DOCSLIB.ORG

Introductory Note to Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship Between Eritrea and Ethiopia by Scott W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introductory Note to Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship Between Eritrea and Ethiopia by Scott W Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law DOI:10.1017/ilm.2019.4 INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO JOINT DECLARATION OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN ERITREA AND ETHIOPIA BY SCOTT W. LYONS* [July 9, 2018] Overview of the Agreement Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki signed a historic agreement on July 9, 2018, in Asmara, Eritrea, ending over two decades of open hostilities and war. The Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship (Joint Declaration)1 marks a fundamental change for the Horn of Africa, with the reconciliation possibly altering the economic and political dynamics of the region. The Joint Declaration resulted from several key devel- opments occurring over a few weeks from June through early July 2018. Ethiopia announced its acceptance of the original Algiers Agreement,2 dated December 12, 2000, which had never been implemented, and its willingness to abide by the 2002 international Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling3 that awarded disputed ter- ritory to Eritrea, including the border town of Badme. Previously, Ethiopia had rejected the ruling and asked for a new ruling. Ethiopia had also previously insisted that relations must be restored before any territorial resolution. President Afwerki agreed to negotiate, after stating for years that Ethiopia had to withdraw its troops from the dis- puted town of Badme first. A few weeks before the signing of the Joint Declaration, the Eritrean foreign minister visited Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, marking the first bilateral meeting between the two since the war began. The Joint Declaration states that the state of war between the two countries has come to an end; that they will work to forge close political, economic, social, cultural, and security cooperation that advances the needs of their popula- tions; that trade, diplomacy, and communication between the two will restart; that the 2002 boundary decision will be implemented; and that both countries will cooperate on regional peace.4 These various agreements mark fun- damental steps toward complete reconciliation. The 2000 Algiers Agreement was the previous attempt at an official end to the recent conflict. That Agreement, besides ending hostilities and repatriating prisoners of war, established two international commissions:5 the Boundary Commis- sion, which issued its ruling in 2002 that was rejected by Ethiopia, and the Claims Commission.6 Each commission com- prised five independent members7 and was designed to resolve the outstanding issues. However, it took until this new Joint Declaration in 2018 for both parties to finally recognize the international decisions and fully end the conflict. Reason for Conflict Eritrea and Ethiopia fought an armed conflict from 1998 to 2000. This followed the original thirty-year internal con- flict fought from 1961 to 1991 to establish Eritrean independence, which resulted in Eritrea forming its own state in 1993. The war beginning in 1998 stemmed from the failure to formally resolve the dispute over the 600-mile (1,000- kilometer) border between Eritrea and Ethiopia and multiple border committees and mediation failing to create a resolved demarcation. Before the 1998–2000 war, the two states originally sought to resolve the border issue by examining colonial treaties between Italy and Ethiopia. However, the two sides could not agree on an interpretation of the colonial treaties. When the mediations failed, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia in May 1998 and quickly declared the war finished, having recaptured the disputed territory. The conflict persisted with Ethiopia retaking all the disputed territory and some of Eritrea’s land, tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians killed between the two sides, extensive prisoners of war, and hun- dreds of thousands of people displaced from the border region. Eritrea was later found by the international commis- sion to have violated international law, as its invasion was not justified under principles of self-defense.8 Both sides were found liable to compensate for extensive damages in the claims process.9 Eritrea accepted the awards, while Ethiopia stated that the awards amount did not match the seriousness of committing the crime of aggression under international law.10 * Senior Lecturer and Africa Regional Program Lead for the Defense Governance and Management Team, Naval Post- graduate School. The views in this article are solely of the author in his personal capacity and do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Defense, any other agency, or the United States. 