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 REJOINDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN 28 FEBRUARY 2009 Table of Contents Volume I Pages 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 2. The Meaning of the Substantive Formula ............................................... 3 A. The Temporal Significance of the Formula's Reference to the 1905 Transfer .................................................................................... 3 B. The Significance in the Formula of the Reference to the "Area" that Was Transferred .......................................................................... 6 C. The Extraneous Character of the SPLM/A's Other Arguments Relating to the Formula ...................................................................... 11 D. Final Remarks ................................................................................... 16 3. Excess of Mandate ................................................................................ 18 A. Introduction ...................................................................................... 18 B. General Considerations ....................................................................... 18 (i) The Frivolous Argument Based on Waiver ....................................... 19 (ii) The Character of the ABC Proceedings ........................................... 22 (iii) The Admissible Grounds for a Claim of an Excess of Mandate .................................................................................... 25 C. Gross Breaches of Applicable Procedural Rules ....................................... 32 (i) Gross Breaches of Applicable Procedural Rules Constitute an Excess of Mandate ...................................................................... 32 (ii) The ABC Experts Have Violated Fundamental Procedural Rules ........................................................................................ 38 (a) Khartoum Secret Meetings ...................................................... 39 (b) The Millington E-mail ............................................................. 47 (c) Absence of Any Attempt to Reach a Consensus .......................... 49 D. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of the Substantial Mandate ............... 56 (i) Use of Manifestly Inadmissible Justifications ................................... 57 (a) Failure to State Reasons ......................................................... 57 (b) Failure to Decide According to the Applicable Rules .................... 61 i (ii) Decisions Ultra Petita .................................................................. 70 (iii) Decisions Infra Petita .................................................................. 75 4. The Area Transferred in 1905 ............................................................... 81 A. Introduction ...................................................................................... 81 B. The 1905 Transfer Documents ............................................................. 83 (i) The Relevant Texts ..................................................................... 83 (ii) Wingate's Position ....................................................................... 91 C. The Identity of the Bahr el Arab ........................................................... 93 (i) Assessing the Evidence from the Contemporary Reports ................... 93 (ii) The Chronology of the Relevant Accounts ....................................... 95 (a) Saunders: 1900 .................................................................... 95 (b) Mahon: 1901-1903 ................................................................ 95 (c) Wilkinson: 1902 .................................................................... 95 (d) Percival: 1904 ...................................................................... 97 (e) Comyn: 1905 ....................................................................... 98 (f) Bayldon and Walsh: 1904-1905 ............................................... 99 D. Further Evidence Relating to the Transferred Area ................................ 103 E. The Relevance of the Kordofan-Bahr el Ghazal Provincial Boundary ....................................................................................... 104 (i) The Provincial Boundary Before the Transfer and as Changed in 1905 Because of the Transfer ..................................... 104 (ii) The Boundary after the Transfer ................................................. 116 F. Conclusions .................................................................................... 118 5. Where the Ngok Were in 1905 ............................................................ 120 A. The Claims of the Parties on Ngok Location ......................................... 120 B. Contemporary Evidence of Ngok Location Annexed to the SPLM/A Counter-Memorial ............................................................................ 122 (i) Contemporary Official Reports .................................................... 122 (ii) Subsequent Writings ................................................................. 130 (iii) The Mapping Evidence ............................................................... 136 ii (iv) Conclusions ............................................................................. 136 C. Other Relevant Issues ...................................................................... 136 (i) 18th-19th Century Accounts of the Region and their Utility ............... 136 (ii) How Many Ngok Were There in 1905? .......................................... 137 (iii) Official Ignorance of Ngok Northern Settlements ........................... 141 (iv) The "Centrality" of Abyei Town ................................................... 146 (a) Documentary Sources .......................................................... 146 (b) Modern Oral Evidence .......................................................... 150 (c) Conclusion ......................................................................... 152 D. Irrelevant Issues Raised in the SPLM/A "Counter-Memorial" ................... 153 (i) The Bahr el Arab as a Barrier ...................................................... 153 (ii) The Physical Geography of the Bahr Region .................................. 155 E. Conclusions .................................................................................... 159 Submissions Appendix I: A.S. Macdonald, Response to Cartographic Issues Raised in the SPLM/A Reply Memorial Appendix II: The Community Mapping Expert Report Appendix III: A Digest of SPLM/A Exhibits Appendix IV: Additional Pages Omitted from Exhibits Filed by the SPLM/A iii List of Figures Figure Title Following Page 1 Extract of Percival’s Sketch Map (River Kir to Wau) 103 2 Distance to Lake Ambady 123 3 Villages visited by British officials 130 4 K.M. Barbour’s map (1961) 157 5 J.H.G. Lebon’s map (1965) 157 iv Chapter 1 Introduction 1. There are essentially three issues for the Tribunal to decide in this case: (a) what was the ABC mandated to do and on what conditions? (b) did the ABC Experts' exceed that mandate? (c) if so, what was the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905? 2. Underlying all three questions is the issue of the interpretation of the formula "the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905". This is the subject of Chapter 2 of this Rejoinder. 3. Chapter II of the SPLM/A's interminable Counter-Memorial1 spends almost 200 pages on the second question, that of excess of mandate. It is addressed in Chapter 3 of this Rejoinder. 4. If the ABC Experts exceeded their mandate in any respect, the Tribunal has to consider the issue identified in the Abyei Protocol and the Arbitration Agreement de novo, and to reach its own conclusion. Here there are two possibilities. Either the issue concerns an area transferred from one province to another – as the words of the formula ("area… transferred to Kordofan in 1905") clearly indicate. Or these words refer to an area pertaining to the nine chiefdoms in 1905, even if part of that area was already in Kordofan. The identification of the area on the first and, it is submitted, obviously correct and intended meaning, is discussed in Chapter 4 of this Rejoinder. Its identification on the basis of the second meaning, that advocated by the SPLM/A, is discussed in Chapter 5. On either basis the SPLM/A claim to an area of Kordofan up to 10°35'N, as set out in Chapter III of its Counter-Memorial, fails utterly. 5. Attached to this Rejoinder are four appendices. The first is a further expert report by Alastair Macdonald commenting on mapping questions. The second addresses the Community Mapping Report filed with the SPLM/A Counter-Memorial. The third is a table of incomplete citations (by no means exclusive) referred to by the SPLM/A in its Counter- 1 For consistency, the GoS employs the term "Counter-Memorial" in this Rejoinder. The SPLM/A Submission is entitled a Reply. 1 Memorial. The fourth comprises additional pages from sources cited by the SPLM/A in its pleadings which were omitted from the Exhibits annexed thereto.