| Popis: |
There is no doubt that, for the past 47 years, Morocco has been the occupying power over most of the territory of Western Sahara. However, a brief analysis of institutional and relational practice shows that, on the one hand, both the main international organisations concerned — the United Nations and the European Union — and the Western powers — the United States, France, etc. — maintain a certain degree of indeterminacy regarding the legal regime that should be applied to Morocco, in accordance with the rules of international law in force, particularly with respect to international humanitarian law. On the other hand, an analysis of the practice shows the lack of response or reaction from the United Nations, the European Union and Western powers to the North African state’s flagrant and prolonged non-compliance with these norms. More specifically, Spain, the former administering power of Western Sahara, takes little interest in Morocco’s compliance with these norms. The Spanish government has even recently stated that it supports the annexationist theses defended by the Moroccan monarchy. Given this situation, Spain’s international law doctrine could adopt a more active and organised role in defending compliance with international law in relation to the Western Sahara conflict, and in general in the development of Spain’s foreign policy as a whole. In short, in defending the validity of rule of law in international relations. This work forms part of the research activities carried out within the framework of the research project, awarded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation, “The respect for human rights and the external activity of Spanish companies: challenges and responses from international law” (PID2019-107311RB-I00); and the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Inter-University for European Studies of the University of Alicante: The European Union and the Mediterranean” (619838-EPP-1-2020-ES-EPPJMO-CoE). |
