Sir, Far from standing “condemned” or sowing “the seeds of renewed war”, the neutral Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary commission, composed of five leading international lawyers with substantial litigation and judicial experience, produced its delimitation report as prescribed by the two states with authority and skill.
Christopher Clapham (letters, Jan 12 and 14) demonstrates a troublesome absence of knowledge about the nature and role of international law. By requiring the commission to decide their boundary dispute strictly on the basis of the pertinent colonial treaties and “applicable international law”, the two states in the Algiers peace agreement were effectively precluding reliance on political and other non-legal factors. Similarly, the express reference to the three relevant colonial treaties governing three distinct sections of the boundary necessitated some differences in the treatment of each section. It is mischievous to suggest that “no effective constraints” were placed on where the commission “chose to place the frontier”.
On the contrary, international law is clear in not permitting the siting of a boundary in the freewheeling manner apparently suggested by Professor Clapham. References to “applicable international law” can mean nothing other than proper adherence to the law.
It is true that the commissioners did not visit the area in question. But this is neither essential nor indeed unusual in such cases, as is amply demonstrated by the considerable experience of the International Court of Justice in analogous situations. However, it is understood that attempts to visit the area were delayed and eventually thwarted by a combination of the consequences of 9/11, weather conditions and the requirement in the Algiers agreement for speed in producing a judgment.
Both sides formally accepted the decision of the commission, before and after its rendering, as final and binding, and it has been repeatedly endorsed by the UN Security Council, which continues to monitor the situation closely. Current problems, which are related to the demarcation part of the commission’s task, do not flow from the valuable work of the commission.
Advertisement
MALCOLM N. SHAW, QC
Professor of International Law
University of Leicester