Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Borders and International Law: Setting the Stage

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Borders, Legal Spaces and Territories in Contemporary International Law

Abstract

The chapter aims to provide an overview of the broader context lying at the background of the analyses conducted in this collected volume. It proceeds in three steps. First, it offers a historiography of the notion of the border in international law, from the Roman ages to modernity. It appears that historically the legal concept of the border has undergone continuous transformations determined by the fluctuating purposes attached to it and by the modifications experienced by various socio-political entities. Second, it pinpoints two of the main trends of current international law, namely the increase of boundary disputes and the shift from pure territorial to “functional” borders, providing evidence of both. This follows the fact that also today the border is not an exact place: it is rather a series of spatial limits incessantly changing through which States assert their power, and one may happen to be within or beyond them regardless of where that person is physically located. This makes it necessary for international lawyers to systematically reflect upon the relationship between States’ power, borders and phenomena of closure and openness. The third section accordingly provides a synopsis of the book.

Alice Riccardi is the author of Sects. 1–3 included. Tommaso Natoli and Alice Riccardi are the authors of Sect. 4.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middles Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Merits) [2008] ICJ Rep 12 , para 76.

  2. 2.

    Inter alia, Anghie (2005); Russel (2001).

  3. 3.

    For earlier accounts see Khan (2012), pp. 226 ff; Lowe (2007), p. 136.

  4. 4.

    Ancel (1936), p. 208. Still, Roman mythology evidences the existence of limits meant to exclude, separate or appropriate (e.g. Romulus digging a grove as the founding act of Rome, or the cult of Terminus established by Numa Pompilius at the end of the eighth century B.C. associated to the expression nulli cedo). See Alland (2016), p. 8.

  5. 5.

    Eßer and Ellis (2006), p. 14.

  6. 6.

    Isaac (1988), p. 146. See also Mayerson (1988), p. 181.

  7. 7.

    Demandt (2007), pp. 304 ff.

  8. 8.

    Nordman (1999), p. 45.

  9. 9.

    The jus commune defined the privilegium as an advantage accorded to an individual, a group of individuals or a community. The privilegia might concern very different prerogatives and rights: e.g. it was considered a privilegium the assignment of a monopoly over a given good, the right to issue coins, the exemption from taxes, or the exercise of jurisdiction.

  10. 10.

    Marchetti (2004), p. 17.

  11. 11.

    Schoenborn (1929), p. 130. Still, the author also believes that the conception of territorial sovereignty which became dominant in the era of absolute States started developing at the time of feudal organisations. Ibid, p. 96.

  12. 12.

    Marchetti (2004), p. 19.

  13. 13.

    Del Monte (1574a), c. II, n. 11; Del Monte (1574b), quae. XXVI, nn. 24, 27–30.

  14. 14.

    Blumann (1980), p. 4.

  15. 15.

    Scattola (1997), pp. 58–61; Sorel (2011).

  16. 16.

    Oetinger used typical natural law arguments to claim that the Lord divides nations through natural borders. See Scattola (1997), pp. 55, 58–61.

  17. 17.

    Grotius (2005) [1625], p. 477.

  18. 18.

    Pufendorf (1732), vol. IV, ch. VII, para. XI.

  19. 19.

    See also Günther (1792), pp. 172–175. Ancel (1936), p. 210, affirmed that until the nineteenth century indeed ‘la frontière dite “naturelle” n’est que la frontière parfait, concept théorique’. According to de La Pradelle (1928), p. 34, monarchies had ‘repugnance […] pour un limite autre qu’une limite naturelle’.

  20. 20.

    Vattel (1758), ch VII, para. 92.

  21. 21.

    Monastery of Saint-Naoum (Advisory Opinion) PCIJ Rep Series B No 9, 10; North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v Denmark/Germany v the Netherlands) (Merits) ICJ Rep 3, 32, para 46.

  22. 22.

    Borrowing on Scelle (1958).

  23. 23.

    Bauche de La Neuville, Essay d’une nouvelle division politique, ou moyen d’établir d’une manière fixe et invariable les bornes des possessions entre les différentes puissances, quoted in Nordman (1999), pp. 111–112.

  24. 24.

    Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12, 56, para 126. See for instance Agreement between the British and German Governments respecting Africa and Heligoland (adopted 1 July 1880), quoted in Nesi (2018), p. 198.