238 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL MATERIALS [VOL. 58: Since the formal end to the fighting in June 2000, which concluded with the never previously implemented peace deal, there had been continuous tension and intermittent skirmishes between the two neighbors as they coexisted in an in-between status of not formally at war and not at peace for almost two decades. UN Peacekeepers were posted for an extensive period to form a buffer between the two sides, often suffering from interference from Eritrea. However, Ethiopia and Eritrea continued to battle, with the two fighting over the border town of Tsorona as recently as June 2016, resulting in hundreds of claimed deaths.11 Results Since the July 2018 peace agreement, thousands have streamed across the largely open border, reuniting with fam- ilies and conducting cross-border business for the first time in two decades. Embassies were reopened and formal diplomatic relations were re-established. Commercial flights between the two capitals resumed. Ethiopian commer- cial ships began docking at the Eritrean port, a critical step for landlocked Ethiopia, which had sent almost all its foreign trade through the Djiboutian ports since Eritrean independence. Even telephone lines between the two coun- tries were re-established. They had previously been cut due to the ongoing conflict and the completely closed and repressive Eritrean society. The peace agreement and formal end to the conflict was a surprising development after decades of open hostility, and it has the ability to influence greater stability in the Horn of Africa. The hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea had pre- viously impacted Djibouti, one of Ethiopia’s most important economic allies. That alliance had resulted in continuous tension between Eritrea and Djibouti since 2008, and the two states had been in disagreement about their own disputed border at the Dumiera Mountains along the Red Sea, which Eritrean troops had occupied. Just a couple months after the Ethiopian-Eritrean agreement, on September 11, 2018, Eritrea and Djibouti signed an accord ending their border dispute.12 Ethiopia’s military participation in Somalia’s fight against al-Shabab had also been a source of contention, and viewed as destabilizing by Eritrea, but is now likely to be received more positively. Eritrea has been under a UN arms embargo since 2009 due to allegations of support to Somali militants. Eritrean and Ethiopian relations related to Somalia may also improve. The Joint Declaration represents an important step to ending conflict in the region. ENDNOTES 1 Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship Between Eritrea and international law. Article 5 set up a neutral Claims Commission Ethiopia, Eri.-Eth., July 9, 2018, http://www.shabait.com/news/ to arbitrate claims by the two governments against each other local-news/26639-joint-declaration-of-peace-and-friendship- and by nationals of each of the two countries. between-eritrea-and-ethiopia [hereinafter Joint Declaration]. 7 The Boundary Commission consisted of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht 2 Agreement Between the Government of the Federal Demo- (president), Bola Adesumbo Ajibola, Professor W. Michael cratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State Reisman, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, and Sir Arthur Watts. of Eritrea, Eth.-Eri., Dec. 12, 2000, 2138 UNTS 94, UN The Claims Commission consisted of Judge George Aldrich, Doc. S/2000/1183 [hereinafter Algiers Agreement]. This John Crook, Professor Hans van Houette (the president), James agreement followed the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities Paul, and Lucy Reed. Most were important figures in the founding Between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic and history of the American Society of International Law. of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea, Eth.- 8 Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum - Ethiopia’s Claims 1–8 (Eri.- Eri., June 18, 2000, 2138 UNTS 86. Eth.), 2006 ILM 430 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2005). 3 See Decision Regarding Delimitation of the Border Between 9 By August 2009, the Claims Commission had delivered fifteen the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of partial and final awards on liability totaling hundreds of mil- ’ Ethiopia (Eri.-Eth.), 25 INT L ARB.AWARDS 83 (Apr. 13, 2002). lions of dollars to individuals and their respective governments, 4 See Joint Declaration, supra note 1. but had no mechanism to enforce payment and collect funds. 5 See Algiers Agreement, supra note 2. 10 See Matheson, supra note 6. 6 See Michael Matheson, Eritrean-Ethiopian Claims Commission 11 Ethiopia and Eritrea Blame Each Other for Border Clash,BBC Damage Awards,ASILINSIGHTS (Sept. 4, 2009), https://www. NEWS (June 13, 2016), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa- asil.org/insights/volume/13/issue/13/eritrea-ethiopia-claims- 36515503. commission-damage-awards [hereinafter Matheson]. Article 4 12 Horn of Africa: UN Chief Welcomes Djibouti Agreement of the Agreement created a neutral Boundary Commission to Between Eritrea, Ethiopia and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ethiopia-Eritrea Rapprochement : Peace and Stability in the Horn Of
