Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State Sovereignty: Balancing Effectiveness and Legality/Legitimacy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Justice, Human Rights and the Modernization of International Law

Abstract

This chapter aims to examine one of the most interesting topics in the contemporary internationalist debate, namely the crisis of effectiveness as the ultimate or sufficient criterion for achieving statehood and territorial sovereignty. Since the 1970s the perception that international law can no longer accept social reality as it is but promotes and imposes standards of justice and common values has become increasingly widespread. More recently, the ensuing discussion between realists and legalists emerged as one of the central topics addressed within the framework of the advisory procedure concerning Kosovo’s declaration of independence. By discussing and critically appraising the normative and practical underpinnings of the crisis of effectiveness, the impact of illegality on State sovereignty, the effects of non-recognition, and the role played by “functional realities” in this field, this essay attempts to explain the continuing centrality of effectiveness and the possibility of reconciling it with the requirements of justice.

Professor of International Law, University of Palermo; Professor of Public Law, University “Nice Sophia Antipolis”.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For instance, according to Taki (2012), para. 10, “It can be said that the principle of effectiveness no longer plays a decisive role under recent international law, with respect to the formation of States”.

  2. 2.

    Christakis (2006), p. 154.

  3. 3.

    Simpson (2001), p. 537.

  4. 4.

    Teson (1992), p. 53; Slaughter (1994), p. 503.

  5. 5.

    Teson (1988), p. 79.

  6. 6.

    Arendt (1970), p. 52.

  7. 7.

    Kennedy (1987) and Koskenniemi (2005).

  8. 8.

    ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Written Statement of Serbia of 17 April 2009, p. 356. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15642.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.

  9. 9.

    Lauterpacht (1947).

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 410.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 55.

  12. 12.

    See Fawcett (1965–1966), pp. 112–113; Crawford (1979), pp. 103–106; Shaw (1986), p. 159. More recently, in this same vein, see Christakis (1999), p. 262; Kohen (2002), p. 629.

  13. 13.

    See Lagerwall (2016), pp. 46–48.

  14. 14.

    Lauterpacht (1947), p. 420.

  15. 15.

    Geiss (2004), p. 470.

  16. 16.

    Program of the Government of Republic of Kosovo 2008–2011, p. 4. http://www.kryeministri-ks.net/repository/docs/951_PMO_Programi_Qeveritar-ENG.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.

  17. 17.

    Christakis (1999), p. 317.

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    This view, for instance, has traditionally been maintained in the Italian legal doctrine that elaborated a strong reaction to Kelsen’s formalism in the mid-twentieth century: see for instance Quadri (1964), p. 373; Arangio-Ruiz (1975), p. 3 and p. 265; Idem (1990), p. 435; Morelli (1956), p. 518; Giuliano et al. (1991), p. 84.

  20. 20.

    This is the position of Abi-Saab (2006), p. 473. In this perspective, particular significance is to be attached to art. 6 of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect to Treaties and art. 3 of the 1983 Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, stating that the norms of both conventions are applicable “only to the effects of a succession of States occurring in conformity with international law, and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” (italics added).

  21. 21.

    Christakis (2006), p. 154.

  22. 22.

    An idea advocated, for instance, by Roth (1999), p. 137. But see Lauterpacht (1947), p. 115, according to whom “popular approval, properly expressed, is deemed to be evidence of the true authority of the government, of the obedience accorded to it, and of its probable permanence and stability”. In short, the requirement of such consent “… may, more accurately, be regarded as insistence on proper evidence of effectiveness”.

  23. 23.

    For an example, see Affaire de l’île de Clipperton (Mexique contre France), Award of 28 January 1931, RIAA 2, 1110. In the legal scholarship, see Focarelli (2012), p. 159; Tancredi (2014), pp. 76–77.

  24. 24.

    Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 US (23 Wallace), 176.

  25. 25.

    Privy Council, Madzimbamuto v. Lardner Burke, Appeal Cases (1969), 645.

  26. 26.

    US Court of Appeals, Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus v. Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts Inc. (1990), 917 F.2d (7th Circuit 1990), 278.

  27. 27.

    Lauterpacht (1947), p. 8.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Text reproduced in EJIL (1992) 3, p.185.

