MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY

GROUP ASSIGNMENT
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Topic
“Analyze the modes of legal acquisition of territory in
International Law. Refer to the practice of some states.”

Group: 03 - Class: N02.TL1

Members:
1. Nguyễn Quỳnh Hoa
2. Nguyễn Lê Huy
3. Trần Minh Khoa
4. Dương Thị Phương Linh

Hanoi, December 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
1. General overview on legal acquisition of territory in international law.... 1
1.1. Concept of territory ............................................................................... 1
1.2. Acquisition of territory .......................................................................... 1
2. Analysis of the modes of legal acquisition of territory in international law
............................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Occupation .............................................................................................. 2
2.2. Prescription ............................................................................................ 4
2.3. Cession..................................................................................................... 5
2.4. Accretion ................................................................................................. 6
3. States’ practice of the modes of legal acquisition of territory in
international law .................................................................................................. 6
3.1. Spain’s acquisition of Puerto Rico through occupation ..................... 6
3.2. Singapore’s acquisition of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh through
prescription .................................................................................................... 7
3.3. The United States’ acquisition of Alaska through a cession treaty
with Russia ..................................................................................................... 7
3.4. Japan’s acquisition of an emerged island in the territorial sea of
Iwo Jima through accretion ......................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 8

0
 INTRODUCTION
The rules and principles of territorial acquisition in international law play an
important role in addressing the issue of how a state can legally establish
sovereignty over a territory. In researching the given topic ‘Analyze the modes
of legal acquisition of territory in International Law. Refer to the practice of
some states’, Group 03 – Class: N02.TL1 will provide both theoretical basis and
practice for the application of legal modes of territorial acquisition.
CONTENTS
1. General overview on legal acquisition of territory in international law
1.1. Concept of territory
Territory includes the surface of the globe which covers all land, subsoil,
waters and airspace1. Territory is a tangible attribute of statehood and within that
particular geographical area which it occupies, a state enjoys and exercises
sovereignty.
1.2. Acquisition of territory
Territorial acquisition is the act of a state establishing its sovereignty over a
new territory, or in other words, expanding its existing territory, adding a new
territory to the national territorial map in ways consistent with the principles of
international law2. Accordingly, the modes of acquiring territory are considered
legal when: (i) it is carried out on a suitable territorial object; and (ii) the
subject establishing the title of sovereignty must have national status and carry
out in the manner allowed by international law on territorial acquisition.
There are four legal ways of acquiring territory in international law, namely
occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Previously, international law
also allowed another method, which was conquest, but this was no longer
accepted as it violates the principle of non-using force in international law.

1Hanoi Law University (2022), Textbook on Public International Law, The People’s Public Security Publisher, p.165.
2Marcelo G Kohen, Mamadou Hébié, Territory, Acquisition, Oxford Public International Law,
https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1118, last visit: 30 November 2023.
1
2. Analysis of the modes of legal acquisition of territory in international law
2.1. Occupation
Occupation is a method of acquiring terra nullius, or a territory which
belongs to no one, and which may be exercised by a state in certain situations.
The characteristics of occupation can be described as follows:
First, it must be done by state towards terra nullius.
In a number of its decisions, the International Court of Justice has determined
that an act of occupation must be carried out by a state, or a titre de souverain.
In Eritrea/Yemen, the Court interpreted that “Evidence of intention to claim the
Islands à titre de souverain is an essential element of the process of
consolidation of title, […] can be evidenced by showing a public claim of right
or assertion of sovereignty to the Islands as well as legislative acts openly
seeking to regulate activity on the Island3”. Furthermore, actions carried out by
public organizations must be authorized by a state in order to demonstrate state
authority, otherwise it would be considered as an act of private individuals. In
Botswana/Namibia 4 , the Court held that “There is no credible evidence that
either Namibia or its predecessors exercised State authority in respect of
Kasikili/Sedudu [...] and it could not have been à titre de souverain”.
Occupation relates primarily to uninhabited territories and islands. The high
seas, despite the fact that it is uninhabited, cannot be occupied in this manner for
they are res communis, or the common heritage of mankind, but vacant land
may be subjected to the sovereignty of a claimant state.
Second, it must be effective. Occupation was often preceded by discovery,
that is, the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. But mere
realization or sighting was never considered as sufficient to constitute title to
territory. Discovery only put other states on notice that the claimant state had a
prior interest in the territory, which, to become legally meaningful, had to be
supplemented by effective occupation within a certain period. This has been