  25. 25.

    Brownlie (1979), p. 9.

  26. 26.

    Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great Britain, United States) (1910) RIAA Vol IX, 180.

  27. 27.

    Convention on Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States (adopted 26 December 1933, entered into force 26 December 1934) LNTS 165, 19, art I: ‘[t]he State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States’ (emphasis added). See also Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) (Merits) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, 26, para 52, whereby ‘to “define” a territory is to define its frontiers’.

  28. 28.

    Lowe (2007), p. 137.

  29. 29.

    Keynes (1919), ch 2.

  30. 30.

    Among others Mitrany (1943), p. 26; Virally (1972), pp. 336 ff.

  31. 31.

    Minca and Rowan (2015), p. 283, commenting on Carl Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth. See also Zarmanian (2006).

  32. 32.

    Tomuschat (2003), p. 59 (emphasis added). For an historical account of the development of human rights, especially in the writings of scholars from the sixteenth century onwards, see the same author, pp. 9 ff.

  33. 33.

    ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its second session, 5 June–29 July 1950’ (1950) UN Doc A/1316, 374 ff. See Cassese (2009).

  34. 34.

    Bardonnet (1976), p. 17.

  35. 35.

    Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Merits) [1962] ICJ Rep 6 , 15. Further see Bastid (1962), ch. IV.

  36. 36.

    Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v Turkey) (Merits) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, para 85.

  37. 37.

    Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 544, para 20.

  38. 38.

    See Caflisch (2014), p. 20, for whom ‘le trace des frontiers terrestres […] [est] determine par les titres territoriaux existants et les effectivités de part et d’autre.’

  39. 39.

    As evidenced by the number of international crises emerging from borders’ delimitation disputes occurring from the 1960s to 1980s (e.g. the 1962 China-India, 1963 Algeria-Morocco, 1965 India-Pakistan, 1969 China-USSR and Honduras-Nicaragua, 1977 Ethiopia-Somalia and 1980 Iraq-Iran).

  40. 40.

    Bardonnet (1976).

  41. 41.

    La Pradelle (1977).

  42. 42.

    Inter alia Jagota (1981); Cohen (1975); Myrdal (1971); Colliard (1968).

  43. 43.

    Guyer (1973).

  44. 44.

    See Bardonnet (1976), p. 21.

  45. 45.

    Declaration of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Pact on the strengthening of peace and security in Europe (Bucharest, 5 July 1966), para 5.

  46. 46.

    Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe Final Act, Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States (Helsinki, 1975), principle III. In general, see Movchan (1977), pp. 18 ff.

  47. 47.

    Inter alia Handl et al. (2012).

  48. 48.

    Inter alia Krisch (2010); Cassese (2016); Ziccardi Capaldo (2016).

  49. 49.

    Alston (1997), p. 436.

  50. 50.

    Inter alia Simma (1994); Slaughter (1997); Spiro (2000).

  51. 51.

    Handl (2012), pp. 4–5.

  52. 52.

    Zumbansens (2012), p. 53.

  53. 53.

    Foucher (2016).

  54. 54.

    Caracciolo (2018).

  55. 55.

    Thirlway (2018), p. 117.

  56. 56.

    Ruggie (1993), p. 165; De Sena (2002); Paulus (2004), p. 59; Khan (2012), p. 225.

  57. 57.

    Cases introduced at the ICJ in the past five years include: in 2018, Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v USA); in 2017, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Malaysia v Singapore) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v Nicaragua); in 2016, Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v Bolivia); in 2014, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) and Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v Nicaragua); in 2013, Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Colombia), Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v Colombia) and Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v Chile).

  58. 58.

    Inter alia see the cases of South Sudan, Kosovo and Palestine .

  59. 59.

    Inter alia see the current disputes in the South China Sea.

  60. 60.

    E.g. Chile/Peru, Belize/Guatemala, Morocco/Western Sahara, Russia/Ukraine, Malawi/Tanzania, Israel/Syria, India/Pakistan, China/Japan.

  61. 61.

    Trevisanut (2014), p. 627.

  62. 62.

    Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding (2 February 2017), available in English at www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ITALY-LIBYA-MEMORANDUM-02.02.2017.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2019. On Italy’s and the European Union’s responsibility for internationally wrongful acts connected to Libya’s gross violations committed against migrants see Pascale (2018) and De Vittor (2018).

  63. 63.

    Inter alia, Vitiello (2018); Carella (2017); De Vittor (2012).

  64. 64.

    See European Council, EU-Turkey Statement (18 March 2016) available at www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/. Accessed 8 April 2019.

  65. 65.

    See inter alia: EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative, Declaration of the Ministerial Conference of the Khartoum Process (Rome, 28 November 2014); Valletta Summit on Migration, Political Declaration (La Valletta, 11–12 November 2015); European Commission, A European Agenda on Migration, COM(2015)240final (Brussels, 13 May 2015).

  66. 66.

    Vitiello (2018).

  67. 67.

    Brölmann (2007), p. 86.

  68. 68.

    Arcuri and Violi (2016), p. 177.

  69. 69.

    Zidar (2013), p. 486.

  70. 70.

    Ryngaert (2016), p. 57.

  71. 71.

    Among many other examples, the 1891 Immigration Act adopted by the United States allowed for the opening of an immigrant inspection station in Ellis Island, which was established as an ‘entry fiction’: namely, it was deemed to fictitiously fall outside the actual territory of the United States. Consequently, the XIV Amendment including the due process clause was considered inapplicable, and migrants were thus arbitrarily detained irrespective of due process rights.

  72. 72.

    Bethlehem (2014), p. 22.

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    Trevisanut (2014), p. 673.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    HRC, General Comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , on the right to life , UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36 (30 October 2018), para. 22. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion on the Environment and Human Rights (State Obligations in relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to Life and to Personal Integrity—Interpretation and Scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), OC-23/17 (15 November 2017), para. 101, where the Court affirmed that ‘[a] efectos de la Convención Americana, cuando ocurre un daño transfronterizo que afecte derechos convencionales, se entiende que las personas cuyos derechos han sido vulnerados se encuentran bajo la jurisdicción del Estado de origen si existe una relación de causalidad entre el hecho que se originó en su territorio y la afectación de los derechos humanos de personas fuera de su territorio.’

  77. 77.

    Milano (2013), p. 4.

References

  • Alland, D. (2016). Le droit international sans Terminus? Réflextion sur la delimitation. In Société français pour le droit international (Ed.), Droit des frontières internationales (pp. 7–42). Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, P. (1997). The myopia of the handmaidens: International lawyers and globalization. European Journal of International Law, 3, 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancel, J. (1936). Les frontiers: étude de gèographie politique. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 55, 203–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anghie, A. (2005). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arcuri, A., & Violi, F. (2016). Reconfiguring territoriality in international economic law. In M. Kuijer & W. Werner (Eds.), Netherlands yearbook of international law 2016. The changing nature of territoriality in international law (pp. 175–216). The Hague, The Netherlands: TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardonnet, D. (1976). Les frontiers terrestres et la relativité de leur trace. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 153, 9–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastid, S. (1962). Les problems territoriaux dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Internationale de Justice. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 107, 361–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, D. (2014). The end of geography: The changing nature of the international system and the challenge to international law. European Journal of International Law, 25, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumann, C. (1980). Frontières et Limites. In Société Francaise pour le Droit International, Colloque de Poitiers (Ed.), La Frontière (Vol. 1, pp. 4–6). Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann, C. (2007). Deterritorialization in international law: Moving away from the divide between national and international law. In J. Mijman & A. Nollkaemper (Eds.), New perspectives on the divide between national and international law (pp. 84–109). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, I. (1979). African boundaries: A legal and diplomatic encyclopaedia. London/Berkeley and Los Angeles: C. Hurst & Company/University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caflisch, L. (2014). Les frontières, limites et delimitations internationales – quelle importance aujourd’hui?: Conférence inaugurale, session de droit public. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 368, 13–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caracciolo, L. (2018). Cos’è la geopolitica e perché va di moda. Limes. Rivista italiana di geopolitica. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from hwww.limesonline.com/rubrica/cose-la-geopolitica-e-perche-va-di-moda

  • Carella, G. (2017). Il sonno della ragione genera politiche migratorie. SIDIBlog. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from www.sidiblog.org/2017/09/11/il-sonno-della-ragione-genera-politiche-migratorie/

  • Cassese, A. (2009). Affirmation of the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_95-I/ga_95-I_e.pdf

