THE CASE of Ethioâ•Fi ERITREA BOUNDARY DISPUTE SETTLEM
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 4-27-2016 ASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF AFRICAN BOUNDARY DELINEATION LAW AND POLICY: THE CASE OF ETHIO– ERITREA BOUNDARY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT Lantera Nadew Anebo Golden Gate University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Anebo, Lantera Nadew, "ASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF AFRICAN BOUNDARY DELINEATION LAW AND POLICY: THE CASE OF ETHIO– ERITREA BOUNDARY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 70. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF AFRICAN BOUNDARY DELINEATION LAW AND POLICY: THE CASE OF ETHIO– ERITREA BOUNDARY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT A dissertation submitted to Golden Gate University School of Law, Department of International Legal Studies, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the conferment of the degree of Scientiae Juridicae Doctor (SJD). BY LANTERA NADEW ANEBO April 27, 2016 San Francisco, California DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 1. Professor (Dr.) Chris Okeke 2. Professor Sophie Clavier 3. Professor Gustave Lele ©2016, Lantera N. Anebo All rights reserved. ii Dedication Dedicated to the memory of my late mother, W/ro Dalbe Kabero, who offered all she had for the success of my education at all levels. iii Acknowledgement At the outset, I would like to praise Lord Jesus Christ who guides me throughout my life and has enabled me to complete this work. Next, heartfelt thank goes to numerous people who supported me in varying degrees for the success of this study. Though it is not possible to mention names of all generous people in this limited page, some deserve express appreciation. I don’t have good words to express my gratitude to Professor (Dr.) Christian Okeke, distinguished Professor of International Law and Director of SJD and LL.M programs in International Legal Studies whose extraordinary intellectual advise and guidance has enriched this study. Professor Okeke has been in touch with me before my admission to the Golden Gate University and built my confidence and future goals. My deepest appreciation also goes to my Graduate Research Committee members, Professor Sophie Clavier and Professor Gustave Lele, who devoted their precious time to read lengthy chapters and forwarded encouraging feedbacks that fueled my energy to work hard and complete this study within the scheduled time framework. I am very grateful to Gold Gate Law Library staff, especially Professor Michael Daw, Professor Mohammed Nasralla, Mrs. Janet Fischer, and Mrs. Jennifer Pesetsky, and others technical staff members whose professional assistance has enriched this work. Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation, love, and indebtedness to my wife W/ro Tereza Boshe, my daughters Tsigereda Nadew, Selamawit Nadew, and my son Temesgen Nadew who have been always in my side in pursuit of this painstaking research work. iv Abstract Africa is poor in the midst of plenty. Though multiple causes and reasons may be claimed for Africa’s shrinking state of development, disruptive effects of colonialism takes forefront. Present-day Africa is literally free but colonial footprints are still apparent in the borderlands. The study pinpoints how natural borderline development was thwarted by the infamous Berlin Conference of 1884 -1885. As result, people, ethnic groups, nations and nationalities have been disintegrated. Ethnic disintegration and arbitrary colonial boundaries lines have been source of unavoidable intra and inter state conflicts in Africa. Ironically, in fear of opening “Pandora’s Box” that would further unlock unmanageable conflict, founding fathers of OAU have decided to abide by the colonial boundaries “whether they are good or bad” in Cairo Resolution of 1964, thereby suppressing Kwame Nkrumah’s vision of forming United Sates of Africa by removing colonial boundary lines. The study argues that Africa has missed the best opportunity that would avoid boundary conflict that constitutes 90% of African interstate conflicts. This study proves deficiencies of the Cairo Declaration of 1964 that has honored colonial boundaries, as boundaries between independent African States taking Ethio-Eritrean boundary as case study. The Ethio-Eritrean boundary meant to be defined by the three successive colonial treaties of 1900, 1902, and 1908 that were concluded between Italy, Ethiopia and Great Britain, but the actual boundary line never been drawn on the ground and cannot be define in accordance with the awkward terms of the