Expert: Professor Noel Cox - 12/19/2010

Question
QUESTION: Dear Sir, I've been reading some articles over the internet stating that hereditary Dynastic rights can expire by legal presumption without a court rule. Do you agree with that? All of the books about the subject and court verdicts I've read point to the fact that the end of Dynastic Rights can only be achieved by the voluntarily,explicit and peaceful surrender of the claim or by the total extermination of the Royal Family  ("Subbito La Debellatio"), and even there, I can find some monarchs that returned to the throne after peaceful abdication. Do you agree with the application of External Sovereignty International law - as the principle of Prescription (applied only to dispute partial territorial sovereignty) to deposed monarchs (non-territorial "in totum" sovereignty)?

ANSWER: Legal rights can expire without the intervention of a court - the latter is declaratory rather than determinative. Thus the dynastic rights of a Sovereign may potentially end without a court ruling. The surrender of legal rights may also be reversable (generally depending on the domestic legal rules rather than international law). I am at the moment overseas after the funeral of my father, and will respond to your specific question in a few days.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Sir,
I'm very sorry to hear about your father. Please accept my deepest condolences.
When yo have the time, I'd appreciate your reply.
The subject intrigues me once, after talking with several experts, all of them agreed that, a sovereignty dispute only ends with the surrender of the claim by: a treaty, arbitration or adjudication. I agree that the surrender may be reversable. If we consider a deposed monarch as a sovereign (that's also debatable by scholars), he's not affected by any international court on his rights. In my humble understanding, he may forfeit his rights in a declaratory latter domestically by the usurper regime, but other than that there is no known international law that can, without a doubt, be applicable to deposed monarchs. In other words, although the deposed monarch is a subject of international law, the same international law has no competence to govern a domestic, internal and political issue which is a monarch's deposition. And in my humble opinion, it goes beyond, there's no mechanism or authority competent to appraise royal claims once the usurper's judicial system has obvious vested interest in invalidate any royal claim that goes against their own interest.
Thank you very much and once more, please take your time to reply.

Answer
Dear Mr Ricciardi,

One of the difficulties is that we have to distinguish between the principles of international law, and domestic law. Even with respect to international law, the application of the law varies in individual countries - though the principles are supposedly the same. Treaties may be binding, but that presupposes that the signatories have full capacity to enter into treaties, which would be doubtful in the case of a deposed Sovereign.

If you would like to email me directly (noc1@aber.ac.uk) I can get back to you later, without the AllExperts system reminding me that I am late in responding.