The European Union (EU) is facing a crisis of territorial integrity: one of its member states and several of its candidate members have had parts of their territory under occupation as a result of...Show moreThe European Union (EU) is facing a crisis of territorial integrity: one of its member states and several of its candidate members have had parts of their territory under occupation as a result of foreign aggression, with the occupation ongoing for an extended time period in each case. It is unclear whether action taken to recover territory from long-running occupation is legal under the law on self-defence. Treaty law does not rule out such an option, but its approval is implicit at best. Furthermore, publicists are split on the matter between those who favour the preservation of the right to self-defence throughout time, especially for weaker victims of aggression, and those who prefer to regard the restored peace and new status quo resulting from long-running occupation. These divisions warrant a turn to customary law for answers. A case study of state practice and opinio juris in the question of Cyprus, the sole member state of the EU under partial military occupation, reveals contrasting findings. The international community, through the positions of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and the General Assembly, has repeatedly condemned the occupation and considered any new status quo as illegal. At the same time, the Security Council undertook measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to cease the right of Cyprus to self-defence, including by non-forcible means, although these measures were ineffective in attaining the end of occupation and the withdrawal of unauthorised foreign troops from the island. This raises the question whether the formulation of Article 51, requiring “necessary action” by the Security Council to end the right to self-defence while not mentioning sufficiency, is adequate in cases of long-standing aggression.Show less
