Metrics

  • citations in SCIndeks: 0
  • citations in CrossRef:0
  • citations in Google Scholar:[]
  • visits in previous 30 days:3
  • full-text downloads in 30 days:3

Contents

article: 2 from 3  
Back back to result list
2015, vol. 49, iss. 3, pp. 915-930
Frontier and territorial dispute between Botswana and Namibia
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law

emailR.Etinski@pf.uns.ac.rs
Project:
Projekat Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Novom Sadu: Teorijski i praktični problemi stvaranja i primene prava (EU i Srbija)

Abstract
Botswana and Namibia have accepted that their mutual frontier was determined by Anglo-German Treaty of1890. The Treaty defined a frontier of the sphere of influence of the UK and Germany saying that it follows, inter alia, the center of the main channel of the Chobe River around the Kasikili/Sedudu Island. The River bifurcates in two channels around the Island and after the Island the channels merge again in the same River. The Treaty did not determine which of the two channels was the main channel and it became cause of a dispute. The parties agreed that the International Court of Justice resolves the dispute about the frontier and the status of the Kasikili/Sedudu Island applying the 1890 Treaty and general rules and principles of international law. The Court decided that the main channel is the north channel, that the Island is a territory of Botswana and that the navigation on the both channels remains free and under equal national treatment for vessels of the both sides. The Court based its conclusion about main channel on the common meaning of the term as it defined in relevant literature. The support for the conclusion was found in a report of local authorities of the both sides and a report of a common expert group, established by the two parties. Namibia did not succeed to convince the Court that Namibia had acquired the Island by prescription on the basis of long presence of Namibian tribe Masubia on the island, since the Court did not accepted that the tribe pursued sovereign power.
References
*** (1994) Territorial dispute (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriyal Chad) judgment. I.C.J. Reports, 21, par. 41
*** (1996) Oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) preliminary objections: Judgment. I.C.J. Reports, (II), 812. par. 23
*** Arbitral award of 21 October 1994. International Law Reports, Vol. 113, 76, par. 157
*** (1996) Revue générale de droit international public, 2, 592, par. 157
*** (1986) Frontier dispute (Burkina Faso l Republic of Mali). I.C.J. Reports, 582, par. 54
*** (1999) Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) judgment. I.C.J. Reports, 1045, par. 1
Etinski, R. (2013) Primena načela uti possidetis u sporu o granici između Burkina Faso i Malija. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, vol. 47, br. 3, str. 43-59
Gathii, J.T. (1999) Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia). Leiden Journal of International Law, 15(3): 581-622
Shaw, M.N. (2000) Case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu (Botswana/Namibia). International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 4, 965
 

About

article language: Serbian
document type: Original Scientific Paper
DOI: 10.5937/zrpfns49-9526
published in SCIndeks: 17/02/2016
peer review method: double-blind

Related records

Zb Pravnog fak Novi Sad (2019)
International legal aspects of the Chagos Archipelago case
Kovač Kristian Z.