    ETHIOPIA–ERITREA RAPPROCHEMENT: RAPPROCHEMENT: ETHIOPIA–ERITREA THE RECENT RAPPROCHEMENT between Ethiopia and Eritrea has fundamentally reshaped the relation- ship between the two countries. The impact of the resolution of the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict goes beyond the borders of the two countries, and has indeed AFRICA THE HORN OF IN AND STABILITY PEACE brought fundamental change to the region. Full diplo- The Ethiopia-Eritrea matic relations have been restored between Eritrea and Peace and Stability Somalia; and the leaders of Eritrea and Djibouti have met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The central question the Rapprochement in the Horn of Africa book attempts to address is: what factors led to the resolution of a festering conflict? The book explains and analyses the rapprochement, which it argues was made possible by the maturing of objective and sub- jective conditions in Ethiopia and by the trust factor in Eritrea. REDIE BEREKETEAB is a Senior Researcher and Associate Professor in Sociology at the Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala, Sweden. His main field of research is conflict and state building in the Horn of Africa, and the regional economic communities (RECs) and peace building in Africa. REDIE BEREKETEAB ISBN 9789171068491 90000 > Policy Dialogue No. 13 Redie Bereketeab 9 789171 068491 POLICY DIALOGUE No. 13 THE ETHIOPIA-ERITREA RAPPROCHEMENT Peace and Stability in the Horn of Africa Author Redie Bereketeab NORDISKA AFRIKAINSITUTET The Nordic Africa Institute UPPSALA 2019 INDEXING TERMS: Ethiopia Eritrea Foreign relations Regional cooperation Regional integration Dispute settlement Political development Peacebuilding Reconciliation The Ethiopia-Eritrea Rapprochement: Peace and Stability in the Horn of Africa Author: Redie Bereketeab ISBN 978-91-7106-849-1 print ISBN 978-91-7106-850-7 pdf © 2019 The author and the Nordic Africa Institute Layout: Henrik Alfredsson, The Nordic Africa Institute and Marianne Engblom, Ateljé Idé.
    [Show full text]
  • The Binding Dilemma: from Bakassi to Badme - Making States Comply with Territorial Decisions of International Judicial Bodies
    American University International Law Review Volume 19 | Issue 3 Article 4 2003 The indinB g Dilemma: From Bakassi to Badme - Making States Comply with Territorial Decisions of International Judicial Bodies Nejib Jibril Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jibril, Nejib. "The indB ing Dilemma: From Bakassi to Badme - Making States Comply with Territorial Decisions of International Judicial Bodies." American University International Law Review 19, no. 3 (2003): 633-677. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE BINDING DILEMMA: FROM BAKASSI TO BADME - MAKING STATES COMPLY WITH TERRITORIAL DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL BODIES NEJIB JIBRIL IN TRO D U CTION ............................................... 634 I. BA CK GROU N D .............................................. 638 A. THE ETHIO-ERITREAN AND NIGERIA-CAMEROON BORDER DISPUTES AND THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE RESPECTIVE C OU RTS .................................................. 638 1. The Ethio-Eritrean War and the Algiers Peace A greem ent ............................................ 638 2. Nigeria and Cameroon'sBorder Dispute and ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction .............................. 641 B. DIFFERENCE IN FORUM - COURTS OF ARBITRATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ....................... 644 1. Similarities and Differences Between the ICJ and the EE B C ................................................ 644 2. The EEBC's Decision Concerning the Ethiopia-Eritrean Dispute and its Rationale ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Distr.: General 7 April 2016
