By ‘territorial integrity’ was meant rights inherent in sovereignty and independence. This principle is central to the Westphalia State System. International Law prohibited the use of force in this regard (jus ad bellum). Through the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, States renounced war as an instrument of national policy, and in the aftermath of WWII, the UN Charter imposed a general prohibition.
UN Charter Article 2(4):
‘All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’
The principle of ‘territorial integrity’ was given pride of place in UNGA Resolution (XXIXZ). Definition of Aggression.
‘Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) includes the concept of a “group of States" where appropriate.’
Two resolutions of the UN General assembly are frequently cited, but in error, as indicating the supremacy of ‘territorial integrity’ over self-determination.
First, UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples provides:
‘2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’
Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514, which refers to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibited external interference only. This provision cannot be interpreted otherwise. The resolution, adopted in 1960, was aimed at colonialists. It prohibited the colonialist from dismembering a colony in an attempt to sabotage the provisions of Article 1(2) of the UN Charter. Resolution 1514 had no legal effect in the situation in which a people, such as the Yoruba, domiciled within an existing country, such as Nigeria, was seeking their self-determination.
Second, UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law. The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples provides:
‘Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle…
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.’
It is a misrepresentation, as has often been done, to interpret this Resolution 2625 (XXV) as a ‘safeguard clause’. It was not. Rather, it was a double-headed clause comprising of 2 separate but interrelated conducts. First, it was a ‘disclaimer clause’ in which the UN declared that the self-determination process was not one in which it would ordinarily agree to interfere. Second, it was a ‘proviso clause’, in which the UN insisted that its non-interference was conditional; the State had an obligation to conduct itself in accordance with Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
Concern for ‘territorial integrity’ caused the Organisation of African Unity (1963), and latterly the African Union (2002), to insist upon the maintenance of the colonial borders at independence. OAU Charter Article III:
‘The Member States, in pursuit of the purposes stated in Article II solemnly affirm and declare their adherence to the following principles: 3. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence. ‘
AU Act Article 3: ‘The objectives of the Union shall be to:
(b) defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States.’
AU Act Article 4:
‘The Union shall function in accordance with the following principles:
(b) respect of borders existing on achievement of independence’.
However, the phrase ‘inalienable right to independent existence’, which was prominent in the OAU Charter was omitted from the AU Act. This is a significant change in the law. The omission meant that while the AU desired to ‘defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States’, it regarded these 3 attributes as no longer inalienable or sacrosanct, that is to say, ‘territorial integrity’ was no longer a right or something written on a tablet of stone.
UNGA Resolutions 1514 and 2625 are cited only when Africans seek self-determination. Why? The Soviet Union dissolved despite these UN resolutions. Yugoslavia dissolved. Czechoslovakia dissolved. Self-evidently, objections to self-determination in Africa were hangover from colonialism: ‘We gave them independence, what more do they want?’