Judgment of 22 December 1986

Document Number
069-19861222-JUD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

COUR INTERNATIONALDE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DU DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER

(BURKINA FASOIRÉPUBLIQUE DU MALI)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING THE FRONTIER DISPUTE

(BURKINA FASO/REPUBLIC OF MALI)

JUDGMENT OF 22 DECEMBER 1986 Mode officiel de citation :
Diffërendfrontalier, arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 554.

Official cit:tion
Frontier Dispute,Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554.

Node ven:e 525 1
Sales number DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER
(BURKINA FASO/RÉPUBLIQUDU MALI)

FRONTIERDISPUTE
(BURKINA FASO/REPUBLICOF MALI)

22 DECEMBER1986

JUDGMENT INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE

YEAR 1986 1986
22 December
General List
No. 69
22 December 1986

CASECONCERNINGTHE FRONTIERDISPUTE
I
(BURKINA FASO/REPUBLICOF MALI)

Frontier dispute - Frontiers inheritedfrom thecolonialperiod - Applicable law
- Principleofutipossidetisjuris - Natureandscopeoftheprinciple - Criticaldate

- Placeof colonial law(Frenchdroit d'outre-mer ) Role of equityinfralegem -
Form of equity which wouldconstitute a method of interpretationof the law.
Conducrof a Party - Argument from acquiescence - Unilateral art of one
government --Intention tobecomebound- Interpretationoftheactin thelightofal1
thefactual circumstancesandofthepossibilityofbecoming boundby othermeans -
Acceptanceof the applicationto the disputeof certainprinciplesand rules - Rules

expressiy recognizedby the contestingStates.
Interests of a third State- Frontierendingin a tripoint - Judicial competence
and exerciseof thejudicialjunction - Distinction betweenthe determinationof a
land boundaryand theidentificationof the rulesapplicabletothedelimitationof the
continentalsheif - Duty of the Chamber to rule upon the wholeof the petitum.
Titlesand evidence --Difficultiesrelatingto evidence - Legislativeand regula-

tory texts - Value of the texts as evidenceindependentlyof their validity in the
interna1legal order - Cartographicmaterials - Maps as extrinsic evidence -
Possibility ofa map being oneof the elements constitutingthe expression of the
StateS intentions - Valueofmapsasevidence - Technical reliability- Neutrality
of their sources - Problems raised in this case by the cartographicmaterials

(incompatibility,defciencies) - The "colonialeffectivités" as evidenceof the effec-
tive exercise of territorialjurisdiction - Correspondenceamong the colonialad-
ministrators.
Equitable applicationof a rule of law - Local agreementnot approvedby the
competent authoritieson the internationalplane - Circumstances in which the
agreement was reached.

JUDGMENT

Present : Judge BEDJAOUP I,resident of the Chamber ; Judges LACHSR , UDA ;
Judges ad hoc LUCHAIRA E,BI-SAAB ; Registrar TORREB SERN~EZ. In the case concerning the frontier dispute,

between

Burkina Faso,
represented by

H.E. Mr. Ernest Ouedraogo, Minister for Territorial Administration and
Security,
as Agent,
H.E. Mr. Emmanuel Salembere, Ambassador,

as Co-Agent,
H.E. Mr. Eduardo Jiménezde Aréchaga, formerly Professorof International
Law at the University of Montevideo,

as Adviser,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, professeur de droit international et de sociologie politi-
que à l'université de Pans 1,
Mr. Alain Pellet,professeur a1'U~versitéde Paris-Nord et à1'Institut d'études
politiques de Paris,

as Counsel and Advocates,
Mr. Souleymane Diallo, Counsellor at the Embassy of Burkina Faso in
Paris,
as Counsel,

Mr. Jean Gateaud, ingénieur général géograph(eretired),
as Expert,

Mr. Alain Pipart, assistant a l'université de Paris-Nord, avocat a la cour
d'appel de Paris,
Mr. Stephen Marquardt, graduate in Law of the University of Bonn,
as Advisers,
Mr. Jean-Matthieu Cot,

Mrs. Angélique Bouda,
Mrs. Miriam Dauba,
Mrs. Martine Soulier-Moroni,
and

the Republic of Mali,

represented by
H.E. Lieutenant-Colonel Abdourahmane Maiga, Minister for Territorial
Administration and Basic Development,

as Agent,
H.E. Mr. Diango Cissoko, Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals,

as Special Adviser,
H.E. Mr. Yaya Diarra, Ambassador, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Inter-
national Co-operation,
as Co-Agent, FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 556

Mr. René-Jean Dupuy, professeur au Collègede France,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur à l'université de droit, d'économie etde

sciences sociales de Paris,
Mr. Raymond Ranjeva, de l'Académie malgache,présidentde l'établissement
d'enseignement supérieurde droit, d'économie,de gestion et de sociologie
de l'université de Madagascar,
Mr. Jean Salmon, professeur a l'université libre de Bruxelles,
as Counsel,

Mr. Diadié Traoré, National Director of Cartography and Topography,

as Scientific and Technical Adviser,

Mr. Sinaly Coulibaly, Legal Adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
International Co-operation,
as Legal Adviser,

Mr. Aguibou Diarra, Head of the Frontier Section of the Ministry of Terri-
torial Administration and Basic Development,
Mr. Mamadou Kone, Head of the Legal Department in the Govemment
Secretariat,
Mr. N'Tji Laïco Traoré, Chargéd'affaires ai., Embassy of Mali in Brus-
sels,
Mr. Mahamadou Maiga, Administrative Officer (retired),
Mr. Daba Diawara, formerly Head of the Constitutional Division of the

Supreme Court
as Advisers,
Mr. Paul Delmond, Chief Administrative Officer for Overseas Affairs (re-
tired),

Mr. Drissa Sangare, Ministry of Territorial Administration and Basic De-
velopment,
Mr.Amadou BillySoussoko, Ministry of TerritorialAdministration and Basic
Development,
Mr. Aliou Toure, 'National Office of Cartography and Topography,
Mr. Oumar Kansa Ongoïba, Administrative Officer ; Cabinet attaché, Minis-
try of Territorial Administration and Basic Development,
Mrs. Maciré Yattassaye, joumalist attached to the Ministry of Territorial
Administration and Basic Development,

as Experts,

THECHAMBE R F THEINTERNATIONA CLURT OF JUSTICE formed to deal with
the caseabove-mentioned,

composed as above,

after deliberation,
deliversthefollowingJudgment :

1. Byajoint letter dated 14October 1983,filed in the Registry of the Court on
20 October 1983,the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-opera-
tion of the Republic of Mali and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 557

of Upper Volta transmitted to the Registrar a Special Agreement which was
dated 16 September 1983 and had entered into force the same day, by which

Upper Volta and Mali had agreed to submit to a chamber of the Court, to be
constituted pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, a
dispute relating to the delimitation of part of their common frontier.
2. The text of the Special Agreement of 16 September 1983is as follows :

"The Government of the Republic of the Upper Volta and the Govern-
ment of the Repiiblic of Mali,

Desiring to achieve as rapidly -s pos-ible a settlement of the frontier
dispute beiween them, based-in particular on respect for theprinciple of the
intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization, and to effect the
defi&ive délimitation and demarcation of their cornmon frontier,

Referring to the Agreement concluded between them with a view to the
settlement of the frontier dispute between them,

Have agreed as follows :

Article I
Subject of the Dispute

1. The question put before the Chamber of the International Court of
Justice formed in accordance with Article II below is as follows :

'What is the line of the frontier between the Republic of the Upper
Volta and the Republic of Mali in the disputed area as defined
below ?'

2. The disputed area consists of a band of territory extending from the
sector Koro (Mali) Djibo (Upper Volta) up to and including the region of
the Béli.

Article II
Formationof a Chamberof the International Courtof Justice

The Parties submit the question put in Article 1 to a chamber of the
International Court of Justice (hereinafter called 'the Chamber') formed
pursuant toArticle 26,paragraph 2,of the Statute of theInternationalCourt
of Justice (hereinaftercalled 'theCourt') andtothe provisions of the present

Special Agreement.
Article III

Procedure

1. The Parties agree that their pleadings and their oral argument shall be
presented in the French language.
2. Without prejudice to any question as to the burden of proof, the
Parties request the Chamber to authorize the following procedure for the
pleadings :

(a) a Memorial filed by each Party not later than six months after the
adoption by the Court of the Order constituting the Chamber ; (b) a Counter-Mernorial filed by each Party not later than six rnonths after

exchange of the Mernorials ;
(c) any other pleading which the Chamber rnay find to be necessary.
3. The pleadings submitted to the Registrar shall not be transmitted to
the other Party until the Registrar has received the corresponding pleading
frorn the other Party.

Article IV
Judgrnentof the Chamber

1. The Partiesacceptthe Judgrnent of theCharnber givenpursuant to the
Special Agreement as final and binding upon them.
2. Within one year after that Judgment the Parties shall effect the
demarcation of the frontier.
3. The Parties request the Charnber to nominate, in its Judgrnent, three
experts to assist thern in the demarcation operation.

Article V

Entty into Force, Publicationand Notification

1. The present SpecialAgreement shall corneinto force on the date of its
signature.
2. It shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pur-
suant to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter by the more diligent
Party.
3. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the present
SpecialAgreement shall be notified to the Registrar of the Court by ajoint
letter frorn the Parties.
4. Ifsuch notification is not effected in accordance with the preceding
paragraph within one month frorn theentry into force of the present Special
Agreement, it shall be notified to the Registrar of the Court by the more
diligent Party."

3. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, and to
Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the notification and Special Agree-
ment were transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the
Mernbers of the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the
Court.
4. By a letter dated 29 August 1984,filed with the Registry on 4 Septernber
1984,the Agent of Burkina Faso (forrnerly the Upper Volta) inforrned the Court
of the change of narrie of his country, in force frorn 4 August 1984.
5. By the sarne letter, the Agent of Burkina Faso notified to the Court the
choice by his Governinent of Mr. François Luchaire, Professor at the University
of Paris 1,to sit asjudge adhoc ; and by a letter of 18March 1985,the Co-Agent
of Mali notified his Government's choiceof Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Professor at

the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, to sit as judge ad
hoc.
6. The Parties, du1.yconsulted by the President on 14March 1985concerning
the composition of the Charnber, expressed their wish for the formation of a
Chamber of fiveMenibers, two of whom would bejudges adhocchosen by them FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 559

pursuant to Article 31of the Statute of the Court,and confirmed their wish that
the Court should proceed irnmediately to the constitution of the Chamber.
7. By an Order dated 3 April 1985 the Court, having noted the choice of a
judge ad hoc by each of the Parties, decided to accede to the request of the
Governments of Burkina Fasoand the Republic of Mali for theconstitution of a
special Chamber of fivejudges to deal with the case, and declared that Judges
Lachs, Ruda and Bedjaoui had been elected to form, with the above-named
judges ad hoc, such a Chamber, and that it was duly constituted with that

composition.
8. Byan Order made on 12April 1985,pursuant to Article 92 of the Rules of
Court, the President of the Court, referring to Article III, paragraph 2, of the
Special Agreement, Sixed 3 October 1985 as the time-limit for the filing of a
Memorial by each Party. The Mernorials in question were duly filed within the
time-limit so fixed. By an Order dated 3 October 1985, the President of the
Chamber, referring to Article III, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement, fixed
2April 1986asthe time-limit for the filing of aCounter-Memorial by eachParty,
reserving the subsequent procedure for further decision.
9. Before the expiryof the time-lirnit for the filing of the Counter-Memonals,
the Parties submitted to the Chamber parallel requests for the indication of
provisional measures. The Charnber held a public sitting on 9 January 1986for

the purpose of hearing the oral observations of the Parties and, on 10January
1986,made an Order whereby it indicated certain provisional measures ;called
upon the Agents of the Parties to notify the Registrar without delay of any
agreement concluded between theirGovernrnents within the scope of point 1D
of the same Order ; and decided that, pending its finaljudgment, and without
prejudice to the application of Article 76 of the Rules, the Chamber would
remain seised of the questions covered by that Order.
10. In a letter dated 24 January 1986,and pursuant to point 2 of the above-
rnentioned Order indicating provisional measures, the Co-Agent of the Republic
of Mali transmitted to the Registrar thefinalcommuniqué, issued on 18January
1986,of the firstextriîordinary conference of Heads of State and Government of
the member countries of ANAD (Accord de non-agression et d'assistance en

matière de défense). That communiqué reported that the Heads of State of
Burkina Fasoand the Repubiic of Mali had agreed "to withdraw al1their armed
forces from either side of the disputed area and to effect their return to their
respective territories".
11. On 2 April 1986,within the time-limit fixed for that purpose, the Parties
filed their Counter-Mernorials. On the same day, they stated that they did not
wish to present any Further written pleadings. Since the Chamber did not con-
sider that any further written pleadings were necessary, the case was ready for
hearing.
12. Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Chamber,
having ascertained the viewsof the Parties, decided that copies of the pleadings

and documents annexed would be made accessible to thepublic with effect from
the opening of the oral proceedings.
13. After theclosiireof thewritten proceedings both Partiesproduced further
documents under Article 56of the Rules.The Parties havingbeen dulyconsulted
pursuant toArticles 31and 58,paragraph 2,of the Rules of Court,publicsittings
were held on 16-21 June and 24-26 June 1986, at which the Chamber was
addressed by the following :For BurkinaFaso : H.E. Mr. Ernest Ouedraogo,
Mr. Souleymane Diallo,
H.E. Mr. Emmanuel Salembere,
Mr. Alain Pellet,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot,
Mr. Jean Gateaud.

Forthe Republicof Mali : H.E. Lieutenant-Colonel Abdourahrnane Maiga,

Mr. Jean Salmon,
Mr. Raymond Ranjeva,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
Mr. Diadié Traoré,
Mr. Paul Delmond.

14. At the hearing held on the morning of 26 June 1986Burkina Faso, which
had alreadycompleteditslast round oforal argument, requested the Chamber to
enable it to comment briefly upon the statement made the samedayby a member
of the Malian delegation. The Chamber decided to accede to that request and to
authorize the Republic of Mali to comment in turn upon the observations to be
made at that hearing by BurkinaFaso,either orally, beforetheclosure of the oral
proceedings, or in writing within the ensuing 48 hours. The Republic of Mali
conveyed to the Registry, within the prescribed time-limit, a written reply to the

observations of the other Party, to which that reply was irnmediately commu-
nicated.

15. During the proceedings, the following Submissions werepresented by the
Parties :

On behaifof Burkina Faso,
in the Memorial and Counter-Memonal and at the hearing of 24 June 1986
(afternoon) :

"1. Burkina Faso respectfully requests the Chamber of the International
Court of Justice, formed in accordance with the Special Agreement of
16September 1983,to adjudge and declare that the course of the frontier
between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali is constituted by the
following line :

1. West of the point with the geographical CO-ordinates :
longitude 0" 40'47" W
latitude 15"00'03" N

the line is as shown on the 1:200,000 scale map of the French Institut
géographiquenational (1960edition),the villagesof Dioulouna, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou and Koubo being located in Burkinabe terntory.
2. East of the point with the geographical CO-ordinates :

longitude 0" 40'47" W
latitude 15" 00'03" N

the line corresponds to the information given in letter 191 CM2 of 19February 1935,and on the 1:500,000scalernap, 1925edition, asfar as the
northern point of the pool of In Abao.

3. Frorn the northern point of the pool of In Abao, the line follows the
courseshown on the 1 :500,000scalernap, 1925edition, leaving the region of
the Bélito Burkina Faso, as far as the tripoint with the frontier of Niger,
which is forrned by the heights of N'Gourna, situated to the north of the
Kabia ford.

II. Burkina Faso respectfully requests the Chamber to appoint three
experts to assist the Parties for the purpose of the demarcation operation,
which is to be completed within one year of the delivery of the judg-
ment."

On behalJofthe Republic ofMali,
in the Memorial and Counter-Mernorial :

"The Governrnent of the Republic of Mali submits as follows :

May it please the Charnber
Tostate that the frontierline betweeen the Republic of Mali and Burkina
Faso in the dispiited area runs through the following points :

- Lofou,
- the rnosque-shaped enclosure situated 2 kilornetres to the north of
Diguel,
- a point situated 3 kilometres to the south of Kounia,
- the Selba baobab,

- the Tondigaria,
- Fourfaré Tiaiga,
- Fourfaré Wandé,
- Gariol,
- Gountouré Kiri,
- a point to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire, having the following geo-

graphical CO-ordinates :
longitude 0" 44'47" W
latitude 14" 56' 52" N

- the pool of Raf Naman,
and from that point follows the marigot passing, in particular, through the
pool of Fadar-Fadar, the pool of In Abao, the pool of Tin Akoff and the

pool of In Tangoum, terminating at the Kabia ford" ;
at the hearing of 26 June 1986(afternoon) :

"The Government of the Republic of Mali submits as follows :

May it please the Charnber
1. To state that the frontier line between the Republic of Mali and
Burkina Faso in the disputed area runs through the following points :

- Lofou,
- the rnosque-shaped enclosure situated 2 kilometres to the north of
Diguel,
- a point situated 3 kilornetres to the south of Kounia, - the Selbabaobab,
- the Tondigaria,
- FourfaréTiaiga,
- FourfaréWandé,
- Gariol,
- GountouréKiri,
- a point to the eastof the poolof Kétiouaire,havingthe followinggeo-
graphicalco-ordinates :

longitude 0" 44'47" W
latitude 14" 56'52" N
- the pool of Raf Naman,
and fromthat point followsthe marigot passing, inparticular,through the

pool of Fadar-Fadar, the pool of In Abao, the pool of Tin Akoff and the
pool of In Tangoum,terminatingat the Kabia ford.
2. To refrain from determining the tripoint between the Republicof
Mali, Burkina Fasoand Niger.
3. Tonominate,in itsJudgment,three expertsto assistthe Partiesin the
demarcation operation (Art. IV, para. 3, of the Special Agreementof
16September 1983)."

16. The task entrusted to the Chamber in this case by the Special
Agreement concluded between the two Parties on 16 September 1983is
that of indicating the line of the frontier between Burkina Faso and the
Republic of Mali (hereinafter called "Mali") in the disputed area, as
defined in that SpecialAgreement. The two States have a commonfrontier
of 1,380 kilometres according to Burkina Faso and 1,297 kilometres
according to Mali, of which almost 900 kilometres according to Burkina
Faso and almost 1,022kilometresaccording to Mali have been successfully

delimited by agreement between the Parties. The disputed area is defined
by the SpecialAgreement as "a band of territory extending fromthe sector
Koro (Mali) Djibo (Upper Volta) up to and including the region of the
Béli".The Béliis the largest of thetemporary watercoursesin the region. It
originates in theeastern slopes of the Homborimountains and flows tothe
south-east beforejoining the Niger river outside the disputed area. In the
dry season it consists of a chain of 11pools. In their submissions to the
Chamber, each of the Partiesindicated thefrontier linewhich it considered
well-founded in law (these lines and the topography of the region are

shown on sketch-map No. 1 ') ;according to either contention, the dis-
puted frontier runs in an approximately west-east direction between Mali
tothenorth and Burkina Faso to the south. The end-point of the frontier to
the east,the position of which has not been determined, is also a point on
the frontier between Niger and the two disputant States and is, accord-

A copyof thisketch-map wilbe foundina pocketat thendofthisfascicleorinside
the backcoverof thevolume of I.C..I. Reports 1986. [Note by the Registv!
12 FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 563

ingly, a tripoint. By the Niamey Protocol of 23June 1964between Upper
Volta and Niger, those two States agreed that, forthe purpose of delimiting
their common frontier, they would have recourse to certain documents
which were mentioned in the Protocol and treated as basic documents.
However, the two States have not as yet carried out any delimitation
operations. As for the frontier between Mali and Niger, it was decided at a
recent meeting between representatives of those two States that bilateral
negotiations would be set in train with a view to determining it, but no
agreement has at present been concluded on the subject. In the present
case,Mali maintains,forreasonsto beconsidered below,that the Chamber
must refrain from taking any decision on the position of the above-
mentioned tripoint. Burkina Faso, on theother hand, maintains that such a
decision is necessary as an integral part of the task entrusted to the
Chamber.

17. The Parties have argued at length over how the present dispute is to
be classified in terrns of a distinction sometimes made by legal writers
between "frontier disputes" or "delimitation disputes", and "disputes asto

attribution of territory". According to this distinction, the former refer to
delimitation operations affectingwhat has been described as "a portion of
land which is not geographically autonomous" whereas the object of the
latter is the attribution of sovereignty over the whole of a geographical
entity. Both Partie:; seem ultimately to have accepted that the present
dispute belongs rather to the category of delimitation disputes, even
though they fail to agree on the conclusions tobe drawn from this. In fact,
however, in the great majority of cases, including this one, the distinction
outlined above isnot somuch adifference in kind but rather adifference of
degree as to the way the operation in question is carried out.The effect of
any delimitation, no matter how small the disputed area crossed by the
line,isan apportionment of the areas of land lyingon either sideof the line.
In thepresent case,itmay benoted that the SpecialAgreement, inArticle 1,
refers not merely to a line to be drawn, but to adisputed "area", which it
defines asconsisting of a "band" of territoryencompassingthe "region" of
the Béli.Moreover, the effect of anyjudicial decision rendered either in a
dispute asto attribution of territory or in a delimitation dispute, isneces-
sarily to establish a frontier. It is not without interest that certain recent
codifying conventions have used formulae such as a treaty which "estab-
lishes a boundary" or a "boundary established by a treaty" to cover both
delimitation treaties and treaties ceding or attributing territory (cf.Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 62 ; Vienna Convention on

Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Art. 11). In both cases, a
clarification is made of agiven legal situation with declaratory effect from
the date of the legal title upheld by the court. This clarificationis itself a
new element ;it was because the parties wished to see that element intro-duced that they went to court at al]. If there had been no dispute or
uncertainty, they would not have wished to do so. Hence it is not so much

the nature and qualification of the present dispute as the Statute of the
Court and the terms of the Special Agreement which must determine the
nature and extent of the Chamber's task and functions in this case.

18. The Chamber also feelsobliged to dispel a misunderstanding which
might anse from this distinction between "delimitation disputes" and
"disputes asto attribution of territory". One of the effects of this distinc-
tion is to contrast "legal titles" and"effecrivirés"In this context, the term
"legal title" appears to denote documentary evidence alone. It is hardly
necessary to recall that thisis not the only accepted meaning of the word
"title". Indeed, the Parties have used this word in differentsenses. In fact,
the concept of title may also, and more generally, comprehend both any
evidencewhichmay establishthe existenceofa right, and theactual source
of that right. The Chamber will rule at the appropriate juncture on the
relevance of the evidence produced by the Parties for the purpose of
establishing their respective rights in this case. It will now turn to the
question of the rules applicable to the case ; in so doing, it willinterdia,
ascertain the source of the rights claimed by the Parties.

19. The characteristic feature of the legal context of the frontierdeter-
mination to be undertaken by the Chamber is that both States involved
derive their existence from the process of decolonization which has been
unfolding in Africa during the past 30years. Their territories, and that of
Niger, were formerly part of the French colonies which were grouped
together under the name of French West Africa (AOF). Considering only
the situation which prevailed irnmediately before the accession to inde-
pendence of the two States, and disregarding previous administrative
changes, it can be said that Burkina Faso corresponds to the colony of
Upper Volta, and the Republic of Mali to the colony of Sudan (formerly
French Sudan). It is to be supposed that the Partiesdrewinspiration from
the principle expressly stated in the well-known resolution (AGHIRes. 16
(1)), adopted at the first session of the Conference of African Heads of
Stateand Government, meeting in Cairo in 1964,whereby the Conference
solemnly declared that al1member States of the Organization of African
Unity "solemnly .. .pledge themselvesto respect the frontiers existing on
their achievement of national independence", inasmuch as, in the pream-
ble to their Special Agreement, they stated that the settlement-of the
dispute by the Chamber must be "based in particular on respect for the
principle of theintangibility of frontiers inheritedfrom colonization". It is
clear from this text, and from the pleadings and oral arguments of the FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 565

Parties, that they are in agreement as regards both the applicable law and
the starting-point for the legal reasoning which is to lead to the determi-
nation of the frontier between their territories in the disputed area.
20. Since the two Parties have, as noted above, expressly requested the
Chamber to resolve their disputeon the basis, in particular, of the "prin-
ciple of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization", the
Chamber cannot disregard the principle of uti possidetis jurithe appli-
cation of which gives rise to this respect for intangibility of frontiers.
Although there isnoneed, forthe purposes of the present case,to showthat
this is a firmly established principle of international law where decoloni-
zation is concerned, the Chamber nonetheless wishes to emphasize its

general scope, in view of its exceptional importance for the African con-
tinent and for the twoParties.In thisconnectionitshouldbenoted that the
principle of utipossidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in
Spanish America, inasmuch asthis was the continent which first witnessed
thephenomenon of decolonization involvingtheformation of anumber of
sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan
State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule whichpertains solely
toone specificsysteniofinternational law.It isageneralprinciple, whichis
logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of indepen-
dence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the indepen-
dence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles
provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the
administering power.

21. It was for this reason that, as soon as the phenomenon of decolon-
ization characteristic of the situation in Spanish America in the 19th

century subsequentlyappeared in Africa in the 20th century, the principle
of utipossidetis,in the sense described above, fell to be applied. The fact
that the new African States have respected the administrative boundaries
and frontiers established by the colonial powers must beseennotas amere
practice contributing to the gradua1emergenceof aprinciple of customary
international law, lirnited in its impact to the African continent as it had
previously been to Spanish America, but as the application in Africa of a
rule of general scope.
22. The elements of utipossidetis were latent in the many declarations
made by African leaders in the dawn of independence. These declarations
confirmed the maintenance of the territorial status quo at the time of
independence, and stated the principle of respect both for the frontiers
deriving from international agreements, and for those resulting from mere
interna1 administrative divisions. The Charter of the Organization of
African Unity did not ignore the principle of utipossidetis,but made only
indirect reference to it in Article 3, according to which member States
solemnly affirm the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of everyState. However,at their first summitconferenceafter the
creation of the Organization of African Unity, the African Heads of State,
in their Resolution nientioned above (AGH/Res. 16(1)),adopted in Cairo inJuly 1964,deliberatelydefined and stressed theprinciple of utipossidetis
juris contained only in an implicit sense in the Charter of their organiza-
tion.
23. There are several different aspects to this pnnciple, in its well-
known application in Spanish America. The first aspect, emphasized by
the Latin genitivejuris, is found in the pre-eminence accorded to legal title
over effectivepossession as a basis of sovereignty. Its purpose, at the time
of the achievement of independence by the former Spanish colonies of
America, was to scotch any designs which non-American colonizing
powers might have on regions whch had been assigned by the former
metropolitan State to one division or another, but which were still unin-
habited or unexplored. However, there is more to the principle of uti
possidetisthan thisparticular aspect. The essenceof theprinciple liesin its
primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the
moment when independence isachieved. Suchterritorial boundaries might
be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions
or colonies al1subject to the same sovereign.In that case,theapplication of
the principle of utipossidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being
transformed into international frontiers in thefull senseof the term.This is

true both of the States whch took shape in the regions of South America
which weredependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to
the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French
West Africa. Utipossidetis, as a principle which upgraded former admini-
strative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to interna-
tional frontiers, is therefore aprinciple of a general kind which is logically
connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.

24. The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also
derive from international frontiers whch previously divided a colony of
one Statefrom a colony of another, or indeed a colonialterritory from the
territory of an independent State, orone whichwasunder protectorate, but
had retained its international personality. There is no doubt that the
obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of a
State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether
or not the rule is expressed in the formula uti possidetis. Hence the
numerous solemn affirmations of the intangibility of the frontiers existing
at the time of the independence of Afncan States, whether made by senior
Africanstatesmenor byorgans of the Organization ofAfrican Unity itself,
are evidently declaratory rather than constitutive : they recognize and
confirm an existingprinciple, and do not seektoconsecratea newprinciple

or the extension to Africa of a rule previously applied only in another
continent.

25. However, it may be wondered how the time-hallowed principle has
been able to withstand the new approaches to international law as
expressed in Africa, where the successiveattainment of independence and FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 567

the emergence of new States have been accompanied by a certain ques-
tioning of traditional international law. At first sight this principle con-
flicts outright with another one, the right of peoples to self-determination.
In fact, however, the maintenance of the territorial status quo in Africa is
often seen as the wisest course, to preserve what has been achieved by
peoples who have struggled for their independence, and to avoid a dis-
ruption which would deprive the continent of the gains achieved by much
sacrifice. The essential requirement of stability in order to survive, to

develop and gradually to consolidate their independence in al1fields, has
induced African Statesjudiciously toconsent to the respecting of colonial
frontiers, and to take account of it in the interpretation of the principle of
self-determination of peoples.
26. Thus the principle of utipossidetis has kept itsplace among the most
important legal principles, despite the apparent contradiction which
explained its coexistence alongside the new noms implied. Indeed it was
by deliberate choice that African States selected, among al1the classic
principles, that of uti possidetis.This remains an undeniable fact. In the
light of the foregoing remarks, it is clear that the applicability of uti
possidetis in the present case cannot be challenged merely because in
1960,the year when Mali and Burkina Faso achieved independence, the
Organization of African Unity which was to proclaim this principle did
not yet exist, and the above-mentioned resolution calling for respect for
the pre-existing frontiers dates only from 1964.

27. In their pleadings and oral arguments, the two Parties have
advanced conflicting viewson the questionwhether equity can be invoked
in the present case. They both agree that no use should be made of the

Chamber's power, urider Article 38 of the Statute, to decide the case ex
aequoetbon0if they had agreed to this. However, Mali urges that account
should be taken of "that form of equity which is inseparable from the
application of interna.tional law", which it seesas equivalent toequity infra
legem. Althoughitdid not object to this concept being resorted to, Burkina
Faso considered that it was far from clear what the practical implications
would bein thiscase. It emphasized that in the field of territorial boundary
delimitation there isrioequivalent to theconcept of "equitable principles"
so frequently referred to by the law applicable in the delimitation of
maritime areas. Mali did not question this statement ; it explained that
what it had in mind was simplytheequity which isanormal part of the due
application of law.
28. It is clear that the Chamber cannot decide ex aequo et bonoin this
case. Sincethe Partie:;have not entrusted it with the task of carrying out an
adjustment of their respective interests,it must alsodismiss any possibility
of resorting to equity contra legem. Nor will the Chamber apply equity
prueter legem.On the other hand, it will have regard to equity infra legem,
that is, that form of equity which constitutes amethod of interpretation ofthe lawin force, and isone of itsattributes. As theCourthas observed :"It
is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution, but an equitable

solution derived from the applicable law." (Fisheries Jurisdiction, I.C.J.
Reports 1974, p. 33, para. 78 ;p. 202, para. 69.) How in practice the
Chamber will approach recourse to this kind of equity in the present case
willemergefrom itsapplication throughout this Judgrnent of theprinciples
and rules which it finds to be applicable.

29. The determination of a frontier linebetween twoStates isobviously
a matter of international law, but the Parties both recognize also that the

question has here to be appraised in the light of French colonial law, "droit
d'outre-mer". Sincetheterritories of the twoStateshad been part of French
West Africa, the former boundary between them became an international
frontier only at the moment when they became independent. The line
which the Chamber isrequired to determine asbeing that which existed in
1959-1960,was at that time merely the administrative boundary dividing
two former French colonies, called territoires d'outre-mer from 1946 ;as
such it had to be defined not according to international law,but according
to the French legislation which was applicable to such territoires.

