Once again, Aletheia, you show yourself to be the most artistic writer on this blog.  It is always a pleasure to read your verse commentaries (as I think of them).
 
Unfortunately it is not an easy matter to discern authoritatively the will of the people in a subdivision of a larger unit which claims to be a "nation-state," because the larger unit will not want to risk losing the vote, and all other states side with the affected state on this, because making uti possidetis into an eternal law lets them keep their maximum power, however minimal that power turns out to be in practice.  That's why, for example, the Kashmir issue was not settled decades ago. 
 
It is especially heartening to see you supporting international recognition of such earnest attempts at civilized conduct as we see in Somaliland.  That the international order prefers, on wholly fictitious grounds, to tie Somaliland to a state in anarchy rather than allow it to succeed on its own (especially as its adherence to Somalia was so recent an event) is pretty outrageous.  Who benefits by that, when the only "government" of Somalia is a few guys cowering in a dusty village behind the soon-to-be-withdrawn guns of the Ethiopian intervenors?  If the world can support the reduction of Yugoslavia into separate parts, and most recently the independence of Kosovo, why not Somaliland?
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha very clever

yes thank you my friend
right wholesome full viable & brave

uti possidetis
or somehow by dog latin uti possidetis juris
is not at all the revered pedigreed hoary & permanent principle of international law it pretends to be
but is a bastard & an upstart
& in fact a totally inappropriate & slapdash application to modern international law
of a
temporary restraining order
of all things
in ancient roman common property law

uti possidetis ita possideatis in full

as you possess so you may continue to possess

but only in order to keep the peace
& only until a proper court of law can permanently decide the true & legal ownership of the disputed object

& that express restriction upon personal ownership
& qualification upon personal ownership
has somehow gotten magically transmogrified
beginning around 1922 in latin america & 1963 in africa
into the supposed axiom behind the purported principle of sovereign territorial integrity
of states

yes it is that ridiculous

i am not making this up

see my favorite border bible prescott & triggs 2008 pp142ff & 245f for starters
if you doubt this reading of the facts at hand

so i would say ok
if thats the way the powers that be have wanted it & continue to want it
no problem at all

but again
in strict keeping with this cockamamie citation of law such as it is
i would not only demur but demand & insist
uti possidetis may again be asserted only to keep the peace
& only until true ownership of the lands in question can be decided by the proper authority in this case also
which is of course
the will of the people living on them
region by region
but also district by district if necessary

yes existing boundaries on all levels should remain sacrosanct
but local secessions & recombinations should be a commonplace within such a regime of international law

it is all there already
written in stone & indeed in latin
with no need for anyone to become a revolutionary

now where was that cat you didnt ask me to bell

--- On Thu, 12/11/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To: "Aletheia Kallos" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 4:26 PM

Dear Aletheia,
Without asking you to bell the cat am I right to understand that you stand for a wholesome discussion about existing boundaries in Africa altogether and for a full discussion about current geographic descriptions as viable states or are you saying uti possidetis is an everlasting truth. Somehow I suspect the earlier for which if I am right you are a brave man indeed.
Regards
Gbenga

----- Original Message -----
From: Aletheia Kallos <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To: [log in to unmask]

> but aha again
> as well as yikes
> & hopefully not in quadruplicate any more either
>
> for even more clever than conflict avoidance in this case would
> be the
> realization that no extended shelf claims are even possible in the
> referenced dispute areas
> of the kuriles & senkakus & takeshima 
> as this handy & probably reliable map also appears to confirm
> http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/mms/landscapes/508_descriptions/shelf_map_image_text.htm
>
> so most likely no puzzle at all here after all barbara
>
>
> & for gbenga et al
> if i might conserve a message by also adding here to the other current
> discussion
> about boundary ultraconservatism in africa
> whether of the purely sentimental or the really proactive variety
> i feel the present drift of international boundary practice is
> already far
> too conservative everywhere on earth for the general well being
> to really be
> served
> but most especially too conservative as applied by africans in africa
>
> the unexamined & sometimes even express assumption is that boundary
> conservatism & boundary conservation
> no matter how inappropriate or ignorant the boundary being conserved
> actually is
> prevents wars & genocides & other miseries
>
> but our actual experience appears to fly directly into the face
> of such a
> lame belief
>
> the fact that places like the congo or sudan or somalia etc dont
> & wont &
> cant be allowed to disintegrate into more natural groupings
> but are artificially sustained in all their dysfunctionality by the
> international system
> led by the usa & other majors
> while functional & sensible places like somaliland or south
> sudan etc go
> begging & hoping & praying for recognition
> is an extra tragedy that africans are inexplicably visiting upon
> themselveseven today
> as if they hadnt yet had enough of the enslavement & other
> exploitationvisited upon them by outsiders
>
> & this appears to happen
> mainly if not exclusively
> because the oas & au have always been so largely comprised of
> thug regimes
> that are simply paranoid on principle about their personal
> security & turf
> that anything novel which might work better or that already
> clearly works
> remains a nonstarter
>
> it is not a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie or not
>
> the solution in my view is simply to elevate the principle of self
> determination above the principle of territorial socalled integrity
> where it rightly belongs
>
> first things first
> & then we will have real integrity
>
> just as the sea follows the land
> so in reality does the land follow the people
>
> & only then would it make any real sense to repair the few technical
> imperfections in the delimitations & densify the demarcations etc
>
> cheers
> ak md
>

Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
Lecturer in International Commercial Law,
Kent Law School,
Eliot College,
University of Kent,
Canterbury,
Kent CT2 7NS, UK.

Phone:
Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817)
Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817
Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831

Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm