The conclusion reached in the previous article in this series, on the basis of the case-law of the Court up to that date, was that these terms amounted to nothing more than ‘labels, practically interchangeable, or at least lying at different positions along a spectrum so as to shade into one another, and thus usually without substantive or procedural significance’.277 This view tends to be confirmed by a superficial glance at the titles chosen by the Court for the various more recent cases before it involving territorial claims: two cases relating to ‘Sovereignty...
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
content. Please,
subscribe
or
login
to access all content.