    United Nations S/2016/326 Security Council Distr.: General 7 April 2016 Original: English Letter dated 6 April 2016 from the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council In reference to the letter dated 7 March 2016 from the Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United Nations, Tekeda Alemu, addressed to the President of the Security Council, please allow me to provide the following clarifications concerning the occupation by Ethiopia of sovereign Eritrean territory, including the town of Badme. It will be recalled that article 4 of the Algiers Peace Agreement of 12 December 2000 provided for the creation of a commission, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, in order to determine the location of the boundary between the two neighbouring countries in a final and binding award. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Algiers Agreement states the following: The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law. The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono. In accordance with that mandate, the Commission completed and delivered its final delimitation award on 13 April 2002 and immediately commenced the process of demarcation. The final and binding demarcation phase was as clearly applicable as the delimitation phase. However, Ethiopia immediately began to obstruct the Commission’s demarcation activities and the placement of pillars on the ground conducted on the basis of the historical delimitation line that the Commission had clearly identified in its award of 13 April 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Eventuality of the 2018 Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Agreement
    Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2021, 9, 11-20 https://www.scirp.org/journal/jss ISSN Online: 2327-5960 ISSN Print: 2327-5952 From Treaty to MOUs: Analysis of the Eventuality of the 2018 Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Agreement Sarah M. Musau Department of Diplomacy and International Affairs, Euclid University, Washington DC, USA How to cite this paper: Musau, S. M. Abstract (2021). From Treaty to MOUs: Analysis of the Eventuality of the 2018 Ethiopia-Eritrea This paper analyses the 2018 Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Agreement, whether it is Peace Agreement. Open Journal of Social a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or a treaty, highlighting factors Sciences, 9, 11-20. leading to the conflict and the peace agreement. It also highlights the pre- https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.95002 vious peace accords and why even after the Agreements, the tensions re- Received: March 22, 2021 main/ed high. Most Peace Agreements are either MOU or Treaty. MOUs are Accepted: May 5, 2021 non-legally binding, while treaties are legally binding. Unfortunately, there is Published: May 8, 2021 no consensus on what constitutes a treaty or memorandum of understanding. Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and However, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties guides on trea- Scientific Research Publishing Inc. ties formulation. This paper deployed in-depth desk review research, text This work is licensed under the Creative analysis and interpretation, and official documents. In its theoretical and me- Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). thodological approach, the paper adopted an interdisciplinary approach to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ understanding the eventuality of the 2018 Peace Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Eritrea – Ethiopia in Peace
    A new Era: Eritrea – Ethiopia in Peace Documentation Compiled by Hans-Ulrich Stauffer Afrika-Komitee Basel, Switzerland August 2018 Contents Introduction 3 Timetable of the developments 4 Ethiopia's PM says ending war, expanding economic links with Eritrea key for 5 regional stability Eritrea – Ethiopia: Once Bitten, Twice Shy 7 President Isaias' Speech on Martyrs Day, June 20, 2018 10 ‘Selam’ at Last! - Eritrea and Ethiopia join in peace after two decades of hostilities 13 Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship between Eritrea and Ethiopia 17 “Yes Peace, No War.” 19 Eritrea and Ethiopia: Recap and Brief Commentary on 21 Recent Developments President Isaias arrives in Addis Ababa 25 Eritrean, Ethiopian leaders call new peace example to Africa 27 President Isaias Afwerki’s Official Visit to Ethiopia 29 A Historic visit reciprocated with Peace and Friendship 30 Eritrean Embassy in Addis Ababa Reopens 33 Peace in the Horn: An Idea Whose Time Has Come 33 Ethiopian Airlines Makes Historic Flight to Eritrea 36 Interview with Former Ethiopian PM Hailemariam Desalgne 38 Eritrea in New Bid to Woo US Investors 41 Statement by Mr. Nebil Said, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Eritrea 43 to the United Nations, During UN Security Council Meeting 8322 New York, 30 July 2018 2 Introduction By Hans-Ulrich Stauffer, Afrika-Komitee, Basel 20 years after the outbreake of war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, 18 years after the armistice and 16 years after the arbitrable judgment, an unforseen development put an end to a period of “no war – no peace”. Both countries and their peoples had suffered for years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission Oversteps Its Boundaries: a Partial Award?
