Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:30:56.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC): Decision Regarding Delimitation of the Border between the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , September 2002 , pp. 1057 - 1134
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the U.N. website (visited September 3, 2002) < http://www.un.org >. The maps are not reproduced in this document. A listing of the maps can be found here:http://www.un.org/NewLinks/eebcarbitration/,specific links have been provided for in the “List of Maps” section

References

Endnotes

1 Order No. 6 of 1952.

2 The part of the 1900 Treaty line that runs from Tomat to Todluc on the Mareb can for all practical purposes be disregarded, because in the 1902 Treaty the reference to that part was dropped and was replaced by the line to the Mareb along the Setit and Maiteb that has already been mentioned. The Commission's task in this sector is limited to identifying the line of the “Mareb-Belesa-Muna.“

3 Argentina/Chile Frontier Case (1966), 38 ILR 10, at p. 89 (1969) (hereinafter “Palena“).

4 Serbian Loam, PCIJ Series A, Nos. 20/21, p. 5, at p. 38 (12 July 1929).

5 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), ICJ Reports 1971, at p. 22.

6 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Merits), ICJ Reports 1962, p. 6 (hereinafter “Temple“).

7 See, for example, the views expressed by the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), ICJ Reports 1974, p. 253, at pp. 267-268, regarding the legal effect of unilateral declarations

8 Arbitral Award in the Dispute concerning certain Boundary Pillars between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 80 ILR 226 (1988), 27 ILM 1421 (1988) (hereinafter “Taba“).

9 Citing the Temple case, ICJ Reports 1962, at p. 34.

10 Taba, 80 ILR 226 (1988), 27 ILM 1421 (1988), para. 235.

11 Case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), ICJ Reports 1999, p. 1060 (hereinafter “Kasikili/Sedudu“).

12 Palena, 38 ILR 10, at p. 89 (1969).

13 ICJ Reports 1999, at pp.1101-1102, paras. 91-93.

14 Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), ICJ Reports 1986, at p. 582, para. 55 (hereinafter “Frontier Dispute“).

15 Ibid., at p. 583, para. 56.

16 See Kasikili/Sedudu, ICJ Reports 1999, p. 1100, para. 87.

17 British maps, 1942-1946.

18 A British map of 1997.

19 The English translation is that given in Sir E. Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty, Vol. 2, p. 460 (3d ed., 1967). The Amharic text is similar. No difference between the texts is alleged by the Parties to be material to the course of the boundary in this sector. The Treaty itself provides that it is written “in the Italian and Amharic languages, both to be considered official save that in case of error in writing the Emperor Menelik will rely on the Amharic version.“

20 Treaty between Italy and Abyssinia, signed at Addis Ababa, 26 October 1896, Hertslet, note 19, above, at p. 458.

21 The Commission's translation.

22 The Parties have expressed differing views as to which of these tributaries was the smaller or larger. No detailed evidence on this point was put to the Commission. However, the Commission does not regard the question as material. The Treaty map depicts a particular watercourse as the boundary, without reference to whether it was the smaller or larger tributary.

23 See Appendix A to this Decision, beginning at p. 107.

24 Spelling as in the original.

25 There is no clear explanation of why the depiction of the upper reaches of the Endeli was omitted from the de Chaurand map, and thus from the Treaty map based on it. The Commission would, however, observe that in this general area the de Chaurand map contains much less detail than it does in other areas. This may indicate that the sources upon which de Chaurand relied in compiling his map provided only incomplete, or little, information for that area.

26 Examples are the de Chaurand map (1894), and the British War Office map of 1884, revised in 1895 (which shows the “Muna” flowing east from the area south of Barachit and joining the Endeli, itself shown as a distinct river flowing southeast from near Senafe).

27 Indeed, that Treaty is referred to only as the starting point for the period since which “the question of the frontier … has remained open.“

28 Eritrean translation. The translation provided by Ethiopia is that until the peace treaty is concluded “the boundary between the Ethiopian Empire and the Eritrean colony will remain to be the Mareb, Belessa and Muna, which will be the boundary between Agamie and Akologuzay.” This difference in translation is, in the Commission's view, of no substance.

29 Translation provided in the Eritrean pleadings.

30 The relevant treaty texts are collected in Professor I. Brownlie's African Boundaries (1979) (hereinafter referred to as “African Boundaries“).

31 African Boundaries, p. 864.

32 Id.

33 Ibid., p. 865.

34 Ibid., p. 866.

35 Ibid., p. 868.

36 Ibid., p. 871

37 Ibid., p. 877.

38 See Chapter VII, below, for consideration of the boundary within rivers.

39 Commission's emphasis.

40 See Map 8.

41 Commission's emphasis.

42 This report was referred to in the report of 28 June 1902 from Major Ciccodicola, the Italian negotiator of the 1902 Treaty, to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, cited in para. 5.22, above.

43 Commission's emphasis.

44 Commission's emphasis.

45 See Appendix B, below, for details regarding the extent of contemporary knowledge of the location of the Cunama.

46 The misunderstanding about river names appears to stem from Martini's seeming belief that the Maiteb referred to in the 1902 Treat﹜ was the western (Ethiopian) Maiteb. He rightly saw a boundary based on that river as breaking the Cunama in two. He also seems to have thought that the Meeteb on the Mai Daro map was the western Maiteb. In other words, while he appreciated that there were two distinct rivers at Points 3 and 4, which he called the Maiteb and the Sittona respectively, he appears not to have understood thar the river at Point 4 (that he called Sittona) was in fact the Maieteb/Meeteb of the de Chaurand map and that it was that name thai the Mai Daro map had given to the Sittona.

47 Commission's emphasis.

48 See, e.g., Zoli in 1929, para. 5.68, below.

49 See para. 5.50, above.

50 Commission's emphasis.

51 The Italian understanding of what was believed to be the Ethiopian claim line in 1931 is illustrated on a map accompanying Governor Zoli's report of 25 January 1929; see para. 5.68, below.

52 Both Parties produced copies of the Treaty in the original languages as well as in the English translation that had been published in successive editions of Hertslet's Map of Africa by Treaty (E. Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty, Vol. 3 (3d ed., 1967)). However, all of the Parties’ respective written and oral submissions were made only with reference to the English translation. In marked contrast to the considerable discussion of the meaning and legal significance of the differences between the Amharic and English and Italian texts of the 1902 Treaty, neither Party alleged discrepancies between the Amharic and Italian versions of the 1908 Treaty.

53 In this regard, it may be noted that all the maps adduced to show the boundary in this sector from the time of the 1897 modus Vivendi simplified the line in a variety of ways to achieve a manageable and rational boundary.

1 In its paras. 7,8, 11, 12.

2 What the Commission is calling Belesa A.

1 Studies on Eastern Africa (circa 1875).

2 Ibid., at pp. 341 and 373.

3 I Baria e I Cunama, p. 76(1913).