Ambiguities of Sovereignty: Morocco, The Hague and the Western Sahara Dispute

Abstract

An analysis of Morocco's claims to the Western Sahara and of the International Court of Justice rulings of 1975 reveals the ambiguities that surround the principle of sovereignty and the futility of claiming neutrality or the high moral ground in settling disputes involving equally sound interpretations of what sovereignty means. Morocco's claims to the Western Sahara are related to an early process of nation-state building that renders untenable any attempt to grant the disputed territory a status different to that of other Moroccan provinces. The Spanish government and European NGOs would have advanced the cause of self-determination of the Sahrawi population more effectively if they had pressed Morocco on democracy, human rights and meaningful regional autonomy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.