 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Right of conquest" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(October 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This articleappears to beslanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective andadd more content related to non-recent events.(July 2019) |
| Property law |
|---|
 |
| Part of thecommon law series |
| Types |
| Acquisition |
| Estates in land |
| Conveyancing |
| Future use control |
| Nonpossessory interest |
| Related topics |
| Othercommon law areas |
Higher category:Law andCommon law |
Theright of conquest was historically aright of ownership to land after immediate possession viaforce of arms. It was recognized as a principle ofinternational law that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath ofWorld War II following the concept ofcrimes against peace introduced in theNuremberg Principles. The interdiction of territorial conquests was confirmed and broadened by theUN Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against theterritorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of theUnited Nations." Nations that have resorted to theuse of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right ofcollective defense.[1]
Proponents state that the right of conquest acknowledges thestatus quo, and that denial of the right is meaningless unless one is able and willing to use military force to deny it.[citation needed] Further, the right was traditionally accepted because the conquering force, being by definition stronger than any lawfully entitled governance which it may have replaced, was, therefore, more likely to secure peace and stability for the people, and so the right of conquest legitimizes the conqueror towards that end.[not verified in body][citation needed]
The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see theScramble for Africa), the devastation ofWorld War I andWorld War II, and the alignment of both theUnited States and theSoviet Union with the principle ofself-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928Kellogg–Briand Pact, the post-1945Nuremberg andTokyo Trials, theUN Charter, and theUN role indecolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle.[citation needed] The UN Charter's guarantees the "territorial integrity" of member states, but enforcement difficulties in the 21st century[2] lead to a contentious debate on possible re-emergence of the right of conquest asinternational law.[3]
Until 1945, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest had to be conducted according to the existinglaws of war. This meant that there had to bemilitary occupation followed by a peace settlement, and there was no reasonable chance of the defeated sovereign regaining the land. While a formalpeace treaty "makes good any defects in title",[4] it was not required. Recognition by the losing party was not a requirement: "the right of acquisition vested by conquest did not depend on the consent of the dispossessed state".[5] However, the alternative wasannexation (part or in whole) which if protested as unlawful, a peace treaty was the only means to legitimize conquest in a time of war. Essentially, conquest itself was a legal act of extinguishing the legal rights of other states without their consent. Under this framework, it is notable that conquest and subsequent occupation outside of war were illegal.[5]
In the post-World War II era, not all wars involving territorial acquisitions ended in apeace treaty. For example, the fighting in theKorean War paused with anarmistice, without any peace treaty covering it. As of 2025, North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea and the United States.[6]
