Permanent Court of Arbitration
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN AND THE SUDAN PEOPLE'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT/ARMY ON DELIMITING ABYEI AREA BETWEEN: GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN and SUDAN PEOPLE'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT/ARMY COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN 13 FEBRUARY 2009 Table of Contents Volume I Pages 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................1 A. General Overview ................................................................................1 B. Preliminary Remarks ............................................................................3 (i) The Weight of the Documentary Evidence .........................................3 (ii) Assessing Modern Oral Evidence of Historic Events ............................9 (a) The SPLM/A’s Witness Statements Refer to Past Events to Which the Witnesses Cannot Personally Testify ............ 14 (b) The SPLM/A’s Witness Statements Concern Time Periods Which Have No Bearing on the Year 1905 .................................17 (c) The SPLM/A’s Witness Statements Are Vague as to the Specifi c Territory to Which They Refer ...................................... 18 (d) The SPLM/A’s Witness Statements Are Not Corroborated by Contemporaneous Evidence ................................................ 18 (e) The SPLM/A’s Witness Statements Are Provided by Interested Parties ..................................................................19 (iii) The Onus of Proof .......................................................................21 C. The Outline of this Counter-Memorial.................................................... 25 2. The Interpretation of the Formula ........................................................ 27 A. Introduction ......................................................................................27 B. The Temporal Dimension .....................................................................28 C. The Territorial Dimension ....................................................................30 D. The Task of the Tribunal ......................................................................33 3. The Excess of Mandate of the ABC Experts ........................................... 36 A. General Considerations .......................................................................36 (i) The “Estoppel” and “Finality” Arguments ........................................36 (ii) The SPLM/A’s Claims Concerning the Exceptional Character of a Finding of Excess of Mandate and the Burden of Proof ............... 38 (iii) The Special Circumstances of the Case .......................................... 39 i B. Grounds for Excess of Mandate ................................................................. 43 (i) The ABC Experts Decided Ultra Petita ............................................ 45 (a) Answers to Questions Not Submitted: the “Secondary 74Rights” Issue ..................................................................... 47 (b) Misinterpretation of the Express Provisions of the 77Mandate ...........................................................................50 (ii) The ABC Experts Decided Infra Petita ............................................ 55 (iii) The ABC Experts Committed Gross Violations of Applicable Procedural Rules .........................................................................68 4. The SPLM/A Claim to a Boundary at 10°35’N ........................................74 A. The SPLM/A Claim.............................................................................. 74 B. The Documentary Evidence of Nogk “Title” in 1905 ................................ 76 (i) The Ngok Foundation Myth: the 18th Century ..................................77 (a) Oral Sources of the Ngok Foundation Myth ................................78 (b) The Scholarly Sources ............................................................79 (c) The SPLM/A’s Selective Use of Sources .....................................82 (ii) The Differential Impact of the Mahdiyya .........................................86 (iii) The Late 19th-Early 20th Centuries (1898-1905) ...............................94 (iv) The Period After the Transfer ...................................................... 107 (a) Post-1905 Boundary Descriptions and Maps ............................ 107 (b) Hallam’s Route Report 1907 and Other Documents .................. 109 (c) Conclusions on the Post-Transfer Period ..................................119 (v) The Inter-War Period ................................................................. 119 (vi) The Period Prior to Independence in 1956 .................................... 128 (vii) Conclusions from the Documentary Evidence ................................ 133 C. Recently-Prepared Evidence of Oral Tradition ....................................... 133 (i) Accuracy of Oral History Generally...............................................135 (ii) The Coming of the Humr/Messeriya .............................................136 (iii) Northerly Extension of Certain Dinka Sections ...............................138 (iv) The Humr/Messeriya as Traders not Cattlemen ..............................138 (v) The So-Called Border at Tebeldiya ...............................................139 (vi) Conclusions on the Oral Evidence ................................................144 ii D. The Expert Evidence .............................................................................. 145 E. The Map Evidence of Tribal Areas ....................................................... 147 (i) SPLM/A Map 12 - “Southern Sudan: Tribes” ..................................148 (ii) The “Ngok Dinka Chiefdoms 1905”: SPLM/A Maps 13-22 ................ 152 F. Conclusions..................................................................................... 156 5. The Boundary Between Kordofan and Bahr el Ghazal Before 1905 and the 1905 Transfer ............................................................... 158 A. Introduction ....................................................................................158 B. The Evidence Showing that the Pre-105 Administrative Boundary Was the Bahr el Arab ........................................................................161 (i) Prior to 1905, the Bahr el Arab Was a Well Known Boundary Between the Arab Tribes to the North and the Dinka to the South ...................................................................................... 163 (ii) The Bahr el Arab Was the Provincial Boundary Between Kordofan and Bahr el Ghazal before the 1905 Transfer ................... 170 C. The 1905 Transfer ............................................................................179 D. The Southern Limits to the Transferred Area after 1905 ........................ 189 E. The “Transferred Area” Did Not Include Areas North of the Bahr el Arab ...........................................................................................194 F. Conclusions..................................................................................... 198 Submissions A.S. Macdonald, Mapping Issues Raised by the SPLM/A Memorial, Expert Report Volume II: Documentary Annexes Volume III: Map Atlas Volume IV: Witness Statements iii List of Figures Figure Title Page 1 The Humr and their Land from, Cunnison (1954) 91 2 Tribal Districts, from Collins (1971) 93 3 Wilkinson’s Sketch (1902) 96 4 Percival 1904 route map 103 5 Percival’s Sketch (1904) 105 6 Comyn’s Sketch (1906) 110 7 Hallam route map (1907) 112 8 Homr Dry Season Camps (1908) 114 9 Whittingham Sketch (1910) 116 10 Whittingham Route map (1910) 117 11 Heinekey Route Map (1918) 121 12 Dupuis Route Map (1921) 123 13 Titherington Sketch (1924) 125 14 Grazing Area Map (1933) 126 15 Dinka Tribal Groups, from Lienhardt (1961) 129 16 Humr Migration Routes, from Cunnison (1966) 131 17 Upper Niles Tribal Map (1941) 149 18 Equatorial Tribal Map (1941) 150 19 Kordofan Native Administrations Map (1941) 151 20 Arab Tribes 153 21 Dinka Tribes 154 22 Ngok Tribes 155 iv Chapter 1 Introduction A. General Overview 1. This Counter-Memorial is filed pursuant to agreement reached at the procedural meeting of 24 November 2008, fixing 13 February 2009 as the date for the simultaneous submissions of Counter-Memorials by the Parties. It responds to the contentions of law, fact and myth raised in the SPLM/A Memorial. 2. There are two issues which the Parties have requested the Tribunal to decide. Both issues are set out in Article 2 of the Arbitration Agreement. First, the Tribunal is requested to determine whether or not the ABC Experts exceeded their mandate, which was "to define (i.e., delimit) and demarcate the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905." Second, in the event the Tribunal determines that the Experts did exceed their mandate, the Tribunal shall proceed to define and delimit on a map the boundaries of the same chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905 based on the submissions of the Parties. 3. With respect to the first issue, the SPLM/A Memorial contends that (i) the Government of Sudan has no right to appeal because it "prospectively waived" that right in the instruments constituting the ABC, (ii) the Experts in any event did not exceed their mandate, and (iii) the Government of Sudan's claim of excess of mandate must be subject to "the most demanding standards of proof." 4. All three arguments are fundamentally misplaced. The first