Thanks to all that responded to this your comments are very helpful. From the
generality of opinion received it appears Netherlands-Belgium case is the model
success story (complex as it is). However, I would hesitate to recommend this
model to developing states particularly African states which may presently face
similar situations and would rather the parties demarcate the boundary in
question in such a manner as to leave such straddling villages as whole
entities to one state only, if that is possible at all. This position is taken
for obvious reasons that include political instability, military interference
in governance, incessant, long standing and violent ethnic conflicts etc.
Further thoughts and inputs about solving such a scenario in the light of the
above and in todays terms for developing countries would be appreciated
Many thanks
Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
Kent Law School
University of Kent at Canterbury
Quoting Brendan Whyte <[log in to unmask]>:
> Possibly the most complicated case involved the village of Baarle, on
> the
> Belgium-Netherlands frontier.
> Belgium became independent from the Netherlands in 1830 (although not
> recognised by the Netherlands until 1839).
> By treaty, Belgium was to consist of the entirety of several of the
> Dutch
> provinces, plus the described halves of two others (Limburg and
> Luxemburg).
> The village of Baarle belonged partly to the province of Antwerp
> (falling
> to Belgium) and that of North Brabant (remaining Dutch).
> In the early 1840s a boundary commission concluded the impossibility
> of
> drawing a continuous line through/around Baarle due to the village and
> its
> outlying hamlets containing numerous enclaves and counter-enclaves
> (which
> dated back on a feudal level to c.1200)
> In the end the main boundary as described in the treaty ended upon
> reaching
> the edge of the municipal boundary on the east, and resumed from the
> municipal boundary on the west.
> For the intervening land, ie the municipalities of Baarle-Hertog
> (Belgian)
> and Baarle-Nassau) Dutch, a cadastral map was drawn up and all 5732
> land
> parcels were individually ascribed to either Belgium or the Netherlands
> on
> the basis of traditional appurtenances in particular regarding to whom
> they
> had paid their land tax.
>
> The main boundary was not formally delimited until 1974, partly inspired
> by
> a 1959 case before the ICJ who determined that Belgium had sovereignty
> over
> one of the enclaves which the Dutch had contested. The enclaves
> themselves
> were only delimited, to 1cm accuracy, with a turning point every 30m
> on
> average, in 1995.
>
> There are a total of 22 Belgian enclaves, and 8 Dutch enclaves, of which
> 7
> are counter-enclaves within the Belgian ones.
>
> In the past the main disadvantage to the two nations was the ease with
> which smuggling was carried on in the village, as there was freedom of
> transit from Belgium proper to its enclaves, so that the customs
> boundary
> was in effect the communal boundary between Baarle-Nassau and the rest
> of
> the Netherlands. Smuggling survived due to large differences in the
> customs
> regimes in each country.
> After the second world war, the customs and then economic union of
> Benelux
> killed off the smuggling trade, and today the village enjoys the ability
> to
> take advantage of laws in both countries, such as Belgian permission
> for
> Sunday trading, so that the village has a Sunday market which attracts
> many
> Dutch who cannot otherwise shop on that day. Likewise the residents have
> a
> choice of schools, post offices etc. And above all the village is a
> tourist
> attraction for its many enclaves, whose boundaries are now marked on
> the
> ground purely for tourist purposes, and its many houses and shops
> through
> which the international boundary runs. Without the complicated boundary
> the
> village would lose much of its (now legally-obtained) prosperity.
>
> The boundary is this workable and advantageous to the village, and the
> residents are firmly against any "rectification' of the boundary.
>
> Maps of the village and more information can be seen at:
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/baarle.htm
> while a 1962 topographic map of the village shows how the boundary fits
> in
> relation to the houses and roads etc.
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//baarle/baarlemap.html
>
> See also my own article "Bordering on the ridiculous" in The Globe,
> #52,
> 2002 (journal of the Australian Map Circle).
>
> I am happy to provide further information on Baarle if required.
>
>
> Less extreme cases can be seen in several African boundaries where the
> main
> path of the boundary parallel to a road or along a meridian/parallel,
> was
> diverted around villages which otherwise straddled the boundary.
> See especially Benin/Nigeria at 10deg N which has semi-circular offsets
> to
> let Nigeria retain villages along the road the boundary follows, and
> Ghana/Burkina Faso along the 11deg N parallel between 1deg W and the
> Red
> Volta River, where rectangular offsets are used to leave straddling
> villages to either country.
> Maps and descriptions of the boundary treaties can be had in
> Griffiths, Ieuan, 1986, "The Scramble for Africa: inherited political
> boundaries", Geographical Journal, 152(2):204-216, esp pp207-8.
>
> also the Ghana/Burkina boundary can be seen on Russian 1:200,000 map
> C-30-xii available at
> http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/EART/ghana/200k/03-30-12.jpg
>
>
> Likewise the Spanish enclaved village of LLivia in France, just east
> of
> Andorra, retains transhumance/usufruct rights on French pastures and
> forests, and has done since the boundary of the village was formally
> delimited in the mid 1600s.
>
> Thus while a continuous straight line boundary will wreak "grave
> injustices", there are ways around this by either offsetting the
> boundary,
> or by providing for usufruct rights in the other country for village
> residents, or by creating enclaves as necessary to contain the
> homes/workplaces/fields etc of the villagers of one country who end up
> on
> the wrong side of the main boundary.
>
> As long as the boundary is not an impenetrable barrier, any of these
> solutions, or some combination thereof, could work well, as they do in
> the
> above cases.
>
> Brendan Whyte
> University of Melbourne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 01:28 AM 19/09/2003 +0100, O T Oduntan wrote:
> >Does anyone know of a boundary dispute involving straddling villages
> that has
> >been successfully negotiated in the recent past? By their very nature
> would it
> >not be impossible to demarcate these kind of areas without wrecking
> some grave
> >injustices on lives and property?
> >Best Regards
> >Dr Gbenga Oduntan
>
>
> Dr Brendan Whyte
> Development Studies Programme Administrator
> School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies (SAGES)
> University of Melbourne
> Vic 3010
> AUSTRALIA
>
> ph 61-3-8344 6338
> fx 61-3-8344 4972
>
|
