Editing Territorial integrity (section)

==In a changing world==
The recent (post-World War II) strict application of territorial integrity has given rise to a number of problems and, when faced with reality "on the ground", can be seen as too artificial a construct.<ref>Stuart Elden (University Of Durham) ''[http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/AbstractDetail.cfm?AbstractID=838 Boundaries-in-the-making (Part 1): Critical perspectives on national borders] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060823072756/http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/AbstractDetail.cfm?AbstractID=838 |date=2006-08-23 }}'' paper presented on 4 June 2005 to the [http://www.aag.org/Info/info.html Association of American Geographers] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206180005/http://www.aag.org/Info/info.html |date=2007-02-06 }} 2005 Annual Meeting</ref>

[[File:Caucasus breakaway regions 2008.svg|thumb|Military situation of [[Occupied territories of Georgia|Abkhazia, South Ossetia]] and [[Nagorno-Karabakh]] between 2008 and 2020]]
At the [[2005 World Summit]], the world's nations agreed on a "Responsibility to Protect", allowing a right for humanitarian intervention. It has been argued that this could create a flexible application of concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity, easing the strict adherence and taking into account the ''[[de facto]]'' status of the territory and other factors present on a case by case basis.<ref>[http://www.iciss.ca/menu-en.asp Annan calls for endorsement of Responsibility to Protect] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050910032823/http://www.iciss.ca/menu-en.asp |date=2005-09-10 }}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674]], adopted by the [[United Nations Security Council]] on April 28, 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 [[World Summit Outcome Document]] regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".<ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/e529762befa456f8852571610045ebef!OpenDocument Resolution 1674 (2006)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090223154915/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/e529762befa456f8852571610045ebef%21OpenDocument |date=2009-02-23 }} on the [http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine] website</ref>

However, this responsibility to protect refers only to the ability of external powers to override sovereignty and does not explicitly involve the changing of borders.

The [[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence]] claims that territorial integrity is not violated as far as international law is concerned by declarations of independence in themselves.

Writing on the cross-border institutions created in [[Northern Ireland]] following the [[Good Friday Agreement]], Cathal McCall observes how these configurations constituted a "functional transterritorial model of governance for Northern Ireland based on the principles of interdependence, inclusion and consent" as opposed to the previous "exclusivist territorial political pillars of modern Irish nationalism and Ulster unionism".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McCall |first1=Cathal |title=The Production of Space and the Realignment of Identity in Northern Ireland |journal=Regional & Federal Studies |date=2001 |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=1-24 |doi=10.1080/714004696 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714004696 |access-date=25 February 2024}}, pp.2-3</ref> That is, the exclusivist assumptions of territorial integrity, embodied in [[Irish nationalism]] and [[Ulster unionism]] were blurred by the Agreement's implementation of cross-border decision-making.