The Application Uti Possidetis Principle in Africa
https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2016-4-73-81
Abstract
Uti possidetis originating from Roman jus civile which later transformed into a principle of interstate relations dealing with a transformation of former administrative borders into international boundaries of the newly independent states in Latin America was also effectively applied upon decolonisation in Africa in XX century. This article considers the relevant state practice of the African states and the OAU’s position on application of uti possidetis principle. The article also analyses the Burkina Faso vs Mali case which is one of the substantial cases on application of uti possidetis pinciple.
About the Author
F. Mirzayev
MGIMO-University MFA Russia
Russian Federation
Candidate of Juridical Sciences, PhD Leicester, LL. M Nottingham, Doctoral Degree Candidate at the Chair of International Law; Senior Partner of BM Morrison Partners international law firm (London).
Russian Federation
Candidate of Juridical Sciences, PhD Leicester, LL. M Nottingham, Doctoral Degree Candidate at the Chair of International Law; Senior Partner of BM Morrison Partners international law firm (London).
References
1. Dias Van Dunem F. J. , Les Frontiers Africaines (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universite d’Aix-Marseille) 1969. P. P. 252–267.
2. Schulz F. , Classical Roman Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press) 1951. P. 448.
3. Baty T. , Can an Anarchy be a State? // American Journal of International Law № 28 (3). 1934. P. 444-454; Lauterpacht H. , Oppenheim’s International Law (Vol II) (7th edn, London, Longman) 1952. P. 598-599.
4. Sorel J. M. and Mehdi R. , L’Uti Possidetis Entre la Consecration Juridique et la Pratique: Essai de Reactualisation // AFDI №11. 1994. P. 13; Campinos P. , L’Actualite de l’Uti Possidetis / Societe Francaise pour le Droit International, La Frontiere. 1980. P. 95; Alvarez A. , Latin America and International Law // American Journal of International Law №3(2). 1909. P. 269-353; Lalonde S. N. Op. cit. P. 28.
5. Campinos P. Op. cit. P. 95.
6. Colombia v Venezuela Arbitration [1922] // American Journal of International Law № 16. P. 428; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras) [1992] / ICJ Reports. P. 251, 387.
7. Lalonde S. N. Op cit. P. 32.
8. Hensel P. , Allison M. and Khanani A. , Territorial Integrity Treaties and Armed Conflict over Territory / Paper presented at the 2006 Shambaugh Conference ‘Building Synergies: Institutions and Cooperation in World Politics’ / University of Iowa 13 October 2006. URL: http://www. paulhensel. org/Research/cmps09app. pdf.
9. Nelson L. , The Arbitration of Boundary Disputes in Latina America // Nether I L Rev № 20. 1973. P. 268-271; Honduras v Nicaragua [1959] / ICJ Reports 199 (The Arbitral Award of the King of Spain 1906 case).
10. Corten O. , Droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-memes et uti possidetis: deux faces d’une meme medaille? // RBDI № 31. 1998. P. 408.
11. Hasani E. , Uti Possidetis Juris: From Rome to Kosovo // Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 2003. P. 85.
12. Dinh N. Q. , Daillier P. and Pellet A. Op. cit. P. 573
13. Тимченко Л. Д. , Правопреемство государств: Опыт конца XX века. Харьков, Университет Внутренних Дел. 1999. C. 39-40.
14. Burkina Faso v Mali. Op. cit. P. 566-583.
15. Hannum H. , Self-Determination, Yugoslavia, and Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles? // Tran L & Contemp Problems № 3. 1993. P. 57-73.
16. Мирзаев Ф. , Принцип uti possidetis: история зарождения // Московский журнал международного права № 2. 2015. С 56-77.
17. Hasani E. , Uti Possidetis Juris: From Rome to Kosovo // Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 2003. P. 85.
18. Международное право. Под ред. А. Н. Вылегжанина А. Н. (Москва, Юрайт). 2009. С. 171
19. Chime S. , The Organization of African Unity and African Boundaries / Widstrand G. G. (ed), African Boundary Problems (Uppsala, Scandinavian Inst. Of African Studies) 1969. P. 165-197.
20. Shaw M. , Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries. Op. cit. P. 478-492.
21. Shaw M. , Title to Territory in Africa International Legal Issues (Oxford, Clarendon Press) 1986. P. 185-187.
22. Клименко Б. М. Мирное решение территориальных споров. (Москва, Международные отношения). 1982. C. 143.
23. OAU Cairo Declaration 1965 AHG/Res 16(1).
24. Touval S. , The Boundary Politics of Independent Africa (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1972. P. 86.
25. Boutros-Ghali B. , The Addis Ababa Charter // International Conciliation № 546. 1964. P. 1-29.
26. Ibid.
27. Shaw M. , Title to Territory in Africa. Op. cit. P. 185-187; Touval S. Op. cit. P. 86.
28. Klabbers J. and Lefeber R. , Africa: Lost Between Self-Determination and Uti Possidetis / Brolmann C. (ed), Peoples and Minorities in International Law (London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) 1993. P. 37-76.
29. Ibid 57.
30. Shaw M. , International Law. Op. cit. P. 528.
31. The Frontier Dispute case. Op. cit. P. 565-566.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. El Salvador v Honduras. Op. cit. P. 386.
36. Ibid, P. 388.
37. Burkina Faso v. Mali case. Op. cit. P. 568; Naldi G. , Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso and Mali): Uti Possidetis in an African Perspective // ICLQ № 36. 1987. P. 893.
38. Vallat F. , First Report on Succession of States in respect of Treaties // YBILC № I-1, S. 1. 1974. P. 77-80
39. Odentum G. Africa before the International Courts: The Generational gap in International Adjudication and Arbitration // Indian Journal of International Law № 44(4). 2004. Р. 701-748.
40. Burkina Faso v. Mali case. Op. cit. P. 566-583 (ICJ dictum); Shaw M. , Op. cit. P. 478-492.
41. Bloomfield L. P. , Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aquaba. (London, Kluwer Law International). 1957. P. 107-108.
42. Burkina Faso v. Mali case. Op. cit. P. 65, 159. (Individual Opinion of Judge Abi Saab).
43. Ibid
44. Мирзоев Ф. , Принцип uti possidetis в современном международном праве и его применение на постсоветском пространстве: Теория и практика // Право и Политика № 6(54). 2004. С. 43-53
45. Потехин И. , Наследство колониализма в Африке // Международная Жизнь № 3. 1964. C. 30-51.
Review
For citations:
Mirzayev F. The Application Uti Possidetis Principle in Africa. Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016;(4):73-81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2016-4-73-81
Views:
1429
Email this article 