RECOGNITION of STATES

Wilson Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wilson Doctrine is a ban on the tapping of UK MPs' and Peers' (but not members of devolved legislatures) telephones introduced in 1966 and named after Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister who established the rule.

He gave MPs a pledge that their phones would not be tapped and subsequent prime ministers have regularly confirmed it remains in place. However the pledge was qualified in two respects, as the Intelligence and Security Committee made clear in their 2005-06 Annual Report:

'In 1966 the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, gave instructions that there was to be no interception of telephones belonging to Members of Parliament, and that if there were a development which required a change of this policy he would, at such a moment as was compatible with the security of the country, make a statement about it in the House of Commons. This approach, known as the Wilson Doctrine, has been maintained under successive administrations.'

This meant that the Prime Minister could reverse the doctrine in the interests of national security, but that he did not need to reveal the fact to the House of Commons until he felt it safe to do so. In theory this means that the Wilson Doctrine could already have been reversed, with the Prime Minister having decided it was premature to disclose the fact.

In January 2006, Interception of communications commissioner Sir Swinton Thomas had asked the government to reconsider the implications of the doctrine on the regulatory framework established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed he would be considering whether or not the ban should be lifted, in order to comply with the act.

However, in March 2006 - in a written ministerial statement - Tony Blair said that following a period of fresh consultation, the 'Wilson doctrine' will remain in place.

In February 2007, Sir Swinton Thomas again called for the ban to be removed,saying:

It is fundamental to the constitution of this country that no one is above the law or is seen to be above the law. But in this instance, MPs and peers are anything but equal with the rest of the citizens of this country and are above the law"

In September 2007 Prime Minister Gordon Brown reaffirmed the doctrine as "The Wilson Doctrine applies to all forms of interception that are subject to authorisation by Secretary of State warrant."

In February 2008 an incident was reported where MP Sadiq Khan was allegedly bugged whilst talking to a constituent in Woodhill Prison. This appears to have been a face to face conversation and thus, even if it was bugged, that may not have been a literal breach of the Wilson Doctrine.

References

1.ISC Annual Report 2005-06 Cm 6864 June 2006 Para 26.
2.Richard Norton-Taylor (2007-02-20). "Watchdog urges end to ban on MP phone taps". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
3.Gordon Brown, Written Answers for 12 September 2007 - Members: Surveillance, Hansard, 12 Sep 2007 : Column 2103W,



Tobar Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Tobar The doctrine was formulated in 1907 by Carlos Tobar, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ecuador who was appointed to the Nobel Peace Prize in 1909.

It relates to the recognition of the State at international level. Recognition of a State is a unilateral act by which a State recognizes as the effective government of another state.

The doctrine Tobar proposed that any government formed after a coup d'état is confirmed by free elections before being recognized internationally.

His goal was to reduce the threat of revolution and civil war, stressing the need for all governments to act for the establishment of democracy and respect for the rule of law.

She enjoyed some success in Central America up to be incorporated in a treaty of December 20, 1907, between Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador and Ecuador. But it was never recognised outside of the Americas and is not a principle of international law.

The Tobar doctrine has given way to the doctrine Estrada (1930).




Stimson Doctrine


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stimson Doctrine is a policy of the United States federal government, enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932 to Japan and China, of non-recognition of international territorial changes affected by force.

Named after Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of State in the Hoover Administration (1929–1933), the policy followed Japan's unilateral seizure of Manchuria in northeastern China following action by Japanese soldiers at Mukden (now Shenyang), on September 18, 1931.

The principles of this doctrine were also used in the U.S. Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles's declaration of July 23, 1940, on the non-recognition policy of the Soviet annexation and incorporation of three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These principles were still applied until the de facto restoration of independence of these three Baltic nations in August 1991.

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in late 1931 placed U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson in a difficult position. It was evident that appeals to the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand Pact had no impact on either the Chinese or the Japanese, and the secretary was further hampered by President Hoover’s clear indication that he would not support economic sanctions as a means to bring peace in the Far East.

On January 7, 1932, Secretary Stimson sent identical notes to China and Japan that incorporated a diplomatic approach used by earlier secretaries facing crises in the Far East. Later known as the Stimson Doctrine, or sometimes the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine, the notes read in part as follows:

The American Government deems it to be its duty to notify both the Imperial Japanese Government and the Government of the Chinese Republic that it cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor does it intend to recognize any treaty or agreement entered into between those Governments, or agents thereof, which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citizens in China, including those which relate to the sovereignty, the independence, or the territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China, or to the international policy relative to China, commonly known as the open door policy….

Stimson had stated that the United States would not recognize any changes made in China that would curtail American treaty rights in the area and that the "open door" must be maintained. The Japanese, however, were not dissuaded by non-recognition and continued their aggression, confident that the U.S. would not take stronger action because of the heavy economic restrictions of the Depression.

By early 1932, some American newspapers were critical of the secretary’s tepid response to the Manchurian crisis, but many citizens felt that the doctrine’s idealistic, but non-threatening, tone was exactly right. Most Americans were probably far more sympathetic to China, but did not want to provoke Japan. Memories of American losses in foreign war were still fresh.

References

• The Baltic Issue during the Cold War by Vahur Made



Estrada Doctrine
Recognition of states approach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recognition of states approach, also known as the Estrada doctrine, is a development on the earlier recognition of governments approach whereby a government would recognize another governments. This caused political problems following an unconstitutional change in the government of another state.

It is the policy of recognizing states rather than governments. It is an alternative to the method of express recognition, in which an express statement is made according or withholding recognition after each unconstitutional change of government, and tacit recognition in which, only under exceptional circumstances, is a recognition statement made.

It was first enunciated by Mexico's foreign minister Genaro Estrada, in 1930.

References

• Kindred, Hugh M., and Saunders, Phillip M., International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, Seventh Edition (2006), "Chapter Two — International Legal Persons".