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.4 © EJIL 2006; all rights reserved ........................................................................................... The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission Oversteps Its Boundaries: A Partial Award? Christine Gray* Abstract The recent decision by the Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission on the ius ad bellum claims of Ethiopia – that Eritrea had violated the law on the use of force in starting the 1998– 2000 war between the two states – is a troubling one. It raises questions about the proper role of arbitral tribunals in such cases. There were many factors which suggested that the Commission should have abstained from giving judgment. There was no unequivocal agreement between the parties that the Commission’s jurisdiction extended beyond claims for violations of humanitarian and other international law during the conflict to an examination of responsibility for the start of the war. Moreover, the award is extremely brief, and consequently it deals with controversial issues of the law of self-defence, such as the meaning of armed attack and the duty to report to the Security Council, in a rather limited way. The award also raises important questions about the relationship of an arbitral tribunal to other bodies. In this case, the award of the Claims Commission undermined the Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s 2002 Delimitation Decision, already under challenge by Ethiopia, at a time of increasing tension along the border. 1 Introduction On 19 December 2005 the Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission decided on Ethiopia’s claims that Eritrea had violated the rules of international law on the use of force in its Partial Award on the ius ad bellum claims of Ethiopia.1 This award is extremely brief, but it raises extremely serious issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Nations and International Peacebuilding Strategies During the Eritrean-Ethiopian War
    www.ccsenet.org/jpl Journal of Politics and Law Vol. 4, No. 1; March 2011 Playing Poker with the Rule of Law: The United Nations and International Peacebuilding Strategies during the Eritrean-Ethiopian War Scott Nicholas Romaniuk Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen Aberdeen, AB24 3QY United Kingdom Tel: 44-122-427-2726 E-mail: [email protected] Christopher Douglas Mott School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews College Gate, North Street, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9AJ, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Abstract While the abrupt dissolution of the Soviet Union into its component republics was seen by many as an era de novo, and the essential ingredient for outlawing warfare and widespread conflict, others within the analytic community regarded this turning-point as both an ‘end’ and a ‘beginning’. Though the world had seemingly moved beyond bipolarity, events in many global corridors served as sharp demystification of cataclysmic expectations and suppositions of a new age of international peace and stability. The Cold War was, however, a development of enormity that was congruous with renewed conflict and confrontation, yet it enabled the United Nations (UN) to assume a greater role within the orbit of international affairs, including peace operations and mediation. In spite of its new reach and functions, the UN’s early experience in peace-building as well as security and stabilization operations proved wholly insufficient for resolving conventional conflict between precarious nation-states. It some cases, the role assumed by the UN and its subsidiaries proved injurious to regional peace and security.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagining Peace: Ethiopia- Eritrea Rapprochement
    July-August 2018 Volume 30 Issue 3 Imagining Peace: Ethiopia- Eritrea Rapprochement Contents 1. Editor's Note 2. Eritrea-Ethiopia rapprochement and wider dynamics of regional trade, politics and security 3. Where now for the Horn? 4. The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Peace for Eritrea 5. Back to square one between Eritrea and Ethiopia? 6. Peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia: Voices from the Eritrean Diaspora 7. The Recent Ethiopia-Eritrea Diplomatic Thaw: challenges and prospects 8. The impact of the Peace process in the Horn on the European Union’s policy to curb human trafficking and Slavery: The role of the UAE 1 Editorial information This publication is produced by the Life & Peace Institute (LPI) with support from the Bread for the World, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and Church of Sweden International Department. The donors are not involved in the production and are not responsible for the contents of the publication. Editorial principles The Horn of Africa Bulletin is a regional policy periodical, monitoring and analysing key peace and security issues in the Horn with a view to inform and provide alternative analysis on on-going debates and generate policy dialogue around matters of conflict transformation and peacebuilding. The material published in HAB represents a variety of sources and does not necessarily express the views of the LPI. Comment policy All comments posted are moderated before publication. Feedback and subscriptions For subscription matters, feedback and suggestions contact LPI’s Horn of Africa Regional Programme at [email protected]. For more LPI publications and resources, please visit: www.life-peace.org/resources/ Life & Peace Institute Kungsängsgatan 17 753 22 Uppsala, Sweden ISSN 2002-1666 About Life & Peace Institute Since its formation, LPI has carried out programmes for conflict transformation in a variety of countries, conducted research, and produced numerous publications on nonviolent conflict transformation and the role of religion in conflict and peacebuilding.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roots of Mali's Conflict
    The roots of Mali’s conflict The roots Mali’s of The roots of Mali’s conflict Moving beyond the 2012 crisis CRU Report Grégory Chauzal Thibault van Damme The roots of Mali’s conflict Moving beyond the 2012 crisis Grégory Chauzal Thibault van Damme CRU report March 2015 The Sahel Programme is supported by March 2015 © Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holders. About the authors Grégory Chauzal is a senior research fellow at Clingendael’s Conflict Research Unit. He specialises in Mali/Sahel issues and develops the Maghreb-Sahel Programme for the Institute. Thibault Van Damme works for Clingendael’s Conflict Research Unit as a project assistant for the Maghreb-Sahel Programme. About CRU The Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ is a think tank and diplomatic academy on international affairs. The Conflict Research Unit (CRU) is a specialized team within the Institute, conducting applied, policy-oriented research and developing practical tools that assist national and multilateral governmental and non-governmental organizations in their engagement in fragile and conflict-affected situations. Clingendael Institute P.O. Box 93080 2509 AB The Hague The Netherlands Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.clingendael.nl/ Table of Contents Acknowledgements 6 Executive summary 8 Introduction 10 1. The 2012 crisis: the fissures of a united insurrection 10 2. A coup in the south 12 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: Eritrea and Ethiopia, 2000–2001
    United Nations Arms Embargoes Their Impact on Arms Flows and Target Behaviour Case study: Eritrea and Ethiopia, 2000–2001 Pieter D. Wezeman Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2007 Contents I. Introduction 2 II. Background 2 Arms transfers before the arms embargo 3 III. The arms embargo 4 Arms transfers during the arms embargo 5 IV. Lifting the arms embargo 6 Arms transfers after the arms embargo 6 V. Conclusions 7 Chronology 8 Glossary 8 Register of arms transfers 9 Table 1. Summary of suppliers of major conventional weapons to Eritrea and 4 Ethiopia before the arms embargo Table 2. Summary of suppliers of major conventional weapons to Eritrea and 7 Ethiopia after the arms embargo Table 3. Transfers prior to the UN arms embargo period, 1990–May 2000 9 Table 4. Transfers after the UN arms embargo period, May 2001–2006 11 This is one of a series of case studies on United Nations arms embargoes. Drawing on the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database and other open sources, these case studies ana- lyse arms flows before, during and after a UN arms embargo has been established. These case studies were researched and written by members of the SIPRI Arms Trans- fers Project to inform a report by SIPRI and the Uppsala University Special Program on the Implementation of Targeted Sanctions (SPITS), United Nations Arms Embargoes: Their Impact on Arms Flows and Target Behaviour (SIPRI: Stockholm, 2007). This report and the case studies are available at <http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_ id=356>. The research was carried out between November 2006 and July 2007 and was funded by a special grant from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethiopia and Eritrea: War Or Peace?
    ETHIOPIA AND ERITREA: WAR OR PEACE? 24 September 2003 ICG Africa Report N°68 Nairobi/Brussels TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 II. BEYOND BADME: CAUSES OF THE CONFLICT ................................................. 2 III. 1998-2000: THE CONFLICT AND THE PEACE PROCESS................................... 4 IV. 2000-2003: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ..................................... 5 A. THE DISPUTED BOUNDARY COMMISSION DECISION..............................................................6 B. DIPLOMATIC FALLOUT..........................................................................................................7 C. RISING BORDER TENSIONS....................................................................................................8 V. THE OCTOBER 2003 DECISION POINT ................................................................. 9 VI. A COMPREHENSIVE CONFLICT PREVENTION APPROACH ....................... 12 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 15 APPENDICES A. MAP OF ERITREAN-ETHIOPIAN AREAS OF CONFLICT..........................................................17 B. ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP .......................................................................18 C. ICG REPORTS AND BRIEFING PAPERS.................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement Between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea
    AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ERITREA The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea (the “parties”), REAFFIRMING their acceptance of the Organization of African Unity (“OAU”) Framework Agreement and the Modalities for its Implementation, which have been endorsed by the 35th ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, held in Algiers, Algeria, from 12 to 14 July 1999, RECOMMITTING themselves to the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, signed in Algiers on 18 June 2000, WELCOMING the commitment of the OAU and United Nations, through their endorsement of the Framework Agreement and Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, to work closely with the international community to mobilize resources for the resettlement of displaced persons, as well as rehabilitation and peace building in both countries, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 1. The parties shall permanently terminate military hostilities between themselves. Each party shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the other. 2. The parties shall respect and fully implement the provisions of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities. Article 2 1. In fulfilling their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions relative to the protection of victims of armed conflict (“1949 Geneva Conventions”), and in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the parties shall without delay release and repatriate all prisoners of war. 2. In fulfilling their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the parties shall without delay, release and repatriate or return to their last place of residence all other persons detained as a result of the armed conflict.
    [Show full text]