Dear Gbenga and colleagues,

I always hesitate to say that there are X boundary disputes in a given region. A lot depends on how you define 'dispute', and my feeling is that we often try to lump too many issues into a single category. If two neighbouring states agree on the alignment of 99.9% of their boundary but disagree over which channel in a river delta the last 2km of boundary follows before it reaches the coast, is it really helpful to put that 'dispute' in the same category as a dispute over a significant area of territory such as the Hala'ib Triangle? What if there are five sections of a long boundary which are disputed for different reasons: is that one boundary dispute or five? Is the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary still disputed? It has been delimited and 'demarcated' (although I take issue with the way that term has been used) by a boundary commission which was given authority to make final and binding decisions by the parties, so it's difficult to see a legal basis for a dispute - yet the two countries are clearly not entirely at peace with regard to the line that has been defined for them. At what point does an undelimited maritime boundary in an area where there are clear overlapping jurisdictional entitlements become a disputed maritime boundary? And so on. Counting disputes is an interesting and challenging exercise, but I suspect it raises as many questions as it answers.

The late Sir Ian Brownlie reflected eloquently on the nature of boundary disputes in his introduction to "African Boundaries: A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopedia" (pp13-14) and I think his thoughts are worth reproducing in the context of this discussion. I hope they are helpful.

"As a matter of political fact, as reflected in international law, the concept of a 'dispute' involves certain specific elements. It involves a disagreement between two states on a point of law or fact, which disagreement is normally manifested by the making of a claim or protest. The claim or protest should be expressed by properly authorized agents at the appropriate level and in the appropriate form: in diplomatic exchanges, in applications sent to the Registry of the International Court of Justice, at a session of a diplomatic conference, or at a session of a meeting of an international organization. The claim or position expressed in the form of a protest must be opposed by the other state concerned.

Only a proportion of the situations catalogued by some authors qualify as 'disputes'. That is not the end of the matter, however. The present writer has insisted on a more precise and more technical conception of boundary disputes. One outcome of this is the setting aside of a proportion of issues which are either not concerned with boundaries or do not qualify as disputes. A further outcome would be the inclusion of a large range of issues often involving very restricted points of principle relating to alignments, including the location of tripoints, or to demarcation of boundaries. However, this particular outcome does not justify a lengthy and apparently catastrophic calendar of potential mayhem. The explanation is twofold. First, in the more precise form a dispute does not necessarily involve hot blood, threats to use force and the like. States may and do pursue claims against a background of normal  and even close relations. The journalist and the political scientist tend to see or to try to seek out drama and 'conflict' far too readily and underrate the normal and the undramatic. Secondly, and particularly in relation to issues affecting boundaries, there is the question of scale. In the study which follows many of the disputes and issues referred to involve small areas and restricted technical points. Of course, even small areas may generate heat when questions of rights are in issue and even a small area may allow access to a valuable mineral deposit, but by and large the governments concerned with such issues are likely to show a sense of proportion.

The study of boundaries presented in this volume is systematic. Alignments are studied one by one, each and every one being examined in the same fashion. Naturally, alignments which have given rise to particular difficulties and disputes receive proportionately more attention. None the less, the systematic approach gives a correct general perspective. That is to say: the normal is seen alongside the abnormal. Each alignment is explained, whether or not any 'dispute' has arisen. When map and other items of evidence are considered it is possible to spot anomalies and confusions which involve potential disputes (in the technical sense) but which have not yet done so. Such anomalies are recorded without invoking concepts of 'dispute' or 'conflict'. When such anomalies come to light they are commonly settled by administrative action on the basis of informal agreement between the governments concerned."

Best wishes,

m a r t i n

==============================================
Professor Martin Pratt
Director of Research
International Boundaries Research Unit
Department of Geography
Durham University
Durham DH1 3LE
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)191 334 1964
Fax: +44 (0)191 334 1962
[log in to unmask]
www.durham.ac.uk/ibru
==============================================


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gbenga Oduntan
> Sent: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:20
> To: int-boundaries
> Subject: Number and instances of African boundary and territorial disputes
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The African continent is rumoured to have up to 44 boundary disputes and that is without
> counting the maritime disputes. Apart from anecdotal regurgitation of this number does
> anyone have any specific reference work that contains an up to date discussion of this
> issue. Furthermore in absence of any work on the number of disputes issue, can list
> members report any simmering issues or even refresh our memories about older ones.
> Please no mention of Nigeria -Cameroon. I think everyone is bored about that one and it
> has been resolved 'completely'. Or has it?
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Gbenga