30. One clarification is, however,necessary asconcerns the application

of French droit d'outre-mer. By becorning independent, a new State
acquires sovereignty with the territorial base and boundaries left to it by
thecolonial power. This ispart of the ordinaryoperation of the machinery
of State succession. International law - and consequentlythe principle of
utipossidetis - applies to the new State (as a State) not with retroactive
effect, but immediately and from that moment onwards. It applies to the
State as it is,i.e., to the "photograph" of the territorial situation then
existing. The principle of utipossidetis freezesthe territorial title ;it stops
the clock, but does riot put back the hands. Hence international law does
not effect any renvoi to the law established by the colonizing State, nor
indeed to any legal rule unilaterally established by any State whatever ;

French law - especially legislation enacted by France for its colonies and
territoires d'outre-mer - may play arolenot in itself (as if there were a sort
of continuumjuris, a legal relay between such law and international law),
but only asone factual element among others, or as evidence indicative of
what has been called the "colonial heritage", Le.,the "photograph of the
territory" at the critical date.

31. With a viewto a proper understanding of what follows,it should be

18recalled that from the beginning of the century upto theentry into forceof
the French Constitution of 27October 1946,the territorial administration
of French West Africa was centralized. It was headed by a governor-
general,and wasdivided into colonies ;thepower to create or abolish these
belonged to the executive in Paris. At the head of each colony was a
lieutenant-governor. The colonies were themselvesmade up of basic units
called cercles which were administered by commandants de cercle ; the

creation and abolition of the cercles were the sole prerogative of the
governor-general, who decided their overall extent. Each cerclein turn was
composed ofsubdivisions,administered bychefsdesubdivision.Finally,the
subdivisionscomprised cantons,which grouped together a number of vil-
lages. The creation and abolition of subdivisionsand cantonswithin any
particular cerclecame within thejurisdiction of the lieutenant-governor of
the colony of which the cercleformed part.

32. For the purpose of determining in broad terms what for each of the
two Parties was the colonial heritage to which the utipossidetis was to
apply, theorigins of the French coloniesconcerned willbe briefly retraced.
For this purpose, however, it is unnecessary to go further back in the
history of the colonies of French West Africa than 1919.At that time, the
present territories of Mali and Burkina Faso both formed part of the
colony of Upper Senegaland Niger. Byvirtue of a decree of the President
of the French Republic dated 1March 1919,the cerclesof Gaoua, Bobo-
Dioulasso, Dédougou, Ouagadougou, Dori and Fada N'Gourma, which
had until then been part of Upper Senegaland Niger, wereestablished as a
separate colony with the name of Upper Volta. Bya decree of 4 December
1920,the remainingterritones, comprisingwhat was left of Upper Senegal

and Niger, were given the name of French Sudan, and by a decree of
13October 1922the Civil Territory of the Niger became an independent
colony. The colony of French Sudan (or Sudan) continued to existas such,
or as a territoire d'outre-mer,until 1959 when it became the Sudanese
Republic, and then achieved independence, as the Federation of Mali, on
20 June 1960.On the other hand, the decree of 1March 1919which had
created Upper Volta was rescinded by a decree of 5 September 1932,and
the cercleswhich had comprised Upper Volta were incorporated, in whole
or in part, into Niger and into French Sudan or the Ivory Coast. The
Chamber refers to paragraph 73 below and to sketch-map No. 2, which
showsthe distribution of the cerclesin the disputed frontier region. Upper
Volta was reconstituted in 1947by the law47-1707 of 4 September 1947,
which rescinded outright the decree of 5 September 1932that had abol-
ished the colony of Upper Volta, and stated that the boundanes of "the
re-established territory of Upper Volta" were to be "those of the former
colony of Upper Volta on 5 September 1932". It was this reconstituted
Upper Volta which subsequently obtained independence on 5 August
1960.and took the name of Burkina Faso in 1984. 33. For both Parties, the problem is to ascertain what is the frontier
which was inherited from the French administration, that is, the frontier
which existed at the moment of independence. However, their views
diverge somewhat asto the exact dateto bechosen for that purpose. In the
opinion of Burkina Faso, the datetobe taken into consideration is that of
the accession of each Party to independence : 20 June 1960for Mali and
5August 1960for Burkina Faso. In Mali's opinion, it is necessary to go
back tothe "last date on which the French colonial authorities ~artici~ated
in the exercise of jurisdiction for administrative organizat[onm, a date
which, for the reasonsexplained in itsMemonal, Mali fixesat 30January
1959for the Sudanese Republic and 28 February 1959for Upper Volta.
The Parties have however,while holding to their respective contentions as
to the legal grounds which warrant the choice of these dates, ultimately
admitted that thepoint has no practical implicationsfor the case.They are
requesting the Chamber to ascertain what, in the disputed area, was the
frontier between the territoiresd'outre-meof Sudan and of Upper Voltaas
it existed in 1959-1960.Although it was said on a number of occasions,
during the colonial period, that there was no frontier which was fully
determined by direct or delegated legislation, the two Parties both agree
that when they becarne independent there was a definite frontier. Both of
them also accept that no modification of the frontier took place between
January 1959and August 1960,or has taken place since.

34. The Parties have expounded at length the origins of the frontier
dispute which is presently before the Chamber. Since however the line of
the frontier has to be defined asit existed in the years 1959-1960,and the
Parties agree that no legal validity attaches to any subsequent acts of
administration which may have been performed by either of them on the
territory of theother,a reviewof thefrontier incidents and theefforts made

to bnng the dispute to an end would hardly bepertinent. Nevertheless, one
Burkinabeargumentwarrants particular attention.This argument isbased
on the conduct of the Malian Government during the negotiations which
led to agreements be:ingconcluded for the delimitation of the 900or 1,022
kilometres of frontier which are no longer in dispute, and on that Gov-
ernment's attitude towards the work of a Mediation Commission of the
Organization of African Unity which sat in 1975.According to Burkina
Faso, Mali accepted asbinding the solution to thedispute outlined by that
Commission. Since this argument from acquiescence would, if correct,
make it unnecessary to endeavour to establish the frontier inherited from
the colonial period, it should be dealt with at the outset as a preliminary
question.

35. Very soon after achieving independence, the Parties set up bilateral FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 571

negotiating machinery with a view to resolving their frontier problems.
Thus, as early as 29 November 1961,they gave institutional shape to the
regular meetings already held during the colonial period between theheads
of the frontier districts,by establishng a "mixed commission composed of
the chefs de circonscription".Subsequently, on 25 February 1964, they
instituted a "joint commission" comprising for each State a government
delegate, ageographer,a topographer and the commandantsof the frontier
cercles,its task being to make proposals by 15June 1964"for the delimi-
tation of the frontier on the basis of the preparatory work of the chefsde
circonscription".This commission was replaced by a "standing joint com-
mission" created on 8 May 1968,which comprised the Ministers of the

Interior together with representatives of various ministries of both coun-
tries. The task entrusted to this latter body was a much broader one :
general CO-operationbetween the twocountries. Finally, in the same year,
a conference of Ministers of the Interior of both Parties created a "mixed
technical commission", comprisingfor each State a government represen-
tative, a topographer, a geographer and the chefsde circonscriptioncon-
cerned. The task of this commission was "to survey and identify the
frontier in accordance with the pre-independence documents held by the
Governments of Mali and Upper Volta". The Parties have produced a
number of records and documents emanating from these bodies.

36. Following an armed conflict between the twocountries whichbroke
out on 14December 1974,appeals were made for conciliation, notably by
the head of State of Somalia, then President of the Organization of African
Unity, and by the President of Senegal.On 26 December 1974,the Presi-
dents of Upper Volta, Mali and Togo met at Loméand decided to set up a
Mediation Commissïon composed of Togo, Niger, Guinea and Senegal.
Oneof thetasks of theCommission asstated in the Lomécommuniquéwas
that of "seeking a solution to the frontier dispute on the basis of existing
legal documents". The Mediation Commission met on 6 and 7 January

1975and set up a Military Sub-Commission and a Legal Sub-Commis-
sion ; the latter's roll: included "drawing up an initial draft proposal for
submission to theCommission,comprising ...an outline solution. .."On
11 April 1975, the head of State of Mali granted an interview to the
France-Presse agency, during which he stated that :

"Mali extends over 1,240,000square kilometres, and we cannot
justifyfighting for ascrap of territory 150kilometres long. Evenif the
Organization of African Unity Commission decides objectively that

the frontier linepasses through Bamako, my Government willcomply
with the decision."

37. The Legal Sub-Commission presented its report to the Mediation
Commission on 14June 1975,suggesting "that the Parties should accept
the following ...". Paragraph A refers to the implementation of the prin- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 572

ciple of the intangibility of colonial frontiers, and to the use for that
purpose of texts and maps. In paragraph B,the Sub-Commissionpresents
specific proposals for the frontier line. On 17 and 18 June 1975, the
Mediation Commission met at Lomé. Withthe participation of the Presi-
dents of Upper Volta and Mali, the Commission adopted a final commu-

niquéstating that :
"Upper Volta and Mali undertake to bring their dispute toan end on
the basis of the recommendations of the Mediation Commission.

The two Parties agree to the establishment by the Chairman of the
Mediation Commission of a neutral technical committee ... the task
of this committee being to determine the location of the villages of

Dionouga, Diolouna, Oukoulou and Koubo, to reconnoitre the fron-
tier and to make proposals for its materialization to the Commis-
sion."
On 10July 1975,theheads of Stateof both Parties met again at Conakry, at
the invitation of the President of the Republic of Guinea. In a joint
declaration published on this occasion, the Parties

"welcome theefforts madeand the results achieved by the Mediation
Commission of the Organization of Afncan Unity, and affirm their
common intention to do their utmost to transcend [dépasser]these
results, especially by facilitating the delimitation of the frontier
between the two States in order to place the final seal on their
reconciliation".

The neutral technical comrnittee whch had been spoken of at the meeting
of 17and 18June 1975wasin fact setup by the chairman of the Mediation
Commission, but wasunable to fulfilitsfunction. To enable the cornmittee
to accomplish it, the proposa1 had been made that a systematic survey
should be made of the frontier zone on the basis of aerial photographs, a
task to be performed by the French Institut géographique national. Mali
refused to grant the necessary authorizations for overflightsof its territory,
and despite further contacts between the Parties, this was how matters
remained until the conclusion of the SpecialAgreement by which the case
was brought before the Court.

38. The two Parties agree, in the first place, that the Mediation Com-
rilission of the Organization of African Unity was not a jurisdictional
body, and lacked the powerto take legallybinding decisions ;in the second
place,that theComnussion neveractuallycompletedits work, sinceit took
rio steps formally to take note of the reports of its subcornmissions, and
submitted no definitive overall solution forconsideration by the Parties in
the context of its mediatingfunctions. However, Burkina Faso argues that
there wasacquiescence by Mali in the solutionsoutlined in thiscontext, on
two distinct grounds. On the basis of the facts descnbed above it argues,
firstly, that the final communiqué of the Lomé summit conference of27 December 1974, setting up the Mediation Commission, has to be
treated as a genuine international agreement binding upon the States
parties. Further, whileadmitting that the Mediation Commission was not
empowered to render binding decisions, Burkina Faso alleges that the

report of the Legal Sub-Commission, endorsed by the summit meeting of
Heads of State or Government held at Loméon 17 and 18 June 1975,
became binding for Mali because Mali had proclaimed itself already
bound by the report whch might have been made by the Mediation
Commission, by virtue of thedeclaration madeby the President of Malion
11April 1975.The effect of the Lomé finalcommuniquéof 18June 1975,
which according to Burkina Faso emanated from the enlarged Mediation
Commission and is also an international agreement which the Parties are
bound to observe, was to reinforce Mali's obligations in the matter. Mali
challenges this interpretation of the statement of its President of 11April
1975 ;it observes, in the first place, that the Commission would have to
have had a power of decision, which was not legally the case, and in the
second place, that the comment by Mali's head of State was merely "a
witticismof thekind regularly uttered at pressconferences", whichimplied
"no more than that Mali is anxious to consider the Commission's recom-
mendations with goodwilland in good faith". Malialsochallenges Burkina

Faso's interpretation of the final communique of 18June 1975.In Mali's
view, the Mediation Commission did not, strictly speaking, make any
recommendation, and the heads of State did not accept anypredeterrnined
line ;on the contrary, in entrusting a neutral technical committee with the
task of determining the position of certain villages, reconnoitring the
frontier, and making proposals to the Commission for its materialization,
they instructed that committee to produce new proposals, and this, in
Mali'sopinion, surely indicates that the proposals of the subcommissions
were not final ones.

39. The statement of Mali's Head of State on 11 April 1975was not
made during negotiations or talksbetween the two Parties ;at most,ittook
the form of a unilateral act by the Government of Mali. Such declarations
"concerning legal or factual situations" may indeed "have the effect of
creating legalobligations" for the Stateon whose behalf they are made, as

the Court observed in the Nuclear Tests cases(I.C.J. Reports 1974,pp. 267,
472).But the Court alsomade clear in those cases that it isonly "when it is
the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become
bound according to its terms" that "that intention confers on the decla-
ration the character of a legal undertaking" (ibid.)Thus it al1depends on
the intention of the State in question, and the Court emphasized that it is
for the Court to "form its own viewof the meaning and scopeintended by
the author of a unilateral declaration which may create a legal obligation"
(ibid.,pp. 269, 474). In the case concerning Military and Paramilitay
Activities inand agairistNicaragua (Nicaragua v. UnitedStates ofAmerica),
the Court examined a communication transmitted by the Junta of
National Reconstruction of Nicaragua to the Organization of American FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 574

States, in which the Junta listed its objective;but the Court wasunable to
find anything in that communication "from whch it can be inferred that
any legal undertaking was intended to exist" (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 132,
para. 261).The Chamber considers that it has a duty to show even greater

caution when it is aquestion of aunilateral declaration not directed to any
particular recipient.

40. In order to assess the intentions of the author of a unilateral act,
account must be taken of al1the factual circumstances in which the act
occurred. For example, in the NuclearTestscases, the Court took the view
that since the applicant States were not the only ones concerned at the
possible continuance of atmospheric testing by the French Government,
that Government's unilateral declarations had "conveyed to the world at
large, including the Applicant, its intention effectively to terminate these
tests" (I.C.J. Reports1974,p. 269, para. 51 ;p. 474, para. 53). In the par-
ticular circumstances of those cases, the French Government could not
expressan intention tobe bound othenvise than by unilateraldeclarations.
It is difficult to see how it could have accepted the terms of a negotiated
solution with each of the applicants without thereby jeopardizing its con-
tention that its conduct was lawful. The circumstances of the present case

are radically different. Here, there was nothing to hinder the Parties from
manifesting an intention toaccept the binding character of the conclusions
of the Organization of African Unity Mediation Commission by the nor-
mal method : a fornial agreement on the basis of reciprocity. Since no
agreement of this kirid was concluded between the Parties, the Chamber
finds that there are no grounds to interpret thedeclaration made by Mali's
head of State on 11April 1975as aunilateral act with legalimplications in
regard to the present case.

41. The second argument advanced by Burkina Faso to establish
acquiescence by Mali concerns the principles of delimitation approved by
the Legal Sub-Comniission of the Organization of African Unity Media-
tion Commission. In its report, the Sub-Commission did not refer solelyto
the principle of the intangibility of colonial frontiers ;it also defined, for
the purpose of applying it, the appropriate method of appraising the

respective weight of the evidence produced - specifically, the texts on the
one hand and the maps on the other -, and of contrasting or reconciling
these where necessary. Burkina Fasoconsiders that the principles adopted
by the Sub-Commission in this matter were the same as those which it
contends should be applied to the delimitation of the whole of its frontier
with Mali. It also claims that Mali agreed to these principles being taken
into consideration for the purpose of delimiting the greater part of the
common frontier. It concludes therefore that Mali may not reject their
application to the determination of the frontier in the disputed area, in
viewof the principle that a Statecannot disclaim in a particular instance
rules and principles to which it has acquiesced in comparable circum- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 575

stances, when their operation becomes disadvantageous to itself. This

latter principle,according to Burkina Faso,must be combined with that of
the unity of the frontier line. It thus argues that the delimitation of the
frontier in the disputed area has to be approached as a whole ;it takes the
viewtha tunlessthere are compellingreasons to thecontrary, theprinciples
of delimitation and the evidence already recognized by the Parties as
relevant for the purpose of drawing their common frontier over approxi-
mately 1,000kilometres, do not cease to be relevant in delimiting the re-
maining 300 kilometres. Mali however states that it could not accept the
report of the Legal Sub-Commission, on its merits, as an instrument
potentially offering a reasonable solution, even on a compromise basis,
and claims that it never did accept it. Referring to the principles imputed
by Burkina Faso to the Sub-Commission, Mali rejects the position of the
other Party particularly on the questions of the importance of the maps
and conduct evincing effectivity.
42. It must be recalled in this connection that the Chamber, whose
judgment "shall beconsidered asrendered by theCourt" (Statute, Art. 27),
is bound to settle the present dispute "in accordance with international
law" (Art. 38).Accordingly, it is on the basis of international law that the
Chamber will have to fix the frontier line, weighing for that purpose the
legal force of the respective evidence submitted by the Parties for its
appraisal. It is therefore of little significance whether Mali adopted a
particular approach, either in the course of negotiations on frontier ques-
tions, or with respect to the conclusions of the Legal Sub-Commission of

the Organization of African Unity Mediation Commission, and whether
that approach may or may not beconstrued to reflect a specificposition, or
indeed to signifyacquiescence, towards the principles and rules, including
those which determine the respective weight of the various kinds of evi-
dence applicable to the dispute. If theseprinciples and rules are applicable
as elements of law in the present case, they remain so whatever Mali's
attitude. If the reverse is true, the Chamber could only take account of
them if the two Parties had requested it to do so, or had given such
principles and rules a special place in the Special Agreement, as "rules
expressly recognized by the contesting States" (Art. 38,para. 1(a), of the
Statute).

"While the Court is ...bound to haveregard to al1the legalsources
specified in Article 38,paragraph 1,of the Statute. . it isalso bound,
in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), of that Article, to apply the
provisions of the Special Agreement." (I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 37,
para. 23.)

43. The reason why the argument from the notion of acquiescence, as
set out above, has been dealt with by the Chamber at an initial stage of
its Judgment is that it is in the nature of a preliminary question. If the FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 576

Chamber had upheld the contention that the report of the Legal Sub-
Commission of the Mediation Commission had become binding, it would
onlyhave had to endorse it. Both theParties havehoweverresorted in other
connections to arguments bearing upon acquiescence, estoppel or the
conduct of the Parties. Mali has referred to "the inconsistency shown by
Upper Volta and thereafter by Burkina Faso" towards aregulation (Order
2728APof 27November 1935)on which,aswillbe seenlater, Mali rests its
claims in regard to the western part of the disputed area. For its part,
Burkina Faso argues in connection with a projected definition of the
boundarv between thecolonies of French Sudan and Niger in 1935.said to
have bein accepted by the Governor of Sudan as a description of the
existing boundary, that "what was accepted by French Sudan is therefore
binding upon Mali by virtue of State succession". However, the Chamber
considers that these questions should be reserved and examined, if
necessary, when the Chamber turns to its examination of the texts in
question.

44. Before turning to the various kinds of evidence invoked by the
Parties to support their claims in regard to the line of the frontier, the
Chamber must dispose of a further prelirninary question, namely : what
are itspowers in the matter offixingthe tripoint whichformsthe end-point
of thefrontier between the Parties. In its Memorial, Mali observes that the
tripoint NigerIMalilBurkina Fasocannot bedeterrninedby the twoParties
without Niger's agreement, nor can it be determined by the Chamber,
which may not affect the rights of a third State not a party to the pro-
ceedings. According to Mali, the eastern extremity of the frontier in the
disputed area must be determined in such a way as not to infringe these
rights, and thiscould onlybe done ifthedelimitation wereto terminate at a
given point which is not the end-point. Burkina Faso, on the other hand,
considers that the Cliamber must perform the whole of the task entrusted
to it by the Special Agreement, and must for that purpose decide the

position of the tripoint. In its view, if the Chamber discharges its task in
this manner, it would not infringe the rights of Niger,since the soleobject
of itsdecision would be to determine the line of the frontier between the
Parties. Burkina Faso believes that although the meeting-point between
that frontier and the frontier of Niger is a tripoint, the determination of
that point will be a consequence and not the object of the Chamber's
judgment. Mali rejects the argument that the Special Agreement requires
the Chamber todetermine the tripoint, pointing out that the text refers toa
"disputed area" consisting of "a band of territory extending from the
sector Koro (Mali) Iljibo (Upper Volta) up to and including the region of
the Béli".According to Mali, the text is silent asto the actual point where
theChamber's line is to begin or end ;and the Chamber cannot determine
the tripoint without simultaneously decidingthequestion of Niger's rights
in its relation to each of the Parties. Burkina Faso replies by, interalia,drawing the Chamber's attention to the preamble to the Special Agree-

ment, according to which the Parties are seelung "the definitive delimita-
tion and demarcation of their cornrnon frontier". Whle holding to its
forma1submission, whichmentions the "tripoint", Burkina Faso neverthe-
less concedes that it might be preferable for thejudgment to refer to "the
easternextremity of thecommonfrontier" between the Parties, rather than
to the tripoint.

45. In the Chamber's opinion, it should first be recalled that there is a
distinction between the question of thejurisdiction conferred upon it by
the Special Agreement concluded between the Parties, and the question
whether "the adjudication sought by the Applicant is one which the
Court's judicial function permits it to give", a question considered by the
Court in the caseconcerningthe NorthernCameroons,among others (I.C.J.
Reports 1963, p. 31).As it also statedin that case, "even if the Court, when
seised, finds that it hasjurisdiction, the Court is not compelled in every

case to exercise that jurisdiction" (ibid., p. 29). But in the absence of
"considerations which would lead it to decline to givejudgment" (I.C.J.
Reports 1974, p. 271, para. 58), the Court is bound to fulfil the functions
assigned to it by its Statute. Moreover, the Court has recently confirmed
the principle that it "must not exceed thejurisdiction conferred upon it by
the Parties, but it must also exercise that jurisdiction to its full extent"
(ContinentalShey (LibyanArab Jarnahiriyu/Malta), I.C.J. Reports 1985,
p. 23). In the present case, the Chamber finds it to be clear from the
wording of the Special Agreement - including its preamble - that the
common intention of the Parties was that the Chamber shouldindicate the
frontier line between their respective territories throughout the whole of
the "disputed area", and that this area was for them the whole of the
frontier not yet delimited byjoint agreement.
46. The Chamber also considers that its jurisdiction is not restricted
simply because the end-point of the frontier lies on the frontier of a third
State not a party to the proceedings. The rights of the neighbouring State,
Niger, are in any event safeguarded by the operation of Article 59 of the

Statute of theCourt, whichprovides that "The decision of theCourthasno
binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular
case". The Parties could at any time have concluded an agreement for the
delimitation of their frontier,according to whatever perception they might
have had of it, and an agreement of this lund, although legally binding
upon them by virtue of the principle pacta sunt servanda, would not be
opposable to Niger. Ajudicial decision, which "is simply an alternative to
the direct and friendly settlement" of the dispute between the Parties
(P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 22, p. 13), merely substitutes for the solution
stemmingdirectlyfrom their shared intention, the solution arrived at by a
court under the mandate which they have given it. In both instances, the
solutiononlyhas legaland binding effect asbetween the States which have
accepted it, either directly or as a consequence of having accepted the FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 578

court'sjurisdiction to decide the case.Accordingly, onthe supposition that
the Chamber's judgment specifies a point which it finds to be the east-

ernmost point of the frontier, there would be nothing to prevent Niger
fromclaimingrights, vis-à-viseither of the Parties, to territories lyingwest
of the point identified by the Chamber.
47. AdmittedIy, in the case of the ContinentalSheif(Libyan ArabJama-
hiriya/Malta), the Court confined its decision to a certain geographical
area because, as it explained,
"the Court has iiot been endowed withjurisdiction to determine what

principles and rulesgovern delimitations with third States, or whether
the claims of the Parties outside that area prevail over the claims
of those third States in the region" (I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 26,
para. 21).
But the process by which a court determines the line of a land boundary
between two States can be clearly distinguished from the process by which
it identifies the principles and rules applicable to the delimitation of the
continental shelf. The legal considerations which have to be taken into

account in determining the location of the land boundary between parties
are in no way dependent on the position of the boundary between the
territory of either of those parties and the territory of a third State, even
where, as in the present case, the rights in question for al1three States
derive from one and the same predecessor State. On the other hand, in
continental shelf delimitations, an agreement between the parties which is
perfectly valid and binding on the treaty level may, when the relations
between theparties and a third Stateare taken into consideration, prove to
be contrary to the rulesof international lawgoveming thecontinental shelf
(see North Sea Continental Shelf, 1.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 20, para. 14 ;
pp. 27-28,paras. 35-36).It follows that a court dealing with a request for
the delimitation of a continental shelf must decline, even if so authorized
by the disputant parties, to rule upon rights relating to areas in whch third
States have such claims as may contradict the legal considerations -
especiallyin regard toequitable principles - which would have formed the
basis of its decision.

48. At most, the Chamber should consider whether, in this case, con-
siderations related to the need to safeguard the interests of the third State
concerned require it to refrain from exercisingits jurisdiction to determine
the whole course of the line. In this regard, the Chamber is not unrnindful
of the fact that Niger and Burkina Faso agreed by the Niamey Protocol of
23 June 1964,to "treat as basic documents for the determination of the
frontier" between them ageneral Order issuedby the Govemor-General of
French West Afnca on 31 August 1927,an erratum to that Order dated
5 October 1927and a 1:200,000scale map of the Institut géographique
national from the year 1960, these being the same documents as those
invoked by Burkina Faso in support of its contention regarding the loca-
tion of the end-point of the frontier with Mali. Pointing to this fact,
Burkina Faso infers that if this point were fixed according to the infor- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 579

mation contained in these documents, there would be no infringement of

Niger's rights.The Chamber cannot share this view. From the mere fact
that the same documents are used as the starting-point for the Chamber's
reasoning and for the negotiations between Burkina Faso and Niger, it
cannot be inferred that the practical conclusions reached in both opera-
tions, regarding the location of the end-point of the frontier between
Burkina Faso and Mali, would necessarily be the same. It is clear that the
interpretation given by the Chamber, for the purposes of this case, of the
1927Order and its erratum willnot be opposable to Niger, which has not
participated in the proceedings and consequently has been unable to state
its views. Mali further claims, for reasons to be exarnined later, that the
Order of 1927was invalidated by a factual error and is therefore inap-
plicable. This argument, the correctness or otherwise of which has to be
decided by the Chamber, does not at first sight appear to have been put
forward in the context of the Niamey Protocol ;but this is again a matter
outside thejurisdiction of the Chamber, whichhasnot been called upon by
the parties to that Protocol to interpret it.

49. The fact is, as the Parties seem to have realized towards the end of
theproceedings, that thequestionhas been wronglydefined. The Chamber
isin fact required,not to fixatripoint, whichwould necessitate theconsent
of al1the States concerned, but to ascertain, in the light of the evidence
whichthe Parties havemade available toit, how far the frontier which they
inherited from the colonial power extends. Certainly such a finding
implies, as a logical corollary, both that the territory of a third State lies
beyond the end-point, and that the Parties have exclusivesovereign rights
up to that point. However, this is no more than a twofold presumption
which underlies any boundary situation. This presumption remains in
principle irrebuttable in the judicial context of a given case, in the sense
that neither of the disputant parties, having contended that it possesses a
common frontier with the other as far as a specific point, can change its
position to relyon the allegedexistenceof sovereigntypertaining to a third

State ; but ths presumption does not thereby create a ground of opposa-
bility outside that context and against the third State. Indeed, this is the
wholepoint of the above-quoted Article 59of the Statute. It istruethat in a
givencase it may be clear from the record that the legalinterests of a third
State "would not only be affected by a decision, but would form the very
subject-matter of the decision" (Monetaty Gold Removedfrom Rome in
1943, 1.C.J. Reports 1954,p. 32)so that the Court has to use its power "to
refuse to exercise itsjurisdiction" (1.CC.. Reports 1984, p. 43 1,para. 88).
However, this is not the case here.
50. The Chamber therefore concludes that it has a duty to decide the
whole of the petiturn entrusted to it ; that is, to indicate the line of the
frontier between the Parties over the entire length of the disputed area. In
so doing, it will define the location of the end-point of the frontier in the
east,the point where this frontier ceasesto divide the territories of Burkina FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 580

Fasoand Mali ; but, as explained above, this willnot amount to a decision

by the Chamber that this is a tripoint which affects Niger. In accordance
with Article 59 of the Statute, tlus Judgment will alsonot be opposable to
Niger as regards the course of that country's frontiers.

51. Among the evidence cited by the Parties in the present case, the
basic document is the French law 47-1707of 4 September 1947"for the
re-establishment of the territory of Upper Volta". The decision to abolish
the colony of Upper Volta had been made in the form of a decree. The
reason whyalawwasnecessary to reversethat decision wasbecause, under
Article 86 of the Constitution of the French Republic of 1946,only the
French Parliament could then determine the extent, and accordingly the
boundaries, of a territoire d'outre-mer.As noted above, the 1947law pro-
vided (Art. 2) that the boundaries of the territory were to be "those of the

former colony of Upper Volta on 5 September 1932" ; Article 3 also
provided that "the territorial boundaries defined in Article 2 may be
modified following consultation with the local assemblies concerned". As
far as the disputed area is concerned, no modifications were made under
this provision, so that the boundaries of Upper Volta in that area at the
time of its accession to independence in 1960remained those which had
existed on 5 September 1932.However, neither the legislative and regu-
lative texts, nor the relevant administrative documents, contain any com-
pletedescription of the course of the boundary between French Sudan and
Upper Volta during the two periods when these colonies CO-existed,Le.,
between 1919and 1932,and between 1947and 1960.The principal texts of
this kind which the Parties have produced to the Chamber are limited in
scope, and the legal significance or the interpretation of most of these are
matters of dispute between the Parties.

52. Apart from the above-mentioned lawof4September 1947,the most
important documents in question are the following (in chronological
order) :
- the decree of 1 March 1919, already mentioned, which created the
colony of Upper Volta ;
- an Order issued by the Governor-General of French West Africa on
31 December 1922 "for the reorganization of the region of Timbuktu"

(French Sudan). This Order provided that
"The cercle of Gao ... is delimited ... To the West by a line
beginning at Saleah on the Niger. .. and passing through En Amaka,
Tinarnassarori, the pools of Oussodia Mersi and In Abao, and, from
that point, the northern boundary of Upper Volta." FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 581

The Parties both conclude from this text that the boundary which existed
between Sudan and Upper Volta in 1932ran past the pool of In Abao, but
disagree on the question whether the line intersected the pool or was
merely tangential to it ;
- a general Order issued by the Governor-General ad interimof French
West Africa on 31 August 1927 "fixing the boundaries of the colonies of
Upper Volta and Niger", modified by an "erratum" of 5 October 1927,

published in theJournalofficielof French WestAfrica on 15October 1927.
Admittedly this Order, as its text makes clear, dealt with the frontier
between Upper Volta and Niger, and not thefrontier between Upper Volta
and French Sudan. But the two Parties recognize that this text, unless
shown to beinvalidatedbyerror as Maliclaims,isrelevant for thepurposes
of the present case, since the starting-point of the frontier line between
Upper Volta and Niger was also the end-point of the frontier between
Upper Volta and French Sudan and of the frontier between French Sudan
and Niger, that is, the tripoint mentioned above ;

- the decree of 5 September 1932, already mentioned, for the abolition

of the colony of Upper Volta ;
- an exchange of letters which took place in 1935between the Gover-
nor-General of French West Africa and the Lieutenant-Governors of
French Sudan and Niger (letter 191CM2 of 19 February 1935 from the
Governor-General to the Lieutenant-Governors ;a reply by the Lieuten-
ant-Governor of French Sudan dated 3 June 1935). It may be noted in
passing that letter 191CM2 is the only available text which mentions a
point defined in ternis of CO-ordinatesof latitudeand longitude : thepoint
1" 24' 15" W, 14"43'45" N. For the sake of easier reference in the pas-
sages to follow, this point will be called "point P" ;

- an Order (2728AP) "for the delimitation of the cerclesof Bafoulabé,
Bamako and Mopti (French Sudan)", issued on 27 November 1935 by the
Governor-General ad interim of French West Africa. On that date, it will
be remembered, Upper Volta no longer existed, since the territories which
formerly comprised it had been distributed among French Sudan, Niger
and the Ivory Coast.The cercleof Mopti, which was Sudanese at that time
and is now Malian, bordered upon the cercleof Ouahigouya, which was
also a Sudanese unit at the time, but subsequently became Voltan again
(from 1947 onwards) and is now part of Burkina Faso. Most of the
boundary between these two cercles was again to form the boundary
between the territoiresd'outre-merof Upper Volta and Sudan. According

to Article 1of the Order of 27 November 1935,the cercleof Mopti was
bounded on the east by "a line running markedly northeast, leaving to the
cercleof Mopti the villages of Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou,
Koubo ...".A sirnilarform of words is used inan Order of 2August 1945
for the reorganization of the cercleof Mopti ;it is not known whether this
Order waseverpublished. The Parties do not agreeupon the legaleffectsto
be attributed to this provision. They are at odds as to whether the line
indicated in the text, in "leaving" the villages in question to the cercleofboundaries, does not thereby become more reliable. Of course, the relia-
bility of the toponymic information has alsoincreased,although to alesser
degree, owing to verification on the ground ;but in the opinion of car-
tographers, errors are still common in the representation of frontiers,
especially when these are shown in border areas to which access is diffi-
cult.

56. Other considerations which determine the weight of maps as evi-

dence relate to the neutrality of their sources towards the dispute in
question and the parties to that dispute. Since relatively distant times,
judicial decisions have treated maps with a considerable degree of cau-
tion : less so in more recent decisions, at least as regards the technical
reliability of maps. But even where the guarantees described above are
present, maps can still have no greater legal value than that of corrobo-
rative evidence endorsing a conclusion at whch a court has arrived by
other means unconnected with the maps. In consequence, except when the
maps are in the category of a physical expression of the will of the State,
theycannot in themselvesalone be treated asevidenceofafrontier, sincein
that event they would form an irrebuttable presumption, tantamount in
fact to legaltitle. The only value they possessis as evidence of an auxiliary
or confirmatory kind, and this also means that they cannot be given the
character of a rebuttable orjuris tanturn presumption such as to effect a
reversa1of the onus of proof.

57. The Chamber now turns to the maps produced in this case. Not a
single map available to the Chamber can reliably be said to reflect the
intentions of the colonial administration expressed in the relevant texts
concerning the disputed frontier. The law of 4 September 1947"for the

re-establishment of theterritory of Upper Volta" made no reference to any
map ; al1it contained was a reference in general terms to the boundaries
"of theformer colony ...on 5September 1932".Neither of the two Parties
has been able to identify themap, if there was one, which was used by the
French lawmakers in 1947in order to obtain a clearer picture of those
boundaries. As regards Order 2336 of 1927 and its erratum, Mali has
produced a map bearing the inscription "New frontier of Upper Volta and
Niger (according to the erratum of 5 October 1927 to the Order dated
31August 1927)" ; however, the document offers no information as to
which officia1 body compiled it or which administrative authority
approved theline shown on it. Amap was annexed to letter 191CM2 from
theGovernor-General of French WestAfrica dated 19February 1935,but
this map hasnot been found. Finally, Order 2728AP of27November 1935
defined the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti "as transcribed on the maps
annexed" thereto, but here again the Parties have been unable to find the
maps in question, and one of them doubts whether they ever existed. Thusthe Chamber is confronted with an unusual situation which does not ease
its burden. It has no rnap available to it whch can provide a direct officia1
illustration of the words contained in the four texts already mentioned,
which are essential to the case,even though their authors had intended two
of these texts to be accompanied by such maps.

58. The cartographic documentation has assumed unaccustomed pro-

portions in this case, to the point of creating adual paradox. On the one
hand, the Chamber is faced with a considerable body of maps, sketches
and drawings for a region which is nevertheless described as being partly
unknown ;and, on the other hand, no indisputable frontier line is discer-
nible from this abiindance of cartographic materials. To this must be
added the somewhat curiousfact that, asjust explained, whenever there is
some question of a rnap annexed to a regulation or enclosed with an
administrative document which the Chamber has to interpret, that is the
verymap, ofal1thosewhichthe Parties havemanaged toassemble, whichis
found tobe missing.Thesecircumstances cal1for specialvigilancefromthe
outset when examining the file of maps.
59. Of al1 the maps produced, two appear to be of special overall
significance for the purposes of the case. The Parties have devoted much
attention to these, and Burkina Faso has referred expressly to them in its
submissions. These are the 1:500,000scale rnap of the colonies of French
WestAfrica, 1925edition, compiled bytheGeographical Serviceof French

West Africa at Dakar and printed in Pans by Blondel la Rougery (recon-
naissance rnap ; compilation of the Hombori D 30 and Ansongo D 31
sheets) ;and the 1:200,000scalernap of West Africa, issued by the French
Institut géographique national, which was originally published between
1958and 1960(Ansongo, In Tillit, Dori, Tera and Djibo sheets).

60. For Burkina Faso the first of these two maps, described hereafter as
the "Blondel la Rougery map", is of special importance because, until
1960, it remained the largest-scale rnap published by the Geographical
Serviceof the Governorship General of French West Africa. Relyingon an
administrative circular, 93CM2 of 4 February 1930,Burkina Faso claims
that the territorial authorities had to refer to this rnap in order to fix orto
modify the administrative boundaries and that the colonial officiais con-
sidered themselvesbound by it. The text of circular 93CM2 of 4 February
1930 has not been filed, and the only information about it which is
available to the Chamber iscontained in a letter of 11July 1935,addressed

by the Geographical Service of French West Africa to the Director of
Political and AdministrativeAffairs in the officeof the Governor-General
of French West Africa. With reference to a draft text defining district
boundaries, the Geographical Service stated :

"It would be appropriate to seekfurther information and to request
the Lieutenant-Governor of the Sudan to comply with the instruc- tions in general circular No. 93 CM2 of 4 February 1930 which
stipulates that 'the order must be confined to general indications,
specifyingby means of a special clause that theboundary is as drawn
on the rnap ... (scale and title of the sheet) annexed to this
order'.
The rnap used must be the largest-scale rnap in existence published
by the Geographical Serviceof the Governorship General (cf. same
circular)."

The Chamber cannot interpret this text asmeaning that the administrators
had a duty to refer to the published "largest-scale rnap in existence" when
informing themselvesof the positions of administrative boundaries ;in its
view the text simply required this rnap to be used as a cartographie base
whenever it was necessary to portray existing boundaries on a rnap of any
kind. Moreover, Burkina Faso itself explained subsequently that if the
adrninistratorsconsidered themselvesbound by arnapof theGeographical
Serviceof French WestAfricain regard to the boundaries shown onit, this
was because they had themselves modified the rnap and,as a result of the
exchangeof administrativecorrespondence about it, that rnaphad become

an administrative document. It follows, in the Chamber's opinion, that
evenforBurkina Fasotheadministrative boundaries shownon the Blondel
la Rougery rnap as compiled by the Geographical Service do not in
themselves possess any particular authority.

61. As for the IGN rnap of 1958-1960,the Chamber observes that it
depicts a frontier line of which one segment, represented by a continuous
series of crosses in the original edition, is represented in subsequent edi-
tions by a broken series of crosses. In general this rnap has enjoyed the
approval of both Parties in its depiction of the topography. On the other
hand, as regards toponyms, Burkina Faso expresses reservations as to the
designation of mount N'Gouma on this map. Mali does not accept the
frontier lineshown on this rnapby arowof small crosses. Inother respects,
the rnap is described by Mali as "a mode1of reliability from the stand-
points of topography and toponymy" and, for Burkina Faso, the IGN
maps offer guarantees of both technical precision and officia1authority,
since they werecompiled by an impartial officia1body directlyconnected
with the administrative authorities of the period. Among the documents
submitted to theChamber isanotedated 27January 1975,compiled by the
IGN, on the subject of the positioning of the frontiers on the maps.

According to that note, the 1:200,000 maps of the Mali/Upper Volta
frontier had been surveyedbefore the twoStatesbecameindependent. The
note givesthe followingexplanation of how thefrontiers wererecorded on
those maps :

"Then, with the help of the texts, the cartographers tried to locate
thefrontierin relation to the rnap base. Unfortunately, theinaccuracy
of the texts made it impossible to draw a sufficiently reliable boun- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 586

dary in certain areas. Some names quoted in the texts could not be
found, others referred to villages whch had disappeared or been
moved, or again the actual nature of the terrain (course of rivers,
position of mountains) appeared different from that described in the
former itinerary surveys.
The actual frontier was, therefore, recorded in the light of infor-
mation supplied by the heads of thefrontier districts and according to
information gathered on the spot from the village chiefs and local
people."

62. From this text the conclusion may be drawn that the map compiled
in 1958-1960by the IGN - a body neutral towards the Parties to the
present dispute -, althoughit does not possessthe status of a legaltitle, isa

visualportrayal both of the available texts and of information obtainedon
the ground. This in itself isnot sufficient to permit theamber to infer
that the frontier line depicted in the form of small crosses, whether in a
continuous or a broken series,in the successiveeditions of the IGN map,
corresponds entirely with the boundary inheritedfrom thecolonialadmin-
istration. It has to consider howfar the evidenceoffered by tlus or any map
corroborates the other evidence produced. The Chamber cannot uphold
the information given by the map where it is contradicted by other trust-
worthy information concerning the intentions of the colonial power.
However, having regard to the date on which the surveys were made and
the neutrality of the source, the Chamber considers that where al1other
evidenceis lacking, or is not sufficient to showan exact line, theprobative
value of the IGN map becomes decisive.

63. Apart from the texts and maps listed above, the Parties have
invoked in support of their respective contentions the "colonial effec-
tivitéis n",ther words, the conduct of the administrative authorities as
proof of the effectiveexerciseof territorial jurisdiction in the region during
the colonial period. For Burkina Faso, the effectivi ctéssupport an
existing title, whether written or cartographical, but when their probative
value has to be assessed they must be systematically compared with the
title in questio;in no circumstances can they be substitutedfor the title.

For its part, Malidrnits that in principlethe effectivciannst be brought
into operation where they are contrary to the text of a treaty, but argues
that in asituation where there is no boundary described in conventional or
legislativeform,it isnecessaryto ascertainthe boundary byother methods,
and an investigation of the effectivti hensbecomes essential. The role
played in this case by such effectivii stcomplex, and the Chamber will
have to weighcarefully the legalforce of these in each particular instance.
It must however state forthwith, in general terms, what legal relationship
exists between such acts and the titles on which the implementation of the
principle of utipossiil iserosnded. For this purpose, a distinction must
be drawn among several eventualities. Where the act corresponds exactly
to law, where effective administration is additional to the utipossidetisjuris,theonlyrole of effectivitéisto confirm theexerciseof the right derived
from a legal title. Where the act does not correspond to the law, where the

territory whch is the subject of thedispute iseffectivelyadministered by a
State other than the one possessing the legal title, preference should be
given to the holder of the title. In the event that the effectivitédoes not
CO-existwith any legaltitle, it must invariably be taken into consideration.
Finally, there are cases where the legal title is not capable of showing
exactly the territorial expanse to which it relates. The effectivité can then
play an essential role in showing how the title is interpreted in prac-
tice.

64. At this stage of its reasoning, the Chamber must emphasize that the
present case isa decidedly unusual one asconcerns thefacts which have to
be proven and the evidencewiuch has been, or might have been, produced
for this purpose. The Chamber has to ascertain where the frontier lay in
1932in a region of Africa little known at the time and largely inhabited by
nomads, in which transport and communications were very sketchy. In
order to identify this the Chamber has to refer to the legislative and

regulative texts, not al1of which were even published ; to the maps and
sketch-maps compiled at the time, maps which are sometimes of doubtful
accuracy and reliability and which contradict oneanother ; and to admin-
istrative documents which, having been drawn up for the purposes of a
system of government which ceased to exist nearly 30years ago, have had
to be obtained from various collections of archives. Although the Parties
have provided it with a case file as complete as possible, the Chamber
cannot however be certain of deciding the case on the basis of full know-
ledge of the facts. The case file shows inconsistencies and shortcornings.
Someof these are already known ;the Parties have informed the Chamber
that they were unable to locate certain specific documents such as, for
example, the cartographic documents mentioned in paragraph 57 above.
But even if those documents had been located, the Chamber cannot pre-
clude the possibility that the large body of archives fromthe French West
Africa administration, now dispersed among several countries, may con-
tain further documents of considerable relevance.
65. In these circumstances,it isclear that the Chamber cannot resolvethe
problem by means of any of the powers in the matter of evidence under

Articles 48-49 and 50of the Statute of the Court. Nor can the solution be
looked for in a systematic application of the rule concerningthe burden of
proof.For example, inrespect of certain villagesof which it is necessary to
determine the administrative situation between 1927and 1935,Mali claims
that itisfor Burkina Fasoto demonstrate the Voltancharacter ofthe villages
during that period. While it is true that "ultimately . . it is the litigant
seeking to establish :factwho bears the burden of provingit" (Militaryand
Paramilitary Activities in and againsr Nicaragua, 1.C.J. Reports 1984,
p. 437, para. 101),it is also for Mali to establish the facts underlying its FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 588

claims, that is,to demonstratethat the villageswere Sudanese at that time.
The SpecialAgreement of 20October 1983by which the case was brought
before the Court deals with the question of the burden of proof only in
order tomake itclear that it isnot prejudged by thewrittenprocedure there
provided for (Art. 3,para. 2). In any event, however,in acase such as this,
the rejection of any particular argument on the ground that the factual
allegations on which it is based have not been proved is not sufficient to
warrant upholding the contrary argument. The Chamber has to indicate
the line of the frontier on the basis of the documents and other evidence
presented to it by the disputant Parties. Its task is further complicated by
the doubts it has expressed above regarding the sufficiency of this evi-
dence.

66. In its Memonal, Burkina Fasodivided the disputed frontier into two
sectors :the westernpart, described asthesector of the "four villages",and
the eastern sector, extending from the point with the CO-ordinates
1" 24' 15" W and 14"43'45" N asfar as the heights of N'Gouma. In its
submissions however, throughout the proceedings, it divided the line it
proposed into two sectors in relation to a different point (geographical
CO-ordinates0" 40' 47"Wand 15"00'03" N) ; the Chamber willconsider
later what significance is to be attached to this point. For Mali, the
disputed region can also be divided into two sectors :one extending from
the villageof Yoro to the pool of Kétiouaire,forwhich, according to Mali,
a fairly precise delimitation exists, and the other from the pool of
Kétiouaireto the heights of N'Gouma and the Kabia ford. In its Counter-
Memorial, Burkina Faso preferred to adopt a division of the frontier into
three sectors :the first from Dionouga to the point with the CO-ordinates

1" 24' 15"Wand 14"43'45" N (the region of the four villages),the second
from the former point to mount Tabakarach (the Soum region), and the
third from mount Tabakarach to the tripoint. Ths was also the division
adopted by counsel for Burkina Faso during the oral proceedings. How-
ever,thesevarious methodsfordividing the frontier relyon considerations
whch are closely linked with the subrnissions of the Party in question
relating to the titlesbrevidence to be taken into consideration in order to
determine the line of'the frontier in each sector. The Chamber therefore
cannot adopt any such method of division at the outset without running
the risk of prejudging its decision on the opposing contentions on the
merits. It is therefore appropriate for the Chamber to deal first with the
legislativeand regulative titles and the administrative documents invoked
by the Parties, and to consider what weight to attach to each of these, in
order subsequently to be able to make use of them, where appropriate, in
order to indicate the course of the line in the sector to which they are
deemed to relate. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 589

67. After thedecree of 1March 1919whch created thecolony of Upper
Volta but did not specify its boundaries, the first of these texts in chro-

nological order is the Order of 31December 1922for the reorganization of
the Timbuktu region. The Parties agree in recognizing that ths text isboth
valid and relevant ;the Chamber can therefore postponethe question of its
interpretation to the stage of its examination of the course of the line.

68. Next comes an Order dated 31 August 1927,issued by the Gover-
nor-General ad interim of French West Africa, according to which

"the boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are hence-
forward determined as follows :
(1) Boundaries between the cercleof Tillabéryand Upper Volta ;

This boundary isdetermined to the North by the existing boundary
with Sudan (cercleof Gao) as far as the height of N'Gourma, and to
the West by aline passing through the Kabia ford, mount Darouskoy,
mount Balébanguia,to the Westof the ruins of the village of Toké-
bangou, mount Doumafondé,and then headingsouth-east, leavingto
the east the ruins of Tong-Tong ..."

On 5October 1927an erratum to that Order was adopted, which replaced
the above-quoted text with the following text :

"The boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are
determined as follows :
A line starting at the heights of N'Gouma, passing through the
Kabia ford (astronomic point), mount Arounskoye, mount Baléban-
guia to the Westof the ruins of the village of Tokebangou, mount
Doumafende and the astronornic marker of Tong-Tong ; this line
then heads south-east . .."

There also exists a 1 :1,000,000map, already mentioned, entitled "French
West Africa :New frontier of Upper Volta and Niger (according to the
erratum of 5October 1927to the Order dated 31August 1927)".Mali has
laid this map before the Chamber, but observes that it contains no infor-
mation as to what officia1 body compiled it or which administrative

authority approved the line shown on it. Here again, the two Partiesagree
that the Order and its erratum were duly adopted by the administrative
authority withjurisdiction in the matter, andthat these texts are relevant to
the present case. However, they advance conflicting interpretations of
these texts. The Chamber could in principle reserve this question for the
stage of its reasoning when it turns to the course of the line in the light of
the texts and theother evidenceprovided by the Parties. But Mali, arguing
from what it considers to be the correct interpretation of the texts in
relation to the geographical situation in thearea, claims that the Order and FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 590

the erratum are invalidated by a factual error, so that Burkina Faso may
not properly rely upon it. For this reason, the Chamber will deal at this

point with the interpretation of the Order.

69. The two Parties have advanced various explanations of the fact that
the colonial administration found it necessary to issue an erratum to the
1927Order, and have subrnitted to the Chamber documents of the nature
of travaux préparatoires. It should be noted at the outset that if the
Chamber's task were to interpret and apply the Order as amended on
5 October 1927 as a regulative text, for the purpose of establishing the
boundaries of Upper Volta in 1932,it would have toexamineits scope and
appraise the relevance of the initial text of 31 August 1927,and of any
travauxpréparatoires, in the light of the particular rules of the legalsystem
frorn which the Order derives its force as a regulation, Le.,French colonial
law.But the Chamber recalls that the 1927Order does not directly concern
the boundary between Sudan and Upper Volta, but only the boundary
between Upper Volta and Niger, and that for the purposes of this case, the
Chamber is consulting the Order solelyas evidencewluch may shed some
light on the intentions of the colonial power concerning the course of the
boundary between French Sudan and Upper Volta. In addition, from a

more general perspective, the Chamber has already had occasion to
emphasize (paragraph 30) that if colonial law has any role to play in this
case it does so not in its own right, by way of a renvoi from international
law to colonial law, but solelyas evidenceof the situation which existed at
the timewhen the twoStatesParties achievedindependence. The Chamber
is therefore free to examine in this light the two successiveversions of the
1927 Order, while nonetheless attributing greater weight to the text as
modified by the erratum as a reflection of the definitive intentions of the
colonial authorities, and to take thetravauxpréparatoires into considera-
tion if this proves to be necessary.
70. It is clear from the actual wording of the text of the amended Order
that the starting-point of the boundary between Niger and Upper Volta,
which was also the end-point of the boundary between French Sudan and
Upper Volta, was consideredby the authors of this text to be the "heights
of N'Gouma", which weresituated in the region of the "Kabia ford". The
location of this ford is not in doubt, nor is it a matter of disagreement
between the Parties. This does not apply to the "heights of N'Gouma". It
should be noted that a neutral technical cornmittee, comprising three

cartographersappointed by the Legal Sub-Commission of the Organjza-
tion of African Unity Mediation Commission, went to the spot in May
1975with a mission "to determine the trueposition of mounts N'Gouma".
This cornmittee reported having found, first, a collection of rocky spurs
rising to the north of the Kabia ford and, secondly, an elevation or hi11
situated to the soutlieast of the ford. These two topographical features
correspond respectively to the two possible locations of a "mount N'Gou-
ma" according to the various maps produced by the Parties. For Burkina
Faso the "heights of N'Gouma" are situated tothe north of the Kabia ford, FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 591

and according to Mali "mount N'Gouma" lies to the south-east of the
ford ;eachParty has produced arguments to demonstrate whyno credence
should be given to whatever cartographic or other material contradictsits

claim. The 1975 technical committee of cartographers reached its own
conclusion on the matter, and this will be examined later (paragraph 170
below).
71. Mali argues that when the Governor-General adopted the 1927
Order and its erratum he believed he was selecting a particular point but
wasin fact in error on the verysubject-matter oflusdecision, whichwithin
the compass of that error, but only so far, would invalidate the legal act in
question, based as it was on wrong and inaccurate grounds of fact. Here
Mali postulates that when the 1927Order and erratum were drawn up it
may well have been the 1:500,000 1925map (Ansongo sheet) which pro-
vided thecartographic support. But thismap,accordingto Mali, misplaces
mount N'Gouma bylocatingit to the north of the Kabia ford ;the correct
position of N'Gouma, to the south-east of the ford, is that shown on the
1:200,000map published by the IGN in 1960.In sum, Mali would exclude
the 1927 Order, corrected by its erratum, as a source for locating the
"heights of N'Gouma" and, consequently, theend-point of thefrontier, on
the ground that the text is invalidated by a factual error. This error is said
to reside in the use of a position for the heights of N'Gouma which is
factually inaccurate. After analysing the rules of the law of contract and
French administrative law on the question, Mali concludes that, by the
lights of French internal law as a whole, the Order of 1927 cannot be
treated as a valid and relevant title because it contains an error in regard to

the subject-matter of the decision. As for international law, Mali argues
that thechange of status of the territorial boundaries of French Sudan and
Upper Volta, whereby they have become the international frontiers of
Mali and Burkina Faso, precludes any automatic confirmation on the
international plane of an act void in internal law.
72. At the present stage of its Judgment, the Chamber has only to
consider whether it may or must take account of the Order of 1927,or
should lay it aside as nul1and void. To show the invalidity of the Order, it
would be necessary to establish,through evidence or arguments not them-
selves dependent on the validity or invalidity of the Order and erratum,
and taiung the matter further than the mere observation of a discrepancy
between maps, that in 1927the words "the heights of N'Gouma" denoted
elevations other than those envisaged by the Governor-General at the
moment of drafting the Order or the erratum. But it would thereby alsobe
shown that theend-point of the linewaslocated at adifferent spotfrom the
one stated in the Order, and the validity or invalidity of the Order in
French administrative lawwould then become academic. At al1events, this
question does not enter into the problem with which the Chamber has to
deal. In the present proceedings, it is solely the evidentiary value of the
Order and erratum which counts. If the Order was flawed by a factual
error, thiscould havehad someimplicationsfor the legalvalidity ofpart of
the boundary between Upper Volta and Niger. The significance of theOrder asevidenceof thelocation of theend-point of the boundary between
French Sudan and Upper Volta is a separate question. Any finding on the
validity of the Order may well depend on what is found as regards the
position of the "heights of N'Goums", but the converse cannot be true.
Even Mali, which contends that the Order iswanting in legalvalidity, uses
itasevidencein support of itscontention regardingthe true position of the
end-point of the line. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Chamber
further to construe the 1927Order with the aim of deterrnining its legal
validity ;it will suffice, at a later stage in this Judgment, to examine the
value of the Order, of the erratum and of the travaux préparatoires, as

evidenceof the position of the end-point of the boundary between French
Sudan and Upper Volta.

73. In chronological order, the next regulative text that has to be men-
tioned is the decree of 5 September 1932,one of whose effects was the
outright abrogation of the decree of 1March 1919which had created the
colony of Upper Volta, and hence the abolition of that colony. The new

decree, which came into force on 1 January 1933, also provided as fol-
lows :
''Art.2 - The cercles of Fada and Dori (except the canton of
Aribinda) are annexed to the colony of Niger.
The cercle of Ouahigouya, the canton of Aribinda within the
cercleof Dori and that part of the cercle of Dedougou located on

the left bank of the Black Volta are annexed to the colony of French
Sudan .. ."(See sketch-map No. 2 below.)
By an Order of the Govemor-General of French West Africa dated
17November 1932,the territories of the colony of Upper Volta which had

been annexed to French Sudan by the above-mentioned decree were
reorganized as follows :
"1. The cercle of Ouahigouya, at present forming part of Upper
Volta, and the canton of Aribinda, detached from the cercle of Dori,
are to form a singleunit under the name of cercleof Ouahigouya, with

its chief town at Ouahigouya . . ."
This Order alsocame into force on 1January 1933.It was in this admini-
strative setting that anexchange of letters took place between the Gov-
ernor-General of French West Africa and the Lieutenant-Governors of
Niger and French Sudan, and this correspondence is relied upon by Bur-
kina Faso.

74. To appreciate the significance attached by Burkina Faso to this
exchange of letters, which occurred in 1935,it must be viewed against the
background of the period. As a result of the decree of 5 September 1932,
Upper Volta had ceased to exist as from 1January 1933,and the cercles the suppression of
-
i- 1 UPPER-VOLTA + -16'
FRENCH SUDAN (1932)
nsongo

Hombori
\+

+

NIGER + -x.

Ïl

11 Voltanwnsf.rr.d
rFrench Sudan
Ouagadougou
[=] Volts.itrsnsfmri-d
Fada riGcurma <Nip.,
-1 + 11 - Q.
7 ---?i-. - -
O m 1W hm
f1 P 0' P 1 i.
r FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 594

which had comprised it had been annexed, in the region in question, either
to French Sudan or to Niger. Wherever Voltan territories bordering on
French Sudan had become part of Niger, the former boundary between

French Sudan and Upper Volta continued to divide two separate colonies,
Sudan and Niger ;whereverVoltan territories had been annexed toFrench
Sudan, the former boundary between the two colonies was transformed
into a boundary between two cercles within French Sudan. From the
passages quoted it is clear that the dismemberment of Upper Volta was
carried out on the basis of the cerclesand cantons such as they existed in
1932. Hence the Chamber believes it may conclude that the boundaries
between French Sudan and Upper Volta in 1932and those between Niger
and French Sudan in 1935matched, though only in the areas referred to in
the former of the hypotheses contemplated above. As the attached sketch-
map No. 2 shows, the 1935boundary between French Sudan and Niger
was identical with theformer boundary between French Sudan and Upper

Volta from its eastern extremity, which before 1932had been the tripoint
(marked Xon the sketch)between the colonies of French Sudan, Niger and
Upper Volta, to another tripoint (marked Y),where the boundary between
the Voltan cerclesof Dori and Ouahigouya had encountered, before 1932,
that between French Sudan and Upper Volta. As already explained, as a
result of the decree of 5 September 1932 the cercle of Dori, minus the
cunton of Aribinda, which was annexed to French Sudan, was allotted to
Niger. The Chamber must therefore take into account any evidence as to
where the boundary then laybetween French Sudan and Niger, but only as
regards the line between these two points. To the south (from point Y to
point Z),what in 1935was the boundary between French Sudan and Niger
was transformed in 1947,owing to the reincorporation of the canton of
Aribinda and the Niger cercleof Dori into the restored colony of Upper

Volta, into a mere administrative boundary within that colony between
two cantons of thecercleof Dori. To the West,between point Y and point
W, what had been in 1935 merely an administrative boundary between
two Sudanese cercles (Mopti - including Bandiagara - and Ouahi-
gouya) became once more the frontier between French Sudan and Upper
Volta.

75. In letter 191CM2 of 19February 1935,addressed simultaneously to
the Lieutenant-Governors of Niger and French Sudan, the Governor-
General of French West Africa stated as follows :

"The boundary between your colony and that of Niger [Sudan] has

only de facto value at present, being based on texts which do not
include a geographical description of this boundary. 1 feel it is neces-
sary, in order to ensure satisfactory regulation of the various admini-
strative issues pertaining to the frontier region between Sudan and
Niger, and its exact portrayal on the map, to fix the boundary in
question by means of a text. To enable me to sendthe Department the necessary regulatory proposals, 1 would be glad if you would send me
your opinion, as a matter of urgency, concerning the following draft
[projet] :
'From a point located on the Algerian frontier . ..the heights of
Gorontondi, mounts Tin Garan, Ngouma, Trontikato, via the
northern peak of mount Ouagou, the northern point of the pool of
In Abao, and the summits of mounts Tin Eoult and Tabakarach,
and then bends southwestas far asthepoint of latitude 14"43'45"

and longitude 1"24' 15" (west of Greenwich).' .. ."
The final paragraph of the letter specified that there was a map annexed
"showing the location of the various points mentioned, asderived from the
most recent geographical work" ;this map has not been traced.

76. In his reply of 3 June 1935 the Lieutenant-Governor of French
Sudan, after noting that the Governor-General's proposals affected four
Sudanese cercles(only one of which, the cercle of Mopti, requires con-
sideration in the present proceedjngs), expressed the following vie~ :

"There does not seem to be any need to alter the projected boun-
dary described inletter 191CM2 referred to above,exceptwith regard
to the following :(1)the part relating to the cercleof Mopti, in which
the administrator is proposing that the pool of Kébanaire situated
almost on the boundary of thecerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and
Dori (the latter forming part of the colony of Niger) should be
included in the geographical description of the boundary, which
would accordingly be amended as follows (letter No. 191 CM2,
page 2,lines4 and 5from theend) :'the summitsof mounts Tin Eoult
and Tabakarech and the pool of Kébanaire .. .'."

It will be noted that, according to the various copies of these letters
produced by the Parties the Governor-General mentioned mount "Taba-
karach" (or even "Tabanarach") whereas the Lieutenant-Governor's reply
spelt the name as "Tabakarech". From this letter it also emerges that the
administrator of the cercle of Gao had proposed having a survey made
between Labézangaand Anderamboukane, a region not relevant to the
present dispute. For administrative reasons, tius survey was not under-
taken. The Governor-General's draft remained in abeyance.
77. The Parties cannot agree on the interpretation of this exchange of
letters. According to Burkina Faso, these letters

"although they do not possess the formal authority of an adminis-
trative act in due form, nevertheless constitute an authentic expres-
sion by the competent authority of the period ... of his conviction as
to the course of the boundary line"
that is, the line of a boundary which existed at the time. Mali's opinion

differs :the Govemor-General's letter is merely a preparatory document FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 596

for a draft adnunistrative decision on delimitation between French Sudan
and Niger, and is consequently without legal effect. Mali also denies that
the letter has any evidentiary value as a description of the frontier in the
region concerned and argues that to attribute such a value to the letter
would be impossible to reconcile with the actual text of the letter, the
reaction of the heads of administrative districts and the fact that nothing
evercame of the draft delimitation it adumbrated, so that no legalact ever
took shape.

78. If it had demonstrably been the Governor-General's intention to
define a boundary where none existed, or to modify the existing boundary
inthe light of therequirements of colonial administration, Mali's objection
that the proposal considered was never transformed into a regulative
instrument, and therefore has no legal force, would obviously be cogent.
Everything therefore depends on whether, as Burkina Faso claims, letter
191CM2 did no more than describe an existing boundary. Mali does not
argue that there was no boundary between French Sudan and Niger, but
considers that the Governor-General's letter has to be interpreted as
reflecting an intention to define the legalboundary de novo,that is,to treat
the existing situation as irrelevant and focus on the definition of a new
situation.

79. Before considering the intentions of the Governor-General as
regards the boundary in this region, the Chamber must note Burkina
Faso'scontentionthat the absence of protest by the Lieutenant-Governor
of French Sudan againsttheboundary line described inletter 191CM2 did
and does amount to an acceptance of that line, and that what French

Sudan accepted is binding on Mali by virtue of State succession. Burkina
Faso also maintains that acceptance of the course of the line by French
Sudan would override any error which the Governor-General might have
made concerning the position of the administrative boundary. It so con-
tends without, however, abandoning its submission that letter 191CM2
amounts to a description of the actual boundary in 1935,a submission
supplemented by the argument from acquiescence.The Chamber willfirst
consider that argument and next seek to determine what interpretation is
warranted of letter 191CM2, having regard to the circumstances prevail-
ing in 1935.According to whether the letter is found to have been inno-
vatory or merely descriptive in scope,it willthen becomeclear, either that
the argument advanced by Burkina Faso on the basis of a supposed
acquiescence by Mali merits examination as a major contention, or that it
is merely adjunctive to its case.

80. In the Chamber's view,theargument from the supposed acceptance
by the Lieutenant-Governor of French Sudan of the line indicated in the
Governor-General's letter is untenable, for the following reasons. The
writers of the letters were not of equal standing, nor did they possess the

same territorial cornpetence :the Lieutenant-Governor in question was
replying to acommunication from hissuperior. That being so,it isdifficult FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 597

to see how the idea of acquiescence, which presupposes freedom of will,
can arise. In addition, it must be borne in mind that theargument isbased
on theassumption that thedescriptioncontained in letter 191CM2 did not
correspond to theexistingboundary, if there wasone, between the colonies
of French Sudan and Niger. Now, the Chamber's investigations relate to
the boundaries of Upper Volta on the eveof itsindependence, boundaries
which were assigned to it as a result of the 1947law. Thus the question is
whether, in 1947,the restored Upper Volta would have inherited any new
boundary arising in 1935 after acceptance by the authorities of French
Sudan of letter 191CM2. The answer to that question is negative. On the
one hand, the 1947law reconstituted Upper Volta within its 1932boun-
daries, and if one of them, after conversion into a boundary between
French Sudan and Niger, had undergone alteration in 1935, that modi-

fication would have become ineffective on that law'sentry into force. On
the other, it must not be overlooked that the Governor-General of French
West Africa never issued any order to give effect to his 1935 proposal.
Whatever its value as evidence,or as mere information regardingthe views
or intentions of the Governor-General, the 1935exchange of letters could
not in colonialadministrative law, the only lawapplicable in the matter at
the time, have resulted in the institution of an intra-colonial boundary
which could have been inherited by Upper Volta.

81. The Chamber now cornes to the problem of the interpretation and
significance of the 1935 exchange of letters. Mali stresses that letter 191
CM2 begins with the words "the boundary .. .has only de facto value
[valeur defait] at present" and infers that this letter actually records the
absence of any legal boundary between the two colonies. Yet it explains
that, on its own interpretation of the letter, a boundary did in fact exist
between French Sudan and Niger. that this boundary derived from texts
which existed at the time, though it is no longer known what texts these
were, and that if the Governor-General felt the need to propose a defini-
tion, that wasbecause thecartographie representation of the boundary was
not satisfactory.Setting aside for the moment the question of the meaning
tobe ascribed to the term "valeurdefait'', it is theChamber's viewthat, if a

boundary of at least such value existed in 1935, there is no reason to
suppose that the same boundary did not exist in 1932,the critical date for
the implementation of the provision in the 1947 law which fixed the
boundaries of Upper Volta. It would then be this defacto boundary that
defined the heritage bequeathed in 1960by colonization, which it is now
the Chamber's business to discern. From that standpoint, it matters little
that the Governor-General of French West Africa was unable to bring to
fruition hisplan "to fixtheboundary in question by means of a text". What
is important in these proceedings is to ascertain where that boundary lay,
taking account of al1available indications, including letter 191CM2.
82. To Mali, it is clear that the text of letter 191 CM2 was a verbal
interpretation of the line drawn on the 1925 1:500,000scale map, that is,
the Blondel la Rougery map mentioned in paragraph 59 above, an excerpt FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 598

from which is annexed to this Judgment (sketch-map No. 3below). With-
out at this stage expandingthe correlations of detail between the wording
of the letter and the place-names appearing near the line on the map, the
Chamber believesthat the author of the letter, most probably,had this map
in front of him. Malihas alsoemphasized the deficiencies of this map, and
maintained that no probative or descriptive value can be attributed to
measures taken on the basis of information "which is either erroneous or
fanciful". For the moment, however, the Chamber is considering only the
question whether, as claimed, letter 191 CM2 was of an amending or
declaratory nature. What must first be ascertained iswhat theintentions of
the Governor-General may have been in that respect ; and the concor-
dance between the text of the letter and the administrative line presented
by the 1925 map lends greater weight to the idea that the letter was
intended to give a description of an existing boundary. This is because, if

the objective were to modify an existing boundary having "defacto value",
the Governor-General must then have known of this boundary, and been
aware that it did not match the boundary shown on the Blondel la Rougery
map, deliberately substituting the boundary on the map for the existing
boundary. It isdifficult to reconcile this interpretation of the facts with the
text of letter 191 CM2. Whether, on the one hand, the map in question
accurately represented the topography, or instead led the Governor-
General into error. and what, on the other hand, would be the legal con-
sequences of such error, are questions that will be dealt with later.

83. A further argument presented by Mali relies on the fact that the
letter itself describes the indications it gives as of the Governor-General's
'projet". According to Mali, the very idea of aprojet seems to preclude
retroactive measures, since aprojet implies preparatory work and a draft

description of the contemplated action or objective. The Chamber
acknowledges that this correctly defines the purpose of a projet. But it
points out that the letter in question contained a draft text which might
subsequently have taken the form of an order - a legislative text intended
for adoption - and that such aprojetrnightwell haveendorsedand defined
a boundary which already existed, even if only with a "valeurde fait",
without thereby forfeiting the prospective character of a projet.Mali also
observes that there isnothing to show that the authority withjurisdiction
to fix a colonial boundary undertook that the proposed line would be a
"definitively de facto line [ligne de fait d'une manière définitive]": the
Governor-General could not bebound by the opinions of heads ofcolonies
or other organs failing express provision otherwise in law. The Chamber
concedes that the Cjovernor-General could well havechanged his mind and

issued an order defining theboundary between French Sudan and Niger in
some other way. But for the Chamber it does not follow that the fact
described in the letter ought not to be taken account of in law.
84. Mali also perceives, in the reactions of thechefsde circonscriplion to
letter 191CM2, an indication to the effect that the letter merely contained
a proposal unrelated to the existing situation. The Lieutenant Governor- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 600

General of the Sudan, in a letter-telegram dated 11 March 1935, had
transmitted copies of the Governor-General's letter and of the annexed
sketch-map to the Sudan cercleheadsconcerned,requesting their opinions
on the draft text. The Governor-General based his reply of 3June 1935to
the Governor-General's letter on the replies of the cerclecommanders of
Mopti and Gao to that letter-telegram. In the opinion of Mali, "it was the

fonvard-looking character of the planned operation which explained this
wide-ranging consultation" ; "it was a tactic to avoid dealing with a
problem or a difficulty which was burning everyone's fingers".

85. The Chamber does not share this view :it considers that a valuable
indication of the nature of the process carried out by the Governor-
Generaland by the Lieutenant-Governors of Sudan and Niger is found in
the replies he had from them. The Lieutenant-Governor of Sudan con-
sultedthe commandantsdecercleconcerned, and conveyed their comments
in his reply to the Governor-General of 3 June 1935. In the view of the
Chamber. it is clear from these comments that the commandants decercle
started from the idea that the text submitted to them was intended to
define the existing boundary, and that their superior's attention should be
drawn to any aspects of the proposed definition which seemed either to
depart from the existing boundary, or to resolve a factual situation which
was unclear (the Labézanga/Anderamboukane boundary), or to omit
some detail which might help to clarify the definition (pool of Kébanaire).
In viewof thisconsideration, and of al1the other factors mentioned by the
Parties during the proceedings, the Chamber reaches the conclusion that

the definition ofths portion of the boundary between Sudan and Niger in
that part of it which is relevant in the present case, contained in theetter
191 CM2 from the Governor-General of French West Africa dated
19 February 1935, corresponded, in the mind both of the Governor-
General and of al1the administrators who were consulted. to the de facto
situation. It still has to be ascertained whether the flaws or errors Which
Mali ascribes to the Blondel la Rougery map were such, given the close
connections between this mapand letter 191CM2,as to renderinoperative
the Governor-General's intention of defining the existing situation by
means of a text. The Chamber willdeal with thisquestion when it comes to
apply the letter for the purpose of defining the line of the frontier in the
disputed area.

86. One final observation is, however, necessary. The aforementioned
description of the boundary in letter 191 CM2 (paragraph 75 above)
concerned only that segment of the boundary which relates to the frontier
in dispute in the present case. But the text of ths letter continues as
follows :

"from there [point Plit [theboundary] rejoins the Gorobol at the point

of latitude 14" 27' 30"and longitude 1" 14'45" (westof Greenwich) ; FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 601

it follows this marigot as far asa point situated approximately 3 kilo-

metres to the west of Tin Abalak . ..".
This refers to the eastern boundary of the cercle of Ouahigouya, which
takes account of the annexation to that cercleof the cantonof Aribinda, in
consequence of the Decree of 5 September 1932.Accordingly, this boun-
dary no longer corresponds to the one shown on the Blondel la Rougery
map, whichdates from 1925.The Croquisde l'Afriquefrançaise on the scale
1:1,000,000,ND 30 sheet, shows an eastern boundary for the cercle of
Ouahigouya, in its 1926edition, which is identical to the one reproduced
on the Blondel la Rougery map. But its 1946edition depicts a boundary

which corresponds to the above-quoted description in letter 191CM2. No
regulative text had been issued in the meantime on the basis of letter 191
CM2.The Chamber therefore takes theviewthat thealteration made to the
sketch-map between 1926and 1946is evidence of the declaratory purport
of letter 191CM2.

87. On 27 November 1935,the Governor-General ad interimof French
West Africa issued an Order (No. 2728 AP) "for the delimitation of the

cerclesof Bafoulabé,Bamako and Mopti (French Sudan)". The cercleof
Mopti, an administrative unit whichwas then part of French Sudan and is
now part of Mali, bordered the cercle of Ouahigouya, which had been
transferred by the Decree of 5 September 1932to the coloily of French
Sudan, and into which the cantonof Aribinda had been incorporated by
an Order of 17November 1932(paragraph 73 above). According to the
opening phrase of Article 1 of the Order of 27 November 1935, "the
boundaries of the cerclesof Bafoulabé, Bamakoand Mopti are defined as
follows and as drawn on the maps annexed to this Order'". It will be
recalled that the maps here referred to havenever been traced, so that the
Chamber can only refer to the actual text of the Order. Article 1,para-
graph 3, ofthe Order describes theeastern boundary of the Sudanese cercle
of Mopti as follows :

"From this latter point a meridian line intersecting the parallel
13"30',and then a line running markedly north-east, leaving to the
cercle of Mopti the villages of Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agou-
lourou, Koubo, passing to the south of the pool of Toussougou
and culrninating at a point located to the east of the pool of
Kétiouaire."

88. The relevance of the Order 2728AP will be apparent if the circum-
stances in which this Order was issuedare again recalled (seeparagraph 74
above). As a result of the Decree of 5 September 1932Upper Volta had
ceased to exist, and the cercleswhich had comprisedit had, in the region in
question, been transferred either to French Sudan or to Niger. Wherever
Voltan territoriesborderingupon French Sudan had becomepart of Niger,
the former boundary between French Sudan and Upper Volta continuedto divide two separate colonies, French Sudan and Niger ; wherever Vol-
tan territories had been annexed to French Sudan, the former boundary
between these twocolonies was transformed into a boundary between two
cercleswhich werenow Sudanese. The consequence of Order 2728AP was
to define theadministrativeboundary whichdivided the cercleof Mopti on
the one hand, from the cercleof Ouahigouya, and on the other from the
cercleof Dori. As already stated, in 1935the cerclesof Mopti and Oua-
higouya belonged to French Sudan, but before 1932the cercleof Ouahi-
gouya had belonged to the colony of Upper Volta, so that the law of
4 September 1947 restored it to Upper Volta. The cercleof Dori, which in
1935belonged to Niger, had also belonged to Upper Volta before 1932,
and so underwent a similar transfer in 1947.

89. In Mali'sview, Order 2728AP, by sodefining the boundary, merely
confirmed the situation which had existed in 1932,whereas for Burkina
Faso, the boundary sodefined involved a modification of the pre-existing
situation. However, both Parties agree that there was no modification of
this boundary between 1932and 1935,the year in which Order 2728 AP
was issued. Therefore, in so far as the Order proves the position of the

boundary between the cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouya before the Order
was adopted in 1935,it also proves the boundaries between French Sudan
and Upper Volta in 11932t,he boundaries whichwereconfirmed by the Law
of 4September 1947when the colony wasre-established. Burkina Faso has
argued that Order 2728 AP is no longer a valid legal title since it was
impliedly abrogated by the Lawof4September 1947,but solelybecauseof
the modifying effect which that Party ascribes to the Order. This abroga-
tion does not therefore debar the Chamber from enquiring into the effects
of the Order ; on the contrary, it has first to establish whether the Order
was declaratory or of a modifyingnature, so asto be able subsequently to
determine whether the Law of 1947did in fact abrogate it.

90. The Chamber will begin by considering whether there are any
indications tobe derivedby analysing the actual text of Order 2728APand
the administrative context in which it was issued, concerning the scope
which the Govemor-,General ad interimof French West Africa intended it
to have. The preamble to the Order refers to a number of texts, both prior
to and subsequent to the Decree of 5 September 1932for the abolition of
the colony of Upper Volta,but makes no mention of that particular decree.
Among these texts are Order 2790of 5 December 1925,modified by Order

1111AP of 30 April 1928,for the abolition of the cercleof Hombori and
(inter alia) the transfer of the cantons of Mondoro, Boni, Sarniéréand
Hombori to the cercc'of Bandiagara (subdivisionof Douentza) and Order
2862 AP, dated 15 December 1934, for the abolition of the cercle of
Bandiagara and the transfer of itsterritory to the cercleof Mopti. The first
of these Orders is the regulation which created the boundary which, in
1932, when the colony of Upper Volta was abolished, divided it from FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 603

Bandiagara (French Sudan). From the second Order it is clear, in thefirst
place, that this boundary, which was now the boundary of the cercleof
Mopti, remained unchanged (Art. 1) and, in the second place, that a
subsequent Order was to define the overall boundaries of this enlarged
cercle.
91. Having listed the texts prior to its adoption whch were deemed
relevant to its purpose, Order 2728 AP continues, in the introductory
paragraph of Article 1, with the provision that "the boundaries of the

cercles of ... Mopti are defined as follows . . ."This form of words
undoubtedly echoes that used in Article 2 of the above-mentioned Order
2862AP :it therefore seemsclear, in the absence of any other text whch
would have to be taken into account in this respect, that Order 2728 AP
wasinfact the Order contemplated by Order 2862AP.Consequently, there
is at least a presumption that neither the aim nor the result of Order 2728
AP was to modify the boundaries which existed in 1935 between the
Sudanese cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouya, boundaries whichdivided the
colonies of French Sudan and Upper Volta before the abolition of the
latterpursuant to the Decree of 5 September 1932.Indeed, it seemshardly
likely that an intention would have been formed to go beyond the text
adopted the previous year. This presumption is borne out by the fact that
the title of the Order reads "Order for the delimitation of the cerclesof
Bafoulabé, Bamako and Mopti (French Sudan)" and not "Order for a
territorial modification in the cercleof.. .",like,for example, an Order of
17November 1932~nentionedin the preamble to Order 2728 AP. But so
far theChamber has merely stated that a presumption exists ;it must now
enquire, therefore, alhether the content of Order 2728AP - especially the
indication of the villagesborderingupon theboundary between the cercles
of Mopti and Ouahigouya - operates to reverse or to confirm this pre-

sumption. For ths purpose, it is necessary to examine the documentary
and cartographic information from which these villagescan be located, as
well as the various administrative communications which were contem-
poraneous with the preparation of the Order.
92. The first part of the frontier which the Chamber is required to
define, the part forwhich the scopeofOrder 2728AP has to beascertained,
has throughout the proceedings, been called "the sector of the four vil-
lages". The words "four villages" do not however seemalways to have had
the samemeaning forthe twoParties tothe case.The textin question refers
to fivevillages,the first of which (Yoro) is indisputably situated in Malian
territory and is not in issue. The four others are Dioulouna, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou and Koubo. At its meetings of 7 and 8 October 1971, the
Standing Joint Commission established by the Parties (see paragraph 35
above) requested a rnixed technical commission to ascertain, for the pur-
pose of delimiting the frontier, the exact position of the villages bearing
these names. During the proceedings before the Chamber it became clear
that, in the opinion of both Parties, Dioulouna can be identified with the
village of Dionouga. For the purposes of this Judgrnent the words "four
villages" will be used todenote the villages mentioned in Order 2728AP,that is, Dioulouna/Dionouga, Oukoulou, Agoulourou and Koubo. The
Chamber reserves the question whether al1 these villages exist today,
whetherthey havechanged their names since 1935,orevenwhether theyal1
existed then. It also notes that Mali has sometimes referred to the "four

villages" of Dionouga, Kounia, Selba and Douna, that its Memorial also
mentions Orotougna or Orotoungo and the Burkinabe village of Diguel,
and that during the hearing, its counsel stated that for Mali the "four
villages" arethose of Dioulouna, Agoulourou, Koubo and Douna. With-
out seekingtoestablish at this stagewhether suchof these other villagesas
werenot mentioned in Order 2728APare relevant for the purpose of these
proceedings, the Chamber emphasizes that they are not included in the
term the "four villages" as employed in this Judgment.

93. According to Burkina Faso, the fact that the 1935 Order modified
theadministrativesituation of thevillagescanbeinferredfromthe obvious
discrepancy between the provisions of the Order and the officia1maps of
the period, from the travaux préparatoiresof the Order and from the
attitude of theadministrationafter 1947.Asfarasthemapsareconcerned,
Burkina Faso claims that on al1the maps availableto it which are suffi-
ciently detailed to show the position of the four villages, al1the villages
without exception are shown to the south of the relevant administrative
boundary, and accordingly on territory which is now Burkinabe. As
observed above(paragraph 59),Burkina Fasoattaches specialsignificance
to the Blondella Rougery map on the scale 1:500,000,whichclearlyleaves

thevillagesof Oukoulou,Agoulourou and KoubotoUpper Volta. Burkina
Faso also observes that the original edition of the IGN 1:200,000map
(also mentioned in paragraph 59 above), represents the whole of the
western sector of the disputed frontier, that of the "four villages", as a
broken line of crosses.The Chamber has howeveralreadyindicated that it
cannot accept Burkina Faso's argument that the maps compiled by the
Geographical Service of the office of the Govemor-General of French
West Africa areto some extent administrativeacts, and aresourcesof legal
title in French administrative and colonial law.

94. Mali drawsthe Chamber's attention to thefact that Burkina Faso is
in this connection relying only on general maps, and has not filed any
detailed sketch-map compiled by Voltan administrators. Mali has pre-
sented to the Chamber a map of the Gourma dating from 1901-1902or
1909-1910,on which the villageof Dioulouna is shown to the north of the
boundary. It has also presented a sketch-map of the cantonof Mondoro,
compiled in 1923 by a colonialadministrator and signed by the comman-
dant of the region, annexed to a list of the villagescomprising that canton.
This sketch-map intlicates the location of Dioulouna as well as of Douna
and Ourotongo, villages which are not apparently in dispute. Two other
sketch-maps, dating respectively from 1948 and 1953, were projected

during the oral proceedings. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 605

95. The Chamber has already stated(paragraph 65above)whyitcannot
uphold Mali's argument that the burden of proof in this respect is on
Burkina Faso, in the sense that it would be for Burkina Faso to demon-
strate the Voltan character of the villagesbetween 1927and 1935.It takes
asa starting-point ofitsreasoning thefact, attested byOrder 2728AP, that
in 1935the administrative authorities wereaware of the existence, closeto
the boundary between the cercles of Mopti and Ouahigouya, of four
villages bearing the names of Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou and
Koubo.At thisstage thechamber must remain solelywithinthecontext of
1932(the reference date in the 1947law for the purpose of defining the
boundaries of Upper Volta) and 1935 ; it is not required to consider
whether the villagesin question still exist today, or whether they stillbear
the same names, Similarly, in order to ascertain the intentions of the
Govemor-General i.n1935,it has to consider only such maps and docu-
ments asexisted at the time.Asfar asthemaps are concerned, the location
of the villages follows from the information provided by the following

maps, which are broadly consistent :
- A map, untitlecland undated (according to Mali it dates from 1900-
1902or 1909-1910),representing the Gourma and bearing the reference
12 D/6, and a sketch-map annexed to a 1923census of villagesbelonging
to the cantonof Mondoro, on which Dioulouna isgiven,but not the other
villagesmentioned in Order 2728AP.These other villages,inviewof their
position on the maps mentioned below, apparently should not appear on

the aforementioned maps and sketch-maps since they lay outside the
administrative region covered by the maps and the sketch.

- A rnap of central Niger on the scale 1:1,000,000,compiled by Lieu-
tenant Desplagnes in 1905,on whicheach of thefivevillagesreferred toin
the Order is shown :Yoro, Dioulouna (spelt "Dioukouna"), Oukoulou,
Agoulourou, and Koubo.
- A rnap of WestAfrica on the scale 1:2,000,000,sheet No. 2 :Tim-
buktu, published by the Geographical Service for the colonies in 1922,
which showsYoro, Dioukouna, Oukoulou (spelt "Okolou") and Koubo,
but not Agoulourou. However, a later edition of this rnap (1932)mentions
only Yoro and Koubo.
- The rnap of the coloniesof French West Africa on the scale 1 500,000
(the Blondel la Rougery rnap of 1925) which shows Yoro, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou and Koubo, but not Dioulouna.
- The Atlas des cercles de l'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise fascicle IV,
rnap No. 59, cercleof Ouahigouya (Geographical Serviceof French West

Africa, 1926),whichalsoshowsYoro,Oukoulou, Agoulourou and Koubo,
but not Dioulouna.
- A sketch-map of French Africa on the scale 1:1,000,000(sheet ND-
30, Ouagadougou) compiled in 1926,which shows Yoro, Oukoulou and
Koubo, but not Dioulouna or Agoulourou.
96. As for the administrative unit or units to which the villages are FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 606

supposed to belong, al1 the maps, except Lieutenant Desplagnes' 1905
map, include a line indicating an administrative boundary, but this does
not follow an identical course on every map. In that respect :

- Yoro, where shown, is always situated to the north-west (the Suda-
nese/Malian side) of the line.
- Dioulouna/Dioukouna, where shown, is always on the Sudanese/
Malian sideof the line ; however,the lineshown on the Blondella Rougery

map and on theAtlas descercles(1926)runs to thenorth ofwhat, according
to the other maps, is the position of Dioulouna.
- Agoulourou, Oukoulou and Koubo, where shown, are always on the
Voltan/Burkinabe side of the line.
97. The documentary evidence submitted by Mali to the Chamber
includes extracts from an officia1publication of the officeof the Governor-
General of French West Africa dating from 1927, entitled Répertoire
généraldes localitésde l'Afriqueoccidentale française(fascicles IV and

VIII). This publication shows that in 1927the Governor-General's office
had recorded the following localities :in French Sudan, a village named
Dioulouna in the cantonof Mondoro, cercleof Bandiagara, and a village
named Koubo in the cantonof Hombori, also in the cercleof Bandiagara.
The extracts from the Répertoiresubmitted to the Chamber are not suf-
ficient to establish whether the same names appear on the list of Voltan
places, or whether the names of Oukoulou and Agoulourou appear on
either theSudanese orthe Voltan lists.However, the Chamber believesit is
warranted in concluding from the silence of both Parties on ths rnatter
that this is not the case. By an Order 2862 AP of 15 December 1934,the
Sudanesecercleof Bandiagarawasabolished, and itsterritory wasannexed
tothe cercleof Mopti. The Order alsoprovides that "the overall boundaries
of the cercleof ... Mopti will be defined later by a General Order". It
followsfrom this, assuming the villagenamed Koubo in Order 2728AP to
be identical with the villagenamed Koubo in the Répertoire,that these two
villages (Dioulouna and Koubo) would have been part of the cercle of
Mopti both before and after the adoption of Order 2728 AP.

98. Ifit werecontended, on the basis of the maps, especially the Blondel
la Rougery map of 1925,that Agoulourou and Oukoulou at least did not
belong to the cercleof Mopti before Order 2728AP of 1935,the conclusion
would be inescapable that the colonial authorities were using the single
phrase "leaving to the cercle of Mopti the villages of Yoro, Dioulouna,
Oukoulou, Agoulourou, Koubo ..." to refer simultaneously to a village
(Yoro) which indubitably did belong to the cercle of Mopti, a village
(Dioulouna) as to which the maps and the administrative documents do
not agree,and three villageswhichaccording to themapsdid not belong to
the cercleof Mopti. On careful consideration, the Chamber thinks it very
unlikely that, if that had been the situation, the Governor-General would
have been so imprecise. As regards the maps, the Chamber has alreadyindicated(paragraph 55)that they maybe of considerableprobative value
in sofar as theyreflectphysical facts - e.g.,the existenceand position of a

village-, but are of Limitedweight where theyshow a purely abstract line,
an administrativeboundary which fails to match the other evidence pro-
duced. The Chamber recognizes that it is hardly possible to arrivein this
case at a solution capable of reconciling al1 the factors involved, and
concludes that this material does not reverse the presumption, already
mentioned, that Order 2728 AP was declaratory in nature.

99. Asfor the travauxpréparatoiresof Order 2728AP,Burkina Fasohas
relied on a note dated 5 December 1934 bearing a marginal reference
"Territorial modification in the Sudan", in which the Director of Political
and Administrative Affairs of the Governorship of French West Africa
wrote as follows to the military chefde cabinet (Geographical Service) :

"1 have the honour to advise you that 1 have no objection in
principle to the counter-proposals contained in your aforemen-
tioned note concerning the modifications to be made to the cer-
clesof Bafoulabé,Bamakoand Mopti consequentuponthe respective
annexation of the cercles of Satadougou, Baninko and Bandia-
gara."
Emphasizing the use of the word "modifications" in that note, Burkina
Faso considers that it confirms that Order 2728 AP was of a modifying

character.In the light of what was obviously thecontext of thedocument,
i.e., the abolition of the cercle of Bandiagara and its attachment to the
cercleof Mopti as a result of Order 2862AP of 15 December 1934(para-
graph 90 above), the Chamber does not consider it possible to take the
word "modifications" here to mean anything other than the effects of the
proposed reorganization. This conclusion is borne out by another docu-
ment from that period filed by Mali : an "Extract from the draft Order
abolishingthe cerclesof Satadougou, Baninko and Bandiagara, which are
converted into subdivisionsannexed to the cerclesof Bafoulabé, Bamako
and Mopti respectively". This text is undated, but from the fact that it
refers to a "draft Order" dealing with the same subject as the Order of
15December 1934 it is clear that it isprior to that date. The text does not
serve to elucidate the effects of Order 2728 AP, since the description it
gives of the eastern boundary of the cercleof Mopti matches that of the
former cercleof Bandiagara,as it wasbefore the annexation to it of a part
of thecercleof Hombori, in consequence of theOrder of 5December 1925,
subsequently modil'iedby the Order of 30 April 1928.

100. Turningtothe travauxpréparatoireswhichpreceded the Governor-
General'sadoption of Order 2728AP,it isnecessaryto examineamong the
documentssubmittedparticularly thosewhichwereannexed by Mali toits FRONTIERDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 608

Counter-Memorial. According to these documents,on 2January 1935the
Govemor of French Sudan transmitted to the administrator of the reor-
ganized cercleofMoptia "geographicaloutline" of theboundaries of that
cercle produced by the Govemor-General at Dakar, asking the adminis-
trator whether he had anyobjectiontoit. It appears that theadministrator
of Mopti, in reply to this communication,sent the Govemor of Sudan a
letter-telegram of 26 February 1935, no copy of which has been filed,
transmitting to him maps showingtheboundaries of thesubdivisionsof the

cercleof Mopti.The Governor replied to this letter-telegramon 20 March
1935 asking the administrator to supply "general indications for deter-
mining the boundaries in question (chief geographical features encoun-
tered along the course of the boundanes :mountain, watercourse, pools,
etc.)", and to mark these on the map. The case file includes further a
documentdated 25 May 1935entitled "Delimitation of the subdivisionsof
the cercleof Mopti" and bearingthesignature of theadministrator of that
cercle.It willbe noted that accordingto this text the "southern" boundary
of the subdivisionof Douentza, after reaching the village of Yoro, "then
headsnortheast asfar as the pool of Toussougou", and that the "eastern"
boundary starts "from the pool of Toussougou", following an "undulating
line running northwest". These two boundaries appear to correspond,
respectively,totheboundaries "to theeast" and "to the north" of thecercle
of Mopti as described in Order 2728AP. Bya letter of 3June 1935,which
was not produced in the proceedings, the Governor of French Sudan
apparently transmitted to the Governor-General of French West Africa a
description of the boundaries of the cercle of Mopti. It is reasonable to
supposethat this description was based on thedocumentprepared by the
administrator of the cercleof Mopti,dated 25May 1935.On 15June 1935,
this description was submitted by the Director of Political Affairs to the
Geographical Service "for consideration and technical advice".
101. It must be borne in mind that dunng this periodtheadministrators
were also studying the proposals made by the Governor-General in his

letter 191CM2 of 19February 1935,concerningtheboundary between the
colonies of French Sudan and Niger. On 11March 1935the Governor of
French Sudan asked theadministrator of the cercleof Mopti, among other
things, for his opinion of the draft text set out in letter 191CM2 from the
Govemor-General. Bya letter-telegram dated 19March 1935the admini-
strator replied as follows :
"Honour inform you no amendmentfound necessary to draft text
relating to Sudan-Nigerfrontier.
The pool of 'Kébanaire' situatedalmost on the boundary of the
cerclesof Mopti-Gourma-Rharousand Dori might be mentioned ...
as follows :'the summits of mounts Tin Eoult and Tabakarach and

the pool of Kébanaire,etc. ...'."
102. In reply to the communication from the Director of Political
Affairs dated 15June 1935,a note was addressed to him by the Geogra-
phical Serviceof French West Africa on 11July 1935.This note, entitled FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 609

"Boundaries of thecerclesof Mopti, Bamako and Bafoulabé",contains the
following remarks on the boundaries of the cercle of Mopti as contem-
plated by the Director of Political Affairs :

"But asregards the text concerning the cercleof Mopti, the descrip-
tion of the southern boundary (from '. ..heading southeast, to-
wards ...'to the end)and that of theeasternboundary do not seemto
correspond to the current state of affairs. Moreover, 1have found it

impossible to l'ollowthis description on the officia1 maps of the
Geographical Service,since the points referred to in the text arenot
shown (pool of Ouairé,village of Dioulouna, pool of Toussougou,
well of Agouf, pools of Fossa and Dourgana)."

The document annexed to the communication of 15June 1935,and which
isreferred toin the observations by the Geographical Service,isnot among
the case-file supplieti by the Parties. The Chamber clearly has no means of
knowing how far this draft corresponded with the text which was ulti-
mately adopted. It may be noted in this connection that the words "head-
ing south-east" quoted by the Geographical Service are not found in the
definition of theMopti cercleboundariescontained in Order 2728AP. Nor
does that Order mention the pool of "Ouairé",but it is apparent from the
document dated 25 May 1935entitled "Delimitation of the subdivisionsof
the cercleof Mopti", that this pool lay to the north-west of Yoro, and had
only been referred to for the purpose of defining a subdivisionboundary.
Moreover, although the pool of Kétiouaire does not appear on any of the
maps which have been obtained by the Parties, the Geographical Service
expresses no resemations about it ;it may be concluded that, if the draft
which was commented upon included a mention of this pool, the Geo-
graphical Service must have known where it was.
103. On 5 August 1935,the Governor of French Sudan informed the

administrator of the cercleof Mopti of the difficulties experienced by the
Geographical Service,and askedhim to drawtheoutline of the boundaries
of his cercle on the "largest-scale map in existence" published by that
service "(Mopti and Hombori sheet, scale 1:500,000)",i.e., the Blondel la
Rougery map. The cercleadrninistrator replied on 9 August 1935request-
ing a copy of ths map. On 20 September 1935the cercle administrator
returned to the Governor of French Sudan the copy which had been
supplied to him by the Geographical Service,having "drawn on it in blue
pencil the subdivisionboundaries of the cerclewhich are mentioned in the
attached draft Order". At the same time, the administrator pointed out
that "These lines are very approximate since these maps, compiled more
than 15years ago, contain gaps and many inaccuracies". The Governor of
the Sudan cornmunicated this warning to the Governor-General simulta-
neouslywith the description of thesouthern and easternboundaries of the
cercleof Mopti and the maps, which have not been traced. The Geogra-
phical Service then produced, on 18 October 1935,a description of the
topographical boundaries of the cercle of Mopti, corresponding to thedescription in Order 2728AP, stating that "The subdivisionboundaries [of
this cercle]must be fixed by local Order".

104. Burkina Faso believes it can be inferred from the wording of the
above-mentioned note of 11July 1935,especially from the phrase obser-

ving that certain descriptions "do not seem to correspond to the current
state of affairs", that the draft of Order 2728 AP did in fact imply a
modification of the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti as previously fixed.
The Chamber finds it cannot endorse this view. Rather, in view of the
complete text of this draft, it considers that the "state of affairs" to which
theGeographical Servicewasreferring was the one which appeared on the
maps and not the one which existed on the ground. It is obvious that the
Geographical Servicewould not have been able to ascertain, for example,
whether the statement that the boundary ran "south of the pool of Tous-
sougou" actually corresponded with the situation on the ground, since the
Servicedid not know the position of this pool. The Chamber has already
found that the maps available in 1935do not agree with other adminis-
trative documents. Accordingly, the fact that the Geographical Service
found that the draft submitted to it did not correspond, for the points
indicated, to the maps it had available, may mean that this draft made
changes to the existingofficia1maps ;it does not warrant afindingthat the
legally-established boundaries were likewise altered.

105. The Chamber believes it must be concluded that the travauxpré-
paratories of Order 2728 AP, taken as a whole, tend to confirm the pre-
sumption that the Order did not have either the object or the effect of

modifying the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti as they existed before its
adoption.

106. Having thus established how far the various regulative or admini-
strative texts relied on by the Parties are applicable in determining the
frontier line, thehamber now cornes to thequestion of how these can be
implemented. In this respect the Chamber's task is chieflyto identify the
topographical elements usedasreferencepoints in thesedocuments, andto
locate them on the maps and on the ground in relation to the modern
place-names. But when doing so, the Chamber must retum to thequestion
of themethods of division of the lineused by theParties for the purpose of
their arguments. Sincethe Chamber has reached the conclusion that letter
191 CM2 from the Governor-General of French West Africa dated
19February 1935 was a description of the boundary existing at the time
between French Sudan and Niger,it might seemto followthatone point on
the frontier, point P, is now identified (the point with the geographical
CO-ordinates 1" 24' 15" W and 14" 43'45" N) and that Burkina Faso's
proposed division into two sectors can therefore beadopted, theone sector
lyingto the Westof that point and the other to theeast, asfaras theend ofthe frontier between Burkina Faso and Mali. But before pronouncing on
this, the Chamber must consider the relationship between the information
provided by the various written texts which it has to apply.

107. The Order of 31 December 1922 "for the reorganization of the
region of Timbuktu" and the letter 191CM2 from the Governor-General

of French West Africa dated 19February 1935bear each otherout, in that
both refer to the pool of In Abao (1922 Order) or Inabao (1935 letter) as
one of the reference points of the boundary between Sudan and the
neighbouring colony, from 1922onwards Upper Volta, and from 1935on
Niger. Similarly, the letter 191 CM2 of 1935 agrees with the Order of
31August 1927"fixing the boundaries of the colonies of Upper Volta and
Niger", which implied that the end-point of the frontier between Upper
Volta and French Sudan was situated at the "heights of N'Gouma". The
boundary contemplated in the 1935 letter, a boundary which no longer
ended at N'Gouma because of the transfer of certain Voltan cercles to
Niger, nevertheless continued to run through (inter alia) "mounts Tin
Garan, N'Gouma, 'Trontikato ...".

108. Even more significant, but also more complex, is the relationship
between the line described in Order 2728 AP of 27 November 1935and
that givenin the draft description in letter 191CM2 of 19February of the
same year. Order 2728AP defines the eastern and northern boundaries of
the cercle of Mopti by reference to topographical elements. It gives no
indication which administrative entity was separated from that cercleby
each boundary. The Chamber notes that, in the region relevant to the

present case, the so-called "eastern" boundary followed a southwest-
northeast direction, and divided the cercleof Mopti from two cercleslying
successively to the southeast of the line :the Sudanese cercleof Ouahi-
gouya and the Niger cercleof Dori. The so-called "northern" boundary
divided the cercleof Mopti from the Sudanese cercleof Gourma-Rharous.
The point "located 1.the east of the pool of Kétiouaire"mentioned in the
Order is therefore the tripoint where the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rha-
rous and Don met. However, the "eastern" boundary also ran through
anothertripoint,that is,the meeting-point between thatboundary and the
boundary between the cerclesof Ouahigouya (Sudan) and Dori (Niger).
The purpose of letter 191 CM2 of 19 February 1935 was to define the
boundary between the colonies of French Sudan and Niger :between the
two tripoints, Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori and Mopti/Gourma-Rharous/
Don (see sketch-map No. 4, below) that boundary was identical with the
line which Order 2728 AP was intended to define. The geographical co-
ordinates given in the letter by way of definition of the end-point of the
Sudan-Niger boundary are therefore those of the tnpoint Mopti/Ouahi-
gouya/Dori.
109. With regard to this latter point, it should first be noted that it
corresponds to thenorthwestern extremity of the cercleof Dori asshownin FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 613

the maps of the Atlas descercles(fascicle IV, maps 53 and 59) of 1926,as
wellas in the Blondel la Rougery map of 1925,mapsdrawnup before the
abolition of Upper Volta and the transfer of the cantonof Aribinda from
the cercleof Don to the cercleof Ouahigouya. Themapsmade available to
the Charnber do not show the boundaries of that canton.However, from
the successive editions of 1926 and 1933 of the sketch-map of French
Africa on the scale 1 1,000,000(ND 30 sheet :Ouagadougou, maps filed

by Burkina Faso), it isplain that the modification of theboundaries of the
cercleof Dori which resulted from the transfer of the cantonof Aribinda
did not result in modifying the location of the tripoint Mopti/Ouahi-
gouya/Dori. In the second place, it may seem surprising that at the time
when Order 2728AP was compiled, in November 1935,the Geographical
Service did not see fit to propose to the Govemor-General that point P
should be mentioned in the definition of the boundary of the cercle of
Mopti ; that was thepoint used in the letter 191CM2 of February 1935to
define the western end-point of a boundary the extension of whch was
identical with that of the boundary which was to be defined by Order
2728AP, at least in so far as both boundaries connected the two tripoints
mentioned above. This is the more curious in that theadministrator of the
cercleof Mopti,after receivinga copy of letter 191CM2, had informed the
Lieutenant-Governor of the Sudan, by aletter-telegram of 19March 1935,
that he found "no amendment ... necessary to draft text relating to
Sudan-Niger frontier" except for the suggested addition of a reference to
the pool of Kébanaire. The administrator of the cercle of Mopti had
therefore accepted that point P mentioned in the letter was indeed on the
boundary of his cercle.
110. It might be thought that the reference in letter 191CM2 of 1935to

a point defined by CO-ordinatesof latitude and longitude would have
simplified the Chamber's task, sinceit would thus have a firm and reliable
key point for the purpose of determining the course of the line. That is
however not so. From the documents of the period it seemsclear that the
reason for giving a precise definition of point P was not that it corre-
sponded to a typical topographical feature the CO-ordinatesof which
should be calculated, nor for the purpose of later fixing an astronomic
marker at that point. The point to which the CO-ordinatesrefer was the
meeting-point of three cercleboundaries, whichwerethemselvesdefined in
topographical terms, and there is little doubt that it was on the basis of the
data supplied by oneormore mapsthat the author of letter 191CM2 gavea
definition of this point in figures. Paradoxically, it follows that it is the
point so defined which is the least authoritative in the present case. When
the boundaries described in the letter 191CM2 or in Order 2728 AP are
defined in terms of topographical features, aspassing through acertain hiIl
or pool, then once these have been identified on the ground the Chamber
must necessarily ensure that the line it has to draw passes through them.
But it must be borne in rnind that the basic maps available in 1935,
according to the IGN itself, were most inaccurately drawn, so that "the
position of certain details may be misplaced by several hlometres" (Notedated 27January 1975on the positioning offrontiers). If thedefinition of a
boundary refers both to details like these and to a calculated point with
CO-ordinatesderived from such a map, there isonly one wayto observe the
consistency among boundaries sought by the colonial adrninistrators :
where the topography and the CO-ordinatesfail to agree, the topography
must be preferred. Inthe present instance, ifitwere to prove tobe the case,
on the basis of reference-points shown on maps and in other geographical
sources which are more reliable, in 1986, than those compiled with the
technical data available in 1935,that the geographical CO-ordinatesmen-
tioned in letter 191CM2 are impreciseor inaccurate, then for the Chamber
togiveacorrect interpretation of theletter itwouldhave tocorrect them,or
even disregard theni.

111. To establish the relationship between Order 2728 AP and letter
191CM2, particular account must be taken of the attitude of the Mopti
cercleadministrator. He must doubtless have had maps available to him,
but he did not possess the Blondella Rougery map (the Hombori sheet of
the 1:500,000series),asisshownby hiscommunication tothe Governor of
French Sudan on 9August 1935.Now on 19March 1935thisadministrator
himself approved, for the boundary of his cercle,the draft description set

out in letter 191CM2, that description being simply the verbal equivalent
of the line shown on the Blondel la Rougery map. If, having regard to the
documentary or cartographic information in his possession, the Mopti
administrator made no objection to that description, it may be assumed
that, as regards the portion of the line which was at the same time a
boundary of the cercleof Mopti, the description contained in the letter
corresponded to the administrativesituation. It should alsobe noted that
the Mopti administrator returned to the Lieutenant-Governor of French
Sudan the Hombori and Mopti sheets of the 1:500,000map, afterdrawing
on them in blue pencil the boundaries asheknewthem tobe ;and itwason
the basis of these sheets, and not from a clean copy of the Hombori sheet,
that the Geographical Serviceprepared the definition of the cercleboun-
daries to be set out in Order 2728 AP. This confirms the Chamber's
conclusion that it cannot accept the argument that the depiction on the
1:500,000 Homborï sheet of the villages of Koubo, Agoulourou and
Oukoulou south of the boundary shown on it proves that Order 2728AP
had the effect of transferring them from the cercleof Ouahigouya to the
cercleof Mopti.

112. Now that the Chamber turns to the essential part of its task, it
encountersapracticalproblem :the Parties have not clearlyindicated to it
theend-point of thefrontier already established between them by common FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 615

agreement, that is to Say, the western end of the disputed area. In its

submissions,Malirequested the Charnber to decide that thefrontier linein
thedisputed area runs through a seriesof defined points, the first of which
is"Lofou". According to arnap alsopresented by Mali, entitled "Disputed
area - crossing points on the frontier", Lofou is tobefound 29kilometres
tothe south of Diounouga, to the West - the Malian side - of the "frontier
line shown on the 1:200,000scalemap" of the IGN. Burkina Faso has not
challenged the accuracy of this. One of Mali's counselexplainedduring the
oral proceedings that Lofou wasnot apparently a disputedpoint.This also
appeared from the Counter-Memorial of Burkina Faso, where it is stated
that Lofou is a "Malian village cultivated by Burkinabes". On the rnap
mentioned above submitted to the Chamber by Mali, there is a line in red
ink, which corresponds to its submissions. This line begins at Lofou and
followsthe "frontier line" of the IGN rnap asfaras apoint apparently with
the followinggeographical CO-ordinates :1 "59'01 "Wand 14"24'40" N.
As for Burkina Faso, it did not in its submissions identify the starting-

point of the line to be drawn by the Chamber ; it merely submitted to the
Chamber a rnap (comprising an extract from a compilation of five sheets
from the IGN 1:200,000map) indicating both the frontier line which it
asksthe Chamber to endorse, and what it allegesto be the successiveclaims
of Mali. On that map, the respective lines proposed by the two Parties
intersect at a point lying on the "frontier line" mentioned above, but
approximately 18 kilometres to the north of Lofou. Burkina Faso also
Statesthat, for the purpose of the delimitation alreadymade by agreement,
the Parties based themselves on the line on the IGN 1:200,000 scale
map.

113. The Chamber considers that it can justifiably conclude that the
Parties both accept thefrontier lineof the IGN rnap south of thepoint with
the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 59'01" W and 14" 24'40" N ; it finds

therefore thatit isfrom that point that they are requesting the Chamber to
indicate the line of their common frontier in an easterly direction.

114. The regulativetexts intended to fixthe districtboundaries - Order
2728 AP being one of these - generally do so merely by referring to the
villagescomprising a cantonor allocated to acertain cercle,withoutfurther
geographical clarification. This therefore calls for a consideration of the
meaning to be ascribed to the word "village". The problem arises parti-
cularly because the inhabitants of the villages in the region frequently
cultivate land at a distance from the village itself, sometimes separated
from it by areas comprising uncultivated or arid land, and they take up
residence in "farming harnlets" which form dependencies of the main
village.This system further complicates the Chamber's task of drawing a FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 616

line which, as the boundary of certain villages, constitutes the former
administrative boundary of a colony, and consequently the present fron-
tier between the territories of the Parties. The Chamber has to decide

whether, in the light of the delimitation it is asked to effect, the farming
hamlets form part of the villages on which they depend. Moreover, in a
regionwhereit iscommon forvillages,in thecourse of time, to change their
locations or names, or even disappear, it is no easy matter to decide what
was the position of farminghamlets in 1932,should this be necessary for
the delimitation which the Chamber has to effect.

115. Mali has emphasized that it is claiming those villages which were
formerly administratively Sudanese to their legal extent ;that it is not
claiming land cultivated by Malians, but land which administratively
appertains to Malian villages.It quotes an Order issued by the Lieutenant-
Govemor ad interintof the Sudan on 30 March 1935, "for the reorgani-
zation of the native administration in the colony of French Sudan", Arti-
cle2of whch provides that "the villageis the native administrative unit. It
comprises the whole of the population residing there and al1 the land
dependent on it." For Mali, "the land dependent on" avillageincludes the
farming harnlets. Burkina Faso argues, however, that the French admini-
strators of the period were well aware of the phenomenon of the over-
lappingfarming villages,and the impossibility of drawing an administra-
tivemap taking account of attachment on a "personal" basis orin relation

to farming activities. This state of affairs necessitated a degree offlexi-
bility, which was, in Burkina Faso's view, provided by the Order of
30 March 1935,since Article 7 provided that :

"The chefs of a number of neighbouring villages may prepare
among themselves, after consulting the councils of the villages con-
cerned, collectiveagreements for fisheries,hunting,farmland, grazing
lands and transhumance areas. In no circumstances may these agree-
ments modify the laws or regulations in force, and they will be sub-

mitted for approval to the district head, who will have them issued in
accordance with the terms of the decree of 2 May 1906 on native
agreements."
Burkina Faso has also drawn attention to the considerable distances
between the villages and the farming hamlets depending on them, these
distances being imposed by the poor soi1and the patterns of cultivation
this necessitates. It has alsopointed out that thefrontier line already fixed
by joint agreement between the Parties divides numerous villages from
their farming hamlets. From this it concludes that excessive use of the
concept of farming hamlets for delimitation purposes could have unfor-

tunate results.
116. While under the colonial system a villagemay, for certain admini-
strative purposes, have comprised al1 the land depending on it, the
Chamber isby no means persuaded that when a village wasa feature used FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 617

to define the composition - and therefore the geographical extent - of a
wider administrative entity, the farming hamlets had always to be taken
into consideration in drawingthe boundary of that entity. In the colonial
period, thefact that the inhabitants of one villagein a French colonyleft in
order to cultivate land lying on the territory of another neighbouring
French colony, or afortiori on the territory of another cerclebelonging to
the same colony, did not contradict the notion of a clearly-defined boun-
dary between the various colonies or cercles.This was the situation inheri-
ted by the two Parties at the moment of acheving independence ;and it is
the frontier as it existed at that moment which the Chamber is required to
identify. The Parties have not requested the Chamber to decide what
should become of the land rights and other rights which, on the eveof the
independence of both States, were being exercised across the boundary
between the two pre-existing colonies. If such rights had no impact on the
position of that boundary, then they do not affect the line of the frontier,
and it is this linealone which the Parties have reauested the Chamber to

indicate. From a practical point of view, the existence of such rights has
posed no major problems, as is shown by the agreements which they have
concluded to resolvethe administrative problems which anse in the fron-
tier districts of the two States. For example, an agreement of 25 February
1964 deals, among other matters, with the "Problems of land and the
maintenance of rights of use on either sideof the frontier", andit provides
that "Rights of use of the nationals of the two Statespertaining to farm-
land, pasturage, fisheries and waterpoints willbe preserved in accordance
with regional custom".
117. It is however also important not to over-systematize this distinc-
tion between the village as a territorial unit and the farming land depen-
dent on it. In thismatter, it al1depends onthe circumstances. The Chamber
considers that it is only when it has exarnined the evidence and other
information available to it relating to the extent of aparticular villagethat
itwillbe ableto ascertain whether aparticular pieceof land is to he treated
aspart of that villagedespite its lackof aconnection with it, oras asatellite

hamlet which does not fa11within the boundaries of the villagein the strict
sense.

118. Since Order 2728 AP of 1935defines the boundary between the
cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouya in terms of villages "left" to the former
cercle, these villages have to be identified, and their territorial extent
ascertained. The first villagementioned in the Order is Yoro. As we have
seen (paragraph 92 above), Burkina Faso does not deny that this village,
which is situated sonie 15kilometres Westof the frontier line shown on the
IGN 1:200,000 scale map, at the level of Lofou, is Malian. As for the
geographical boundaries of this village, the Chamber notes that Mali has
stated that it has no difficulty in accepting the line of the IGN 1:200,000
scale map up to acertainpoint, a point determined not by reference to the FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 618

extent of the village of Yoro, but according to that of the village of
Dionouga. Since this line is also that proposed by Burkina Faso, the
Chamber concludes that there isno disputeconceming thisfirst part of the
frontier.
119. The position of the villageof Dionouga, which the Parties agree in
identifying with the villageof "Dioulouna" mentioned in Order 2728AP,
is defined, according to the report of a technical subcommission of the
Mixed Technical Commission of Mali and Upper Volta dated 14April
1972,by the geographical CO-ordinates1" 57'00" W and 14" 32' 12" N.
On the IGN map, this village is situated in the immediate vicinity of the
frontier line on the Burkinabe side, close to the point where the line bends
north-eastwards. In this sector, it is therefore clear that this line can no
longer represent the boundary defined in Order 2728 AP, since the latter
left the villageof Dioulouna/Dionouga to the cercleof Mopti. The Cham-
ber cannot thereforeuphold Burkina Faso'ssubmission that the frontier is
"as shown on the 1/200,000scalemap of the FrenchInstitut géographique

national, 1960 edition, the villages of Dioulouna ... being located in
Burkinabe territory". Mali, on the other hand, claims that the frontier in
the vicinity of Dioulouna/Dionouga should run through "the mosque-
shaped enclosure situated two kilometres to the north of Diguel".

120. In support of this submission, Mali quotes the minutes of the
meeting of the Mixed Technical Commission of Mali and Upper Volta,
held from 5 to 17April1972, and theinformationobtained on 5September
1985from the "older residents" of Dioulouna who, according to Mali, are
themselves the repository of an ancient oral tradition. Of al1ths infor-
mation, what the Chamber finds particularly noteworthy is the fact that,
on the subject of Dioulouna, the local people told the Mixed Technical
Commission that :

"under the colonial régime,track-making work for Dioulouna stop-
ped at Tondigana, at the levelof the white Stone(about 10km to the
south of Dioulouna) ..."

and as regards the Burkinabe village of Diguel,

"under the colonial régime,the track-making work stopped at Saga-
rabane (Gravillons Rouges) at seven(7) kilometres approximately to
the north [of the village of Diguel]".

In the Chamber's opinion, this information about the track-makingworks
carried out at the behest of colonial administratorshas a certain eviden-
tiary value. First, this information is a guide to what, according to the
aforementioned testimony, those administrators considered to be the
boundaries of their districts. Only initsoral replydid Burkina Fasosuggest

that the recruitment of forced labour under the colonial régime wascon-
nected not with the district boundaries, but rather with the availablesupply of labour, but produced no evidence of this. Secondly, such infor-
mation shows how important these operations were in the lives of the
population under the colonial régime ; thus they had an accurate and
reliable recollection of them. Moreover, it is reasonable to suppose that
such operations have continued to take place from time to time until a
fairly recent period. On the other hand, the tradition invoked in regard to

the mosque-shaped enclosure goes back to a meeting between a colonial
adrninistrator and native chiefs held about 1913 ;and no minutes or other
written evidence of that meeting have been produced.

121. Mali concedes that there is a margin of error, estimated at 23.5per
cent, in the distances quoted above, the true distance between the villages
of Dioulouna and Diguel being 13,not 17kilometres. Mali itself suggests
that "if the information [obtained from the local inhabitants] is corrected

in the light of this average error, the point [i.e.,the meeting-point between
the twovillages]issituated at 7.650kilometres from Dionouga and at 5.350
kilometres from Diguel". Although the Chamber does not think it neces-
sary to endeavour to achieve such mathematical accuracy, it can nonethe-
lessconclude that the administrative boundary at the relevant time dunng
the colonial period intersected the track between Dioulouna/Dionouga
and Diguel at a distance of approximately 7.5 kilometres to the south of
Dionouga, and that theline of the frontier between Burkina Faso and Mali
consequently does the same.

122. After Yoroand Dioulouna, Order 2728AP goeson to mention the
villages of Oukoulou and Agoulourou. According to Burkina Faso,
Oukoulou could be the villagetoday called Oukoulourou. Mali, in reliance
mainly on a 1905map (the map of central Niger compiled by Lieutenant
Desplagnes), considers that the latter village isidentical to Agoulourou in
the 193~ -ext. and that Ouko~l~u is now called Kounia. The Chamber
would emphasize that it is quite irrelevant to the present case whether or
not the villagesexist today ;if in 1935,the Governor-General referred to

certain villagesin defininga boundary whch was subsequently to become
aninternational frontier, thefact that thesevillageshave sincedisappeared
does not result in any modification of the boundaq so defined. The
Chamber also considers it must reject the logic adopted by the Parties, of
seeking to ascertain which villagemay nowadays be situatedon the site of
any one of the villages mentioned in Order 2728 AP, and to establish the
present territorial limit of those villagesin order to define thefrontier. The
boundary which the Chamber has to identify is the one which existed in

1932.The relevance of the 1935Order liesin the fact that, as the Chamber
has found, it defines in written form the situation prevailing in 1932.

123. Having concluded that the present-day village of Oukoulourou
and the villageof Agoulourou mentioned in Order 2728AP are identical,
Mali relieson the followinginformation obtained by the Mixed Technical
Commission in April 1972 : FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 620

"For fifty-four (54) years, the inhabitants of Douna (Republic of

Mali) have been farming at Selba and at Okoulourou,without prior
permission from anybody, for the good reason that these areas
belonged to them. No Voltans cultivate these lands.
Atpresent, onlyone familyfromDouna isfarmingthe Selbalands.
The reason is :
(a)the impoverishment of the soi1 ;
(b) an exodus of young people following the deportation of their
elderlyparents, who wereopposedto their villagesbeing annexed
to the cantoo nf Hombori.

Under the colonial régime,track-making worksfor Douna stopped
at the level of the Selba baobab tree (not far from an astronomic
marker situatedat the edgeof thepool of Selba).The sameoperations
for the villageof Sô(Republic of Upper Volta) stopped at the levelof
the same baobab. Thus this baobab is the boundary between the two
villages."

Mali therefore asks the Chamber to draw the frontier line through the
Selba baobab.
124. Generally speaking, as the Chamber has obsewed above, track-
making works are a significant element of the "effectivi wthish"may
prove theintentions of thecolonialadministrators. But thequestion isnot
what was the geographical extent, taking into account thedependent land
or thefarming hamlets, of thevillageof Douna, which isneither mentioned
in Order 2728AP nor situated at the same spotas any of the villagesthere
mentioned which have since disappeared. Even if the villageof Agoulou-
rou no longer exists, the Chamber nonetheless has to ascertain what its
boundaries were in 1932-1935 ;the fact that a farming hamlet (Okoulou-
rou) isnow situated on the samespot and bears almost the samename, but
isdependenton the villageof Douna, does not warrant the conclusion that
the villageof Douna may determine the course of the line. At the present
stage of its reasoning, thehamber will merely state that the line it is to
draw must run to the south of the villagesof Kounia and Okoulourou,the
location ofwhch corresponds to that of Oukoulou and Agoulourou on the

maps referred toinparagraphs 95and 96 above,reservingfor the moment
the question of defining the boundaries of the two latter villages.

125. Order 2728APmentions next the villageof Koubo, where there is
someconfusion of nomenclature. According totheminutes of themeetings
of the Mixed Technical Commission of 8 and 9 April 1972 :

"From Douna the Commission went to the village of Kobou,
situated at twenty-seven (27) km approximately to the east ...
When questioned,the dignitaries explained that the villageKobou
and the farrning hamlet Koubo shouldnot be confused. The latter is

situated about four (4) km to the south of Kobou. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 621

Weshould note that although the villageof Kobou is shown on the

IGN 1/200,000 extract (Djibo sheet) 1960 edition, the hamlet of
Koubo does not exist. On the other hand, there is a hamlet of Kobo
about four (4) km to the south."
Subsequent passages in the minutes are devoted to the village of Kobou
and the hamlet found to the south of it, but that hamlet is then spelled
"Koubo" instead of "Kobo" as in the last paragraph quoted and on the
IGN map. The minutes add the following details, supplied by the digni-
taries of the village of Kobou :

"The village of Kobou has existed for sixty-nine (69) years. The
farming hamlet with the name Koubo, situated about four (4) km to
the south, originated from the villageand is as old as the villageitself.
There is a well in it which was dug by the inhabitants of Kobou
fourteen (14) years ago. No Voltans live there . . .
The boundary with Upper Volta is Tondegarian, to the south of
Koundiri."

Mali claims that, according to oral tradition in the villagesand among the
nomads of the region, the frontier in this area is the Tondigaria, a highly
characteristic discontinuous outcrop of white Stones. It runs through the
following points, which Mali cites in its submissions as determining the
course of the line:Tondigaria (approximately 18kilometres to the south-
southeast of Kobou), FourfaréTiaiga, FourfaréWandé,Gari01and Goun-
touréKiri (the latter lying south east of the pool of Soum).

126. The Chamber notes that Mali does not base its claim that the
Tondigaria constitutes the frontier on anything connected with the loca-
tion or extension of the village known in 1935under the name of Koubo,

whether that village now corresponds to the village of Kobou or to the
hamlet of Kobo. Its claim is based solelyon an oral tradition unrelated to
the written title constituted by Order 2728 AP. The Chamber cannot
interpret the text of therder, whch defines the boundary as "leaving to
the cercleof Mopti the villageof. . Koubo", as referring to a geographical
or topographicalfeature, howevercharacteristic, whichisnot mentioned in
the text of the Order, and for which no evidence has been offered that it
defines the southward boundary of the "land depending" on the villageof
Koubo. The information available to the Chamber is not sufficient to
establish with certainty whether it is the villageof Kobou or the hamlet of
Kobo which corresponds to the villageof Koubo referred to in Order 2728
AP ;but given that the hamlet is only 4 kilometres from the village, the
Chamber considersit reasonable to treat them as a whole, and to draw the
line in such a manner as to leave both of them to Mali. Here again, the
Chamber reservesfor themoment thequestion of the exact position of this

line. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 622

127. The line described in Order 2728AP, after leaving to the cercleof
Mopti the five villagesjust discussed, continues "markedly north-east",
"passing to the south of the pool ofToussougou and culminating in apoint

located to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire".There is a problem asto the
whereabouts of these pools :none of the maps contemporary with the
Order which the Parties have been able to present to the Chamber shows
any pools bearing these names. As far as the pool of Toussougou is
concerned this is not surprising, since the Geographical Serviceof French
West Africa had already informed the Director of Political and Admini-
strativeAffairs in the aforementioned notedated 11July 1935(paragraph
102),that this pool was one of the points givenin the text of the projected
description of the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti which did not appear
on the officia1maps ofhisservice.Only around 1960did certain IGN maps
showavillageofToussougou,as wellasahydrological feature (apool or an
"area liable to flooding") to the south-west of this village called Féto
Maraboulé. These maps are the 1:200,000 rnap of West Africa, sheet
ND-30-XVII ; 1:500,000 rnap of West Africa, sheet ND-30-N.E. This
feature,according to Mali, is to be identified with the pool of Toussougou.
Burkina Faso claims there are two separate pools, Toussougou and Mara-
boulé. BurkinaFaso has filed a map, compited in 1973for the purpose of

an inventory of hydraulic resources in Upper Volta, which records the
existence of two pools. Mali explains that it is a single pool, the extent of
which varies with the season :it shrinks in the dry season and swellsin the
rainy season.

128. The Chamber notes that there is at least one pool in the region of
the villageof Toussougou, according to both Parties, but theonly evidence
theyhave offered on the matter consists of maps. But themapsarefar from
clear or definitive in this regard. On the IGN map, two symbols to the
south of the village indicate the existence of two water-points ;and the
name "Féto Maraboulé" indicatesan "area liable to flooding" which is
surrounded and extended by "water logged areas". A "geological recon-
naissance rnap of Upper Volta" filed by Burkina Faso shows two features
marked in blue which seemto be pools, but do no€correspond in shape or
position to those on the IGN map. The cartographic base of the rnap of
water resources, also filed by Burkina Faso, is in fact the IGN map, on

which symbolshave been added to denote water resources. Obviously the
Chamber is here confronted with a major difficulty, since it has only
contradictory cartographic documents available to it. However, it consi-
ders that the 1973map, compiled for the very purpose of providing an
inventory of water resources, is a particularly valuable piece of evidence.
On this rnap there are two distinct symbols, each representing a non-
permanent pool ;thepool of FétoMarabouléisstated asbeing dry for nine
months of the year, no details being givenfor the pool of Toussougou. The
Chamber believes it can be inferred from this that even during the rainy
season the two pools remain separate, forrning two independent water
pointsfrom theviewpointof aregister ofwater resources. Hencethere isno FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 623

obvious or necessaryidentity between the pool of FétoMarabouléand the
pool of Toussougou referred to in Order 2728 AP.

129. What must alsobe taken into consideration istheimpact of suchan
identification on the course of the line. According to the map of hydraulic
resources, the pool of Toussougou islocated at a latitude of approximately
14"45' ; the maximum southward extension of the pool of FétoMara-
boulé liesat a latitude of approximately 14" 41'.The geographical co-
ordinates of the point indicated by letter 191CM2 are l" 24' 15"W and
14"43'45" N ;it therefore liesWestof the twopools, on a parallel running
between the southern point of the pool of Toussougou and the southern
point of the pool of FétoMaraboulé. A straight line starting from the
region of the villagesof Kounia and Oukoulou and heading to the south of
the pool of Toussougou would pass, not through this point, but about 6
kilometres to the south of i;aline with the samestarting-point heading to
the south of FétoMarabouléwould pass about 8.5kilometres to the south

of thepoint in question. As the Chamber has pointed out, there can be no
certainty that the western extrernity of the boundary between French
Sudan and Upper Volta, ascontemplated in letter 191CM2, lay at exactly
the point P, defined by the CO-ordinatesmentioned in that letter. Indeed
this appears not to be the case, since neither of the two lines in question
here passes through this point. Nevertheless, in interpreting the reference
to the pool of Toussougou in Order 2728AP, the Chamber believesthat of
the twopossible interpretations itmust opt forthe one whichwould reduce
to aminimum the margin of error involvedin definingthe tripoint givenin
letter 191 CM2, short of compelling grounds for choosing the contrary
interpretation. It is also important to bear in mind that the village of
Kobou, which was "left" to the cercle of Mopti by Order 2728 AP, is
situated on approximately the same latitude as point P. If the line con-
templated in the Order had run as far south of this village as the line
heading to the south of FétoMaraboulé, itis doubtful whether it would
have been thought necessary to mention this village.
130. Before investigating the position of the pool of Kétiouaire, also

mentioned in Order 2728 AP, the Chamber considers it necessary to
summarize the situation regarding the first segment of the line. Beginning
from the point with the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 59'01" W and
14" 24'40" N, defined in paragraph 112above, the line heads northward,
and foradistance of approximately 3.5kilometresit followsthe lineshown
in abroken seriesof smallcrosseson the IGNmap of 1958-1960,asfar asa
point with the geographical CO-ordinates1 "58' 49"W and 14"28'30" N.
At tlus point it turns eastwards, intersecting the track between Dionouga
and Digue1about 7.5 kilometres to the south of Dionouga, and continues
towards the village of Kounia. The line then has to "leave" to Mali the
villages of Kounia, Oukoulourou and Koubo, before continuing in a
straight line towards the pool of Toussougou. A boundary "leaving" cer-
tain villages to any particular administrative district may follow the exact FRONTIERDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 624

boundaries of these villages,whatever shape they take, and will result in a
somewhat undulating line. Provided it observes the administrative appur-
tenance of thevillages,aboundary mayalsofollowastraight lineor consist
of a series of straight lines al1running in the same general direction, with
some minor deviations. The colonial maps of the period, for example, the

1926Atlas des cercles,show clearly that the latter was the form most
frequently taken by the cercleboundaries. It is also of relevance that the
description given by the adrninistrator of the cercleof Mopti of the sub-
division boundary corresponding to the boundary contemplated in Order
2728 AP refers to a single line starting from the village of Yoro and
subsequently "heading northeastward as far as the pool of Toussougou".
The Chamber concludes that in adding the detail that the line was to
"leave" to the cercleof Mopti the villageof Yoro and the "four villages",
the Geographical Serviceof French West Africa did not intend the line to
take a more cornplex form as a result. In addition, there is no means of
determiningthe preciseextent of the villagesofAgoulourou and Oukoulou
in 1935. The Chamber therefore considers that a line which skirts the
present-day villages of Kounia and Oukoulourou at a distance of 2 kilo-
metres to the south corresponds to the boundary described in Order 2728
AP, as far as the course of this boundary can be determined in 1986.

131. According to Order 2728AP, the line must next pass "to the south
of the pool of Toussougou". For the reasons already explained, in the
Chamber's view this pool is not the pool of Féto Maraboulé, but the
smaller pool lying close to the village of Toussougou. The expression "to
thesouth of thepool" does not have thesarnerneaning asother expressions
suchas "passing through the southern point of the pool" ;thegap between
the line and the pool would be a consequence of thedraftsman's intention,

inOrder 2728AP, that the lineshouldcontinue asfaras apoint "located to
the east of the pool of Kétiouaire". Beforedefining the course of the linein
relation to the pool of Toussougou, the Chamber must atternpt to locate
the pool of Kétiouaire.
132. The boundary of the cercleof Mopti "to the east", the boundary
which according to Order 2728 AP divided it from the cercleof Dori in
1935,terminates at "a point located to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire".
It should again be recalled that when drafting this Order, the Governor-
General had received the reply of the Lieutenant-Governor of French
Sudan dated 3June 1935to his letter of 19February 1935.In his reply the
Lieutenant-Governor had stated that the administrator of the cercle of
Mopti wasproposing :"that the pool of Kébanaire, situatedalrnost on the
boundary of thecerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori. ..shouldbe
included in the geographical description of theboundary ..."At first,both
Parties concluded from this that the pool of Kébanaire and the pool of
Kétiouairewereone and the same, the name having been transcribed with
two different spellings. During the oral proceedings, however,counsel for
Burkina Faso expressed somedoubt on thispoint. The Chamber notes that
the modification proposed to the Lieutenant-Governor of French Sudan FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 625

by the administrator of the cercleof Mopti (seeparagraph 101above) also
revealsacertaincontradiction, at least if it isinterpreted strictly according
to its terms. If, as the cercleadministrator proposed, the words "and the
pool of Kébanaire"areadded between the reference to mount Tabakarach
and the words "and then bends south-west" contained in the text of the
Governor-General's letter, it appears that the pool in question wouldhave
had to lie close to mount Tabakarach and in the vicinity of the bend
between the east/west sector and the north-east/south-west sector of the
line. But according to thecercleadministrator himself, the pool was "situ-
ated almost on the boundary of the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous
and Dori" ;but the meeting-point of thesecercleboundaries, according to

al1the available maps, lay on the north-east/south-west sector of the line,
well to the south of mount Tabakarach.
133. The Chamber observes first, that none of the maps available to it
showany pool bearing either of thesenames, and secondly, thatthe Upper
Volta/Mali Mixed Technical Commission, during its working sessions
between 5 and 17April 1972,obtained little more than negative informa-
tion. The localpeople,when questioned, wereunaware of the existenceofa
pool of Kétiouaire,and the Malian inhabitants of Soumgavea location for
it which Mali has sincerejected. The Chamber alsonotes that the technical
committee of cartographers appointed by the Legal Sub-Commission of
the Organization of African Unity Mediation Commission was unable to
throw any further light on thesituation, though it did observe to the Legal
Sub-Commission that, in any event, the pool of Kébanairecould not have
been situated West of point P, "since it must lie between Tabakarach,
already identified to the east, and this geographical point".

134. It isimportant not to losesight of the fact thatthe line described in
Order 2728AP of 1935astheboundary "to theeast" of thecercleof Mopti,
before reaching its end-point which was simultaneously the tripoint

between the cercles of Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, had to pass
through the tripoint between the cerclesof Mopti, Ouahigouya and Dori,
although there is no mention of this in Order 2728 AP (see sketch-map
No. 2 above). Sincethe Chamber has chosen to proceed from Westto east
when indicating the line of the frontier, it would be logical forit to define
this latter point before determining the position of the former, which is
further to the east. But the Chamber has already explained (paragraph 110
above)whyitcannot regard it assettled that themorewesterly of these two
points was in fact point P, the one defined by geographical CO-ordinates
contained in the letter 191 CM2 of 1935. Resewing this question, the
Chamber will first pursue the question of the position of the pool of
Kétiouaire.
135. Burkina Faso is of the opinion that, first, the pool ofétiouaire/
Kébanaire,"of whichcontradictorydescriptions weregivenat a timewhen
the region was poorly known, cannot be preciselylocated" and, secondly,
that its localization isnot necessaryin order to draw the frontier line. It is
true that the proposa1 made in 1935by the administrator of the cercleof FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 626

Mopti, and transmitted by the Lieutenant-Governor of French Sudan to
the Governor-General of French West Africa, for theincorporation in the

description of the boundary between French Sudan and Niger of a refer-
ence tothe pool of Kébanaire,wasnot apparently conceivedasan essential
factor in the definition of that boundary ;the administrator of the cercleof
Mopti seerns rather to have intended it as a useful detail to rnake the
description more precise and to facilitate its identification on the ground.
The Charnber accordingly considers that it isnot necessary to establish the
position of the pool of Kébanaire for thepurpose of interpreting the letter
191CM2 of 1935.But this cannot be said of the interpretation of Order
2728AP, sincein that text the pool of Kétiouaireis an important element
in the definition of the boundary. Burkina Faso has not had to deal with
this point in its arguments, since in its view Order 2728 AP, having a
modifying character, was rescinded in 1947and cannot thereforebe taken
into account in defining the frontier line. Nevertheless, Burkina Faso has
supplied no proof thatnot only the reference to the "four villages" but also
the reference to the pool of Kétiouaire,wasinconsistent with the situation
prior to 1935.Howeverthat rnay be,theCharnber cannot evadeits duty, to

interpret Order 2728APandfor that purpose to determine, ifpossible, the
position of the pool of Kétiouaire.

136. Mali has attempted to situate the pool of Kébanaire/Kétiouaire
with the help of aparticular set ofclues.The first of theseisthat, according
to Order 2728AP, the pool constitutes the culmination of a "line running
markedly north-east, passing to the south of thepool of Toussougou". The
second and third cluesarethat the letter from the Lieutenant-Governor of
Sudan enables the pool to be situated, first, to the south-west of rnount
Tabakarach, and secondly, alrnost on the boundary of the three cercles
there mentioned. The fourth is that the boundary described as the "north-
ern" boundary of the cercleof Mopti in Order 2728 AP begins from the
point "located to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire", so that if the indi-
cations in the sentence defining this boundary were reversed, it would be
possible to use the landrnarkscontained in it in order to locate the pool of

Kétiouaire.The fifth of Mali'scluesisthat apool or a fossilpool cannot be
looked for on aplateau or a dune. Finally, the sixth clueis Mali'sargument
that the pool cannot be a pool which was known at the time by another
name, otherwise that name would have been used ; ths rneans, according
to Mali, that Kébanaire/Kétiouairecannot be identified with the pool of
Tin Taboré or the pool of Aféréré. Malhias submitted to the Charnber a
sketch-map to show the region within which it suggeststhat the pool must
necessarilylieifits location is tocomply with al1theseclues.Arnong Mali's
conclusions is that

"the rnost plausible position for the pool of Kétiouaireis that of the FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 627

fossil pool with the geographical CO-ordinateslongitude 0' 46'09"
West,latitude 14"56'41" north. This pool, part of which is perma-
nent, istheone named Tin Arkachen in 1977by H. BarraofOrstom. It
is the site of Forage Christine."

137. In the Chamber's opinion,theproper approach isnot to attempt to

determine at the outset whether or not the pools of Kébanaire and
Kétiouaireare one and the same. It should first interpret Order 2728AP,
and then consider whether the conclusions it has reached warrant the
identification of Kébanairewith Kétiouaire.If that were not established,
the Chamber should take account only of the description of the boundary
contained in letter 191 CM2 by the Governor-General of French West
Africa, disregardingthe modification proposed by theadministrator of the
cercleof Mopti which, as has been seen, was aimed only at making it more
precise, and moreover contained an inherent contradiction.

138. Hence the question whicharisesiswhether there is,or rather wasin
1935,apool lyingboth in a "rnarkedly north-east" direction in relation to a
point located "to the south of the pool of Toussougou", and in the vicinity
of thetripoint of the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, and to
theWestof the latter. In the text of Order 2728AP, the meeting-point of the
northern and eastern boundaries of the cercleof Mopti was situated not
merelycloseto the pool of Kétiouaire,but "to the east" of it. If one wereto
assume Kébanaire and Kétiouaireto be identical, it must be concluded
that on issuing the Order the Governor-General had information addi-
tional to that provided by the commandantde cercle of Mopti, both in

respect of the pool of Kébanaire,in his letter-telegram of 19March 1935
(paragraph 101above), and in his description of the boundaries of the
subdivisionsof his cercledated 25 May 1935(paragraph 100above). How-
ever that may be, it is obvious that the pool of Soum, situated some
24 kilometres to the east of the pool of Toussougou, requires particular
examination. However, it is clear from the file that this pool, which was
mentioned for the first time under this name in 1939, was thought to lie
close to the meeting-point, not of the three cercles mentioned above of
Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, but of the cerclesof Mopti, Ouah-
gouya and Dori. A communication addressed by the commandant de
cercleof Dori to the Governor of Niger on 18December 1939mentioned
"the pool of Sum" as being "situated on the boundary of thesubdivisionof
Douentza (cercleof Mopti) and of the cercleof Ouahigouya, to which it
belongs". On 7 July 1943, the cercle adrninistrator of Dori asked the
commandantdecercleof Mopti for information concerning the position of
the pool of "Souhoum", and "the position in relation to the latter, or in
relation to the villageof Kouna, of the meeting point between the cerclesof
Mopti, Ouahigouya and Dori". In his reply, the commandant decercleof
Mopti stated that, according to the information he had obtained during a
visit to the pool, "it was certainly on the territory of the canton of Ari-binda". There are no means of knowing whether, at the time of that visit,
the cantonof Aribinda belonged to the cercleof Dori (before 1933)or to
that of Ouahigouya (after 1932).

139. According to one of the maps produced by Burkina Faso (sketch-
map of French Africa on the scale 1 :1,000,000,ND-30 sheet, Ouagadou-
gou, 1946edition (maps filed, No. 11(C)), the distance between the two

tripoints was approximately 38 kilometres. The distance between point P
(assuming for the moment that the geographical CO-ordinatesof this point
givea correct definition of the tripoint Mopti/Oua~gouya/Dori) and the
pool of Soum as shown on the IGN 1:200,000 scale map of 1960, is
approximately 36kilometres. Two conclusions can be drawn from this. In
the first place, the tripoint Mopti/Gourma-Rharous/Dori was not far
distantfrom thepool of Soum,andit seemstohave been located to theeast
of that pool. In the second place, it seems doubtful whether the tripoint
Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori can have lain asfar Westas implied by letter 191
CM2. It may alsobe thought that that letter placed the point toofar to the
north.It wasofcoursebased on the maps of theperiod, accordingto which
the "northern" boundary of the cercleof Mopti (thecourseofwhichcannot
howeverbe veryaccurately discerned from thesemaps) wasto intersectthe
northern boundary of the cercle of Dori in the vicinity of the point of
CO-ordinates1 O01'47"Wand 14"57'N, or 19.5kilometres to thenorth of
Soum.In an event, thepool of Soumliesin theright direction asregardsthe

course of the line described in Order 2728 AP, in so far as concerns the
segment skirting the villageof Oukoulourou at a distance of 2 kilometres
and then passing "to the south of the pool of Toussougou". These con-
clusionsare infact those whichlead the Chamber to reject Mali'sargument
that the pool of Kébanaire/Kétiouaireis the fossil pool of Tin Arkachen
which, in the Chamber's opinion, lies too far to the east.

140. According to Order 2728 AP, the end-point of the eastern boun-
dary of the cercleof Mopti and thestarting-point of the northernboundary
of the cerclewaslocated "to theeast of the pool of Kétiouaire".According
to this text, the pool accordingly lay within the acute angle formed by the
meeting of the twoboundaries, which means that it belonged to the cercle
of Mopti. The pool of Kébanairehowever, according to the administrator
of the cercleof Mopti, was situated "almost on theboundary of the cercles
ofMopti, Gourma-Rharous, and Dori" - that is,near the meeting-point of
the eastern (Mopti/Dori) and northern (Mopti/Gourma-Rharous) boun-

daries of the cercleof Mopti. The proposa1 made by the administrator of
the cercleof Mopti read as follows :
"The pool of Kébanaire, situated almost on the boundary of the
cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous,and Dori might bementioned on
page 2 (line 7), as follows : 'the summits of mounts Tin Eoult and
Tabakarach and the pool of Kébanaire, etc. .. .'."

The expression "almost on the boundary" used by the administrator ofMopti might suggest that the pool was within the cercle of Mopti, but
"almost" on the boundary of that cercle.But what the administrator of the
cercleof Mopti was proposing was not a clarification of the description of
the boundary of the cerclewhich was under his own authority. As already
pointed out (paragraph 132 above), his proposed modification of the
drafting is onlyintelligible if the pool of Kébanairelaymuch further to the
north-east. What in fact he was proposing was that the boundary between

two other cercles, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, should be described as
passing the pool of Kébanaire. Consequently,this pool might have been in
the cercleof Gourma-Rharous or that of Dori ;it could not have belonged
to the cercleof Mopti without being located close to the end-point of the
boundary described in letter 191CM2. Asfor the pool of Soum,according
to the above-quoted administrative documents it belonged either to the
cercleof Dori or to that of Ouahigouya.

141. Having regard to al1the available information on the subject of the
pool of Kétiouaireand the pool of Kébanaire, theChamber'sconclusion is
as follows.The pool which appears on the maps subsequent to 1950under
the name of "pool of Soum" and which has been mentioned in adminis-
trative documents since 1939seems to be the only one which might be
identifiable as the one referred to in Order 2728 AP under the name of
"Kétiouaire". This Order refers to a pool lying Westof the tripoint where
the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori met. The position of this
point is itself far from certain, but according toal1the information now
available, only the pool of Soum would have lain close to the probable
position of this point and to the Westof it. On the other hand, the pool of
Soum cannot simultaneously be the one referred to in letter 191 CM2

under the name of "Kébanaire".The Chamber must therefore observe that
if the pool of Kébanaireor that of Kétiouairehad, between 1935and 1939,
acquired the newname of "pool of Soum", it islikelythat somereference to
this would have appeared in an administrative document, especially in
viewof the fact that the pool of Kétiouaire,at least, was a sufficiently well
known topographic feature in 1935tobe used in defining the end-point of
a cercle boundary. Hence there are two alternatives : either the pool of
Soum is the pool called in 1935Kétiouaire,and the position of the pool of
Kébanaire remainsunknown, or there isinsufficient information available
to the Chamber for it to identify orto locate either of these two pools. On
due reflection, the Chamber does not consider that it should base its
decision on the identification of the pool of Kétiouairewith the pool of
Soum.
142. It is nonetheless necessary for it to examine the relationship
between the pool of Soum and the administrative boundary of the 1930s
which has to be defined, in the light of the documents produced by the
Parties, including those which date from a more recent period, even those
subsequent to the independence of both States. In applying international
law,in this instance the principle ofutipossidetis,to the facts of thecase as
they emergefrom the evidenceproduced on either side, the Chamber finds FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 630

that theavailableinformation isnot alwayssufficient to establish whichof
two possible lines coincides with the one which existed in 1932. The
Chamber is therefore convinced that the pool of Soum is a frontier pool ;
but it finds no indication datingfrom the colonial period from whichit can
besaid that theline runs to the north of the pool, to the south ofitor divides
it. Furthermore, as explained above (paragraph 94), the question is not
such that, in the absence of other grounds for a decision, the principle of

the onus of proof can be brought into play.

143. Before exaniining more closely the situation in the region of the
pool of Soum, the Chamber considers it necessary todefine that segmentof
the line which lies between the village of Oukoulourou and the pool, in
relation to the villageof Kobou and the pool of Toussougou. As already
seen,if theline is to comply with thewording of Order 2728AP it must run
"to the south of the pool of Toussougou", and thegap between theline and
thepool willbeaconsequence of taking other landmarks into account, viz.,
the "four villages" to theWestand the pool of Kétiouaireto theeast. It has
proved impossible to identify the pool of Kétiouaire,but the line must run
through the pool of Soum. In viewof what hasbeen said above concerning
the shape of cercleboundaries in colonial administrative practice, and in
order to avoid too sharp a bend in the region of Toussougou, the Chamber
considers that the line must connect the point located 2 kilometres to the
south of Oukoulourou, mentioned in paragraph 130above, with a point
located 2.6 kilometres to the south of the pool of Toussougou, the geo-
graphical CO-ordinates of this latter point being 1" 19'05" W and
14" 43' 45"N. From there, the line continues towards the pool of Soum.
The bearing of the line Oukoulourou-Toussougou is approximately 57",

the bearing of the line Toussougou-Soum approximately 76O,and the
bearing of the hypothetical line connecting Oukoulourou and the pool of
Soum approximately 63". Hence the line which the Chamber has just
indicated does, in its view,meet the requirements of Order 2728AP, which
refers to a line extending in a "markedly north-east" direction.
144. The line so defined does not pass through the point with the
geographical CO-ordinates1" 24' 15" W and 14" 43'45" N, mentioned in
letter 191CM2 from the Governor-General of 19 February 1935.These
CO-ordinates,which give an impression of precision, are taken from the
maps of the period, especially the Blondel la Rougery map and the Atlas
des cercles ;that precision is nowhere warranted by the cartographical
resources used or the reliability of the surveys taken as a basis. In fact, as
the Chamber has already observed (paragraph 109above), from an exam-
ination of the topographical sources permitting a definition of the varioüs
cercleboundaries which together determine the western tripoint of Mopti/
Ouahigouya/Dori, the Chamber concludes that this tripoint must have
lain south-east of the point indicated by the geographical CO-ordinates
quoted. If theproject of the Governor-General of French West Africa had
become aregulation,it isobvious thatthe correctness of theseCO-ordinates
would have amounted to an irrebuttable presumption ;but this is not thecase. In itself, the letter 191CM2 only ranks as evidence of a boundary
having "de facto value" at the time. It now transpires that the maps

available at the time werenot accurate enough to warrant definingapoint
from these maps by geographical CO-ordinatesof such precision. Thus the
fact that theseCO-ordinateshave been found to have been defined with an
over-optimistic degree of precision does not contradict the Governor-
General's intentions or deprive the letter of probative force.

145. The Chamber now comes to the determination of the frontier line
in the region of the pool of Soum. According to a report on rural water
resources dated 7 January 1957,produced by Burkina Faso, the pool of
Soum belongs to the category of "major temporary pools which dry out in
the dry season" and on 31December of the sameyear, the report of a tour
ofinspectionmentionsa "large pool of Soumwhichdriesup ...in March".
The report notesthat "in viewof the sizeof their herds, the Soumherdsmen
are reauesting the construction of two field wells". and this work was
recommended as a "measure of highest priority", on the ground that
"Soum is the best stockbreeding centre in the Djibo subdivision"of the
cercleof Ouahigouya, in Upper Volta. In a letter transmitting the minutes
of a meeting of 15January 1965,to be examined in the next paragraph, the

commandant decercleof Djibo Statesthat "by the pool of Soum is meant
the basin measuring 5 kilometres in length".

146. Mention shomuld be made, in respect of the period subsequent to
independence, of the record, among the diplomatic and other documen-
tation submitted by both Parties to the Chamber, of an agreement con-
cluded on 15January 1965betweena Voltan and a Malian delegation,com-
prising commandantsdecercleand other administrators on each side,which
met "at Soum, a frontier pool". According to this record, the purpose
of the meeting was "to pursue the adjustment of the line of the remainder
of the frontierfrom .themiddle of the pool of Toussougou to the meeting-
point of the cerclesad Rharous and Dori". The text continues as follows :

"After abroad exchange ofviewsbyboth delegations,the following
was agreed :
A perpendicular line dividing the pool of Soum in two and running
through the centre, leaving the village of Soum to the territory of
Upper Volta anidrejoining the boundary on map ND-30 XVII, July
1961 edition.
The northern part of thisarea falls tothe Republic of Mali :the rest
to the Republic:of Upper Volta."

In his covering 1ette:rof 18 January 1965 transmitting the report of the
meeting to the Miniisterof the Interior, the Djibo commandantexplained
this agreement as fclllows : "The Maliaii delegation ultimately accepted ... that the greater
part of the Soum area belongs to Upper Volta except for the crucial
point :the water reservoir measuring approximately 500 metres in
diameter. As rieither State isjustified in clairning the whole of this
water resemoii:, it was divided according to the data in the Goutal
report [that is, an inspection report of 26 February 1951,no copy of
which is inclutled in the file of the case]."

A sketch-map was iannexedto the record of the agreement, and the com-
mandant explained that the portion of the pool shown on the sketch as
being attributed to Mali "formed a pocket of approximately 250 metres,
solely to enable cattle from Mali to have access to the water supply".
147. In its Mem.oria1Mali emphasized that the only authority with

jurisdiction at the timeto makea definitivesettlement of frontier problems
was the Standing Joint Commission, on which sat the Ministers of the
Interior of both countries. From this it argues that al1 the agreements
concluded at the levelof commandantsdecerclewhich werenot confirmed
subsequently by thiat Commission must be treated as ineffectual. The
Chamber agrees that such agreements, not approved by the competent
authorities of each Party, do not have the binding force of a convention.
Moreover, the Chamber has no intention of departing from the firmly
established rule thait

"The Court cannot take into account declarations, admissions or
proposals whichtheParties mayhavemade during directnegotiations
between themselves, when such negotiations have not led to a com-
plete agreement." (Factory ut Chorzbw, Merits, P.C. 1.J., Series A,
No. 17, p. 51 .)

The Chamber howe:verconsiders that it is entitled to take note of certain
facts which emerge from a document submitted to the Chamber by each
Party as an annex ,toa written pleading, that is, as one of the "relevant
documents adduceclin support of the contentions contained in the plead-
ing" (Art. 50,para. 1,of the Rules of Court). Thus the Chamber observes
that the commandatltsof the adjacent cerclesof Douentza and Djibo each
took a certain view ;above all, they agreed that the pool of Soum was a
"frontier pool", which had to be divided between the two cercles.

148. It should again be pointed out that the Chamber's task in this case
is to indicate the line of the frontier inherited by both States from the
colonizers on their accession to independence. For the reasons explained
above, this task arnounts to ascertaining and defining the lines which
formed the administrative boundaries of the colony of Upper Volta on
31December 1932.Adrnittedly, the Parties could have modified the fron-
tier existing on the critical date by a subsequent agreement. If the com-
petent authorities lhad endorsed the agreement of 15 January 1965, it
would have been unnecessary for the purpose of the present case to as-
certain whether that agreement was of a declaratory or modifying charac- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 633

ter in relation to the 1932boundaries. But this did not happen, and the
Chamber has received no mandate from the Parties to substitute its own
free choice of an appropriate frontier for theirs. The Chamber must not
lose sight either of the Court's function, which is to decide in accordance
with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, nor of the fact
that the Chamber was requested by the Parties in their SpecialAgreement
not to give indications to guide them in determining their common fron-
tier, but to draw a li.ne,and a precise line.
149. As it has explained, the Chamber can resort to that equity infra
legem, which both Parties have recognized as being applicable in this case
(seeparagraph 27 above). In this respect the guidingconcept issimply that
"Equity as a legal concept is a direct emanation of the idea of justice"
(ContinentalShelf(Tunisia/LibyanArabJamahiriya),I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 60,para. 71).The Chamber would howeverstress moregenerally that to
resort to the concept.of equity in order to modify an established frontier
would be quite unjustified. Especially in the African context, the obvious

deficienciesof many Frontiersinheritedfrom colonization, fromthe ethnic,
geographical or administrative standpoint, cannot support an assertion
that the modification of these frontiers is necessary or justifiable on the
ground of consideraitions of equity. These frontiers, however unsatisfac-
tory they may be, possess the authority of the utipossidetis and are thus
fully in conformity with contemporary international law. Apart from the
caseof adecision exaequoet bonoreachedwith the assent of the Parties, "it
is not a matter of firiding simply an equitable solution, but an equitable
solution derived froin the applicable law" (FisheriesJurisdiction, I.C.J.
Reports1974,p. 33,para. 78).It iswith a viewto achievingasolution of this
kind that the Chamber has to take account, not of the agreement of
15January 1965,buitof the circumstances in which that agreement was
concluded.
150. The Chambeirthus concludes that it must recognize that Soumis a
frontier pool ;and that, in theabsence of anyprecise indication in the texts

of theposition of the frontier line, the line should divide the pool of Soum
in two, in an equitable manner. Although "Equity does not necessarily
imply equality" (North Sea ContinentalShelf,I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 49,
para. 91), where there are no special circumstances the latter is generally
the best expression of the former. The line should therefore begin from the
point lying south of ithepool of Toussougou as defined in paragraph 143
above, and continue ;asa straight line as far as a point situated on the West
bank of thepool of Soum,with the geographicalCO-ordinates1 O05'34"W
and 14"47'04" N. It should then cross the pool in such a way asto divide
the maximum area of the pool as shown on the 1960IGN map in equal
proportions between the two States.

151. In viewof the impossibility of locating the pool of Kétiouaire, the

Chamber can find 110 further indications in Order 2728 AP of 1935whereby the frontier can be determined east of the pool of Soum. It is
therefore nownecessary to refer to the letter 191CM2 of 19February 1935
(paragraph 75 abovt:). As already noted, Burkina Faso claims that the
letter 191 CM2 is th.eauthentic expression, by the authority possessing
jurisdiction at the time, of its conviction as to the course of the boundary
(paragraph 77above), and the letter istherefore applicable forthe purpose
of determining the line of the frontier. For its part, the Chamber has
reached the conclusion that this argument iscorrect (paragraph 85above).
It notes however that in its submissions Burkina Faso, when defining the
reference factors to define the line which it proposes, makes a distinction
between the area West of the point with the geographical CO-ordinates
0" 40' 47"W and 15"00'03" N, and the area east of that point. To the
West,the submissions are that

"the line isasshown on the 1 :200,000scalemap of theFrench Institut
géographique national (1960 edition), the villages of Dioulouna,
Oukoulou, Agoiilourou and Koubo being located in Burkinabe ter-
ritory",
whereas east of that point,

"the line corresponds to the information given in letter 191CM2 of
15February 1935and on the 1 :500,000scalemap, 1925edition, as far
as the northern point of the pool of In Abao".
A map filed with the Burkinabe Memorial, consisting of a compilation of
five sheets from the IGN 1 :200,000scale map, shows what Burkina Faso
claimstobe the "exist.ingfrontier" by means of ayellowband followingthe
broken line of small crosses on that map, diverging only as regards the
eastern part of the li:ne,where the IGN line terminates at Fitili, 12kilo-
metres north of the Kabia ford, and the yellow band at a point some

2.5 kilometres to the north of the ford.

152. Only during the oral proceedings did Burkina Faso explain its
reasons for selectingt.hepoint 0" 40'47" W and 15"00'03" N as thepoint
where, for the definition of the line to the east, the 1:500,000scalemap of
1925is to be substituted for the 19601:200,000scale map as a base map.
On the one hand, this point is supposedly located approximately at the
latitude of Raf Naman, where the Béliregion iscustomarily held to begin ;
on the other hand, this method of dividing thedisputed frontier was taken
from the report of the Legal Sub-Commission of the Organization of
African Unity Mediation Commission. In this report, dated 14June 1975,
the Sub-Commission States that Westof this point,

"the frontier is represented by a continuous line of small crosses
indicating, on the part of the authors of the 1:200,000map [of the
IGN] the existeniceof clearly interpreted texts or a representation of

unambiguous actual situations ...".However, on referring to the IGN 1:200,000scale map, it is found that a
minor calculation error has crept into the text of the Legal Sub-Commis-
sion'sreport, andthat thiserror recurred throughout the proceedings in the
successivesubmissionsby Burkina Faso : thefirstCO-ordinateshould have
been :0" 50' 47"W.
153. With regard to the determination of the frontier between point P

and mount Tabakarach, the Counter-Memorial of Burkina Faso empha-
sizes that the letter 191CM2 indicates only that these two points are the
starting-point and the finishing-point, and what was contemplated in the
letter must have beeriastraight linebetween the two.Although the Blondel
la Rougery rnap and the Atlas descerclesshow the boundary as a straight
line,othermaps,including the IGN 1:200,000scalernap of 1960,replace it
by alinewith sections at different angles.The lineon the IGN rnapconsists
of a straight sector running southwest as far as a point situated slightly to
the northeast of the pool of Soum, and from that point a line in a west-
southwest direction asfar aspoint P.Malidrew the Chamber's attentionto
the discrepancies which emerge from a comparison between these two
lines, and to givea visual illustration of these filed a rnap which combines
the lines shown on the Blondel la Rougery rnap and the IGN 1960
map.

154. In the Chaniber's view there is no doubt that letter 191CM2 of
1935was intended to define in textual form the boundary shown on the
Blondel la Rougery rnap of 1925,and the Parties agree on this. It seems
probable alsothat the Atlas descercleswas consulted for this purpose. But
Malihas emphasizeclthat these mapswereprovisional and inaccurate. In a

study published in 1927,Commander Edouard de Martonne of the Geo-
graphical Serviceof French West Africa commented on the series of maps
to which the Blondel la Rougery rnap belonged :
"these sheets, drawn with the help of theitinerary surveys,reconnais-
sance surveys and topographical work of various kinds kept at the
headquarters of theGovernorshipGeneral at Dakar, are, asindicated
by the description 'reconnaissance rnap',basically subject to revision.

Nothing could lhavemade plainer than a rnap compiled like this how
inadequate the existing documentation is, and how necessary it is to
make a new start."
Of the cerclemaps, he States that :

"the frequentterritorial changes introduce modifications to the cercle
boundaries which are rarely depicted in the sarne way by adjacent
districts"

and adds
"as aresult of the successivecopying, itisnot uncommon to find maps
of neighbouring cercleswhich cannot be juxtaposed". FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 637

ing to the geographical CO-ordinates of point P (1" 24' 15" W and
14"43'45" N), has i.nfact been found to lie further to the southeast, in
the vicinity of the pool of Soum. From this the Chamber concludes that
the frontier continues in a straight line, first from the pool of Soum to
the point mentioned in Burkina Faso's submissions (O050'47" W and
15"00' 03"N), and from that point to mount Tabakarach. Notwithstand-
ing the deficiencies ctfthe Blondel la Rougery map as regards the orogra-

phy of the region, the Chamber seesno reason why mount Tabakarach (or
Tabakarech, see paragraph 76 above) should not be identified with the
elevation which appears on the IGN 1:200,000map under the name ofTin
Tabakat, with the geographical CO-ordinates 0" 44' W and 15" 05'N.

157. At this stage,ofits reasoning, the Chamber must refer to the Order
made by the Governor-General of French West Africa on 31 December
1922,for the "reorganization of the region of Timbuktu", which specified
that the western boundary of the cercleof Gao ran through the "pools of
Oussodia Mersi, [arid] Inabao", and that the delimitation "from that
point" (the pool of In Abao) followed "the northern boundary of Upper
Volta". Since neither Party has shown that the "northern boundary of
Upper Volta" was niodified between 1922and 1932,it follows that the
boundary to be established by the Chamber must pass the pool of In Abao.
That pool must, therefore, be identified and the frontier line must be
determined in relation to it. For Mali, it is indisputable that this pool is a
frontier point, although the indication given on certain maps that the
frontier runs through the northern point of the pool seems,in its view, to

be very much open to question. It will be recalled that Mali rejects the
letter 191 CM2 which is quite definite in that regard ; the boundary is
described as passing.,from east to West,through mountsTrontikato "the
northern peak of mount Ouagou, the northern point of the pool of In
Abao ...".
158. The technicallsubcommission of the MixedTechnical Commission
found, during researcrhundertaken in 1972,that the name "In Abao" did
not feature on the IGrN1:200,000map which had been used as a reference
document. It reported that "according to information obtained locally,
this pool [lay]along the Béliwatercourse", a marigot running from Westto
east on which is also found, further to the east, the Kabia ford taken by
Mali to mark the end-point of the frontier. The subcommission likewise
concluded - stillon the basis of "information obtained locally"- that the
pool of In Abao was located "between the pool of In Kacham to the east,
the pool of In Amanam to the Westandthe pool of Tin Abao to the north".
Lastly,it established geographical CO-ordinatesfor the site of the pool "by
determiningitsdirection and distance from a large tree shown as a datum
point on the map" OFthe IGN on the scale 1:200,000,those CO-ordinates
being : 0" 20' 40"W and 14" 59' 27"N. This is again a tripoint, markingthe conjunction in 1925of the boundaries of three administrativedistricts,
i.e., the Sudanese cerclesof Gao and Hombon and the Voltan cercleof
Dori. The sketch-map No. 5 below shows the contradiction between the

various maps in regard to the position and area of the pool and the precise
location of the above-mentioned boundaries in relation to the pool.

159. According to a document dating from 1954,originating from the
Hydrological Serviceof French West Africa, which gives a list of water-
points in northern Dori (Upper Volta), the pool of In Abao, located on the
Béli,had a maximum width of about 200 to 250 metres and a length of
approximately 2 kilometres. There were no draining wells and the pool
dried up in Decernber-January. During a visit to the area by the members
of the Mixed Technical Commission in April 1972,the pool was found to
have dried up. The list of waterpoints does not give the orientation of the
pool, but a 1:200,000rnap compiled in 1953by the Direction fédéraledes
mines et de la géologieshowsthat it forms part of the Bélimarigot, which
runs from Westto ea:st.On the 1925Blondella Rougery map, the pool took
the form of a triangle with its base running from east to West,and the
frontier line shown on that rnap seems to touch the northern apex of that
triangle. It has beenisuggested that this data on the 1925rnap might be
confirmed by the sketch-map annexed to the report compiled by the head
of the Ansongo subdivisi ino1940on the "Patrols of In Abao" (para-
graph 155 above). However, since the sketch-map was copied from the
1925 map, as alrea~dyexplained, it cannot constitute independent evi-
dence.

160. The CO-ordinates of the pool located by the Technical Sub-
Commission in April 1972 were, as already seen : 0" 20'40" W and
14" 59' 27"N.Thebroken lineof smallcrossesappearing on the IGN 1960
rnap forms approxiinately a right angle, touching the watercourse of the
Béliat a point with the approximate CO-ordinates0" 24'W and 15"00'N.
On this map the pool of Tin Kacham, which theTechnical Subcommission
found to lie to the t:ast of the pool of In Abao, is shown extending over
more than 2 kilomei:res,between approximately 0' 17'and 0" 19'W.The
1:200,000rnap of the Direction fédérale des mines et de la géologie(1953)
shows In Abaoat the point with the CO-ordinates 0" 28'W and 15"02'N
and Tin Kacham at the point with the CO-ordinates 0" 23' W and
15"00'N ; three dotted lines apparently depicting administrative boun-
daries meetjust north of In Abao. Lastly, a rnap entitled "Hydrology of
northern Dori (Upper Volta), Hydrological Service of French West
Africa", dated 1954 gives the following details :In Abao 0"25' W and
15" 02' N, In Kacham 0" 18'W and 15"00' N, and a "territorial boun-
dary" line intersecting the marigot of the Béliat In Kacham.

161. It is clear that the Chamber does not possess the necessary infor- FRONTIER DISPUT(JUDGMENT)

Carte BLONDELA ROUGERY

BLONDEL LAROUGERY Map 119251

@) Carte de la direction fédérale desmines et de la géologie

Map of the Federal Department of Mines and Geology

Carte du service hydrologique de l'Afrique (occidentale) française
O
Hydrological Service of French Wes1-1frica

@ Carte géologiquede reconnaissance de la Haute-Volta
Feuilles ND-30-SE et ND-30-NE Ouagadougou

Geological Reconnaissance Map of Upper Volta
Sheets ND-30-SE and ND-30-NE Ouagadougou

Carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 1/200 000
O Feuilles ND-30-XVIIIri et ND-30-XXIV In TiIlit 1
Emplacement IN ABAOfigurécomme (Sable humide et allu))ons

Map of West Africa on a scale of 1:200000
Sheets ND-30-XVIII Dori ND-30-XXIV in T-1lit
Site of INABAOindicated as 'Wet sand and alluvial deposits'

@ Carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 11500O00
Feuille ND-30-NE Hombori
KACHAM >apparaît ici au lieu #IN ABAOet est fi<(Sables humides

Map of French West Africa on a scale of 119611
Sheet ND-30-NE Hombori
Note 'KACHAMap'pears at the site of INABAOindicated as 'Wet sands' FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 640

mation to determine the exact geographcal CO-ordinatesof the pool of In
Abao. But in so far as the problem is caused by the possible confusion
between the pool of In Abao and the pool of In Kacham, the Chamber can
and must assistin resolvingit. The triangular shape of the pool of In Abao
on the 1925Blondel la Rougery rnap seemsto derive from the fact that it
liesat thejunction of twomarigots ; the Bélimarigot, runningfrom Westto
east, and another running from north to south which, on the 1925map,
bears thename "(Djodel)". On the rnapof theDirection fédéraledesmines
et de la géologie,several watercourses or marigots (In Avaroua, In Titou-
mane and In Koliba) converge at the pool whch bears the name In Abao
on this map. On the IGN 1:200,000rnap of 1960,the broken line of small
crosses touches the Béliwhere the latter joins the north-south marigots
(In Abalou, In Habakar). Consequently, whatever the current names may
be, it appears to the Chamber that for the purpose of determining the
frontier, the pool of In Abao is the one lying at thejunction of the two
marigots.

162. The Chamber does not think that the conclusion can be drawn
from the use of the expression "the northern point of the pool of In Abao"
in the letter 191CM2 of 1935that thefrontier should leave the wholepool
to Burkina Faso. While the text of the Order of 31December 1922makes
clear that the pool of In Abao was located on the northern boundary of
Upper Volta, itmade no reference to the "point" of the pool. That Order,
after referring to the pool, continues with thewords "from that point", but
this does not mean that the line only touched the pool at one point. The
boundary of the cercleof Gao passed the pool of In Abao, and there bent
sharply to forin a "point" ;consequently, that point was located some-
where on the pool, although there is no indication of its precise location.
The letter 191CM2 did no more than interpret the 1922Order in the light
of the Blondella Rougery map, which showsthe pool asbeing triangular -
which seemsto be incorrect, orat least to be no longer the case. In spite of
the letter 191CM2,there seems to havebeen some uncertainty with regard
to the tripoint of the cerclesof Dori, Hombori and Timbuktu. The Blondel

la Rougery rnap places this point at the apex of the triangle representing
the pool of In Abao. However, on an administrative and economic rnap of
the colony of Sudan drawn to a scale of 1:4,000,000and dating from 1927
the cercleboundaries shown in the region in question do not run as far as
thepool of In Abao ;and in 1939thecommandand t ecercleof Dori assumed
that this tripoint lay at Dodbango, about 20 kilometres to the north of the
pool of In Abao. Taking account especially of the shape of the pool as it
appears on the technical maps of 1953-1954,and its connection with the
junction of the marigots, the Chamber isof theopinion that,in the absence
of more precise and reliable information concerning the relationship
between the frontier lineand the pool of In Abao, it must conclude that the
boundary runs through the pool in such a way as to divide it between the
two Parties.
163. This uncertainty regarding theshape and position of the pool of In FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 641

Abao also affects the course of the frontier line. The broken line of small
crossesshownon the IGN rnapin the region of In Abao touches the Béliat
only one point, and it is not certain that this point corresponds to the
position of the pool indicating the junction of the two marigots. The
Chamber concludes that thefrontiermust followthe IGN line asfaras the
point (point 1, with the geographical CO-ordinates0" 26'35" W and

15" 05'00" N) where it turns south-east tojoin the Béli;and that further
east it must rejoin the IGN line at point L (with the geographical co-
ordinates 0" 14'44" Wand 15"04'46" N) where the line,after leavingthe
Bélito head north-eastward, again turns south-east to form an orographic
boundary. It will be for the Parties, with the assistance of the experts
appointed pursuant to Article IV of the Special Agreement, to fix the
position of the pool of In Abao and todefine twopoints (point J and point
K) lying on the same parallel of latitude, such that a straight line drawn
between these two points will divide the expanse of the pool in equal
proportions between the Parties. The frontier line in this region will
thereforeconsist of three straightineslinking,intum, points 1and J,J and
K, and K and L. The line between points 1 and L shown on the rnap
annexed, purely for illustrative purposes, to this Judgment (see para-
graph 175below) is based on the assumption that the centre of the pool
of In Abao is situated at the point with the geographical CO-ordinates
0" 23' 35"W and 15"00' 15" N, and that the dividing line extends for
1kilometre on either side, to the Westand east of this point.

164. For the whole region of the Béli,which formsthe eastem sector of
the disputed area, Mali, which has rejected the letter 191CM2 of 1935,

argues in favour of a frontierrunning along the marigot. The two Parties
havedebated at length the choicewhich wasopen to thecolonial power, as
between a hydrographic frontier (along the Béli)and an orographic fron-
tier (along the crest line of the elevations to the north of the marigot).
Whatever may have been the general policyof the colonial administration
in such matters, the Chamber considers that the letter 191CM2 servesto
provethat theorographicboundary wasadopted in thisinstance.What has
now to be defined, in the light ofl1the available maps and documents, is
the exact course of the line described in the 1935letter, and of whch the
1925Blondel la Rougery rnap could give no more than an approximate
indication, in viewof its technical deficiencies.The pool of In Abao, the
location of which the Chamber has now indicated in relation to the fron-
tier, is shownboth on the boundary givenon the Blondella Rougery rnap
and on the boundary indicated by a broken series of crosses on the
1960IGN map. As the Chamber has observed, the topographical repre-
sentation afforded by that rnap enjoys the approval of both Parties, but
Mali doesnot accept the validity of thefrontier line shownon that rnapby
a line of crosses.As for the eastern sector of the disputed area, the broken FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 642

line of small crosses whch is drawn on the IGN rnap seems to be a
topographical adaptation of the boundary shown on the 1925Blondel la
Rougery map, and repeated in the letter 191CM2 of 1935,defined with
increasedprecision in 1958-1959.Mali recognizesthat the IGN line"seems
to be fairly similar to that on the 1925 map, with the difference that a
broken line is substituted for an unbroken one". The Chamber sees no
reason to depart from thebroken lineof smallcrosses, which appears to be

a faithful representation of theboundary descnbed by the letter 191CM2,
except with regard to the eastemmost part of the line where the problem
arises of the position of mount N'Gouma.

165. With regard to the final segment of the line, the essential question
for the Chamber is therefore the position of the "heights of N'Gouma"
mentioned in the erratum to the 1927 Order "fixing the boundaries of the
colonies of Upper Volta and Niger". The Chamber has explained above
(paragraph 72) Mali's criticisms of this text. It concluded that that text
could not be set aside in limine, on the ground that the Order was inva-
lidated by a factual erro;its valueasevidence had to be weighedin order
to determine the position of the end-point of the frontier. Mali considers
that theKabiaford was,in 1927,afrontierpoint betweenNiger and Upper
Volta, but that theboundary between French Sudan and Upper Volta also
ran through the Kabia ford, so that Kabia rather than mount N'Gouma
would be the real tnpoint between Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali.

166. In 1927,the rnap chiefly available for reference purposes was the

1925 Blondel la Rougery rnap which, in al1probability, was based on
information given in the rnap of the 1908-1909Gironcourt expedition.
These two maps distinctly located the Kabia ford on the Béliand showed
high ground to the north of the Bélibearing the name "Mount Ngouma".
The expression 'hauteursde Ngouma"which was to be employed in the
erratum to the 1927 Order, appears on a rnap of 1908, the rnap of the
military territory of Niger compiled by Lieutenant Petitperrin, whch does
not indicate the Kabia ford. On that map, to the Westof the "hauteursde
N'Gouma", the word "N'Gouma" appears beside what seems tobe a pool,
and a "mount Kabir" is shown between the two names. Only on a sketch-
rnap compiled by administrators in 1954,and on the 1960IGN rnap (cf.
paragraph 172below) does the name "Ngouma" indicate an elevation to
the southeast of the Kabia ford. This latter map, according to Mali,
presents the only accurate picture of the situation.

167. The purpose of the 1927Order was to fix the boundaries between
the colonies of Upper Volta and Niger. In the region in question in the
present case,theadministrativedistricts concerned were the cercleof Don,on the Voltan side, and the cercleof Tillabéryin Niger. The starting-point
of the boundary between these two cercles also lay on the boundary
between the SudanesecercleofGao tothe north and the twocerclesalready
mentioned. On 27 August 1927,the commandantde cercleof Dori sent the
Governor of Upper Volta an inspection tour report together with a draft

delimitation prepared "in consultation and in agreement with the com-
mandantde cercle of Tillabéry".The Order fixing theboundaries between
the two colonies was issued in Dakar four days later, on 31 August 1927,
and the two Parties agree that, in view of the means of communication
available at the time, the report and the draft from the commandant de
cercle of Dori cannot possibly have been taken into account when the
Order was issued. This being so, the similaritiesbetween the text proposed
by the commandantdecercleand theone adopted by the Governor-General
suggest that both texts were derived from a single original preliminary
draft which has not been brought to light.
168. The projected delimitation between cerclesproposed in theletter of
27 August 1927,begins as follows :

"The cerclesof Dori and Tillabérywillhencefonvard bebounded as
follows :

To the north by the existingboundary with Sudan (cercleof Gao)as
far as the elevation [à la hauteur]of the mountain of N'Gouma, and
then to the Westby a line starting at the Kabia ford and heading
southwards towards the Yatakala-Falagountou road ..."

The Order issued on 31August 1927by the Governor-General of French
West Africa begins with the following words :

"The boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are
henceforth determined as follows :
1. Boundaries between the cercleof Tillabéryand Upper Volta ;

Thisboundary is determined to the north by the existing boundary
with Sudan (cercle of Gao) as far as the height of N'Gourma, and
to the Westby a line passing through theKabia ford, mount Darous-
koy ..."

On 5 October 1927an erratum to the Order was adopted. Mali considers
that this was prompted by the arriva1 in Dakar of the letter from the
commandantde cercleof Dori, but, since the text of the erratum departs
further fromthat of theletter of 27August 1927than does that of the Order
itself, this seems improbable. The erratum reads as follows :

"The boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are
determined as follows :

A line starting at the heights of N'Gourma, passing through the
Kabia ford (astronomic point), mount Arounskaye .. ." 169. Asthemaps show,the colony of French Sudan extended further to
theeast than Upper Volta, theneighbouring colony to the south, sothat the
boundary between Sudan and Niger in that region followed an east-west
course before reaching the tripoint between Niger, Sudan and Upper
Volta. From that point, the boundary between Upper Volta and Niger ran

in asoutherly direction. As has been seen,on the maps of the period mount
N'Gourna was shownto thenorth of theKabiaford.The only twofactors,
in the three definitions quoted above, which might give cause to believe
that the tripoint was situated at the Kabia ford are, first,the expression "a
line starting at the Kabia ford" which appears in the letter of 27 August
1927,and secondly, the text of this letter read in isolation, which implies
that the ford was located "à la hauteur de" mount N'Gourna [Le.,"at the
elevation of" or "at the geographical level of"].However, this letter has no
intrinsic legalvalue ;itcan serveonlyto elucidatethemeaning of the Order
and its erratum. As for the Order, it uses the expression "a line passing
through the Kabia ford" which infers that the lineoriginated further to the
north, at "lahauteurde N'Gourma".Finally, the erratum clearly indicates
that the line beganat "the heights of N'Gourma" and passed through the
Kabia ford.
170. When the technical committee of cartographersappointed by the

Legal Sub-Commission of the Organization of African Unity Mediation
Commission examined the problem in April 1975,it found the following
argument particularly important : if, as Mali suggests,one startsfrom the
hypothesis that mount N'Gourna was to the east of the Kabia ford, any
boundary which started from mount N'Gouma, passed through the ford,
and then ran in the direction of mount Darouskoy (Arounskaye) would
turn sharply - through something like 90 degrees - at the ford, since
mount Darouskoy lies south of the ford.The text of the Order of 31 Au-
gust 1927states that the boundary "then tums to the south-east" in the
neighbourhood of Tong-Tong, a turn which is much less sharp (approxi-
mately 155degrees) than the supposed turn at the Kabiaford (see sketch-
map No. 6 below). It is therefore difficult to see how the draftsman of the
Order could have failed to mention that the Kabiaford was the position of
such amarked turn, ifthat had reallybeen thecase. It maybe addedthat, if
N'Gouma lay to the east of Kabia, the line described in the letter 191CM2

would have passed through Kabia, between mount N'Gourna and mount
Trontikato. It is hardly surprising that the letter did not mention the ford,
given that its text was based on the Blondel la Rougery map. But it willbe
recalled that the draft description of theboundary between the colonies of
Niger and French Sudan set out in letter 191 CM2 of 1935 had been
submitted to the commandants of the cercles concerned, including the
commandantof the cercleof Gao, the southem boundary of which was to
run through mount N'Gourna or the Kabia ford. This commandantde
cercle replied in a letter-telegram of 14 April 1935, commenting on a
disparity between a text and "the 1:500,000map compiled by the Army
Geographical Service of French West Africa" in a region not relevant to
the present case. The commandantdid not remark upon the reference to FRONTIERDISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

+-+-+-+-+-+-
TIN KACHAN
8
TINAKOF C-
. TANGOUN "

/

I \

i
i
i

i FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 646

mount N'Gouma in letter 191 CM2 ;and nowhere did he suggest the
inclusion of a reference to the Kabia ford,despite this being a significant
topographical feature.

171. Mali has submitted to the Chamber a rnap on the scale 1:1,000,000
entitled 'iifrique occidentalefrançaise,nouvellefrontièrede la Haute-Volta
et duNiger (Suivanterratumdu 5 octobre1927 à I'arrêteéndate du31 août
1927)"["French WestAfrica, newfrontier between Upper Volta and Niger
(according to the erratum of 5October 1927to the Order dated 31August
1927)"l.This map, already mentioned above, distinctly shows a frontier
line between the two colonies running in a general west-east direction and
passing to the north of the Kabia ford. The name "Hauteur de Ngouma"
["Height of Ngouma"] is marked on this line, also to the north of the
ford. The rnap shows another frontier line, mnning from south to north,
which passes through the ford tojoin the firstline to the north of it, at the
point marked with the name "Hauteur de Ngouma". This rnap is thus
absolutely positive and, if it were found to constitute an authoritative
representation of theintention of the author of theerratum, therecould be
no doubt what conclusion should be drawn as to theinterpretation of this
text. However, Mali points out that this rnap contains no information
as to which officia1body compiled it or which administrative authority
approved the line shown on it, and moreover draws attention to the fact
that in 1975the Bureau des frontièresof theFrench Institut géographique
national stated :"To the best of our knowledge there is no specific rnap

which interpreted the General Order of 31August 1927and its erratum of
5October 1927."The Chamber, whilenot ascribing to this rnap submitted
by Mali the authoritative status of a document explaining the Order and
erratum, i.e., one issued with the colonial administration's stamp of
approval, holds nevertheless that it cannot be overlooked as a piece of
evidence ; for even if it cannot be shown to have been drawn up 'oythat
administration, it remainscertain that the map'scompiler,having perused
the governing texts, and possibly the accessiblemaps, had acquired a very
clear understanding of the intention behind the texts, which enabled him
afterwards to lend that intention cartographic expression. That does not
mean that the rnap necessarily conveys the correct interpretation of the
erratum, but it does at least tend to confirm that the difficulties of inter-
pretation which Mali perceives in the text of the Order did not exist at the
time, having arisen from the perusal of certain maps published subse-
quently.
172. Thus far the sources considered al1 combine to bear out the
impression given by the maps, that mount N'Gouma or the heights of
N'Gouma lienorth of theKabia ford. However, asketch-map of the cercle
of Tillabéry,dating from 1954, shows the boundary of the territory of
Niger as a line of crosses running east-west, intersecting the Béliat the

Kabia ford and then turning south. What is more, on this sketch-map, the
name "Mts. N'Gouma" is assigned to some elevations found to the eastand slightly south of theford. Burkina Faso argues that the compiler of the

sketch-map must have reversed the positions of mount N'Gouma and
mounts Gorotondi. As for the 1:200,000IGN rnap published in 1960,it
attaches the name "Ngouma" to an elevation situated southeast of the
Kabia ford - and, as the Chamber has already had occasion to note, the
Parties are in broad agreement on the reliability of the IGN's work (para-
graph 61 above). Mali has particularly sought to expose the shortcomings
of the Blondel la Rougery rnap in altimetry, and has also pointed up
the contrast in that respect between it and the 1960IGN map. But from
observations made on the ground in 1975by the technical committee of
cartographers, it is apparent that there are in fact features to the north of
the Kabia ford which could qualify for the appellation "heights" of
N'Gouma. From the altimetric information appearing on the IGN rnap
around the Kabia ford, it may also be inferred that there are certain
elevations ranged in a quarter-circle between a position north of the ford
and another east-southeast of it, and that they constitute an ensemble
which the name "Ngouma" could reasonably be said to cover. This is a
problem of toponymy rather than topography.
173. In the Chamber's opinion, the controversy between the Parties
over the validity of the indications given by the 1960IGN rnap has little
relevance to the basic point at issue here. TheChamber has to construe a

text dating from 1927and for that purpose, or in the process of doing so,
must seekto ascertain whichelevations werecalled "heights of N'Gouma"
at that time. It follows that, however reliable theartographic techniques
used in 1960,and however thorough the investigations carried out on the
ground with a view to establishing an accurate toponymy for that precise
time, these efforts would only be of value for the purpose of interpreting
the 1927 Order and erratum if they had uncovered an oral tradition dating
back at least to 1927which was at variance with the indications given by
the maps and documents of that earlier period. No evidence has been
furnished of the existenceof any such tradition. The Chamber accordingly
reaches the twofold conclusion that the Governor-General, in the 1927
Order, as modified by the erratum, and hence in letter 191CM2 of 1935,
described an existing boundary which passed through elevations situated
north of the Kabia ford, and that the administrators, rightly or wrongly,
considered that these elevations were called by the local people the
"heights of N'Gouma". The Chamber has simply to ascertain, therefore,
the point where the boundary defined by the texts in question termin-
ates within the above-described ensemble of elevations environing the
ford. After minutely examining the topography shown on the IGN

map, the Chamber finds that this point should be fixed 3 kilometres
north of the ford, at the spot defined by the CO-ordinates0" 14' 39"E and
14" 54'48" N.
174. The Chamber has already noted that the line of crosses shown on
the 1:200,000IGN rnap terminates in the east at a point which is too far
north for this latter section of line tobe deemed compatible with the terms
of letter 191CM2. It therefore remains to determinethepoint at which theIGN line diverges from the line described in that letter. According to
Burkina Faso, the "existing frontier" diverges from the IGN line at the

point north of In Tangoum where the IGN line veers slightly northward.
The Chamber notes that a straight line connectingthe point on the IGN
line which liesnorth-east of In Abao (point L, paragraph 163above) with
the end-point of the frontier line identified in the previous paragraph,
coincides almost exactlywith the line of smallcrosses shown on the IGN
map between point L and the point situated north of In Tangoum. It
concludes that this straight line must constitute the final segment of the
line which it is required to draw.

175. The Chamber, having thus completedits examination of the case,
isnow in a position to fixtheline of thefrontier between the Partiesin the
disputed area. This frontier is defined, as far as possible, in terms of
straight linesconnecting geographic CO-ordinatesof points.Theline of the
frontier has been marked, purely forillustrativepurposes, on a map which
isa compilation of therelevant sheets of the 1:200,000map of the Institut
géographiquenational (Paris)(the sheets ND-30-XVII (Djibo, 1970 edi-
tion) ; ND-30-XXIV (In Tillit, 1958 edition) ;ND-31-XIX (Ansongo,
1959 edition) ; ND-30-XVIII (Dori, 1960 edition) ; and ND-31-XII1
(Tera, 1961edition)). This compilation of sheets intoonemap is annexed
to the sealed copies of this Judgment l.

176. Bythe terms of the SpecialAgreement (Art. IV),theParties agreed
to effect the demarcation of their frontier in the disputed area within one
year of the deliveryof thisJudgment. They also requestedthe Chamber to
nominate, in itsJudgment,threeexpertsto assist them in the demarcation
operation. Both Parties renewed this request in the respective final sub-
missionswhich they read at theend of theoral proceedings. The Chamber
isready to accept the task whch theParties have entrusted to it. However,
having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Chamber is of
theopinionthat it isinappropriate at thisjuncture to make thenomination
requested by the Parties. It will do so later by means of an Order, after
ascertaining the viewsof the Parties, particularly as regards the practical
aspects of the exercise by the experts of their functions.

