Beyond formalism and uti possidetis The International Court of Justice and boundary disputes in Africa

2021 ◽  
pp. 580-608
Author(s):  
Cosmas Emeziem
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court

Commentary: The International Court of Justice and the Adjudication of Territorial and Boundary Disputes

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.G. Merrills
Keyword(s):  
Major Part ◽  
Political Context ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Adjudication

Territorial and boundary disputes provide a major part of the work of the International Court. The author considers how cases of this kind come to the Court and the issues of jurisdiction and justiciability they represent; explains how, when the Court decides such cases, it establishes the facts and applies the law; and, finally, discusses the question of implementation and the factors which determine the effectiveness of judgments. He concludes that in territorial and boundary cases, as elsewhere, the Court's decisions serve both to resolve specific disputes and to develop the law, while also highlighting the political context of international adjudication.

The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Crook
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Boundary Issues

During 2002, countries from all regions, especially Africa, resorted to the International Court of Justice; only one of the Court's 2002 judgments involved an OECD countiy. The Court's work during the year also shows the continued importance of boundary issues for states and for the Court.The Court again completed a substantial program of work, resolving three cases with final judgments. In February, it triggered substantial controversy by finding that a Belgian court's warrant for the arrest of the then foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“Congo”) violated international law. In October, it resolved a complex of boundary disputes between Cameroon and Nigeria, although by year-end Nigeria had not yet implemented the Court's key requirement—withdrawal from the Bakassi Peninsula. In December, comparing sparse effectivités, it concluded that Malaysia, and not Indonesia, had sovereignty over two small disputed islands.

Private Rights, the Use of Maps, State Responsibility, and Other Issues in the International Court of Justice’s Boundary Jurisprudence: 2000-10

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 177-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Alvarez-Jimenez
Keyword(s):  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Terra Nullius ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
Significant Interest ◽  
State Succession ◽  
New Millennium

SummaryBoundary disputes constitute one of the most delicate issues for states, such that it is not surprising that frontier issues are among the most recurrent before the International Court of Justice (IC J) and have given rise to a rich jurisprudence. This jurisprudence comprises traditional areas: consent in boundary treaties, the principle ofuti possidetis juris, the notion ofeffectivités, and maritime delimitation. However, it also includes other topics that usually receive less attention, but which are nonetheless important to states and sometimes underlie their significant interest in boundary disputes. This article deals with such topics in order to show how the IC J has handled them in its boundary jurisprudence of the first decade of the new millennium. The author discusses IC J decisions addressing types of territory that cannot be appropriated,terra nullius, private rights, state succession, unilateral donations as sources of title to territory, irrelevant criteria in establishing title to territory (particularly historical consolidation), the use of maps, and state responsibility in connection with boundary disputes.

Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and awards of ad hoc arbitration tribunals carry special weight in international maritime boundary law. On its face, the international maritime boundary law codified in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is indeterminate. For the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the legal obligation of coastal states is to delimit the boundary “by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.” The article on the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the territorial sea is no more determinative despite the fact that it makes direct references to the equidistant line, special circumstances and historic title. In spite of this indeterminacy, if not because of it, coastal states have found that third-party dispute settlement procedures can effectively resolve maritime boundary delimitation disputes. As a consequence, there are more judgments and awards on maritime boundary disputes than on any other subject of international law, and this trend is continuing.

Territorial Disputes and Their Resolution in the Recent Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
HUGH THIRLWAY
Keyword(s):  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
Territorial Dispute ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Sovereign Territory ◽  
Straight Lines

AbstractThe workload of the International Court of Justice in recent years has increasingly featured cases of disputes classified either as ‘territorial disputes’ or as ‘boundary disputes’, or otherwise involving the Court in considerations of the law relating to acquisition or transmission of territory, or to the creation, location and effect of territorial frontiers. The present survey analyzes the contributions to international law of the Court's decisions in these recent cases. Matters examined include the significance of the terms ‘boundary dispute’ or ‘territorial dispute’; the definition of what constitutes sovereign territory; titles andeffectivitésas bases for territorial claims; decolonization and theuti possidetis juris; use of natural features or of straight lines as boundaries; and relations across a frontier once established.

scholarly journals Man, Land and Sea: Local Populations in Territorial and Maritime Disputes before the International Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-53
Author(s):  
Yusra Suedi
Keyword(s):  
Potential Role ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Local Populations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The International Court of Justice routinely resolves territorial and maritime boundary disputes between States. Such disputes often carry repercussions for the lives and livelihoods of local populations living on the territories of the State litigants. This analysis seeks to examine the extent to which State litigants’ concerns for the impact of maritime disputes or territorial disputes on their local populations are factored into the Court’s decision-making process. It also seeks to identify reasons for the Court’s approach in such disputes, and to explore the potential role of the principle of equity in such contexts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document