  30. 30.

    Oeter (2012), p. 331.

  31. 31.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 42.

  32. 32.

    ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, para. 82.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para. 79.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., para. 81.

  35. 35.

    In paragraph 78 of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, the Court also speaks of “questions concerning the lawfulness of declarations of independence under general international law” (italics added).

  36. 36.

    See for instance UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/RES/541 (1983), 18 November 1983, also quoted in para. 81 of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion.

  37. 37.

    Jennings (1965), p. 66.

  38. 38.

    On this, see Ago (1970), p. 192 (in particular fn 88).

  39. 39.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 159.

  40. 40.

    Reisman and Pulkowski (2012), para. 29.

  41. 41.

    Weil (1992), p. 316.

  42. 42.

    Kohen (2006), p. 13. See also, with particular reference to Kosovo, Orakhelashvili (2008), p. 11.

  43. 43.

    Weller (2011), p. 136. In the same sense, previously, see Mann (1987), p. 348 (“In law, therefore, the non-recognised State does not exist. It is, if one prefers to put it, a nullity”); Dugard (1987), p. 131; Gowlland-Debbas (1990), p. 240.

  44. 44.

    See, for instance, Kohen (2006), pp. 14–15; Peters (2010), p. 176.

  45. 45.

    Frowein (2012), para. 3.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    With some notable exceptions: see again Kohen (2006), p. 13.

  49. 49.

    Peters (2010), p. 176.

  50. 50.

    Frowein (2012), para. 8.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    For a wider analysis of this doctrine, see Tancredi (2006), p. 201.

  53. 53.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, para. 125.

  54. 54.

    ECtHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, para. 45.

  55. 55.

    ECtHR, Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 May 2001, Reports 2001-IV, para. 96.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para. 102. The same statement has been repeated in the subsequent case law, see, for instance ECtHR, Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey, Judgment of 4 April 2017, para. 197 and the judgments mentioned there.

  57. 57.

    ECtHR, Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey, Decision of 1 March 2010, Reports 2010, para. 89.

  58. 58.

    ECtHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, paras. 44 and 46.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR, Cyprus v. Turkey, supra fn 55, para. 186.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR, Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey, supra fn 57, para. 127 (“The Court finds that Law no. 67/2005 provides an accessible and effective framework of redress of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots. The applicant property owners in the present cases have not made use of this mechanism and their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”). But see also ECtHR, Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, Judgment of 7 December 2006, para. 37.

  61. 61.

    According to the ECtHR, in fact, it would not be consistent with Turkey’s responsibility under the Convention “... if the adoption by the authorities of the ‘TRNC’ of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, or their application or enforcement within their territory, were to be denied any validity or regarded as having no ‘lawful’ basis in terms of the Convention” (Foka v. Cyprus, Judgment of 24 June 2008, para. 83).

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para. 81.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para. 84. See also ECtHR: Protopapa v. Turkey, Judgment of 24 February 2009, para. 105; Strati v. Turkey, Judgment of 22 September 2009, para. 87; Olymbiou v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 October 2009, para. 86; Petrakidou v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 May 2010, paras. 71 and 104.

  64. 64.

    ECtHR, Mitrović v. Serbia, Judgment of 21 March 2017, para. 43.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Radan (2011), p. 524.

  67. 67.

    Talmon (1992), p. 231.

  68. 68.

    House of Lords, Judgment of 18 May 1966, [1967] 1 Appeal Cases 853, 954 (italics added).

  69. 69.

    Court of Appeal, Judgment of 23 May 1977, [1978] Law Reports, Queen’s Bench Division 205, 218.

  70. 70.

    See, for example, United States v. Insurance Cos., 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 99, 101–103 (1875) (seceding states in Civil War); Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1, 9–12 (1869) (same); Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena, 433 F.2d 686, 699 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. Denied, 403 U.S. 905 (1971) (post-World War II East Germany).

  71. 71.

    Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 2nd Cir. (1995), reproduced in ILM 34, pp.1595–1614, at p. 1607.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 1606, citing Ford v. Surget, 97 U.S. (7 Otto) 594, 620 (1878).

  73. 73.

    Texas v. White (1868), 74 U.S. (7 Wallace) 700, 733.

  74. 74.

    See Tancredi (2001), pp. 788–790. For a confirmation of this analysis see, more recently, Lagerwall (2016), p. 517.

  75. 75.

    Hurd (1999), p. 381.

  76. 76.

    Buchanan (2010), p. 81.

  77. 77.

    Supreme Court of Canada (1998) Re Reference by the Governor in Council concerning Certain Questions relating to the Secession of Quebec from Canada, reproduced in ILR 115, pp.535–595, para. 106.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para. 146.

  79. 79.

    Milano (2006), pp. 192–193.

  80. 80.

    For a wider account, see ibid., pp. 194–195.

  81. 81.

    Cassese (1995), p. 152.

  82. 82.

    Crawford (2006), p. 138.

  83. 83.

    Milano (2006), p. 198. See also Starita (2004), p. 883.

  84. 84.

    Milano (2006), p. 201.

  85. 85.

    See Falk (2012), p. 9, according to whom “... the Kosovo War illustrates the constructive role of legitimacy talk, while the Iraq war exemplifies the dangers”.

  86. 86.

    Tancredi (2008), pp. 44–45.

  87. 87.

    UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2007/168, 26 March 2007, para. 7.

  88. 88.

    ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, supra fn 32, para. 122.

  89. 89.

    Milano (2006), pp. 202 and 272.

  90. 90.

    Chinkin (2012), p. 221.

  91. 91.

    See, in particular, the statements of Lebanon, UK, Germany, Colombia, and Portugal (Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.6498, 17 March 2011, pp. 3, 4, 7, 8).

  92. 92.

    Akande (2011).

  93. 93.

    Picone (2011), p. 230.

  94. 94.

    See http://www.mfa.gov.tr/fourth-meeting-of-the-libya-contact-group-chair_s-statement_-15-july-2011_-istanbul.en.mfa. Accessed 20 Dec 2017.

  95. 95.

    Talmon (2011).

  96. 96.

    Catalonia’s former leader urges caution. Financial Times, 8 October 2017, p. 2.

  97. 97.

    Focarelli (2012), pp. 164–165.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    According to Baade (1964), pp. 526–527, “The simplistic slogan, ex iniuria non oritur ius, is hardly a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations. This is so not because a primitive legal system places a higher value on ‘power’ than on ‘right’, but because all sophisticated legal systems acknowledge that the certainty and stability of existing situations and relationships is just as much a moral and an ethical desideratum as it is strict compliance with all requirements of the law”.

  100. 100.

    Lauterpacht (1947), p. 341.

  101. 101.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), supra fn. 53, para. 118.

  102. 102.

    See on this Zappalà (2012), p. 116.

References

  • Abi-Saab G (2006) Conclusions. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession. International law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 470–476

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ago R (1970) Second report on state responsibility. YILC II:177–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Akande D (2011) What does UN Security Council Resolution 1973 Permit? https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-does-un-security-council-resolution-1973-permit/. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1975) L’Etat dans le sens du droit des gens et la notion du droit international. ÖZÖRV 26(3–63):265–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1990) Le domaine réservé, l’organisation internationale et le rapport entre droit international et droit interne. Cours général de droit international public. RdC 225:9–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (1970) On Violence. Harcourt, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Baade HW (1964) Nullity and avoidance in public international law: a preliminary survey and a theoretical orientation. Indiana Law J 39:497–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (2010) The legitimacy of international law. In: Besson S, Tasioulas J (eds) The philosophy of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 79–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1995) Self-determination of peoples. A legal reappraisal. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (2012) Rethinking legality/legitimacy after the Iraq war. In: Falk R, Juergensmeyer M, Popovski V (eds) Legality and legitimacy in global affairs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 219–247

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (1999) Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. La Documentation Française, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2006) The state as a ‘primary fact’: some thoughts on the principle of effectiveness. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession. International law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 138–170

