The fallacy of uti possidetis juris: transboundary fishing in disputed maritime boundaries as a threat to Africa’s peace and security

Abstract

ABSTRACT Africa’s oceans and seas and their resources are crucial for the economic and food security of Coastal States and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). However, sustaining these contributions is undermined by depleting resources and other security threats at sea. Given the transboundary nature of oceans resources and the threats that pervade them, maritime boundary disputes further complicate the situation, by making maritime security cooperation difficult for African countries, especially against illegal fishing. Our transdisciplinary paper draws evidence from legal, security, and development literature, policy documents, and expert insights to highlight the impact of maritime boundary disputes on maritime cooperation and security. Our argument is threefold: first, the principle of uti possidetis juris has resulted in artificial boundaries, propelling maritime boundary tensions and, arguably, in some cases, inflaming them. Second, delimitation exercises, often the outcome of applying the uti possidetis juris principle, limit opportunities for cooperation in managing shared resources and security. Third, irrespective of boundary disputes, the ambulatory nature of fish forces fishers to encroach into neighbouring waters. This paper concludes that addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach to oceans governance, acknowledging the transboundary nature of threats and promoting joint management arrangements as a mechanism for settling boundary disputes.