thanx david
great questions all
but in view of the deafening silence
i guess listmembers who could answer you most sensibly are saving up their best follies for april & the sovereignty sos conference
man i wish i could be a fly on the wall at track 1 on april first
& then hop over to track 3 for the rest
but about your link
i dont know if i prefer ambazania more than ambazonia for southern cameroons
so ambivalence may be in order on this zany name for a zone that could go either way
but the only village of the excised portion of nigeria i could positively locate
dorofi by name
is in fact very near the tripoint of nigeria with ambazania & the rest of cameroun
so if self determination ever got a hold of it & its neighborhood
it might fall naturally enough in any of 3 directions
but this entire cameroun nigeria frontier zone has long been a sovereign & jurisdictional mess
so it is also a question of exactly which version of uti possidetis you may prefer to believe
if you do think territorial integrity more determinative than self determination
anyway
no surprise but i cant answer any of your questions about what happens to people who dont self determine
i did hear from a highly respected listmember on this topic tho
who wisely counsels
everywhere & always
negotiate negotiate negotiate
as i understand him
sooner than going to say court or war anyway
& thus i think he puts his finger on the very pathway to self determination
an exceedingly determined even if seemingly endless negotiation
--- On Mon, 1/5/09, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] on self determination was Re: Is total Delimitation and Demarcation desireable?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 5:37 PM
Message
This post
raises interesting questions. The inhabitants moved from Nigeria to
Cameroun without consultation are also becoming a linguistic minority, For
an overview of the perceived marginalization of the Anglophone Camerounian
citizens of the former British Southern Cameroon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cameroons.
But I wonder
about losing their nationality. Are these people really ipso
facto deprived of Nigerian citizenship? If they have Nigerian
passports (which of course most of them don't have, but still) are these
cancelled? Is it lawful to deprive people of citizenship, whatever happens
to the territory where they happen to live? Would a resident of a
transferred area not have, at a minimum as a matter of law, continuing Nigerian
citizenship, the right to change to Camerounian citizenship but only if s/he
wants to, and the right to remain in what has become Cameroun even if s/he
elected to remain a Nigerian citizen? Can you have your citizenship
changed without your consent? Can a Nigerian become a deportable alien
without moving from where s/he has always been? I would be
interested to hear the views of listmembers on this admittedly narrow
issue.
David
Phillips
San
Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From: International
boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:35
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: on self
determination was Re: Is total Delimitation and Demarcation
desireable?
gbenga said here on 14 december about self determination
Of
course it is never funny when it comes too close to home and I
would wish that Nigeria will never break up and defend it with "all my
might" as the 'national pledge' (I recited every schoolday) goes
and God forbid it but hey no one knows the future. and there is no
shortage of candidates for this phenomenon.
& in todays
guardian this report & editorial
opinion
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article01/indexn2_html?pdate=050109&ptitle=Ceding
Taraba communities to Cameroun
Ceding Taraba communities to Cameroun
THE recent ceding
of three communities in Taraba State to Cameroun is understandably
generating concerns similar to the situation in August 2007 when the
long-disputed Bakassi Peninsula was handed over to Cameroun by the
Nigerian authorities. The dust raised by that event has not yet settled.
The latest action, like the Bakassi episode,
is raising questions about the welfare of the people and communities
involved. According to one Alhaji Bashir Usman, a Taraba community
elder, his people have been part and parcel of Nigeria for decades and
should not be compelled to join a different country without dialogue or
agreement. Not involving the people in the decision to hand them over to
another country would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights
as citizens of Nigeria.
But citing a 2002 ruling by the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) that was in favour of Cameroun, the Taraba State
Boundary Commissioner, Philemon Saredau said the ceding "was in line
with the 2002 World Court judgment...which gave the right to Cameroun to
possess parts of the communities". And, in the same ruling, some
communities on the Camerounian side of the border were ceded to Nigeria.
While the ICJ ruling might appear to be
balanced going by the apparent give and take arrangement, and the
realignment of boundaries between Nigeria and Cameroun, it should be
appreciated that on both sides, the feelings of human beings and
communities with emotional attachment to ancestral roots in Nigeria and
Cameroun are involved.
