Sign In

Login

Password

Forgot Password ? Sign Up

Анексија (Serbian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Анексија" in Serbian language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Serbian rank
14web.archive.org
1st place
1st place
10books.google.com
3rd place
2nd place
6doi.org
2nd place
4th place
5un.org
97th place
49th place
2cambridge.org
305th place
325th place
2worldcat.org
5th place
12th place
2reuters.com
49th place
103rd place
2euromaidanpress.com
low place
low place
2archive.org
6th place
5th place
1universitypressscholarship.com
6,703rd place
5,401st place
1semanticscholar.org
11th place
23rd place
1britannica.com
40th place
15th place
1pacific.edu
low place
low place
1wikipedia.org
low place
low place
1ssrn.com
703rd place
799th place
1ohchr.org
1,210th place
2,191st place
1icrc.org
2,421st place
2,008th place
1legislink.org
7,652nd place
low place
1timesofisrael.com
571st place
1,695th place
1csmonitor.com
791st place
1,132nd place
1ansamed.info
low place
low place
1aljazeera.com
268th place
407th place
1dw.com
204th place
221st place
1itar-tass.com
2,565th place
5,710th place
1bbc.com
20th place
51st place
1jcpa.org.il
low place
low place
1jewishvirtuallibrary.org
1,008th place
449th place
1washingtonpost.com
34th place
144th place
1jstor.org
26th place
57th place
1theatlantic.com
228th place
822nd place
1indiatoday.in
94th place
5,438th place
1thediplomat.com
1,382nd place
3,593rd place
1usyd.edu.au
6,328th place
low place
1sjsu.edu
6,511th place
8,932nd place
1aftenposten.no
1,779th place
5,967th place
1bbc.co.uk
8th place
16th place

aftenposten.no

aljazeera.com

ansamed.info

archive.org

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

bbc.com

books.google.com

  • Rothwell et al. 2014, стр. 360: "Annexation is distinct from cession. Instead of a State seeking to relinquish territory, annexation occurs when the acquiring State asserts that it now holds the territory. Annexation will usual follow a military occupation of a territory, when the occupying power decides to cement its physical control by asserting legal title. The annexation of territory is essentially the administrative action associated with conquest. Mere conquest alone is not enough, but rather the conquering State must assert it is now sovereign over the territory concerned. For example, the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945 led to their occupation by the Allies for a number of years, but the States themselves were not absorbed by the Allied Powers part of their respective territories. Examples of annexation in contemporary practice are not common, and are generally viewed as illegal." Rothwell, Donald; Kaye, Stuart; Akhtarkhavari, Afshin; Davis, Ruth (2014). „6.6 Cession and Annexation”. International Law: Cases and Materials with Australian Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-69119-3. 
  • Marcelo G Kohen (2017). „Conquest”. Ур.: Frauke Lachenmann; Rüdiger Wolfrum. The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press. стр. 289. ISBN 978-0-19-878462-3. „Conquest and annexation are not synonymous either. The latter term is used within and outside the context of armed conflicts, to designate a unilateral decision adopted by a State in order to extend its sovereignty over a given territory. In many cases, the effective occupation of a terra nullius was followed by a declaration of annexation, in order to incorporate the territory under the sovereignty of the acquiring State. In the context of armed conflicts, annexation is the case in which the victorious State unilaterally declares that it is henceforth sovereign over the territory having passed under its control as a result of hostilities. This attempt at producing a transfer of sovereignty through the exclusive decision of the victor is not generally recognized as valid, both in classical and in contemporary international law. An example of a case of annexation preceding the adoption of the UN Charter is the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1908. The annexation was not recognized by the major Powers and required a modification of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin which had simply granted Austria-Hungary the right to administer the territory. Another example is the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy in 1936. Examples of purported contemporary annexations are the Golan Heights annexed by Israel in 1980 and Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, both declared null and void by the Security Council, or the incorporation of Crimea and the City of Sebastopol in the Russian Federation.” 
  • Korman, S. (1996). The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. Clarendon Press. стр. 253—254 (also see note 11). ISBN 978-0-19-158380-3. Приступљено 2022-03-09. „However, in an era which has repudiated the 'right of conquest', the term 'annexation' is discreetly avoided by all states effecting acquisitions of territory by force.” 
  • Jennings & Kohen 2017, стр. 80. Jennings, R. Y.; Kohen, Marcelo (1. 4. 2017). The acquisition of territory in international Law with a New Introduction by Marcelo G. Kohen. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-1718-2. 
  • Aust 2010, стр. 36. Aust, Anthony (2010). Handbook of International Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-48578-4. 
  • Jennings & Kohen 2017, стр. 81. Jennings, R. Y.; Kohen, Marcelo (1. 4. 2017). The acquisition of territory in international Law with a New Introduction by Marcelo G. Kohen. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-1718-2. 
  • Romano, Amy (2003). A Historical Atlas of Jordan. The Rosen Publishing Group. стр. 51. ISBN 978-0-8239-3980-0. 
  • Esherick, Joseph; Kayali, Hasan; Van Young, Eric (2006). Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World. стр. 245. ISBN 9780742578159. 
  • Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. стр. 61. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. Архивирано из оригинала 23. 6. 2016. г. „It was evident that the Chinese were not prepared to accept any compromises and that the Tibetans were compelled, under the threat of immediate armed invasion, to sign the Chinese proposal.” 
  • Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (октобар 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. стр. 953, 955. ISBN 978-90-04-17732-1. 

britannica.com

  • „Annexation”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Приступљено 20. 3. 2014. „Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.” 

cambridge.org

csmonitor.com

doi.org

  • Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F.; Balas, Alexandru (2016), „The Development of Territorial Norms and the Norm against Conquest”, The Puzzle of Peace, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-930102-7, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199301027.001.0001 
  • Altman, Dan (2020). „The Evolution of Territorial Conquest After 1945 and the Limits of the Territorial Integrity Norm”. International Organization (на језику: енглески). 74 (3): 490—522. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 226467742. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000119. 
  • Dajani, Omar M. (2017). „Symposium on revisiting Israel's settlements: Israel's creeping annexation”. AJIL Unbound (McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles). Cambridge University Press (CUP). 111: 51—56. ISSN 2398-7723. doi:10.1017/aju.2017.21. „…today’s legal prohibition of conquest creates an incentive for states to obfuscate the reality of annexation that did not exist when such actions were lawful. Excessive formalism, accordingly, seems misplaced when assessing whether a state has manifested an intention to hold a territory “under its dominion” with sufficient clarity to constitute an unlawful annexation. Indeed, state practice offers no shortage of examples in which the international community has looked past a state’s formal characterization of its actions when evaluating their lawfulness for this purpose—most recently in relation to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Accordingly, while a formal act of annexation is powerful evidence of intent, the lack of one is by no means dispositive. What other kinds of acts signal such an intention? As noted above, it may be signaled by a state’s exercise, for a prolonged time, of the kinds of governmental functions typically reserved to a sovereign. An occupant’s refusal to accept the law of occupation’s applicability would seem probative for drawing this conclusion—as would a refusal to comply with duties under that law that relate specifically to distinguishing the rights of an occupant from those of a sovereign.” 
  • McDougall, Carrie (2021). The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-73852-1. doi:10.1017/9781108769143. „Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;” 
  • Lustick, Ian S. (16. 1. 1997). „Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?”. Middle East Policy Council Journal. 5: 34—45. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4967.1997.tb00247.x. 
  • Orna Ben-Naftali; Michael Sfard, Hedi Viterbo (10. 5. 2018). The ABC of the OPT: A Legal Lexicon of the Israeli Control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Cambridge University Press. стр. 411. ISBN 978-1-107-15652-4. doi:10.1017/9781316661376. „"the ICJ concluded that the "route of the Wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine" and generates "the fear that Israel may integrate the settlements and their means of access" in a manner "tantamount to de facto annexation""” 

dw.com

euromaidanpress.com

icrc.org

indiatoday.in

itar-tass.com

en.itar-tass.com

jcpa.org.il

jewishvirtuallibrary.org

jstor.org

daily.jstor.org

legislink.org

ohchr.org

pacific.edu

scholarlycommons.pacific.edu

  • Dajani, Omar M. (2017). „Symposium on revisiting Israel's settlements: Israel's creeping annexation”. AJIL Unbound (McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles). Cambridge University Press (CUP). 111: 51—56. ISSN 2398-7723. doi:10.1017/aju.2017.21. „…today’s legal prohibition of conquest creates an incentive for states to obfuscate the reality of annexation that did not exist when such actions were lawful. Excessive formalism, accordingly, seems misplaced when assessing whether a state has manifested an intention to hold a territory “under its dominion” with sufficient clarity to constitute an unlawful annexation. Indeed, state practice offers no shortage of examples in which the international community has looked past a state’s formal characterization of its actions when evaluating their lawfulness for this purpose—most recently in relation to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Accordingly, while a formal act of annexation is powerful evidence of intent, the lack of one is by no means dispositive. What other kinds of acts signal such an intention? As noted above, it may be signaled by a state’s exercise, for a prolonged time, of the kinds of governmental functions typically reserved to a sovereign. An occupant’s refusal to accept the law of occupation’s applicability would seem probative for drawing this conclusion—as would a refusal to comply with duties under that law that relate specifically to distinguishing the rights of an occupant from those of a sovereign.” 

reuters.com

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

sjsu.edu

ssrn.com

  • Mamlyuk, Boris N. (6. 7. 2015). „The Ukraine Crisis, Cold War II, and International Law”. The German Law Journal. SSRN 2627417 Слободан приступ. 

theatlantic.com

  • „Tibet Through Chinese Eyes”, The Atlantic, 1999, Архивирано из оригинала 19. 5. 2017. г., „In Western opinion, the "Tibet question" is settled: Tibet should not be part of China; before being forcibly annexed, in 1951, it was an independent country.” 

thediplomat.com

timesofisrael.com

un.org

domino.un.org

un.org

unispal.un.org

universitypressscholarship.com

oxford.universitypressscholarship.com

usyd.edu.au

washingtonpost.com

web.archive.org

wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

  • Mamlyuk, Boris N. (6. 7. 2015). „The Ukraine Crisis, Cold War II, and International Law”. The German Law Journal. SSRN 2627417 Слободан приступ. 

worldcat.org

  • Altman, Dan (2020). „The Evolution of Territorial Conquest After 1945 and the Limits of the Territorial Integrity Norm”. International Organization (на језику: енглески). 74 (3): 490—522. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 226467742. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000119. 
  • Dajani, Omar M. (2017). „Symposium on revisiting Israel's settlements: Israel's creeping annexation”. AJIL Unbound (McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles). Cambridge University Press (CUP). 111: 51—56. ISSN 2398-7723. doi:10.1017/aju.2017.21. „…today’s legal prohibition of conquest creates an incentive for states to obfuscate the reality of annexation that did not exist when such actions were lawful. Excessive formalism, accordingly, seems misplaced when assessing whether a state has manifested an intention to hold a territory “under its dominion” with sufficient clarity to constitute an unlawful annexation. Indeed, state practice offers no shortage of examples in which the international community has looked past a state’s formal characterization of its actions when evaluating their lawfulness for this purpose—most recently in relation to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Accordingly, while a formal act of annexation is powerful evidence of intent, the lack of one is by no means dispositive. What other kinds of acts signal such an intention? As noted above, it may be signaled by a state’s exercise, for a prolonged time, of the kinds of governmental functions typically reserved to a sovereign. An occupant’s refusal to accept the law of occupation’s applicability would seem probative for drawing this conclusion—as would a refusal to comply with duties under that law that relate specifically to distinguishing the rights of an occupant from those of a sovereign.”