3 Eritrea v Yemen, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the proceedings (territorial sovereignty and scope of the
dispute), (1996), Permanent Court of Arbitration, p.71.
4 Botswana/Namibia, ICJ Reports, 1999.

2
proved in the Island of Palmas case, which concerned the dispute of sovereignty
over the Island of Palmas, ceded by Spain to the United States of America by
treaty concluded in 1898, but claimed by the Netherlands as forming part of its
possessions on the basis of having exercised sovereignty there for more than 200
years. It was admitted that Spain discovered the island, then ceded it to the US,
but by the time the dispute had arisen, in 1906, the arbitrator Max Huber found
that ‘the establishment of Dutch authority had already reached such a degree of
development, that the importance of maintaining this state of things ought to be
considered as prevailing over a claim, possibly based either on discovery in
very distant times and unsupported by occupation or mere geographical
position5.’
Third, it must be intended as a claim of sovereignty over the area. In
Eastern Greenland, the Permanent Court said ‘a claim to sovereignty based not
upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon
continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be
shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual
exercise or display of such authority6’. This statement has not lost its force and
was in part reiterated in Eritrea/Yemen: the modern international law of the
acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an
intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of
jurisdiction or State functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis’. ‘Peaceful’
can be understood as not being based on force and not involving opposition, or
protest, from other countries, especially those involved in the disputed territory.
In the Chamizal case7 between the United States and Mexico in 1911 related to
the change in the flow of the Rio Grande River, which is the natural border
between the two countries, the United States claimed sovereignty over the part
between the old and new river beds based on argument of peaceful and
uninterrupted possession. Mexico demonstrated that the US occupation did not

5 Island of Palmas Case (United States v Netherlands), Award, (1928), Permanent Court of Arbitration, p.37.
6 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v Norway), Judgement, (1993), Permanent Court of International Justice.
7 Chamizal Case (Mexico v United States), 15 June 1911.

3
satisfy the ‘peaceful’ criteria because Mexico had consistently protested the
issue and a treaty signed by both sides only noted the existence of a dispute over
the borders that needed to be resolved.
2.2. Prescription
Prescription and occupation are similar in that they require (i) evidence of
sovereign acts by a state over a period of time; and (ii) an intentional display of
power and authority over the territory on a continuous and peaceful basis.
However, there are still many differences between these two modes of
territorial acquisition:
First, prescription is a mode of establishing title to territory which is not
terra nullius. The territory is usually one that was previously under the
sovereignty of another state, and has been obtained either: (i) unlawfully; or (ii)
in circumstances wherein the legality of the acquisition cannot be demonstrated.
It is the legitimization of a doubtful title by the passage of time and the
presumed acquiescence of the former sovereign, and it reflects the need for
stability felt within the international system, by recognizing that territory in the
possession of a state for a long period of time and uncontested cannot be taken
away from that state, without serious consequences for the international order8.
Second, the requirement for effective control in prescription is higher
than that of occupation. Effective control must be carried out for a reasonable
period of time and must be without opposition from the state that has
sovereignty over that territory. In other words, it must be peaceful, uninterrupted
and public. Prescription rests upon the implied consent of the former sovereign
to the new state of affairs. Therefore, it must be public so that all interested
states can be made aware of it. If there are any protests by the dispossessed
sovereign, this may completely block any prescriptive claim. What constitutes a
protest is open to question, but resorting to force is not acceptable in modern
international law as it violates its basic principles. Such protests can take various
forms, e.g. a statement from a spokesperson of a state or the bringing of a matter
before the United Nations or the International Court of Justice. Also, it is not