We note that, while the affected Nigerian
communities are reluctant to be transferred to Cameroun, the Camerounian
communities are apparently happy to become part of Nigeria. What is on
display is the people's right to choose where they want to
belong.
The Taraba State Commissioner in charge of
Boundary issues has explained that, "government created the much-needed
awareness campaign for residents of the affected communities". We hope
that this is true. The three affected communities are Kan-Iyaka, Tamiya
and Dorofi, all in Sardauna Local Government Council. The second phase
of the ceding exercise would also see Nigeria losing parts of Takum and
Kurmi councils to Cameroun.
The World Court judgment that ceded Bakassi
Peninsula also realigned the common boundary between Nigeria and
Cameroun. That judgment was based on an earlier 20th century colonial
agreement between Britain and Germany. Many have faulted the ruling as
it failed to take cognisance of later developments during the colonial
administration.
In readjusting the boundary, some communities
on either side may face the reality of being relocated from their
ancestral lands and handed over to another country with the consequence
of losing their ancestral heritage and changing their nationality. It is
doubtful if this is the real intention of the World Court ruling. The
discontent arising from the unexpected displacement of indigenous
peoples could be avoided if the authorities of both countries made
adequate arrangements for their citizens.
In this regard, rather than forcing villagers
to change nationality against their wish, Nigeria should plan for a
relocation of the affected communities to new towns as was done during
the construction of the Kainji Dam. Communities affected by the dam
project were relocated to New Bussa. The same measure should be applied
for boundary communities affected by border realignment instead of
disowning them as it were.
Nigeria has a duty to protect her citizens'
interests especially when they are faced with circumstances beyond their
control. The Taraba communities should not be subjected to any undue
stress. The federal and state governments should join hands to relocate
and cater for them accordingly.
It is regrettable that indigenes of the
Bakassi Peninsula who were displaced in the wake of the handing over of
the area to Cameroun have not been properly settled. Government has been
playing unnecessary politics with the welfare of the people. The
measures taken so far have been inadequate. Government should expedite
action in providing necessary infrastructure in New Bakassi, which is
being established for the returnees, in Akwa Ibom State.
In the case of the Taraba communities,
government should act expeditiously. As border realignment appears to be
a recurrent issue in view of our colonial heritage, government should
have a blueprint for dealing with it whenever it arises. There should be
a systematic way of handling associated problems in the interest of
Nigerian citizens.
The lesson in all of this is that in the
future, Nigeria should make haste slowly in agreeing to cede Nigerian
communities to its neighbours. Faced with such circumstances, government
should explore diplomatic options or seek arbitration in a different way
in order not to jeopardise the country's interests.
these data appear to suggest
global
boundary justice & state government practice may very well be
continuing to make new determinations for people even while disallowing
people to make new determinations for themselves
& that
the supposedly unstoppable tide of self determination may in fact not
yet have even turned
happy new year all
ak md
the
original context in full below
Dear Friends
Self determination is unstoppable in practice. Governments and
majority groups try to slow it down but it progresses non the less
steadily in all places. A common trick of undergraduate and
graduate students in their international law essays in the late 80s was
to beef up their presentation by attaching an
Appendix consisting of the list of UN members copied from the UN
Yearbook. I regret to announce that yours truly partook in this
interesting yet futile strategy. One good thing came from the practice
though . It allowed me to notice in real time the enlargement of
the list of independent states. By 1989 I think the list was 145 or
so by the end of 1991 it had shot up by over 25 states ant last
check on the CIA world fact book it was 195 states.
Thus we can theorise as much as we want. the trend is
unrelenting and I support the trend. Of course it is never funny
when it comes too close to home and I would wish that Nigeria will
never breakup and defend it with "all my might" as the 'national
pledge' (I recited every schoolday) goes and God forbid it but hey
no one knows the future. and there is no shortage of candidates for this
phenomenon. In the UK strains are occurring in Scotland and
Northern Ireland. Even Wales is making a few noises. I understand at
least from anecdotal sources that the American authorities still keep
a close eye on the eleven Confederate Southern States that
had declared their secession from the
U.S. No one is safe. China? Basque of
Spain?
