ex injuria jus non oritur (law cannot arise from unjust acts)
ex injuria jus non oritur (불법행위로부터 법은 생기지 않는다)
This international-law principle holds that an unlawful act cannot create a new legal right or status. The Baltic states used it to argue that the Soviet annexation of 1940 could not extinguish their legal continuity, so their independence in 1991 was a restoration rather than a secession.
In depth
In international law, the principle is applied to deny lawful title arising from an unlawful occupation or annexation. In the Baltic continuity argument, it was linked to the non-recognition practice of states that rejected the 1940 incorporation, the survival of diplomatic missions in exile, and the continuing relevance of pre-war treaties. It does not mean that decades of de facto rule erase legal and demographic complications, and it stood in tension with ex factis jus oritur. Framing independence as restoration also influenced post-restoration citizenship policies, which generally centered on citizens of the pre-war republics and their descendants.
Sources
- Wikipedia (EN) explains the principle, its contrast with ex factis jus oritur, and its role in non-recognition of Soviet incorporation and the Baltic restoration thesis.
- researchgate.net Peter Van Elsuwege, “State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States,” identifies the principle as the basis for deriving no legal benefit from an illegal annexation.