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (1979) The creation of states in international law, 1st edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2006) The creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett JES (1965–1966) Security council resolutions on Rhodesia. BYBIL 41:103–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk R (2012) Introduction: legality and legitimacy. Necessities and Problematics of Exceptionalism. In: Falk R, Juergensmeyer M, Popovski V (eds) Legality and legitimacy in global affairs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Focarelli C (2012) International law as a social construct. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frowein JA (2012) De facto regime. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiss R (2004) Failed states. Legal aspects and security implication. GYIL 47:457–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano M, Scovazzi T, Treves T (1991) Diritto internazionale. Parte generale. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlland-Debbas V (1990) Collective responses to illegal acts in international law. United Nations action in the question of southern Rhodesia. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd I (1999) Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. Int Organ 53:379–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1965) Nullity and effectiveness in international law. In: Cambridge essays in international law: essays in honour of Lord McNair. Stevens/Oceana Publications, London/Dobbs Ferry, pp 64–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (1987) International legal structure. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2002) La création d’Etats en droit international contemporain. Bancaja Euromediterranean Courses Int Law 6:543–636. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2006) Introduction. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession. International law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2005) From apology to utopia: the structure of international legal argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerwall A (2016) Le principe ex iniuria jus non oritur en droit international. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1947) Recognition in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1987) The judicial recognition of an unrecognised state. ICLQ 36:348–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milano E (2006) Unlawful territorial situations in international law. Reconciling effectiveness, legality and legitimacy. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Morelli G (1956) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 89:437–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter S (2012) Self-determination. In: Simma B, Khan D-E, Nolte G, Paulus A (eds) The charter of the United Nations, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 313–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2008) Statehood, recognition and the United Nations system: a unilateral declaration of independence in Kosovo. Max Planck Yearb Int Law 12:1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadri R (1964) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 113:237–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2010) Statehood after 1989: ‘Effectivités’ between legality and virtuality. In: Crawford J, Nouwen S (eds) ESIL Proc., vol 3, Oxford, pp 171–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Picone P (2011) Considerazioni sulla natura della risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza a favore di un intervento “umanitario” in Libia. DUDI 5:213–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Radan P (2011) The Serb Krajina: an unsuccessful secession from Croatia. In: Pavković A, Radan P (eds) The Ashgate research companion to secession. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 523–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM, Pulkowski D (2012) Nullity in international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth BR (1999) Governmental illegitimacy in international law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M (1986) Title to territory in Africa. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson G (2001) Two liberalisms. EJIL 12:537–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter A-M (1994) International law in a world of liberal states. EJIL 6:503–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starita M (2004) L’occupation de l’Iraq. Le Conseil de sécurité, le droit de la guerre et le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes. RGDIP 108:883–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Taki H (2012) Effectiveness. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (1992) Recognition of governments: an analysis of the new British policy and practice. BYBIL 63:231–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2011) Recognition of the Lybian National Transitional Council. ASIL Insights 15(16). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/15/issue/16/recognition-libyan-national-transitional-council. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

  • Tancredi A (2001) La secessione nel diritto internazionale. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi A (2006) A normative “due process” in the creation of states through secession. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession. International law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 171–207

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi (2008) Neither authorized nor prohibited? Secession and international law after Kosovo, south Ossetia and Abkhazia. ItYIL 18:37–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi A (2014) Secession and use of force. In: Walter C, Von Ungern-Sternberg A, Abushov K (eds) Selfdetermination and secession in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 68–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teson FR (1988) Humanitarian intervention: an inquiry into law and morality. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Teson FR (1992) The Kantian theory of international law. Columbia Law Rev 92:53–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Secession and self-determination. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession. International Law Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1992) Le droit international public en quête de son identité. Cours général de droit international public. RdC 237:11–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller M (2011) Modesty can be a virtue: judicial economy in the ICJ Kosovo opinion? LJIL 24:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappalà S (2012) Can legality trump effectiveness in Today’s international law? In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing Utopia. The future of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 105–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University “Nice Sophia Antipolis”, Nice, France

    Antonello Tancredi

Authors
  1. Antonello Tancredi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonello Tancredi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political and International Sciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi

  2. Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Pasquale De Sena

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tancredi, A. (2018). State Sovereignty: Balancing Effectiveness and Legality/Legitimacy. In: Pisillo Mazzeschi, R., De Sena, P. (eds) Global Justice, Human Rights and the Modernization of International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90227-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90227-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90226-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90227-2

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation