By Kreijen G.
This entire learn of kingdom failure upholds that the cave in of States in sub-Saharan Africa is a self-inflicted challenge attributable to the abandonment of the primary of effectiveness in the course of decolonization. at the one hand, the abandonment of effectiveness could have facilitated the popularity of the hot African States, yet at the different it did result in the production of States that have been basically powerless: a few of which grew to become utter disasters.
Read or Download State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness: Legal Lessons from the Decolonization of Sub-Saharan Africa PDF
Best history_1 books
Filling a big hole in old, literary, and post-colonial scholarship, Imperialisms examines early id statements and nuances of dominance of the world's significant imperialisms in a variety of theatres of festival. built in collaboration with top students within the box, this e-book balances historic essays and case stories, and encourages investigations of conversant and competing imperialisms, their practices, and their rhetoric of self-justification.
- Deutsche Netzleger. Ein unbekanntes Kapitel des Seekrieges 1939-1945
- Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople: Short History (CFHB 13)
- Murder, mayhem, pillage and plunder: the history of Lebanon in the 18th and 19th centuries
- The 2003-2008 World Outlook for Automotive Parts and Accessories
- Natural History of Host-Parasite Interactions
Additional resources for State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness: Legal Lessons from the Decolonization of Sub-Saharan Africa
1. See Crawford, above n. 28, 76. L. Brierly, ‘The Basis of Obligation in International Law’, in H. M. ), The Basis of Obligation in International Law (1958) 1-67. On the State and State Failure 27 traditional legal doctrine concerning the concept of sovereignty. This difference in perception is responsible for much of the confusion that is caused when sovereignty is used as a substitute for independence in relation to questions of statehood. It should be noted from the outset that this study takes the view that sovereignty, despite the manifold and sometimes fashionable criticisms that have been levied against the concept, is still fundamental to international law and order.
Without effective internal control no Prince, or for that matter any other power, could have achieved external supremacy and independence. As a matter of fact it was precisely the lack of factual control that undermined the hegemonistic claims of the Emperor and the Pope. Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet! Historically, therefore, external sovereignty or independence rests on internal sovereignty – the latter being a condition sine qua non for the former. 113 From a historical perspective at least, it would seem wise to treat with caution any theory of sovereignty that fails to take into account the weight of the facts as the antecedent of the resulting legal titles.
See Dugard, above n. D. Grant, ‘Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents’ (1999) 37 Columbia J Transnat’l L 403-57 at 440 ff. See generally Dugard, above n. 70, 79; Grant, above n. 70, 444-5; Malanczuk, above n. N. Shaw, International Law (1986) 130-2; G. Sørensen, ‘Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution’, in ‘Sovereignty at the Millennium’ (1999) 47 Pol Studies 590-604 at 596. 4. See Dugard, above n. 20, 128. 74 A similar case is that of Southern Rhodesia.