Author Description

The notion that a state that emerges victorious in war is entitled to claim sovereignty over conquered territory in virtue of military victory or conquest was, until recently, a recognized principle of international law. This study is an inquiry into the place of the right of conquest in international relations since the early sixteenth century and the causes and consequences of its demise in the twentieth.Part 1 examines the theoretical foundation of the right of conquest and its historical importance, particularly in the establishment of the European colonial empires. Part 2 shows how the First World War, which led to the rise of the principle of self-determination and to calls for the prohibition of aggressive war, prompted the reconstruction of international law and consequent rejection of the right of conquest. The cases of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Goa, the Falkland Islands, East Timor and Kuwait are used to evaluate the content and effectiveness of the modern law. The conclusion examines the problems posed by the rejection of the right of conquest from the standpoints of international order and justice.The Right of Conquest is a leading authority on annexation in international law, relied on by states as well as scholars. It has been cited in government submissions to the International Court of Justice and by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe in its legal opinion on Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014.