treaties. Any attempt for strict application of the elusive treaty wordings exacerbates the complexity, confusion and ultimately fuels up conflict. The study focuses on resolving the current impasse between Ethiopia and Eritrea by drawing an acceptable boundary line through constructive dialogue. A true and acceptable boundary line cannot be drawn simply on the basis of elusive colonial treaties, but through constructive and honest dialogue. Drawing a line of separation is not a goal by itself, but it would perpetuate peace, create good neighborhood, and contribute for rebuilding sense of brotherhood by avoiding animosity and mistrust. Peaceful coexistence, coupled with effects of globalization, therefore, would stimulate economic and political integration that would ultimately remove restraining effects border walls. This will effectuate AU’s Border Program that aims to change the nature of borders from barriers to bridges thereby enable everyone to freely move all over Africa once again. v Acronyms ARDUF: Afar Revolutionary Democratic United Front AU: African Unity AUBP: African Union Border Program BMA: British Military Administration CIA: Central Intelligence Agency CSCE: Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe EEBC: Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission EECC: Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone ELF. Eritrean Liberation Front. EPLF: Eritrean Peoples’ Liberation Front EPRDF: Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front ESAT TV: Ethiopian Satellite Television EU: European Union FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation GA General Assembly HIV: Human Immino Deficiency Virus IBC: International Boundary Commission IBRD: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICJ : International Court of Justice IGAD: Inter Governmental Authority on Development IMF: International Monetary Fund vi LLDC: Land Locked Developing Countries ML : Muslim League OAU: Organization of African Unity PFDJ: Peoples’ Front for Democracy and Justice PSC: Peace and Security Council S.C. : Security Council TLF: Tigray Liberation Front TPLF: Tigray Peoples’ Liberation Front U.N. : United Nations U.S.S.R: United Soviet Socialist Republic UNDP: United Nations Development Program UNMEE: United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia UP: Unionist Party VCLT: Vienna Convention on Law Treaty WTO: World Trade Organization WW: World War vii Table of contents Acknowledgement. …………………………………………………………. i Abstract ……………………………………………………………… ii Acronym ……………………………………………………………… iii – iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………… v - viii 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1. Background…………………………………….………………. 1 - 10 1.2. Statement of Problem…………………………………………… 10 – 16 1.3. Significance of the Study ………………………………………. 16 – 18 1.4. Methodology ……………………………… …………………. 18 1.5. Coverage and Design of Dissertation…………………………… 19 – 22 2. The Creation and Nature of Boundary line ………………… 23 2.1. The Significance and Implications of Boundary …………………… 23 – 35 2.2. The Origin and Nature of Boundary ……………………………… . 35 2.2.1. How Boundary System was created?...................................... 35 - 42 2.3. Terminology and Basic Concepts …………………………………. 42 2.3.1. Boundary, Border, or Frontier: Distinct or Similar? ………. 42 – 45 2.3. 2. Boundary: Meaning, Nature and Scope……………………… 45 – 48 2.3.3. Border ………………………………………………………. 49 – 53 2.3.4. Frontier …………………………………………………….. 53 - 59 2.4. Creation of International Boundary ……………………………….. 60 2.4.1. Brief Overview of Emergence of Borders in Medieval World 60 – 64 2.4.2. Modern Nation State System and Delineated International Boundary……………………………………………… 65 - 67 2.4.3. Globalization and Changing Nature of Border: Is Borderless world Possible or Desirable?............................. 67 – 90 3. International law and Territorial Boundary Delineation Norms………… 91 3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………… 91 – 93 3.2. Territoriality and State Sovereignty………………………………… 93 - 96 3.3. Determining Title to Territory …………………………………….. 96 – 99 3.3.1. Occupation …………………………………………………… 99 - 103 3.3.2. Accretion …………………………………………………….. 103- 104 3.3.3. Cession ……………………………………………………… 104- 106 3.3.4. Conquest (Annexation)……………………………………… 106- 108 viii 3.3.5. Prescription………………………………………………….. 109 3.3.6. Contemporary Approach……………………………………. 109- 116 3.4. The Doctrine of Uti Possidetis ……………………………………. 117 3.4.1. Nature and Origin ………………………………………….. 117- 123 3.4.2. Contribution of the Principle………………… ……………… 123- 126 3.4.3. Limitations of the Principle…………………………………… 126- 132 3.4.4. The Status of Doctrine of Uti Possidetis