Settling international disputes is a challenging task that is governed by a number of principles and laws (Malanczuk, 1997). The steps that will be taken in settling a dispute normally depends on the mechanism chosen by the involved parties and the stage at which the dispute resolution process is. Dispute resolution takes different forms of international negotiations and can result in various types of agreements. Other than non-judicial agreements there are also judicial mechanisms of international dispute resolution which are fully recognized by the international community.

In the case of Borealis vs. Aurora, two neighboring states that had co-existed for years are in disagreement following the secession of one of the provinces of Borealis to Join Aurora. In the suit, Borealis, the applicant claims that by invading it, and acquiring Vala province, Aurora violated international law.

One of the main issues raised in Borealis vs. Aurora is title to territory. Territory is one of the key elements of statehood. For a state to exist, it must be able to define its territory (Malanczuk, 1997). In the case of Borealis vs. Aurora, the territory of the two states was clearly defined until the province of Vala was made part of Aurora in unclear circumstances. Every state has a right to exercise within its territory as long as it does not violate the rights of other states and remains within international law. Hence, every state has territorial sovereignty (Malanczuk, 1997). Having territorial sovereignty over its territory, Borealis has a right to exercise its authority and jurisdiction over the territory. In the case of Borealis, it had a right to affect the people, the property and the events within its province of Vala. Other states however did not have the right to exercise their authority in Vala as long as it remained Borealis’ territory. A state has an obligation to protect the rights of other states within its state, something that Borealis seems to have done. The same however cannot be said of Aurora.

International law provides options for title to territory to be transferred from one   state to state. A sovereign nation can transfer territory by ceding it to another sovereign nation. However, this requires that there be an agreement between the ceding and the acquiring state (Malanczuk, 1997). Cession could be voluntary or as a result of compulsion after war. In the case of Borealis vs. Aurora however there was no cessation agreement to cede Vala to Aurora. In the case of Vala, one can clearly see it was a conquest followed by annexation. This is no longer acceptable as a valid claim title to territory under international law. Sovereignty cannot be passed through conquest hence the conquered region remains property of Borealis.

For a territory acquired through force to be recognized as the territory of the conqueror, it requires a treaty of cession by the conquered state or recognition by the international community. In the case of Borealis vs. Aurora, no threat of cessation exists, and neither is there is there any international recognition. Hence, Vala cannot be recognized as a territory of Aurora.

The act of state doctrine states that the state has sovereignty within its own borders, and its decisions cannot be challenged in the courts of another nation. Every sovereign nation has complete control over the laws within its borders, and this cannot be challenged in the courts of another country (Malanczuk, 1997). An act of state is one carried out by a government official or body who has been empowered by the government to act so, and does so in the exercise of the said powers. The said act must be a formal act such as legislation or an executive order. The actions of a government official, acting in his public capacity, constitute a state act.

In Borealis vs. Aurora, the government of Borealis, acting in its sovereign capacity decided that the secession referendum conducted in Vala did not meet the threshold set by Borealis law. It only passed by a narrow margin but did not meet the two-thirds threshold. Aurora however did not respect this decision by Borealis and went ahead to conduct another referendum in Borealis territory. This is a clear violation of the act of state doctrine which calls for other states to respects acts done by other sovereign state in regard to their own territory. There was no reason as tour why Aurora had to be exempted from observing the act of state doctrine in handling the Vala situation. The act of state to ignore referendum results by Borealis by no way affected the affairs of Aurora hence Aurora had no reason to interfere with an intention to challenge an act by the Borealis government.

Use of force against other sovereign states is prohibited unless in situations where a state is defending itself or the action has been authorized by the UN security council. States are allowed to use force in self-defense against other states in cases where there is a serious need to act (Malanczuk, 1997). The amount of force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. International law allows for use of force to preempt imminent attacks. However, one has to provide evidence that it was necessary and that an attack of significant proportions was about to be meted out on the attacking country. Such an attack is expected to abate the effects of the would be attack.

In the case of Borealis vs. Aurora, however, Aurora launched an armed invasion of Borealis. It cannot be said that Aurora was defending itself from a Borealis attack. Only refugees had crossed the border to Aurora escaping civil violence in Aurora. Influx of Borealis refugees into Aurora cannot be a good reason for the country to conduct an armed invasion of Borealis. The armed invasion of Aurora into Borealis was never sanctioned by United Nations hence is illegal. There was no imminent attack of Aurora interests by Borealis hence the attacks cannot be said to have been pre-emptive. Aurora did not provide the criteria as to how they came to the decision that it was necessary to carry out an armed attack of such proportions on Borealis. The only effect Borealis internal wrangles had on Aurora was that it was straining its resources. This however does warrant use of force as an abatement measure. An armed attack on Borealis does not abate the effect of refugee influx on Aurora resources. It actually increases the influx of refugees. Hence, in sending an armed force to attack on Borealis, Aurora violated international law even considering abatement theory.

As per General Assembly resolution 375 (IV) of 1949, every sovereign state has a number of duties and rights. Every sovereign state has a right to independence (Malanczuk, 1997). This includes the right to form a government and exercise its own powers freely without being dictated upon by any other state. Every state has the power to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and all people who live within that territory as per its own laws. States are also required to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. No state should encourage civil strife in the territory of other states. No state should wage war on another in a manner that is not in line with international law and order.

In the case of Borealis vs. Aurora, Aurora infringes Borealis’ right to independence. It interferes with the state’s right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory of Vala province and the people who live in it. It not only interferes with the internal activities of Borealis but also encouraged civil strife in the country by giving armed support to civilians who were for secession. Above all, Aurora waged war on Borealis without considering set international parameters. It is clear that Aurora did not observe the rights and duties of states in its engagement with Borealis.

In the light of all above it is clear that by invading Borealis and acquiring Vala, Aurora not only infringed on the rights of Borealis but it also violated international law. Vala is still legally a territory of Borealis. This ruling recommends that Aurora immediately withdraws all its troops within the territory of Borealis. The results of the referendum conducted under Aurora authorities in Vala are hereby nullified. The province of Vala will remain under Borealis rule until the people of Vala through a system provided for and recognized in their national laws decide otherwise. All refugees still under Aurora should be treated fairly in accordance international provisions until it is safe enough for them to return to their country. Aurora must restrain from interfering in the internal affairs of its neighbor and must desist from promoting any activity that might cause civil strife in Borealis.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW