Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission Research Articles

Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship between Eritrea and Ethiopia

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki signed a historic agreement on July 9, 2018, in Asmara, Eritrea, ending over two decades of open hostilities and war. The Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship (Joint Declaration) marks a fundamental change for the Horn of Africa, with the reconciliation possibly altering the economic and political dynamics of the region. The Joint Declaration resulted from several key developments occurring over a few weeks from June through early July 2018. Ethiopia announced its acceptance of the original Algiers Agreement, dated December 12, 2000, which had never been implemented, and its willingness to abide by the 2002 international Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling that awarded disputed territory to Eritrea, including the border town of Badme. Previously, Ethiopia had rejected the ruling and asked for a new ruling. Ethiopia had also previously insisted that relations must be restored before any territorial resolution. President Afwerki agreed to negotiate, after stating for years that Ethiopia had to withdraw its troops from the disputed town of Badme first. A few weeks before the signing of the Joint Declaration, the Eritrean foreign minister visited Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, marking the first bilateral meeting between the two since the war began.

Ethiopian Exceptionalism and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission

This article explores the reasons why Ethiopia relied on legal resolution with its territorial boundary dispute with Eritrea when it could have relied on its relative military power to dictate the terms and conditions of peace. It dismisses Ethiopia's familiarity with Western-style legal resolution and its relative lack of nationalism as potential explanations, instead focusing on Ethiopia's general sense of exceptionalism from its history as an African and global leader and as a respecter of international law, among other key factors. Ethiopia's example provides considerable hope that legal resolution can be used more frequently with politically sensitive disputes between states.

Arbitrary Peace? Consent Management in International Arbitration

When a peace process involves contention over land boundaries, parties may consent to resolve their dispute through arbitration. Yet while tribunals resolve disputes on paper, their awards often fail to bring peace in practice. Initial consent to arbitration does not guarantee a successful outcome: once granted, consent can wax and wane, it can be delivered under duress and it can be withdrawn as fast as it is given. This article explores the consent management dynamics that shape – and are shaped by – the arbitral process. Drawing on scholarship from peacekeeping and relational contract theory, it develops a model that explains why consent to arbitration differs from consent to a peace process. It then applies the model to examine strategies that tribunals have used to bridge this gap. Case studies involving the Brčko District in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission and the Abyei arbitration demonstrate how arbitrators manipulate procedural and substantive law to maintain consent. The three cases also offer insights into the varying success of consent management strategies. The article plots these cases onto the model to draw lessons for future arbitrations on the basis of one simple but crucial question: ‘Who should consent to what?’.

Delimitation and Demarcation: Analysing the Legacy of Stephen B. Jones's Boundary-Making

In 1945 Stephen B Jones, an American political geographer, published Boundary-Making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners in which he set out the practicalities of boundary delimitation, demarcation and maintenance. The significance of this volume to boundary scholars and practitioners cannot be overstated. Jones's book, outlining guidelines for good practice in boundary-making, continues to be consulted as a unique work of its kind. However, now over sixty years since publication, its age is starting to tell. The recent decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) reveals how some of the core concepts of Boundary-Making are being re-interpreted and some of the practices espoused by Jones may be in need of updating to encompass the changes in boundary-making during the last half century. Framing the discourse around the EEBC's notion of boundary ‘demarcation’, we examine the context in which Jones wrote his book, consider why it has become such an important work, and suggest how it can continue to be relevant for twenty-first-century boundary practitioners.

Resolution of International Disputes: The Role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration – Reflections on the Centenary of the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes

AbstractThe Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was established at the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899. During the past decade the PCA has progressed from a period of relative inactivity to a previously unsurpassed caseload. In this article the Secretary-General of the PCA reflects on the creation and early development of the PCA, before giving a detailed overview of recent arbitrations conducted under PCA auspices. The first part of this review, concerning treaty-based arbitration, analyses the role of the PCA in the resolution of disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, illustrated by the arbitrations conducted in the Guyana/Suriname, Barbados/Trinidad, Malaysia/Singapore, and Ireland/United Kingdom (MOX Plant) disputes. The second part, which focuses on ad hoc arbitration, outlines the recently concluded arbitrations in the Iron Rhine (Belgium/Netherlands) and Eritrea/Yemen cases, as well as the work of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission and Claims Commission.

The Ethiopian-Eritea border conflict and the role of the international community

It may be a war no one wants, over land rich in dust, between people who until recently regarded each other brothers and sisters in arms (The Washington Post 1998). Five years after signing a peace agreement which established the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and set in motion the implementation of the Algiers Comprehensive Peace Accord (ACPA), the peace process between Eritrea and Ethiopia is deadlocked. Ethiopia has refused to abide by the ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) as agreed at Algiers, and Eritrea laments the disregard of agreements, especially by the international community that witnessed them. The Boundary Commission, charged with adjudicating a ruling on the border on the basis of colonial treaties, has left the local scene in despair. The war of words is fast turning into words about war. A war is looming in the region which is in the process of ending conflict in Sudan and Somalia. Just what constitutes the stand-off, what interventions have been made and what are prospects for peace or war are some of the questions that this article explores.

Title, Control, and Closure? The Experience of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission

AbstractThis article examines the establishment and work of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission with regard to its decision of 13 April 2002 concerning the delimitation of the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia and subsequent events. Apart from an examination of the substantive decision of the Commission in the light of the law relating to territory, the article will discuss certain unusual features of the process, including mandating the Commission both to delimit and demarcate the boundary and the involvement of third parties. The delimitation decision is significant in a number of ways, including its views as to the applicable law, treaty interpretation and the subsequent conduct of the parties in relation to title. The long-running and difficult process of demarcation is noted, together with the important role played by the UN and other international actors.

Permanent Court of Arbitration: Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission Statement by the Commission

Permanent Court of Arbitration: Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission Statement by the Commission

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

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

DECISION REGARDING DELIMITATION OF THE BORDER

1.1 The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") was established pursuant to an agreement dated 12 December 2000, alternately entitled "Agreement between the Government of the State of Eritrea and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia" and "Agreement between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the State of Eritrea" (hereinafter the "December Agreement"). 1.2 Article 4 of the December Agreement provides as follows: 1. Consistent with the provisions of the Framework Agreement and the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, the parties reaffirm the principle of respect for the borders