I do think the
important thing is to prepare strategies that will prevent
bloodshed because it is not beyond our capacities as the human race
to think and solve problems. We should be looking at the route
of the erstwhile Czechoslovakia and other such 'peaceful'
examples. But I know that this view is not popular at all and asking
academics particularly lawyers to look at things is this way is not only
unfashionable but perhaps even unwanted. Perhaps our friend
Aletheia may have a rhyme that fits the
disappearance of the lawyer that preached the doctrine of more
new states :-)
Best
Regards
Gbenga
----- Original
Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, December 14,
2008 9:25 pm
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: aha very clever
To:
[log in to unmask]
> This discussion has
highlighted for me the moral difficulties of
>
takingany position beyond the equities of an individual
>
case. Naturally we
> have to root for
self-determination. But we also have to
> root for
not
> starting civil wars, especially hopeless ones.
Somaliland,
> because of
> the extremes of that situation,
is too easy a case. Sri
> Lanka is a
> better
exemplar of a hard case, especially as it is not a failed state
>
and has tried to be a civilized place. We have to be for
>
self-determination for the Tamil population, but we also have to
be
> against their waging a war against the majority opposed to
> partitioningtheir country. So where does that leave
> us?
>
> To "relax and let things
happen" is tempting, since they will happen
> anyway, but the
things that then happen are often so horrifying
> that
(as
> in Bosnia) we soon wish we had interfered. But when we
> interfere (which
> it is always very hard to get
agreement to do until it is too
> late) we
> often make
things worse, or at least stop things indefinitely from
> getting
any better. In a way it is almost fortunate that
> we (most
of
> the members of this mailgroup) have no control over what
> happens, almost
> anywhere, even in our home
countries. That at least
> relieves us of
> moral
responsibility for the result when our recommendations are
>
ignored. Philosophers should be kings, of course -- they
>
could hardly
> do worse than the actual kings. But until
then we are free
> to root both
> for peace and for
self-determination at the same time. If
> we had
the
> power we as philosophers know we really deserve, then we
would
> have to
> choose. And whatever we chose would
be at least partially
> wrong.
>
> David
Phillips
> San Francisco
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: International boundaries discussion
list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
aletheia kallos
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:22 AM
>
To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: aha very
clever
>
>
>
> several great observations
& questions there
>
> i would say the right of
secession is as inherent & universal as the
> right of
union
>
> & that doesnt mean people who assert these
rights dont have to
> be very
> careful about it
>
> indeed we all have to be very careful & deliberate &
adhoc about
> everything political
>
> for there are
all sorts of pitfalls landmines snags applecarts
> resistances etc
at every turn
>
> & yes
> some fragmentation of
states & perhaps of many states
> is a most probable outcome
>
> but that is happening anyway
>
> &
recombination of some fragments is a very probable secondary
outcome
>
> in fact many secessions would likely be with a
view to recombination
> rather than isolation or
atomization
>
> & the size of the seceding unit is
naturally limited by many factors
> anyway
>
> &
all things being equal
> the majority in each locality would tend
to rule anyway
>
> so it is not as if gradually
subordinating territorial integrity
> to the
> greater
integrity of self determination really presents any new
>
practical challenges
>
> indeed it appears
> self
determination already tends to happen naturally in every way
>
everywhere except when disallowed
>
> & no surprise
really to find it is the underlying way of the world
>
> so
perhaps it is just a matter of relaxing & letting it happen
>
> --- On Sat, 12/13/08, [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: aha very
clever
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday,
December 13, 2008, 7:27 PM
>
>
> The UN was behind
Somalia but not behind augmented Somalia. What
> happened was that
during the war the Italians conquered British
> Somaliland
briefly, but then the British took it back and conquered
> Italian
Somaliland. The British held the Italian part
> until 1949
or so,
> when it was returned to the Italians (!) under UN
> trusteeship. When
> that trusteeship terminated in
1960 and the country became
> Somalia under
> UN auspices,
the British part, independent for a few days only, joined
>
Somalia after a referendum. So the marriage of the two
>
states was not
> UN-sponsored. But as the whole thing took
place within a
> few days,
> everyone (Italians, Brits, UN,
local populations) must have
> known what
> was going to
happen, and agreed to it. I think I have that
>
right.
> But you put your finger on the real problem.
People should
> be allowed
> to secede, but if everyone has
the right to secede, then (1)
> states are
> atomized, and
(2) secession is bound to be forcibly
> resisted. How
large
> a local majority should you have to be in order to
secede?
> Could I
> secede my house from the United
States? How about my local
> neighborhood? Or San
Francisco (it has been suggested more
> than once)?
> How
about all of California? We in the USA had a very
>
unpleasant war
> about that question once upon a time.
>
> But when the state from which a local majority wishes to
secede
> is a
> fiction, and secession is fait accompli, as
in Somaliland, then
> it seems
> foolish and harmful of the
international community to regard the
> fictional state as real
and the real state as fictional.
> Still the
>
question presents complexities. Recognizing Somaliland
>
would harm no
> one. But recognizing Kurdistan in the north
of Iraq,
> despite the
> equities of doing so, could set
off numerous local wars.
> Examples could
> be
multiplied. This is why is seems best to approach these
>
issues on an
> ad hoc basis, rather than erect a general principle
that any local
> majority can secede at will, attractive though
that principle
> seems in
> the abstract. But it
should be allowed perhaps more than
> it is now.
>
> A shipping protectorate in Somalia is only necessary
because of
> anarchythere. A protectorate like that would
be better
> than what we have now.
> If the Islamic Courts
regime had been allowed to survive in Somalia,
> pirates might not
now infest the place and make the Suez Canal
> close to
>
unusable. I find it really hard to understand why the
>
navies of the
> world feel they cannot intervene forcefully and
directly to suppress
> piracy, as used to be done routinely back
to the days of Pompey.
>
> David Phillips
>
People's Republic of San Francisco
>
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: International boundaries
discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of aletheia kallos
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:03
PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: aha
very clever
>
>
>
> well i didnt realize the
united nations was behind the marriage of
> somaliland to
somalia
>
> could you perhaps be thinking of the unga
arranged marriage of eritrea
> to ethiopia instead
>
> not that that one was any better
> nor much different
really in its outcome
>
> but anyway
> it shouldnt
matter who mismatched or mismarried you
> if all you want is a
divorce or annulment
>
> &
> it may already be
too late now for any more international protectorate
> over
somalia
>
> indeed the 17year protectorate led by the usa
& african union &
> ethiopia
> such as it was in
all its fits & starts
> appears to be pulling up stakes one
last time as we speak
> soon to be replaced again it seems by the
local resurgence
> which at least is bound to check the pirates by
islamic law as before
>
> some fresh takes
>
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/12/12/floundering-somali-govt-nears-
>
collapse/
>
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/-/1066/501798/-/13t5j9kz/-/
>
http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20081211_geopolitical_diary_s
>
ignificance_pirates
>
> & how ironic that the new level
of protection would be just an onshore
> shipping
protectorate
> or an international license to hunt pirates &
or insurgents with
> dronescommandos etc
>
> a sort
of supersized gaza in which everyone who wishes may play
> the
part
> of israel
>
> & i am not saying brute
force is necessarily ineffective in
> accomplishing its
ends
> tho it often is
> but am only surmising that it might
not actually redound to
> anyones true
> benefit even when
it is effective
>
> for the question was about benefit
rather than effectiveness
>
> & we know violence is
destructive all right
> but there is no evidence that it is ever
directly creative
> beyond producing the holes in which new growth
& new flow might
> subsequently emerge & proceed
>
> but it seems to me
> unilateral secession by a local
majority should be as
> fundamental a
> right & almost
as easy an act as political union
> everywhere
> & no
matter how that union came to be
>
> one should not have to
demonstrate
> by dint of force or reason
> how exceptional
& specially deserving one is
> to simply maintain ones
sovereign divinity & divine sovereignty
>
> the whole
notion of sovereignty began with the assertion of the divine
>
right of kings
>
> but sovereignty really begins & ends
with the divinity of all people
>
> it should be
interesting to see the ibru evolution on all this
> as the april
fools sovereignty symposium approaches
>
> --- On Sat,
12/13/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> From: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: aha very clever
>
To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
[log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008,
11:47 AM
>
>
> You are right and maybe right
again.
