nations1 under which member states cannot acquire

territories of each other by annexation.

Right of Conquest: Medieval and Historic Beliefs

The act of conquering other states through conquest has long being practice since the

mediaeval times. Back then until the pre-modern colonialism, conquest is traditionally accepted

because the conquering force, being by definition, stronger than any lawfully entitled

governance which it may have replaced, was therefore more likely to secure peace and stability

for the people. The principle of "might makes right” gives the power to any state or even empire

to annex new territories into their own.

For example, in Egypt, the effects of invasion and conquest are to be seen in different

racial types represented in paintings and sculptures. Egypt was invaded or conquered by a

succession of foreign powers, such as the Canaanites, Libyans, the Nubians, the Assyrians,

Babylonians, the Achaemenid Persians, and the Macedonians in the Third Intermediate Period

and the Late Period of Egypt. In the aftermath of Alexander the Great's death, one of his

generals, Ptolemy Soter, established himself as the new ruler of Egypt. This Greek Ptolemaic

Kingdom ruled Egypt until 30 BC, when, under Cleopatra, it fell to the Roman Empire and

became a Roman province.2

The history of conquest also can be seen in the Roman empire. The Britain conquest

was a conquest by the Romans against Britain. This conquest is a gradual process. The Romans

succeeded in conquering Britain effectively in 43 AD under Claudius, whose generals Aulus

1
Article 2(4) UN Charter
2
Clayton (1994)
Plautius served as Britain's first governor. However, the United Kingdom had previously been

a target of actual, planned invasions, by the Roman Empire. As with other areas at the end of

the empire, Britain enjoys diplomacy and trade relations with the Romans since the expedition

of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC. Roman economy and culture also influenced Britain.

Between 55 BC and 40s AD, the status quo on tribute, hostage, and client state without

direct military occupation, initiated by Caesarean Invasion of Britain, remains intact. Augustus

prepared the invasion of 34 BC, 27 BC and 25 BC. The first and second were cancelled because

of rebellion in various regions of the empire, while the second was void because the Britons

seemed ready to enter into an agreement. According to Augustus's Res Gestae, two British

monarchs, Dumnovellaunus and Tincomarus, went to the city of Rome as an applicant during

his reign, and based on Strabo's Geography, written during this period, Britain pays more in

customs and duties through taxes if the island is conquered.

Among the famous conqueror in history is Genghis Khan. He is, if not the greatest, the

most successful conqueror in history, who conquered more than double the area of land that

Alexander the Great did. Genghis Khan, initially name Temujin, is often portrayed to a

caricature, a cartoonish idea of a big barbaric Mongol who terrorizes villages. He is often one

of the most forgotten conquerors in the minds of people of the western world. He was born in

1162 in Mongolia, and created his empire first by unifying nomadic tribes of northeast Asia

into one army, where he would sweep across Asia and western Europe with unprecedented

speed and efficiency.

He conquered what is nearly the entirety of modern day China, as well as spilling over

into Russia, Turkey, most of the Persian middle East, and nearly everything in between, except

India. The scope of his conquests was so enormous that it seems nearly impossible for anyone

at the time, with only the speed of horseback to have created such a massive empire as that of
the Mongol Empire. Though he is often credited with creating the unified concept of the Silk

Road from Asia to Europe, that’s about the extent of the positive depictions of Genghis Khan,

as he is responsible for the deaths and conquest of innumerable peoples across the known

world. However, he remains the single greatest conqueror in human history by an incredibly

wide margin.

The Islamic empire also has shown great power in conquering the world. In fact, it said

that Islamic empire stretch until two third of the world. However, this is not purely through

military conquest. The Muslim conquests brought about the collapse of the Sassanid Empire

and a great territorial loss for the Byzantine Empire. The reasons for the Muslim success are

hard to reconstruct in hindsight, primarily because only fragmentary sources from the period

have survived. Most historians agree that the Sassanid Persian and Byzantine Roman empires

were militarily and economically exhausted from decades of fighting one another.

Some Jews and Christians within the Sassanid Empire and Jews and Monophysites in

Syria had been disillusioned and welcomed the Muslim forces, largely because of religious war

in both empires. At the same time as at other instances, including in the war of Firaz, Arab

Christians allied themselves with the Persians and Byzantines in opposition to the invaders. In

the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had just a few years before being

reclaimed from the Persians.

However, it was suggested that formation of a state in the Arabian Peninsula and

ideological coherence, which is religious, and mobilization was a primary reason why the

Muslim armies in the space of a hundred years were able to establish the largest pre-modern

empire until that time. The estimates for the size of the Islamic Caliphate suggest it was more

than thirteen million square kilometres.

Evolution of Modern Colonialism and Conquest: New Imperialism

New Imperialism is a wave of imperialism and colonization that occurred in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The nations involved in the expansion of territory at

this time were European nations (such as Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland and

Germany), as well as the United States and the Japanese Empire. In this period, the nations

tried to extend their colonies on an unprecedented scale. These countries built empires using

the latest technologies and developments, and by using the resources that exist in their colonies.

Imperialism at this time is called new imperialism, to distinguish it from the earlier

wave of colonialism and imperialism, in particular the colonial waves that occurred between

the fifteenth and early nineteenth centuries. One of the things that distinguishes it is the

ideology that this occupation is done to help the remaining nations. In addition, the economic

motivation of this period was influenced by developments after the industrial revolution.

Nations that have undergone an industrial revolution are trying to increase profits by looking

for areas with raw materials, cheap labour, and less competition.

This territory expansion occurred in India, Southeast Asia, China, Central Asia,

Polynesia and Africa. Examples of events or policies that were born at this time include ethical

politics in South-East Asia. The Great Game in Central Asia, and the Scramble for Africa.

Toward proscription of conquest: Prohibition on War of aggression

Even though initially conquest was acceptable in the norm, it eventually being opposed

by the modern society. The concept of “might makes right” was no longer reliable in the

modern times as there was huge destruction and devastation to the world. According to most

historian, there are two main reasons towards proscription of conquest. The first reason is

because the completion of colonial conquest of much of the world, as discussed earlier, mainly
regarding the “Scramble for Africa”. The "Scramble for Africa" was the occupation, division,

and colonisation of African territory by European powers during the period of New

Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914. It is also called the Partition of Africa and by some the

Conquest of Africa. In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control. However,

by 1914 it had increased to almost 90 percent of the continent, with only Ethiopia, Somalia and

Liberia still being independent. The political imperialism followed the economic expansion,

with the "colonial lobbies" bolstering chauvinism and jingoism at each crisis in order to

legitimise the colonial enterprise. The tensions between the imperial powers led to a succession

of crises, which finally exploded in August 1914, when previous rivalries and alliances created

a domino situation that drew the major European nations into World War I.

The second reason is because the devastation of World War I and World War II. After

the first world war, The Great 5 Powers; United Kingdom, United States, France, Italy and

Japan eventually won the war in 1918. Both the winning and losing sides of the war had a lot

of casualties. The total death toll was over millions of soldiers, with people of all nationalities

lost their lives fighting for the country they call home. People believed that World War 1 was

going to be the war that ends all wars because of the destruction and human slaughter that war

created. The Allied troops created a peace treaty with Germany, hoping the hatred between

these countries would die down. The Allied troops created a treaty called the Treaty of

Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles is an outcome of World War 1 because they created the

treaty to end World War 1 and its friction left behind. However, to end the war, the Treaty of

Versailles, actually led up to World War II. More negative outcomes came out of this war than

positive.

In the Second World War, Britain, Russia, France and United States formed an alliance

known as the Grand Alliance. German, Italian and Japanese also embody the recognizable pack

as the Axis Power. This war left a very deep impression in politics, economics and social. The
cost of high war caused European countries to face financial difficulties in managing colonies.

After the end of the war the European nations began to deconstruct the decolonization by giving

independence to their colonies. During 1945-1970 many colonies in Asia and Africa achieved

independence. After this, world soon realise the disadvantages and loses causes by territory

expansion through conquest and colonisation.

Current status of Conquest

Under the current principles of international law, conquest as a valid mode of

acquisition of territory began to be outlawed on a regional basis, beginning in the American

region during the 19th century. Then, in 1928, the Pact of Paris3 (also known as Kellogg-Briand

Pact) was signed and ratified. From this treaty, it formed a basis that the international law

restricts the right of States to go to war. The Treaty states that:

“The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that

they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it,

as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”4

Based from the Treaty, the signatory states had promised not to use war to resolve any

disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise

among them, and any parties failing to abide by this promise should be denied of the benefits

furnished by the treaty itself. The Treaty did not live up to all of its aims, but has arguably had

some considerable success.

3
General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy (adopted on 27 August 1928) 94
LNTS 57 (hereinafter referred as the Pact)
4
The Pact, art. 1
 However, it did not end war or stop the rise of militarism, and was unable to keep the

international peace in succeeding years. Moreover, it erased the legal distinction between war

and peace because the signatories began to wage wars without declaring them, and the pact is

associated with a marked decline in territorial conquest of one nation by another in the periods

before and after its signing.

The pact's central provisions renouncing the use of war, and promoting peaceful

settlement of disputes and the use of collective force to prevent aggression, were incorporated

into the Charter of the United Nations5 and other treaties as well. Although some civil wars

were continued, wars between established states have been rare since 1945, with a few

exceptions in the Middle East. One legal consequence is that it is unlawful to annex territory

by force, although other forms of annexation have not been prevented.

More broadly, there is now a strong presumption against the legality of using, or

threatening, military force against another country. The pact also served as the legal basis for

the concept of a crime against peace, for which the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal

tried and executed the top leaders responsible for starting the Second World War (1 September

1939 – 2 September 1945).

When the Second World War ends in September 1945, and with the establishment of

the United Nations nearly a month later, the acquisition of territory by the means of conquest

is deemed illegal, and establishes the main principles, that the international law prohibits the

right of a state to go or to wage a war. The Charter stated that:

5
Charter of the United Nations (adopted on 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI (hereinafter referred as the Charter)
“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.”6

It was emphasised in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 2131 (XX)7

(Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the

Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty), which was adopted on 1965, stated that:

“No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the

internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other

forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its

political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.”

It was further emphasised in the United Nations General Resolution No. 2625 (XXV)8

(Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-

operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations), which was

adopted on 24 October 1970, stated that:

“Every State has the duty to refrain in its 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. Such a threat or use of force constitutes

a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be

employed as a means of settling international issues. A war of aggression constitutes a crime

against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.”

6
The Charter, art. 2(4)
7
UNGA Res 2131 (adopted on 21 December 1965), UN Doc A/RES/2131 (XX)
8
UNGA Res 2625 (adopted on 24 October 1970), UN Doc A/RES/2625 (XXV)
 Also, in the same Resolution, the acquisition of a territory by conquest is no longer

regarded as a lawful mode to acquire a territory. It was further stated that:

“The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of

force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the

object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial

acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”

According to this Resolution, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of

peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations embraces the right of all peoples freely

to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic,

social and cultural development, as well as the duty of every State to respect this right in

accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

It further added that "the establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free

association or integration with an independent State, or the emergence into any other political

status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-

determination", thus stressing, as the critical issue, the methods of reaching the decision and

not the result.

Then, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)9 (Definition of

Aggression) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 1974 as a non-binding

recommendation to the United Nations Security Council on the definition it should use for the

crime of aggression. The definition makes a distinction between aggression (which "gives rise

to international responsibility") and war of aggression or war of conquest (which is "a crime

against international peace").

9
UNGA Res 3314 (adopted on 14 December 1974), UN Doc A/RES/3314 (XXIX)
 Article 3 of the Resolution, which is in accordance with the provisions of article 2,

defines certain acts as aggression, such as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments,

blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to

perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry

out acts of aggression.

Article 2 of the Resolution states that the first use of force in contravention of the

Charter will be prima facie evidence of aggression, but the United Nations Security Council

has the authority to determine that given the circumstances aggression has not taken place.

A war of aggression, or war of conquest, is a series of acts committed with a sustained

intent. The definition's distinction between an act of aggression and a war of aggression/war of

conquest make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace;

only war of aggression/war of conquest does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for

acts of aggression.

However, the wording of the definition has been criticised by many commentators. Its

clauses on the use of armed irregulars are vague, as it is unclear what level of "involvement"

would entail state responsibility. It is also highly state-centric, in that it deems states to be the

only actors liable for acts of aggression. Domestic or transnational insurgent groups, such as

those that took part in the Sierra Leone Civil War and the Yugoslav Wars, were key players in

their respective conflicts despite being non-state parties; they would not have come within the

scope of the definition.

Also, the definition is not binding on the United Nations Security Council. The Charter

of the United Nations empowers the General Assembly to make recommendations to the United

Nations Security Council but the Assembly may not dictate to the Council. The resolution

accompanying the definition states that it is intended to provide guidance to the Security
Council to aid it "in determining, in accordance with the Charter, the existence of an act of

aggression".

The Security Council may apply or disregard this guidance as it sees fit. Legal

commentators argued in 1999 that the Definition of Aggression has had "no visible impact" on

the deliberations of the Security Council. Moreover, the Definition of Aggression also does not

cover acts by international organisations. The two key military alliances at the time of the

resolution's adoption, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and the Warsaw Pact (not

exist since 1991), were non-state parties and thus were outside the scope of the definition. The

definition does not deal with the responsibilities of individuals for acts of aggression. It is

widely perceived as an insufficient basis on which to ground individual criminal prosecutions.

Next, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 42/2210 (Declaration on the

Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of

Force in International Relations), which was adopted on 18 November 1987, declares that:

“Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force

against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or from acting in any

other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of

force constitutes a violation of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations and

entails international responsibility. The principle of refraining from the threat or use of force

in international relations is universal in character and is binding, regardless of each State's

political, economic, social or cultural system or relations of alliance.”

From this Resolution, it can be stated that the Member State of the United Nations is

obliged to refrain themselves from the use of force against the territorial sovereignty of another

State, based from Article 2(4) of the Charter itself, except under circumstances which is

10
UNGA Res 42/22 (adopted on 18 November 1987), UN Doc A/RES/42/22
permitted under the Charter, i.e. the right of self-defence11 and the right of collective security

measures authorized by the United Nations12.

Legality of the territory acquired by conquest

Generally, according to the current international law practice, any territory which is

acquired unlawfully through the war of aggression or the war of conquest by the Aggressor

State, such state, by virtue of any General Assembly or Security Council Resolutions, is

considered as unlawful acquisition, and are obliged to give up and hand over the conquered

territory to the victim state.

In other circumstances, any territory which is unlawfully acquired by conquest, by

virtue of any Security Council Resolutions, will be administered directly by an authority

established under the Charter of the United Nations, and also will be put under the safeguards

of UN peacekeeping force, established under Chapter VII of the Charter itself.

In order to support the statement, we would like to address two prominent examples regarding

to the current international law practice:

I) Israeli Occupation on Palestinian/Arab territories

On 14 May 1948, the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, an agency based in

the British Mandate of Palestine, David Ben-Gurion, unilaterally declared the independence of

the State of Israel on part of Palestinian territory.

Enraged by the independence declaration, the Arab states, with the authorization by

Arab League, unilaterally declared war on the State of Israel, and start to mobilizing their armed

forces into the Palestinian territory, starting the First Arab-Israeli War. The war ended on 10

11
The Charter, art. 51
12
The Charter, Chapter VII (art. 39-51)
March 1949, and Israel gained more territory. Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on

24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July.

The Armistice Demarcation Lines, as set by the agreements, saw the territory under

Israeli control encompassing approximately three-quarters of the prior British administered

Mandate as it stood after Transjordan's independence in 1946. Israel controlled territories of

about one-third more than was allocated to the Jewish State under the United Nations partition

proposal.

After the armistices, Israel had control over 78% of the territory comprising former

Mandatory Palestine, or some 21,000 square kilometres, including the entire Galilee and

Jezreel Valley in the north, whole Negev in south, West Jerusalem and the coastal plain in the

centre. The Jordanians held the administration of West Bank (including East Jerusalem), while

the Egypt held the Gaza Strip and put the territory under the military administration.

On 29 October 1956, the Second Arab-Israeli War, also known as Tripartite

Aggression, was fought between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Israel, with the help from

United Kingdom and France. The operation, aimed at taking control of the Suez Canal, Gaza

Strip, and parts of Sinai Peninsula, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point

of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view, resulting in international criticism

and diplomatic pressure.

On 30 October 1956, the Security Council held a meeting, at the request of the United

States, when it submitted a draft resolution calling upon Israel immediately to withdraw its

armed forces behind the established armistice lines. It was not adopted because of British and

French vetoes. A similar draft resolution sponsored by the Soviet Union was also rejected.

Later, on the following day, considering the grave situation created by the actions

against Egypt, and with lack of unanimity among the permanent members preventing it from
exercising its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, the Security

Council passed and adopted the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 11913.

Based from the Resolution, the Council felt it had been prevented from exercising its

responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. As a solution, the

Council decided to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly in order to make

appropriate recommendations.

A special emergency General Assembly session was convened on 1 November, and on

10 November, the emergency special session ended, with the creation of a new UN

peacekeeping force to separate the two sides, and urges Israel to give out the Sinai Peninsula

and the Gaza Strip to the Egyptian authorities. The United Nations Emergency Force I (UNEF

I) was established by United Nations General Assembly to secure an end to the Suez Crisis

with UN General Assembly Resolution 100114 on 1956, and the Israel Defence Force withdrew

from the territory in March 1957.

On 5 June 1967, the Third Arab-Israeli War, also known as Six-Day War, was fought

between Israel and the neighbouring states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and also backed up by

several Arab states. The Israel invaded Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip (previously held by

Egypt), West Bank (previously held by Jordan), Golan Heights (previously held by Syria) and

Shebaa Farm (held by Lebanon).

In 1968, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution No. 24215,

emphasising the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war of conquest”, and

demanding the withdrawal of Israeli Defence Forces from the territories held up in the conflict.

The Israeli disregard the resolution, and continues to hold the territory gained in the Six-Day

13
UNSC Res 119 (adopted on 31 October 1956), UN Doc S/RES/119
14
UNGA Res 1001 (adopted on 7 November 1956), UN Doc A/RES/1001 (ES-1)
15
UNSC Res 242 (adopted on 22 November 1956), UN Doc S/RES/242
War. It was only in 1981, the Sinai Peninsula was handed over to the Egypt, and both West

Bank and Gaza Strip was combined under the administration of the independent State of

Palestine, established in 2014. Only the Golan Heights remain in the Israeli administration.

Although no Israeli law mentions annexation, Israeli civilian law has been extended by

legislation to the Golan Heights. The General Assembly and Security Council resolutions

declared the above laws invalid and have called for the dismantling of the settlements.

II) Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The view that any annexation of territory by means and use of armed forces is illegal and is not

to be recognised finds support in connection with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

On 2 August 1990 at 0200 (GMT +2), Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of the State

of Kuwait. The Iraqi Armed Forces took full control of Kuwait in just 72 hours and Saddam

Hussein, the then-president of Iraq announced a few days later that it was the 19th province of

Iraq (named as Kuwait Governorate).

Soon after the invasion, the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 66216 was

adopted unanimously on August 1990. The Security Council decided that the annexation of

Kuwait by Iraq under any form was illegal and called upon all States and international

organisations not to recognise the annexation, further asking States to refrain from any action

that may constitute an indirect recognition of the annexation. It also demanded Iraq rescind its

actions in Kuwait after the invasion, keeping the situation on its agenda.

16
UNSC Res 662 (adopted on 9 August 1990), UN Doc S/RES/662
Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded that the acquisition of territory by conquest was recognised

during the past time, but currently, with the application of the methods of peaceful settlement

by means of alternative dispute resolution, the acquisition of territory by conquest is deemed

unlawful, as it is against the peremptory norms and the concept of erga omnes in the

international law.

Based from the provisions stated in the Charter of the United Nations, and also under

the various United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, the use of

force in the international law and the acquisition of territory by the means of conquest is

regarded illegal, and any States which resort to conquest as a method of acquiring territory,

such annexation is deemed illegal, and the aggressor States shall, with accordance to the United

Nations resolutions, shall hand over the territory to the victim State.

It is, therefore, for the sake of the Purposes of the United Nations, which is enshrined

in the Charter, the States must prohibit itself from use of force in the international law, and to

practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite

the common strength to maintain international peace and security.

References

1. Brownley, Martine W (1977). Appearance and Reality in Gibbon's History.

2. Charter of the United Nations (adopted on 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI

3. David S. Potter (2006). A Companion to the Roman Empire.

4. Day, David (2008), Conquest: How Societies Overwhelm Others

5. Edward, Gibbon (1776). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I.

W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

6. Frere, Sheppad Sunderland (1987), Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (3rd,

revised ed.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

7. General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy (adopted

on 27 August 1928) 94 LNTS 57

8. J.G.A. Pocock, (1976). Between Machiavelli and Hume: Gibbon as Civic Humanist

and Philosophical Historian.

9. Jenks, E. (1919). The State and the Nation.

10. Leonard, C, Coward-McCann (1962). The Great Invasion.

11. Miquelon, Dale (1977). Society and Conquest.

12. Nieboer, H. (1900). Slavery as an Industrial System.

13. Petrie, W (1995). Races of Early Egypt.

14. Tacitus, Cornelius (1998), The Life of Cnaeus Julius Agricola, The Works of Tacitus

(The Oxford Translation, Revised) II, London: Henry G. Bohn

15. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1001 [UNGA Res 1001 (adopted on 7

November 1956), UN Doc A/RES/1001 (ES-1)]

16. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131 [UNGA Res 2131 (adopted on 21

December 1965), UN Doc A/RES/2131 (XX)]

17. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 [UNGA Res 2625 (adopted on 24

October 1970), UN Doc A/RES/2625 (XXV)]

18. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 [UNGA Res 3314 (adopted on 14

December 1974), UN Doc A/RES/3314 (XXIX)]

19. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 42/22 [UNGA Res 42/22 (adopted on

18 November 1987), UN Doc A/RES/42/22]

20. United Nations Security Council Resolution 119 [UNSC Res 119 (adopted on 31

October 1956), UN Doc S/RES/119]

21. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 [UNSC Res 242 (adopted on 22

November 1956), UN Doc S/RES/242]

22. United Nations Security Council Resolution 662 [UNSC Res 662 (adopted on 9

August 1990), UN Doc S/RES/662]