4
possible to point out a specific defined length of time to satisfy a prescription as
it depends on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the
territory and the absence or presence of any competing claims.
2.3. Cession
Cession involves the peaceful transfer of territory from one sovereign to
another (with the intention that sovereignty should pass).
First, cession is based on the consent of the involving states and can be in
the form of sale, gift or exchange of territory. It is normally recorded in a
treaty between the ceding and the acquiring state. A lot of times cession is an
outcome of peaceable negotiation or war. As it is based on the consent among
the states involved, a cession by treaty is void where the conclusion has been
procured by the threat of use of force, which is in violation of the principles of
international law, pursuant to the UN Charter and Article 52 of the Vienna
Convention of 1969 on Law of Treaties. Furthermore, cession may also occur in
the form of a gift. For example, Chen La, an empire that succeeded the Funan
Kingdom as the reigning party in ancient Cambodia, offered the land of the
southern provinces to Lord Nguyen in the 18th century as a gift for the times
that Lord Nguyen had helped the Chen La kings quell the rebellion and ascend
the throne9.
Second, its basis lies in the intention of the concerned parties to transfer
sovereignty over the territory in question. Cession rests on the principle that
the right of transferring its territory is a fundamental attribute of the sovereignty
of a State. The scope of cession may comprise a portion or the whole of the
territory of the ceding State. In the latter case, the ceding State disappears and
merges into the acquiring State. It is a point to be kept in prudence that a state
can only transfer as much of as it owns of a territory, hence a ceding state cannot
transfer more than that over which it has been exercising sovereignty; therefore,

8Malcolm N.Shaw, International Law, 8th edition, Cambridge University Press, p.374.
9Tran H.D.Minh, International Law on acquisition of territory, https://iuscogens-
vie.org/2017/09/22/35/#:~:text=Lu%E1%BA%ADt%20ph%C3%A1p%20qu%E1%BB%91c%20t%E1%BA%BF%20cho,d
%E1%BB%A5ng%20v%C5%A9%20l%E1%BB%B1c%2Fx%C3%A2m%20l%C6%B0%E1%BB%A3c., last visit: 08
December 2023.
5
the receiving state will take the ceded territory, subject to any limitation of
sovereignty or sovereign rights that formerly bound the ceding state.
2.4. Accretion
Accretion is a mode of legal acquisition of territory when, as a result of a
geographical process, new land is formed within a State’s territorial limits and
becomes attached to the existing land. For example, the creation of islands in a
river mouth or the change in direction of a boundary river leaving dry land
where it had formerly flowed.
As regards a change in the course of a river forming a boundary between
States, it depends whether the process is imperceptible and slight or a violent
shift (avulsion). Precedents have shown that in the latter case, the general rule is
that the boundary stays unchanged, while when there is a gradual move, the
boundary may be shifted. If the river is navigable, the boundary will be the
middle of the navigable channel, whatever slight alterations have occurred,
while if the river is not navigable the boundary will continue to be the middle of
the river itself10. A number of cases involving dispute between particular states
of the United States of America have been resolved by applying these rules, e.g.
Arkansas v. Tennessee 246 US 158 (1918); Louisiana v. Mississippi 282 US 458
(1940); or Georgia v. South Carolina 111 L.Ed.2d 309.
In recent decades, to avoid conflicts where there is a change in the course of
a river forming a boundary, a number of states have opted to define its boundary
by fixed coordinate and recorded in agreements. For example, Article V of
China - Vietnam Border Delimitation Treaty of 30 December 1999; Article 2 of
Cambodia - Vietnam Border Delimitation Treaty of 1985; or Article III of Laos
- Vietnam Border Delimitation Treaty of 1977.
3. States’ practice of the modes of legal acquisition of territory in
international law
3.1. Spain’s acquisition of Puerto Rico through occupation
Spain’s acquisition of Puerto Rico can be seen as an example of occupation.
Puerto Rico was an island located in the northeast of the Caribbean Sea.

6
Although Taino culture had developed strongly from the 7th, it was still
considered as terra nullius, as demonstrated by many western scholars, because
such territories as Puerto Rico either did not have a state institution or had one
but it was lower than the existing European standard11. Since the end of the 15th
century, when Columbus discovered this island, Spain quickly established its
permanent settlement on the island, along with enforcing its control to use
Puerto Rico as a base for further exploration and colonization.
3.2. Singapore’s acquisition of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh through
prescription
Singapore’s acquisition of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh originated from a
dispute between Malaysia and Singapore in 2003, which was resolved by the
International Court of Justice. In its Special Agreement, the Parties requested the
Court to determine the sovereignty over: (i) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh; (ii) Middle Rocks; and (iii) South Ledge. They agreed in advance “to
accept the Judgment of the Court . . . as final and binding upon them”12.
Regarding the claim over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, in its judgement
following numerous public hearings in 2007, the Court first indicated the
Sultanate of Johor (predecessor of Malaysia) had the original title to Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. However, the title had passed to Singapore, due to
certain acts performed by Singapore à titre de souverain and the failure of
Malaysia to react to the conduct of Singapore. Therefore, the Court awarded
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore.
3.3. The United States’ acquisition of Alaska through a cession treaty with
Russia
In fact, territorial transfer was only commonplace in the past, which were
usually concluded following a war, and is very rare in the present context due to
the sensitive and sacred nature of national territory. Unlike most land

10 Malcolm N.Shaw, p.369.

11 Lu Tuan Nghia, Scientific Research on Modes of acquisition of territory by means of occupation, https://thegioiluat.vn/bai-
viet-hoc-thuat/Nghien-cuu-khoa-hoc-Phuong-thuc-thu-dac-lanh-tho-do-chiem-huu-
9555/?fbclid=IwAR0NYdaaLCb6z8lgxo_a820jKb9TuTTxsaVjcOiZGoSR1U1mePnmSm8NZcs, last visit: 8 December
2023.
12 International Court of Justice, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge

(Malaysia/Singapore), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/130, last visit: 8 December 2023.

7
acquisitions in history, the Alaska Purchase of 1867 between the United States
and Russia was not a result of a war. Though initially claimed by Russia in the
early 18th century, Russia's control over this vast territory was limited. By the
mid-19th century, Russia faced several challenges, including financial
difficulties exacerbated by the Crimean War (1853 - 1856) and the potential
British expansion into Alaska. These factors prompted Russia to conduct secret
negotiations with the United States on the sale of the territory. The negotiations
remained confidential until the treaty was officially signed on 30 March 1867.
On the 15 of May, the Senate ratified the treaty, and Alaska officially became
part of the United States on 18 October 1867.
3.4. Japan’s acquisition of an emerged island in the territorial sea of Iwo
Jima through accretion
Compared to other modes of legal territorial acquisition, accretion rarely
occurs in international law. One of the most well-known cases was when an
island emerged in the Pacific following the eruption of an under-sea volcano in
January 1986. This newly-formed island stood in the territorial sea of the
Japanese island of Iwo Jima, thus it became a part of Japan’s territory. This was
also recognized by the UK government. In a statement in 1986, when asked
about the island’s status in international law, one UK government representative
noted that: ‘We understand the island emerged within the territorial sea of the
Japanese island of Iwo Jima. We take it therefore to be Japanese territory13.’
CONCLUSION
It can be seen that methods of territorial acquisition play an important role in
establishing national sovereignty over territories, contributing to effectively
resolving dispute among states on the basis of equality. Therefore, international
cooperation and adherence to the principles of peaceful settlement and self-
determination are crucial for resolving territorial disputes and ensuring a stable
and just international order.

13UK Parliament, Iwo Jima: New Volcanic Island, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1986-07-16/debates/100d87c5-c078-

4f9b-ba09-495faa080820/IwoJimaNewVolcanicIsland, last visit: 8/12/2023.
8
 REFERENCE
A. Book
1. Malcolm N.Shaw, International Law, 8th edition, Cambridge University Press.
B. Textbook
2. Hanoi Law University (2022), Textbook on Public International Law, The
People’s Public Security Publisher.
C. Case
3. Botswana/Namibia, ICJ Reports, 1999.
4. Chamizal Case (Mexico v United States), 15 June 1911.
5. Eritrea v Yemen, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the
proceedings (territorial sovereignty and scope of the dispute), (1996), Permanent Court
of Arbitration.
6. Island of Palmas Case (United States v Netherlands), Award, (1928),
Permanent Court of Arbitration.
7. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v Norway), Judgement, (1993),
Permanent Court of International Justice.
D. Website
8. International Court of Justice, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), https://www.icj-
cij.org/case/130, last visit: 8 December 2023.
9. Lu Tuan Nghia, Scientific Research on Modes of acquisition of territory by
means of occupation, https://thegioiluat.vn/bai-viet-hoc-thuat/Nghien-cuu-khoa-hoc-
Phuong-thuc-thu-dac-lanh-tho-do-chiem-huu-
9555/?fbclid=IwAR0NYdaaLCb6z8lgxo_a820jKb9TuTTxsaVjcOiZGoSR1U1mePnm
Sm8NZcs.
10. Marcelo G Kohen, Mamadou Hébié, “Territory, Acquisition”, Oxford Public
International Law,
https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-
9780199231690-e1118.
11. Tran H.D.Minh, International Law on acquisition of territory,
https://iuscogens-
vie.org/2017/09/22/35/#:~:text=Lu%E1%BA%ADt%20ph%C3%A1p%20qu%E1%B
B%91c%20t%E1%BA%BF%20cho,d%E1%BB%A5ng%20v%C5%A9%20l%E1%B
B%B1c%2Fx%C3%A2m%20l%C6%B0%E1%BB%A3c.
12. UK Parliament, Iwo Jima: New Volcanic Island,
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1986-07-16/debates/100d87c5-c078-4f9b-ba09-
495faa080820/IwoJimaNewVolcanicIsland.

9
 BIÊN BẢN XÁC ĐỊNH MỨC ĐỘ THAM GIA VÀ KẾT QUẢ THAM GIA
LÀM BÀI TẬP NHÓM
Ngày: 08/12/2023 Địa điểm: Trường Đại học Luật Hà Nội
Nhóm: 03 Lớp: N02.TL1
Tổng số sinh viên của nhóm:
+ Có mặt: 04
+ Vắng mặt: Có lý do: Không lý do:
Tên bài tập: “Analyze the modes of legal acquisition of territory in
International Law. Refer to the practice of some states.”
Xác định mức độ tham gia và kết quả tham gia của từng sinh viên trong việc
thực hiện bài tập nhóm. Kết quả như sau:
Đánh giá của SV
STT Mã SV Họ và tên
A B C
1 462912 Nguyễn Quỳnh Hoa +
2 462913 Nguyễn Lê Huy (Nhóm trưởng) +
3 462915 Trần Minh Khoa +
4 462916 Dương Thị Phương Linh +

- Kết quả điểm bài viết:

+ Giáo viên chấm thứ nhất:...............................
+ Giáo viên chấm thứ hai:.................................
- Kết quả điểm thuyết trình:..............................
- Giáo viên cho thuyết trình:..........................…
- Điểm kết luận cuối cùng:
+ Giáo viên đánh giá cuối cùng:..........................
Hà Nội, ngày tháng năm 2023
Trưởng nhóm

10