>
>
It is hard to reply to you with normal paragraphing.
> And indeed
why try?
> This is very liberating.
> I may use it in all my
correspondence.
>
> The Somaliland case is a particularly easy one
> because
Somalia itself was set up by the UN.
> What the UN giveth,
> the UN can take away.
> Maybe.
>
> We need an
international protectorate over Somalia.
> That would be
relatively easy to proclaim
> in the Security Council
> if
no one vetoed it,
> but hard to establish on the ground.
>
Proclaiming it would be enough, though,
> for the UN as de jure
protector
> next to proclaim
> Somaliland's
divorce.
>
> Maybe when the pirates snatch a Russian ship
> and a
Chinese ship
> this will take shape in the Security
Council.
> Or maybe it needs a General Assembly
resolution.
> Do I know these things?
> What am I, a
philosopher?
>
> That's the punch line to an old joke.
>
> Your verse
form is not as easy as it looks.
> My lines are too short.
>
But it feels great to write.
>
> Perhaps the
powers are right, though,
> to keep this remedy
> for
exceptional cases.
> If things are allowed to flow as they
will
> there will be a lot of people who want things
> to
flow their way
> and don't mind using
> force
> to get
or keep them flowing.
>
> It has taken
centuries to get Europe
> out of that kind of jungle law,
>
and Yugoslavia shows how shallowly
> it is buried.
> East
Timor too.
> The Falklands too.
> Kuwait too.
> And on
> and on.
>
> To allow that
kind of thing
> on a routine basis in Africa
> would be
really dangerous.
> But it should be available
> in special
cases
> like Somaliland
> so people who are trying
>
to establish lawful regimes
> in place of anarchy
> can do
so.
>
>
Amen.
>
>
>
>
-----Original
>
Message-----
>
From:
> International boundaries discussion list
>
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia
kallos
> Sent:
Saturday,
> December 13, 2008 8:25 AM
>
To: INT-
>
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha very clever
>
>
> great thanx
david for so generous a review of such scribblings
>
>
& your reservations & other comments are well taken too
>
> & indeed why not somaliland
> i echo
>
>
that doesnt seem to be a case of postcolonial successor &
possessor
> state uti possidetis at all
> for it would have
been & can still be a blessed event
> to simply restore the
territory & borders of independent postbritish
>
somaliland
>
> rather it seems only to be a case of
ordinary hotel california uti
> possidetis
> the principle
being if you are stuck in a collapsed state of any
>
description
> under the socalled sovereign state system
>
you are stuck with your possession & or its possession of
you
> such that
> you can check out any time you
like
> but you can never leave
> until the dead state that
possesses you can be resurrected
> so the divorce can then be
formalized under mutually acceptable &
> properly civilized
terms
> or
> until one or more of the major powers removes
you forcibly by
> war & or
> hopefully only diplomacy
from your otherwise sacrosanct union
>
> & that is the
socalled sovereign state system & that is its
> international
law
> i think
> so that is perhaps the greatest part of why
not somaliland
>
> &
> to try to answer your
other question also
> it may be that the major powers are actually
benefitted by this
> semblance of stability
> in terms of
economics or security or whatever
> but i believe that may be a
grand illusion
> & that in reality no one is ever actually
benefitted by disallowing
> anyone else
> since things do
seem to work best generally if allowed to flow
> as they
>
will
>
> --- 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:
[log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008,
11:53 PM
>
>
> 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/shel
>
f_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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
continuation may
be found
at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/messages
messages
882 thru 887
inclusive