  • Cassese, S. (Ed.). (2016). Research handbook on global administrative law. Cheltenham, England and Northampton, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. (1975). The regime of boundary waters: the Canadian-United States experience. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 146, 219–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colliard, C. (1968). Evolution et aspects actuels du régime juridique des fleuves internationaux. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 125, 337–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sena, P. (2002). La nozione di giurisdizione statale nei trattati sui diritti dell’uomo. Turin, Italy: Giappichelli Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vittor, F. (2012). Respingimenti in mare ed ‘esternalizzazione’ della protezione: il confine territoriale come limite agli obblighi di tutela. In M. Meccarelli, P. Palchetti, & C. Sotis (Eds.), Ius peregrinandi. Il fenomeno migratorio tra diritti fondamentali, esercizio della sovranità e dinamiche di esclusione (pp. 184–205). Milan, Italy: eum.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vittor, F. (2018). Responsabilità degli Stati e dell’Unione Europea nella conclusione e nell’esecuzione di ‘accordi’ per il controllo extraterritoriale della migrazione. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 12, 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Monte, G. (1574a). Tractatus de finibus regendis. Venetiis: Apud Iordanum Zilettum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Monte, G. (1574b). Quaestionum varias concernentium materias valde singulares. Venetiis: Apud Iordanum Zilettum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demandt, A. (2007). Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr. Munich, Germany: Verlag C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eßer, R. M., & Ellis, S. G. (2006). Introduction: Early modern frontiers in comparative context. In R. M. Eßer & S. G. Ellis (Eds.), Frontiers and the writing of history, 1500-1850. The formation of Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 9–20). Hannover, Germany: Wehrhahn Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, M. (2016). Le retour des frontières. Paris: CNRS Editions.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grotius, H. (2005) [1625]. The rights of war and peace (R. Tuck, Ed.) (Vol. 2). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Günther, K. G. (1792). Europäisches Völkerrecht in Friedenszeiten nach Vernunft, Verträgen und Herkommen, mit Anwendung auf die teutschen Reichsstände. Altenburg, Germany: Richterschen Buchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyer, R. E. (1973). The Antarctic system. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 139, 149–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handl, G. (2012). Extra-territoriality and transnational legal authority. In G. Handl, J. Zekoll, & P. Zumbansen (Eds.), Beyond territoriality. Transnational legal authority in an age of globalization (pp. 3–12). Leiden, The Netherlands and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handl, G., Zekoll, J., & Zumbansen, P. (Eds.). (2012). Beyond territoriality. Transnational legal authority in an age of globalization. Leiden, The Netherlands and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, B. (1988). The meaning of the terms Limes and Limitanei. The Journal of Roman Studies, 78, 125–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagota, S. P. (1981). Maritime boundary. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 171, 81–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1919). The economic consequences of the peace. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, D. (2012). Territory and boundaries. In B. Fassbender & A. Peters (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of international law (pp. 225–249). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism. The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • La Pradelle, P. G. de. (1928). La frontière: étude de droit international. Paris: Les editions internationales.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Pradelle, P. G. de. (1977). Notions de territoire et d’espace dans l’aménagement. Des rapports internationaux contemporains. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 157, 415–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, V. (2007). International law. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti, M. (2004). I giuristi e i confini. L’elaborazione giuridica della nozione di confine tra medioevo ed età moderna. In T. Isenburg & R. Pasta (Eds.), Immagini d’Italia e d’Europa. Firenze, Italy: Firenze University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayerson, P. (1988). A note on the Roman “Limes”: ‘Inner’ versus ‘outer’. Israel Exploration Journal, 38, 181–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milano, E. (2013). The deterritorialization of international law. ESIL Reflection, 2, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minca, C., & Rowan, R. (2015). The question of space in Carl Shmitt. Progress in Human Geography, 39, 268–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Movchan, A. (1977). Problems of boundaries and security in the Helsinki Declaration. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 154, 3–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal, A. (1971). Preserving the oceans for peaceful purposes. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 133, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, G. (2018). Boundaries. In M. G. Kohen & M. Hébié (Eds.), Research handbook on territorial disputes in international law (pp. 193–234). Cheltenham, England and Northampton, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nordman, D. (1999). Frontières de France. De l’espace au territoire, XVI-XIX siècles. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascale, G. (2018). “Esternalizzazione” delle frontiere in chiave antimigratoria e responsabilità internazionale dell’Italia e dell’UE per complicità nelle gross violations dei diritti umani commesse in Libia. Studi sull’integrazione europea, XIII, 413–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, A. (2004). From territoriality to functionality? Towards a legal methodology of globalization. In I. F. Dekker & W. Werner (Eds.), Governance and international legal theory (pp. 59–95). Leiden, The Netherlands and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pufendorf, S. (1732). Le droit de la nature et des gens (J. Barbeyrac, Trans.). Basel, Switzerland: Thoumeisen Freres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. (1993). Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47, 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russel, L. (Ed.). (2001). Colonial frontiers. Indigenous-European encounters in settler societies. Manchester, England and New York: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert, C. (2016). Territory in the law of jurisdiction: Imagining alternatives. In M. Kuijer & W. Werner (Eds.), Netherlands yearbook of international law 2016. The changing nature of territoriality in international law (pp. 48–78). The Hague, The Netherlands: TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scattola, M. (1997). Die Grenze der Neuzeit. In M. Bauer & T. Rahn (Eds.), Die Grenze (pp. 37–72). Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scelle, G. (1958). Obsession du territoire. In F. M. Van Asbeck (Ed.), Symbolae Verzijl (pp. 347–361). The Hague, The Netherlands: TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenborn, W. (1929). La nature juridique du territoire. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 30, 81–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma, B. (1994). From bilateralism to community interest in international law. Recueil des Cours/Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 250, 217–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, A. (1997). The real new world order. Foreign Affairs, 76, 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorel, J. (2011). La frontière comme enjeu de droit international. CERISCOPE Frontières. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from http://ceriscope.sciences-po.fr/content/part2/la-frontiere-comme-enjeu-de-droit-international?page=2

  • Spiro, P. J. (2000). Globalization, international law, and the academy. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32, 567–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway, H. (2018). Territorial disputes and their resolution in the recent jurisprudence of the international court of justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 31, 117–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. (2003). Human rights. Between idealism and realism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevisanut, S. (2014). The principle of non-refoulement and the de-territorialization of border control at sea. Leiden Journal of International Law, 27, 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vattel, E. de. (1758). Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle (Tome II). London: [s.n.].

    Google Scholar 

  • Virally, M. (1972). L’Organisation mondiale. Paris: A. Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitiello, D. (2018). Il diritto di cercare asilo ai tempi dell’Aquarius. SIDIBlog. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from www.sidiblog.org/2018/06/29/il-diritto-di-cercare-asilo-ai-tempi-dellaquarius/

  • Zarmanian, T. (2006). Carl Schmitt and the problem of legal order: From domestic to international. Leiden Journal of International Law, 19, 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziccardi Capaldo, G. (2016). The pillars of global law. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zidar, A. (2013). Book review of Paul Schiff Berman, Global legal pluralism: A jurisprudence of law beyond borders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Leiden Journal of International Law, 26, 483–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbansens, P. (2012). Defining the space of transnational law: Legal theory, global governance and legal pluralism. In G. Handl, J. Zekoll, & P. Zumbansen (Eds.), Beyond territoriality. Transnational legal authority in an age of globalization (pp. 53–86). Leiden, The Netherlands and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Alland, D. (2016). Le droit international sans Terminus? Réflextion sur la delimitation. In Société français pour le droit international (Ed.), Droit des frontières internationales (pp. 7–42). Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucher, M. (2016). Le retour des frontières. Paris: CNRS Editions.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, D. (2012). Territory and boundaries. In B. Fassbender & A. Peters (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of international law (pp. 225–249). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, G. (2018). Boundaries. In M. G. Kohen & M. Hébié (Eds.), Research handbook on territorial disputes in international law (pp. 193–234). Cheltenham, England and Northampton, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trevisanut, S. (2014). The principle of non-refoulement and the de-territorialization of border control at sea. Leiden Journal of International Law, 27, 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy

    Alice Riccardi

  2. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Tommaso Natoli

Authors
  1. Alice Riccardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tommaso Natoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Riccardi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Tommaso Natoli

  2. Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy

    Alice Riccardi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG and G. Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Riccardi, A., Natoli, T. (2019). Borders and International Law: Setting the Stage. In: Natoli, T., Riccardi, A. (eds) Borders, Legal Spaces and Territories in Contemporary International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20929-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20929-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20928-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20929-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation