Angary (Lat. jus angariae; Fr. droit d'angarie; Ger. Angarie; from the Gr. ἀγγαρεία, (angaria), the office of an ἄγγαρος, courier or messenger), the name given to the right of a belligerent (most commonly, a government or other party in conflict) to seize and apply for the purposes of war (or to prevent the enemy from doing so) any kind of property on belligerent territory, including that which may belong to subjects or citizens of a neutral state.
Article 53 of the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Hague Convention of 1899 on the same subject, provides that railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers and other ships (other than such as are governed by maritime law), though belonging to companies or private persons, may be used for military operations, but "must be restored at the conclusion of peace and indemnities paid for them." Article 54 adds that "the plant of railways coming from neutral states, whether the property of those states or of companies or private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible."
These articles seem to sanction the right of angary against neutral property, while limiting it as against both belligerent and neutral property. It may be considered, however, that the right to use implies as wide a range of contingencies as the "necessity of war" can be made to cover.
Uti possidetis (Latin for "as you possess") is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless provided for by treaty. Originating in Roman law, this principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war. The term has historically been used to legally formalize territorial conquests, such as the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German Empire in 1871.[citation needed]
In the early 17th century, the term was used by England's James I to state that while he recognized the existence of Spanish authority in those regions of the Western Hemisphere where Spain exercised effective control, he refused to recognize Spanish claims to exclusive possession of all territory west of longitude 46° 37' W under the Treaty of Tordesillas.
More recently, the principle has been used in a modified form (see Uti possidetis juris) to establish the frontiers of newly independent states following decolonization, by ensuring that the frontiers followed the original boundaries of the old colonial territories from which they emerged. This use originated in South America in the 19th century with the withdrawal of the Spanish Empire.[1] By declaring that uti possidetis applied, the new states sought to ensure that there was no terra nullius in South America when the Spanish withdrew and to reduce the likelihood of border wars between the newly independent states. This last goal was ultimately unsuccessful, since many wars over borders did occur.
The same principle was applied to Africa and Asia following the withdrawal of European powers from those continents, and in locations such as the former Yugoslavia and the
Soviet Union where former centralized governments fell, and constituent states gained independence. In 1964 the Organisation of African Unity passed a resolution stating that the principle of stability of borders – the key principle of uti possidetis – would be applied across Africa. Most of Africa was already independent by this time, so the resolution was principally a political directive to settle disputes by treaty based on pre-existing borders rather than by resorting to force. To date, adherence to this principle has allowed African countries to avoid border wars;[citation needed] the notable exception,[citation needed] the Eritrean-Ethiopian War of 1998–2000, had its roots in a secession from an independent African country rather than a conflict between two decolonized neighbours.[citation needed] On the other hand, the colonial boundaries often did not follow ethnic lines, and this has helped lead to violent and bloody civil wars among differing ethnic groups in many post-colonial (and post-Communist) countries, including Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Nigeria, and the former Yugoslavia.[2]
The principle was affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the 1986 Case Burkina-Faso v Mali:
[Uti possidetis] is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of obtaining independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the changing of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.
The term status quo ante bellum comes from Latin meaning literally, the state in which things were before the war.
The term was originally used in treaties to refer to the withdrawal of enemy troops and the restoration of prewar leadership. When used as such, it means that no side gains or loses territory or economic and political rights. This contrasts with uti possidetis, where each side retains whatever territory and other property it holds at the end of the war.
The term has been generalized to form the phrase status quo and status quo ante. Outside this context, the term antebellum is in the United States usually associated with the period before the American Civil War, while in Europe and elsewhere with the period before World War II.
An early example was the treaty that ended the great 602–629 War between the Eastern Roman and the Sassanian Persian Empires. The Persians had occupied Asia Minor, Palestine and Egypt. After a successful Roman counteroffensive in Mesopotamia finally brought about the end of the war the integrity of Rome's eastern frontier as it was prior to 602 was fully restored. Both empires were exhausted after this war and neither were ready to defend themselves when the armies of Islam emerged from Arabia in 632.
Another example of a war that ended status quo ante bellum was the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom, which was concluded with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. During negotiations, British diplomats had suggested ending the war uti possidetis, but the final treaty, due in large part to a resounding American victory in the Battle of Lake Champlain, left neither gains nor losses in land for the United States and the United Kingdom's Canadian colonies.
Also, the Seven Years' War (1756–1763) between Prussia and Austria concluded status quo ante bellum. Austria tried to regain the region of Silesia, lost in the War of the Austrian Succession eight years previously, but the territory remained in the hands of the Prussians.
Another example is Iran–Iraq War (September 1980 - August 1988): "The war left the borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddam Hussein recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-`Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante bellum that he had repudiated a decade earlier." Another example is the Falklands War (1982). The war ended in British military victory, but did not resolve the sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands.
The Kargil War, also known as the Kargil conflict, was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir and elsewhere along the Line of Control (LoC). The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the LoC, which serves as the de facto border between the two states. During the initial stages of the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan's Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces, led by General Ashraf Rashid. The Indian Army, later on supported by the Indian Air Force, recaptured a majority of the positions on the Indian side of the LoC infiltrated by the Pakistani troops and militants. With international diplomatic opposition, the Pakistani forces were forced to withdraw from Indian positions along the LoC.
RENDITION
In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.
Rendition can also mean the act of rendering, i.e. delivering, a judicial decision, or of explaining a series of events, as a defendant or witness. It can also mean the execution of a judicial order by the directed parties. But extraordinary rendition is distinct from both deportation and extradition, being inherently illegal. [1]
Rendition between states is required by Article Four, Section Two of the United States Constitution; this section is often termed the rendition clause.
Each state has a presumptive duty to render suspects on the request of another state, as under the full faith and credit clause. The Supreme Court has established certain exceptions; a state may allow its own legal proceedings against a suspect to take precedence, for example. It was established in Kentucky v. Dennison that interstate rendition and extradition were not a federal writ; that is, a state could not petition the federal courts to have another state honor its request for rendition, if the state receiving the request chose not to do so. In rare cases, usually involving the death penalty, states have refused or delayed rendition. In 1987, this was overturned by Puerto Rico v. Branstad,[1] so a federal interest in resolving interstate rendition disputes was established. Nevertheless, the right of refusal of rendition was not overturned.
Extradition for fugitives who are charged with a crime is commonly requested by state or county prosecutors. Formal interstate rendition will involve both state governors. Other procedures can involve waiving documentary formalities before surrender of the fugitive. Under the Uniform Extradition Act adopted in 48 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (but not in Mississippi and South Carolina), there is a distinction between fugitives who were in the demanding state at the time of the crime and those nonfugitives whose prior presence is not so alleged. The first type is mandatory under the United States Constitution. The less frequent second type allows for some Governor discretion. These cases can involve bad checks or failure to pay child support but they still must be criminal matters.
Bounty hunters and bondsmen once had limited authority to capture fugitives, even outside the state where they were wanted by the courts. When they deliver such a person, this is considered rendition, as it did not involve the intervention of the justice system in the state of capture. Under more recent law, bounty hunters are not legally permitted to act outside of the state where the offense took place, but cases of rendition still take place due to the financial interest the bondsmen have in returning a fugitive and recovering the bail. Formally, such fugitive cases should be turned over to the state for execution under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (1936) and the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (1980), if the fugitive's location is known, or the United States Marshals Service, when it is not.
Rendition was infamously used to recapture fugitive slaves, who under the Constitution and various federal laws had virtually no human rights. As the movement for abolition grew, Northern states increasingly refused to comply or cooperate with rendition of escaped slaves, leading to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. This non-cooperation was behind the longstanding principle of refusal, only reverted in the 1987 decision.
Human rights groups charge that extraordinary rendition is a violation of Article 3[2] of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), because suspects are taken to countries where torture during interrogation remains common [3], thus circumventing the protections the captives would enjoy in the United States or other nations who abide by the terms of UNCAT. Its legality remains highly controversial, as the United States outlaws the use of torture, and the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process. Rendered suspects are denied due process because they are arrested without charges, deprived of legal counsel, and illegally transferred to third world country with the intent and purpose of facilitating torture and other interrogation measures which would be illegal in the USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment