CampusDownWiki CampusDown ↗
English

Territorial Acquisition and Effective Control

⚖️ Law By CampusDown Wiki Editorial Team Last updated
Quick answer: states acquire territory through titles such as occupation, accretion or cession, and international tribunals weigh whether that title is backed by the peaceful and continuous display of state authority, known as effective control.
Contents
  1. 1. Traditional modes of acquisition
  2. 2. Effective control
  3. 3. Title versus effectivités
  4. 4. The critical date
  5. 5. Korean context
  6. 6. References

Traditional modes of acquisition

  • Occupation: taking effective possession of terra nullius with the intention to act as sovereign
  • Accretion: natural growth of territory through deposits or volcanic activity
  • Cession: transfer of territory by treaty
  • Prescription: claimed title through long, peaceful and open control of another state's territory (contested)
  • Conquest: no longer a valid mode since article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force

Effective control

In the Island of Palmas arbitration (1928), Max Huber held that discovery gives only an inchoate title, which must be completed by the continuous and peaceful display of state authority. Legislation, administration, taxation and courts count as evidence. In the Eastern Greenland case (1933), the Permanent Court accepted that very little actual exercise of authority suffices for thinly populated areas.

Title versus effectivités

In Burkina Faso/Mali (1986) the ICJ said that a valid legal title prevails over conflicting practice, while effectivités matter mainly when title is unclear. In Ligitan/Sipadan (2002) the Court found for Malaysia based on its administrative acts because neither party proved a treaty title.

The critical date

Acts taken after a dispute crystallised in order to improve a party's position carry little weight, so identifying the critical date is often decisive.

Korean context

For Dokdo, Korea relies on historical title and continuous effective control and considers there to be no dispute, while Japan cites its 1905 Shimane incorporation. The debate turns on terra nullius, the critical date and the interpretation of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty.

References

  1. Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. United States), 2 R.I.A.A. 829 (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1928).
  2. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53.
  3. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 625.
  4. Shaw, M. N. (2021). International Law (9th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  5. 김대순. (2022). 『국제법론』(제22판). 삼영사.

Reports and materials that use this theory (Korean)

There are no materials dedicated to this theory yet, but you can search related reports in the CampusDown library (Korean).

Find more reports · Search '영토 취득과 실효적 지배' on CampusDown →

You may also like

This article was last updated on October 15, 2026. It is based on widely recognized original works and textbooks; when citing it in a paper, please check the original sources listed in the references.