' A copyof this map,reduced insize,willbe foundin a pocketat the end of this
fascicleor insidethe backcoverofI.C.J. Reports 1986. [Note by the Registv.] 177. In its above-mentioned Order of 10January 1986,the Chamber
stated that the provisional measures therein set out wereindicated "pend-
ing its final decision in the proceedings instituted on 20 October 1983
by the notification of the Special Agreement" concluded between the
Parties. It follows that such Order ceases to be operative upon the deliv-

ery of the present Judgment, and that the provisional measures lapse at
the same time. In accordance with Article 41 of the Statute of the Court,
notice of the provisional measures indicated was given forthwith to the
Security Council of the United Nations through the Secretary-General ;
the Chamber notes that the Secretary-General will also receive a copy
of the present Judgment, in accordance with Article 95 of the Rules of
Court.
178. The Chamber nevertheless notes with satisfaction that the final
communiquéof the first extraordinary conference of the Heads of State
and Government of themember countries of theAccordde non-agressionet
d'assistanceen matièrede défense(ANAD), issued on 18 January 1986,
reported that theHeads of State of Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali
had agreed "to withdraw al1their armed forces from either side of the
disputed area and to effect their return to their respective territories". The
Chamber also notes that the Parties, having concluded a Special Agree-
ment forthe settlement of their dispute by aChamber of the Court, did not
merely by doing so undertake to comply with the Court's decisionspur-
suantto Article 94,paragraph 1,of theCharter of theUnited Nations, but
also declared expressly in that Special Agreement that they "accept the
Judgment of the Chamber givenpursuant to the SpecialAgreement asfinal

and binding upon them" (Art. IV,para. 1).Having completed its task, the
Chamber is happy to record the adherence of both Parties to the interna-
tional judicial process and to the peaceful settlement of disputes.

179. For these reasons,

Unanimously,
Decides

A. That the frontier line between Burkina Faso and the Republic of
Mali in the disputed area, as defined in the SpecialAgreement concluded
on 16 September 1983between those two States, is as follows :
(1) From a point with the geographical CO-ordinates1" 59'01" W and
14" 24' 40"N (point A), the lineruns in anortherlydirection followingthe
broken line of small crosses appearing on the map of West Africa on the

scale 1:200,000 published by the French Institut géographiquenational FRONTIER DISPUTE (NDGMENT) 650

(IGN) (hereinafter referred to as "the IGN line") as far as the point with
the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 58' 49" W and 14" 28' 30"N (point
B).
(2) At point B, the line turns eastwards and intersects the track con-
necting Dionouga and Digue1at approximately 7.5 kilometres from Dion-
ouga at a point with the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 54' 24" W and
14" 29' 20"N (point C).
(3) From point C, the line runs approximately 2 kilometres to the south
of the villagesof Kounia and Oukoulourou, passing through thepoint with
the geographical CO-ordinates1 "46'38" W and 14" 28'54" N (point D),
and thepoint with theCO-ordinates1 "40'40" W and 14" 30'03" N (point

El.(4) From point E, the line continues straight as far as a point with the
geographical CO-ordinates1 "19'05" W and 14"43'45" N (point F), situ-
ated approximately 2.6 lulometres to the south of the pool of Toussou-

gou.
(5) From point F, the line continues straight asfaras the point with the
geographical CO-ordinates1 "05'34" W and 14"47'04" N (point G) situ-
ated on the Westbank of the pool of Soum, which it crosses in a general
west-east direction and divides equally between the two States ; it
then turns in a generally north/north-easterly direction to rejoin the IGN
line at the point with the geographical CO-ordinates 0" 43' 29" W and
15"05'00" N (point H).
(6) From point H, the line follows the IGN line asfaras the point with
the geographical CO-ordinates0" 26'35" W and 15"05' 00"N (point 1) ;
from there it turns towards the south-east and continues straight as faras
point J defined below.
(7) Points J and K, the geographical CO-ordinatesof which will be
determined by the Parties with the assistance of the experts nominated
pursuant to Article IV ofthe Special Agreement, fulfil three conditions :
they are situated on the same parallel of latitude; point J lies on the West
bank of the pool of InAbaoand point K on the east bank of the pool ;the
linedrawn between them willresult in dividing the area of the pool equally
between the Parties.
(8) At point K the line turns towards the north-east and continues
straight asfar asthe point with the geographical CO-ordinates0" 14'44" W
and 15"04' 42"N (point L),and, from that point, continues straight to a
point with the geographical CO-ordinates0" 14' 39"E and 14" 54'48" N
(point M),situated approximately 3 lulometres to the north of the Kabia
ford.

B. That the Chamber will at a later date, by Order, nominate three
experts in accordance with Article IV, paragraph 3, of the Special Agree-
ment of 16 September 1983.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-second day of December, onethousand nine hundred and eighty-six,in three copies,one of whichwillbe
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transrnitted to the
Government of Burkina Fasoand the Government of the Republic of Mali
respectively.

(Signed) Mohammed BEDJAOUI,
President of theChamber.

(Signed) Santiago TORRESBERNARDEZ,
Registrar.

Judges adhocLUCHAIRa End ABI-SAAB append separate opinions to the
Judgment of the Chamber.

(Initialled) M.B.
(Initialled) S.T.B.

Bilingual Content

COUR INTERNATIONALDE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DU DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER

(BURKINA FASOIRÉPUBLIQUE DU MALI)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING THE FRONTIER DISPUTE

(BURKINA FASO/REPUBLIC OF MALI)

JUDGMENT OF 22 DECEMBER 1986 Mode officiel de citation :
Diffërendfrontalier, arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 554.

Official cit:tion
Frontier Dispute,Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554.

Node ven:e 525 1
Sales number DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER
(BURKINA FASO/RÉPUBLIQUDU MALI)

FRONTIERDISPUTE
(BURKINA FASO/REPUBLICOF MALI)

22 DECEMBER1986

JUDGMENT COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

1986 ANNÉE 1986
22 décembre
Rôlegénéral
no69 22 décembre 1986

AFFAIRE DU DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER

(BURKINA FASOIRÉPUBLIQUEDU MALI)

Différend frontalier - Frontières héritée dse lapériode colonial e Droitappli-
cable - Principede I'utipossidetis juns - Nature et portéeduprincipe - Date
critique - Place du droit colonial(droitfrançais d'outre-mer) - Rôle de Iëquité
infra legem - Forme d'équité constituau nnte méthoded'interprétationdu droit.

Comportement d'une Partie - Argument fondé sur l'acquiescemen t Acte
unilatérad l 'ungouvernement - Volontédes'engager - Interprétation de l'act e la
lumièredetouteslescirconstancesdefait etdelapossibilitédes'engagerparunautre
moyen - Acceptationde l'applicationau diffërend de certainsprincipeset règles -
Règlesexpressémentreconnuesparles Etats en litige.

Intérêtds'unEtat tiers - Frontièreseterminantpar unpoint triple - Compétence
judiciaire etexercicedelafonction judiciaire - Distinctionentrela détermination
d'unefrontière terrestreet l'identification des règlesapplicablesà ladélimitationdu
plateau continental - Devoirde la Chambrede statuer sur toutle petitum.
Titresetpreuves - Problèmes encequiconcernelespreuves - Texteslégislatifset
réglementaires - Valeurdepreuve destextes indépendammentde leur validité dans

l'ordrejuridiqueinterne - Matériaucartographique - Cartescommeéléments de
preuve extrinsèques - Eventualitéde l'intégrationd'une carteparmiles éléments
constituantl'expression de la volonté de I'Etat - Valeurdes cartescommepreuves
- Fiabilité technique - Neutralité deleur source - Problèmes soulevéspar lm ea-
tériaucartographiqueen l'espèce(incompatibilités,insuffisances et lacunes) - Les
(*effecrivités coloniale s en tant que preuvesde l'exercice effectifde compétences

territoriales- Correspondanceentre les administrateurscoloniaux.
Application équitable de la règlede droit - Accord local non approuvé palres
autoritéscompétentessur le plan international - Circonstances dans lesquelles
l'accordest intervenu.

Présents : M. BEDJAOU pIr,ésident de laChambre ; MM. LACHSR , UDAj,uges ;

MM. LUCHAIRE A,BI-SAAB j,ges ad hoc ; M. TORREB SERNARDEZ,
Greffier. INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE

YEAR 1986 1986
22 December
General List
No. 69
22 December 1986

CASECONCERNINGTHE FRONTIERDISPUTE
I
(BURKINA FASO/REPUBLICOF MALI)

Frontier dispute - Frontiers inheritedfrom thecolonialperiod - Applicable law
- Principleofutipossidetisjuris - Natureandscopeoftheprinciple - Criticaldate

- Placeof colonial law(Frenchdroit d'outre-mer ) Role of equityinfralegem -
Form of equity which wouldconstitute a method of interpretationof the law.
Conducrof a Party - Argument from acquiescence - Unilateral art of one
government --Intention tobecomebound- Interpretationoftheactin thelightofal1
thefactual circumstancesandofthepossibilityofbecoming boundby othermeans -
Acceptanceof the applicationto the disputeof certainprinciplesand rules - Rules

expressiy recognizedby the contestingStates.
Interests of a third State- Frontierendingin a tripoint - Judicial competence
and exerciseof thejudicialjunction - Distinction betweenthe determinationof a
land boundaryand theidentificationof the rulesapplicabletothedelimitationof the
continentalsheif - Duty of the Chamber to rule upon the wholeof the petitum.
Titlesand evidence --Difficultiesrelatingto evidence - Legislativeand regula-

tory texts - Value of the texts as evidenceindependentlyof their validity in the
interna1legal order - Cartographicmaterials - Maps as extrinsic evidence -
Possibility ofa map being oneof the elements constitutingthe expression of the
StateS intentions - Valueofmapsasevidence - Technical reliability- Neutrality
of their sources - Problems raised in this case by the cartographicmaterials

(incompatibility,defciencies) - The "colonialeffectivités" as evidenceof the effec-
tive exercise of territorialjurisdiction - Correspondenceamong the colonialad-
ministrators.
Equitable applicationof a rule of law - Local agreementnot approvedby the
competent authoritieson the internationalplane - Circumstances in which the
agreement was reached.

JUDGMENT

Present : Judge BEDJAOUP I,resident of the Chamber ; Judges LACHSR , UDA ;
Judges ad hoc LUCHAIRA E,BI-SAAB ; Registrar TORREB SERN~EZ. En l'affaire du différendfrontalier,

entre

le Burkina Faso,
représentépar

S. Exc. M. Ernest Ouedraogo, ministre de l'administration territoriale et de la
sécurité,
comme agent,
S. Exc. M. Emmanuel Salembere, ambassadeur,

comme coagent,
S. Exc. M. Eduardo Jiménezde Aréchaga, ancien professeur de droit inter-
nationalà l'université de Montevideo,

comme conseiller,
M. Jean-PierreCot, professeur de droit international et de sociologiepolitique
à l'université de Paris 1,
M. Alain Pellet,professeurà l'université de Paris-Nord eàl'Institut d'études
politiques de Paris,

comme conseils et avocats,
M. Souleymane Diallo, conseiller àl'ambassade du Burkina Faso à Pans,

comme conseil,
M. Jean Gateaud, ingénieur général géographe ernetraite,
comme expert,

M. Alain Pipart, assistant à l'université de Paris-Nord, avocat à la cour
d'appel de Paris,
M. Stephen Marquardt, diplômé en droit de l'université de Bonn,
comme conseillers,

M. Jean-Matthieu Cot,
MmeAngélique Bouda,
MmcMiriam Dauba,
MmeMartine Soulier-Moroni,

la République du Mali,
représentéepar

S. Exc. le lieutenant-colonel Abdourahmane Maiga, ministre de l'administra-
tion territoriale et du développementà la base,
comme agent,

S. Exc. M. Diango Cissoko, ministre de la justice, garde des sceaux,
comme conseiller spécial,

S. Exc. l'ambassadeur Yaya Diarra, ministèredes affaires étrangères etde la
coopération internationale,
comme coagent, In the case concerning the frontier dispute,

between

Burkina Faso,
represented by

H.E. Mr. Ernest Ouedraogo, Minister for Territorial Administration and
Security,
as Agent,
H.E. Mr. Emmanuel Salembere, Ambassador,

as Co-Agent,
H.E. Mr. Eduardo Jiménezde Aréchaga, formerly Professorof International
Law at the University of Montevideo,

as Adviser,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, professeur de droit international et de sociologie politi-
que à l'université de Pans 1,
Mr. Alain Pellet,professeur a1'U~versitéde Paris-Nord et à1'Institut d'études
politiques de Paris,

as Counsel and Advocates,
Mr. Souleymane Diallo, Counsellor at the Embassy of Burkina Faso in
Paris,
as Counsel,

Mr. Jean Gateaud, ingénieur général géograph(eretired),
as Expert,

Mr. Alain Pipart, assistant a l'université de Paris-Nord, avocat a la cour
d'appel de Paris,
Mr. Stephen Marquardt, graduate in Law of the University of Bonn,
as Advisers,
Mr. Jean-Matthieu Cot,

Mrs. Angélique Bouda,
Mrs. Miriam Dauba,
Mrs. Martine Soulier-Moroni,
and

the Republic of Mali,

represented by
H.E. Lieutenant-Colonel Abdourahmane Maiga, Minister for Territorial
Administration and Basic Development,

as Agent,
H.E. Mr. Diango Cissoko, Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals,

as Special Adviser,
H.E. Mr. Yaya Diarra, Ambassador, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Inter-
national Co-operation,
as Co-Agent, M. René-Jean Dupuy, professeur au Collège de France,
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur à l'université de droit, d'économie etde
sciences sociales de Paris,

M. Raymond Ranjeva, de l'Académie malgache, présidentde l'établissement
d'enseignement supérieurde droit, d'économie,de gestion et de sociologie
de l'université de Madagascar,
M. Jean Salmon, professeur àl'université librede Bruxelles,
comme conseils,

M. Diadié Traoré, directeur national de la cartographie et de la topogra-
phie,
comme conseiller scientifique et technique,

M. SinalyCoulibaly, conseillerjuridique au ministèredes affaires étrangèreset
de la coopération internationale,
comme conseiller juridique,

M. Aguibou Diarra, chef de la division des frontières au ministère de I'admi-
nistration territoriale et du développemenà la base,
M. Mamadou Kone, chef de la section du contentieux au secrétariatgénéradlu
gouvernement,
M. N'Tji Laïco Traoré,chargé d'affairesa.i.ambassade du Mali àBruxelles,

M. Mahamadou Maiga, administrateur civil en retraite,
M. Daba Diawara, ancien chef de la section constitutionnelle de la Cour
suprême
comme conseillers,

M. Paul Delmond, administrateur en chef des affaires d'outre-mer en re-
traite,
M. Drissa Sangare, ministère de I'administration territoriale et du dévelop-
pement a labase,
M. Amadou Billy Soussoko, ministère de l'administration territoriale et du
développement à la base,
M. Aliou Toure, direction nationale de la cartographie et de la topographie,
M. Oumar Kansa Ongoïba, administrateur ;attachéde cabinet au ministère

de l'administration territoriale et du développement la base,
MmeMaciréYattassaye,journaliste auprès du ministère de I'administration
territoriale et du développementà la base
comme experts,

LACHAMBRE CONSTITUÉE PAR LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE pour
connaître de l'affaire susmentionnée,

ainsi composée,
après délibéré,

rend l'arrêstuivant:

1. Par lettre conjointe du 14 octobre 1983,déposée auGreffe de la Cour le
20 octobre 1983, le ministre des affaires étrangères et de la coopération inter-
nationale de la République du Mali et le ministre des affaires étrangèresde la FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 556

Mr. René-Jean Dupuy, professeur au Collègede France,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur à l'université de droit, d'économie etde

sciences sociales de Paris,
Mr. Raymond Ranjeva, de l'Académie malgache,présidentde l'établissement
d'enseignement supérieurde droit, d'économie,de gestion et de sociologie
de l'université de Madagascar,
Mr. Jean Salmon, professeur a l'université libre de Bruxelles,
as Counsel,

Mr. Diadié Traoré, National Director of Cartography and Topography,

as Scientific and Technical Adviser,

Mr. Sinaly Coulibaly, Legal Adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
International Co-operation,
as Legal Adviser,

Mr. Aguibou Diarra, Head of the Frontier Section of the Ministry of Terri-
torial Administration and Basic Development,
Mr. Mamadou Kone, Head of the Legal Department in the Govemment
Secretariat,
Mr. N'Tji Laïco Traoré, Chargéd'affaires ai., Embassy of Mali in Brus-
sels,
Mr. Mahamadou Maiga, Administrative Officer (retired),
Mr. Daba Diawara, formerly Head of the Constitutional Division of the

Supreme Court
as Advisers,
Mr. Paul Delmond, Chief Administrative Officer for Overseas Affairs (re-
tired),

Mr. Drissa Sangare, Ministry of Territorial Administration and Basic De-
velopment,
Mr.Amadou BillySoussoko, Ministry of TerritorialAdministration and Basic
Development,
Mr. Aliou Toure, 'National Office of Cartography and Topography,
Mr. Oumar Kansa Ongoïba, Administrative Officer ; Cabinet attaché, Minis-
try of Territorial Administration and Basic Development,
Mrs. Maciré Yattassaye, joumalist attached to the Ministry of Territorial
Administration and Basic Development,

as Experts,

THECHAMBE R F THEINTERNATIONA CLURT OF JUSTICE formed to deal with
the caseabove-mentioned,

composed as above,

after deliberation,
deliversthefollowingJudgment :

1. Byajoint letter dated 14October 1983,filed in the Registry of the Court on
20 October 1983,the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-opera-
tion of the Republic of Mali and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the RepublicRépublique de Haute-Volta ont transmis au Greffier un compromis daté du

16septembre 1983,entréenvigueur lemêmejour, par lequel la Haute-Voltaet le
Mali étaient convenus de soumettre à une chambre de la Cour, constituée en
application de l'article 26, paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour, un différend
concernant la délimitation d'une partie de leur frontière commune.
2. Le texte du compromis du 16 septembre 1983est le suivant :

((Le Gouvernement de la République de Haute-Volta et le Gouverne-
ment de la République du Mali,

Désireuxde parvenir dans les meilleurs délais a un règlement du diffé-
rend frontalier qui les oppose, fondé notamment sur le respect du prin-
cipe de l'intangibilitédes frontières héritéesde la colonisation, et de pro-
céder à la délimitation et à la démarcation définitives de leur frontière
commune,

Se référant à l'accord conclu entre eux en vue du règlementdu différend
frontalier qui les oppose,
Sont convenus de ce qui suit :

Article I

Objet du litige

1. La question posée à la chambre de la Cour internationale de Justice
constituée conformément a l'article II ci-après est la suivan:e
Quel est le tracéde la frontièreentre la Républiquede Haute-Volta et

la République du Mali dans la zone contestée telle qu'elle est définie
ci-après ?a
2. Lazone contestée estconstituéepar une bandede territoirequi s'étend
du secteur Koro (Mali) Djibo (Haute-Volta)jusques et y compris la région

du Béli.

Article II
Constitution&ne chambre de la Cour internationale de Justice

Les Partiessoumettent la question posée àl'article1à une chambre de la
Cour internationale de Justice (ci-après « la Chambre )>)constituée en
application de l'article6,paragraphe 2,du Statutde la Cour internationale
de Justice (ci-après la Cour )))et des dispositions du présent compro-
mis.

Article III

Procédure
1. Les Parties conviennent que leurs piècesde procédureécriteet leurs

plaidoiries seront présentées enlangue française.
2. Sans préjugeraucune question relative à la charge de la preuve, les
Parties prient la Chambre d'autoriser la procédure suivante au regard des
piècesde procédure écrite :

a) un mémoire soumispar chacune des Parties au plus tard six mois après
l'adoption par la Cour de l'ordonnance constituant la Chambre ; FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 557

of Upper Volta transmitted to the Registrar a Special Agreement which was
dated 16 September 1983 and had entered into force the same day, by which

Upper Volta and Mali had agreed to submit to a chamber of the Court, to be
constituted pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, a
dispute relating to the delimitation of part of their common frontier.
2. The text of the Special Agreement of 16 September 1983is as follows :

"The Government of the Republic of the Upper Volta and the Govern-
ment of the Repiiblic of Mali,

Desiring to achieve as rapidly -s pos-ible a settlement of the frontier
dispute beiween them, based-in particular on respect for theprinciple of the
intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization, and to effect the
defi&ive délimitation and demarcation of their cornmon frontier,

Referring to the Agreement concluded between them with a view to the
settlement of the frontier dispute between them,

Have agreed as follows :

Article I
Subject of the Dispute

1. The question put before the Chamber of the International Court of
Justice formed in accordance with Article II below is as follows :

'What is the line of the frontier between the Republic of the Upper
Volta and the Republic of Mali in the disputed area as defined
below ?'

2. The disputed area consists of a band of territory extending from the
sector Koro (Mali) Djibo (Upper Volta) up to and including the region of
the Béli.

Article II
Formationof a Chamberof the International Courtof Justice

The Parties submit the question put in Article 1 to a chamber of the
International Court of Justice (hereinafter called 'the Chamber') formed
pursuant toArticle 26,paragraph 2,of the Statute of theInternationalCourt
of Justice (hereinaftercalled 'theCourt') andtothe provisions of the present

Special Agreement.
Article III

Procedure

1. The Parties agree that their pleadings and their oral argument shall be
presented in the French language.
2. Without prejudice to any question as to the burden of proof, the
Parties request the Chamber to authorize the following procedure for the
pleadings :

(a) a Memorial filed by each Party not later than six months after the
adoption by the Court of the Order constituting the Chamber ; b) un contre-mémoiresoumis par chacunedesParties au plus tard six mois
après l'échangedes mémoires ;
C) toute autre piècede procédurejugée nécessairepar la Chambre.

3. Les pièces de procédure écrite présentéesau Greffier ne sont pas
transmises à l'autre Partie tant que le Greffier n'a pas reçu la pièce de
procédure correspondante de l'autre Partie.

ArticleIV

Arrêt dela Chambre

1. Les Parties acceptent, comme définitif et obligatoire pour elles-
mêmes, l'arrêdte la Chambre, rendu en application du présent compromis.
2. Dans l'annéesuivant cet arrêtlesParties procéderonta la démarcation
de la frontière.
3. Les Parties prient la Chambre de désigner dansson arrêttrois experts
qui les assisteront aux fins de l'opérationde démarcation.

Article V

Entréeen vigueur,publication et notification
1. Le présent compromis entrera en vigueur à la date de sa signature.

2. Il sera enregistréau Secrétariat des Nations Unies en application de
l'article 102de la Charte des Nations Uniesàl'initiative de la Partie la plus
diligente.
3. En application de l'article 40 du Statut de la Cour, le présent com-
promis sera notifié au Greffier de la Cour par une lettre conjointe des
Parties.
4. Sicette notification n'est pas effectuéeconformément au paragraphe
précédentdans le délai d'un moissuivant l'entrée en vigueurdu présent
compromis, celui-ci sera notifié auGreffier de la Cour par la Partie la plus

diligente.

3. Conformément à l'article 40, paragraphe 3, du Statut de la Cour eà I'ar-
ticle 42 de son Règlement,copie de la notification et du compromis a été trans-
mise au Secrétaire générad le l'organisation des Nations Unies, aux Membres
des Nations Unies et aux autres Etats admis à ester devant la Cour.

4. Par lettre du 29 août 1984,déposéeau Greffe le 4 septembre 1984,l'agent
du Burkina Faso(anciennement Haute-Volta)a avisélaCour du changement de
nom de son pays, en vigueur à partir du 4 août 1984.

5. Par cette mêmelettre, l'agent du Burkina Faso a notifié à la Cour la
désignationpar son gouvernement de M. François Luchaire, professeur à l'Uni-
versitédePans 1,pour siégercornmejugeadhoc ;et par lettredu 18mars 1985,le
coagent du Mali a notifié la désignationpar son gouvernement de M. Georges
Abi-Saab, professeur à1'Institutuniversitaire dehautes étudesinternationales de
Genève,pour siégercomme juge ad hoc.
6. Les Parties, dûment consultées le14mars 1985par le Président au sujetde
la composition de la chambre en question, ont fait savoir qu'ellessouhaitaient la
formation d'une chambre de cinq membres, dont deuxjuges ad hocdésignéspar (b) a Counter-Mernorial filed by each Party not later than six rnonths after

exchange of the Mernorials ;
(c) any other pleading which the Chamber rnay find to be necessary.
3. The pleadings submitted to the Registrar shall not be transmitted to
the other Party until the Registrar has received the corresponding pleading
frorn the other Party.

Article IV
Judgrnentof the Chamber

1. The Partiesacceptthe Judgrnent of theCharnber givenpursuant to the
Special Agreement as final and binding upon them.
2. Within one year after that Judgment the Parties shall effect the
demarcation of the frontier.
3. The Parties request the Charnber to nominate, in its Judgrnent, three
experts to assist thern in the demarcation operation.

Article V

Entty into Force, Publicationand Notification

1. The present SpecialAgreement shall corneinto force on the date of its
signature.
2. It shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pur-
suant to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter by the more diligent
Party.
3. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the present
SpecialAgreement shall be notified to the Registrar of the Court by ajoint
letter frorn the Parties.
4. Ifsuch notification is not effected in accordance with the preceding
paragraph within one month frorn theentry into force of the present Special
Agreement, it shall be notified to the Registrar of the Court by the more
diligent Party."

3. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, and to
Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the notification and Special Agree-
ment were transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the
Mernbers of the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the
Court.
4. By a letter dated 29 August 1984,filed with the Registry on 4 Septernber
1984,the Agent of Burkina Faso (forrnerly the Upper Volta) inforrned the Court
of the change of narrie of his country, in force frorn 4 August 1984.
5. By the sarne letter, the Agent of Burkina Faso notified to the Court the
choice by his Governinent of Mr. François Luchaire, Professor at the University
of Paris 1,to sit asjudge adhoc ; and by a letter of 18March 1985,the Co-Agent
of Mali notified his Government's choiceof Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Professor at

the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, to sit as judge ad
hoc.
6. The Parties, du1.yconsulted by the President on 14March 1985concerning
the composition of the Charnber, expressed their wish for the formation of a
Chamber of fiveMenibers, two of whom would bejudges adhocchosen by themelles conformément àI'article31 du Statut, et ont confirméleur désirde voir la

Cour procéder immédiatement à la constitution de la chambre.
7. Par ordonnance du 3 avril 1985,la Cour, ayant pris note de la désignation
d'un juge ad hocpar chacune des Parties, a décidé d'accéde r la demande des
Gouvernements du Burkina Faso et de la République du Mali tendant a ce
qu'une chambre spécialede cinqjuges soit constituéepour connaître de l'affaire
et a déclaré que, MM.Lachs, Ruda et Bedjaoui,juges, ayant été élup sour y
siéger,avec lesjuges ad hocsusmentionnés,laditechambre, ainsicomposée,était
dûment constituée.
8. Par ordonnance rendue le 12 avril 1985,conformément à I'article 92 du
Règlement, le Présidentde la Cour, se référant à I'article 111,paragraphe 2, du

compromis, a fixé au3octobre 1985la date d'expiration du délaipour le dépôt
d'un mémoirepar chaque Partie. Les mémoires en question ont été dûment
déposés dans lesdélais ainsifixésP. arordonnance du 3octobre 1985,leprésident
de la Chambre, se référant à i'article III, paragraphe 2, du compromis,a fixéau
2 avril 1986la date d'expiration du délaipour ledépôtd'un contre-mémoirepar
chaque Partie, la suite de la procédure étant réservée.
9. Avant l'expiration du délaiimparti pour le dépôtdes contre-mémoires,les
Parties ont saisi la Chambre de demandes parallèles en indication de mesures
conservatoires. La Chambre a tenu audience le 9janvier 1986aux finsd'entendre

les Parties en leurs observationsorales et a rendu leOjanvier 1986une ordon-
nance par laquelle elle a indiqué certaines mesures conservatoires ; invitéles
agents des Partiesà notifier sans délai auGreffier tout accord visàl'article 1D
de ladite ordonnance qui serait conclu entre leursgouvernements ; et décidéque,
jusqu'à ce qu'elle rende son arrêt définitif en l'espèce, et sans préjudice de
l'application de l'article 76du Règlement, elledemeurerait saisie des questions
faisant l'objet de l'ordonnance.
10. Par lettre en date du 24janvier 1986, et conformément à l'article 2 de
l'ordonnance susmentionnéeen indication de mesuresconservatoires, lecoagent

de la République du Mali a transmis au Greffier le communiqué final de la
première conférenceextraordinairedes chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement des pays
membres de l'accord de non-agression et d'assistance en matière de défense
(ANAD), diffusé le18janvier 1986.Ce communiqué faisait notamment état de
ce que les chefs d'Etat du Burkina Faso et de la République du Mali avaient
accepté de retirer toutes leurs forces armées de part et d'autre de la zone
contestée et de leur faire regagner leur territoire respectif.
11. Le 2 avril 1986,soit dans les délais fixàcet effet, les Parties ont déposé
leur contre-mémoire. Le mêmejour, elles ont indiquéqu'elles ne désiraientpas
présenter d'autre piècede procédureécrite. LaChambre n'ayant pasjugéque le

dépôt d'unenouvellepiècede procédure écritefût nécessaireenl'espèce,l'affaire
s'est trouvée enétat.
12. Conformément à I'article 53, paragraphe 2, du Règlement, la Chambre,
aprèss'être renseignéaeuprèsdesParties, a décidé que des exemplairesdespièces
de procédure et des documents annexés seraient rendus accessibles au public à
l'ouverture de la procédure orale.
13. Après laclôture de la procédure écritechacunedesdeux Parties aproduit
desdocuments nouveaux au titre de I'article56du Règlement.Les Parties ayant
été dûmentconsultéesconformément aux articles 31 et 58, paragraphe 2, du

Règlement,des audiences ont été tenues du 16au 21juin ainsique les 24et 26juin
1986,durant lesquelles ont étéentendus : FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 559

pursuant to Article 31of the Statute of the Court,and confirmed their wish that
the Court should proceed irnmediately to the constitution of the Chamber.
7. By an Order dated 3 April 1985 the Court, having noted the choice of a
judge ad hoc by each of the Parties, decided to accede to the request of the
Governments of Burkina Fasoand the Republic of Mali for theconstitution of a
special Chamber of fivejudges to deal with the case, and declared that Judges
Lachs, Ruda and Bedjaoui had been elected to form, with the above-named
judges ad hoc, such a Chamber, and that it was duly constituted with that

composition.
8. Byan Order made on 12April 1985,pursuant to Article 92 of the Rules of
Court, the President of the Court, referring to Article III, paragraph 2, of the
Special Agreement, Sixed 3 October 1985 as the time-limit for the filing of a
Memorial by each Party. The Mernorials in question were duly filed within the
time-limit so fixed. By an Order dated 3 October 1985, the President of the
Chamber, referring to Article III, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement, fixed
2April 1986asthe time-limit for the filing of aCounter-Memorial by eachParty,
reserving the subsequent procedure for further decision.
9. Before the expiryof the time-lirnit for the filing of the Counter-Memonals,
the Parties submitted to the Chamber parallel requests for the indication of
provisional measures. The Charnber held a public sitting on 9 January 1986for

the purpose of hearing the oral observations of the Parties and, on 10January
1986,made an Order whereby it indicated certain provisional measures ;called
upon the Agents of the Parties to notify the Registrar without delay of any
agreement concluded between theirGovernrnents within the scope of point 1D
of the same Order ; and decided that, pending its finaljudgment, and without
prejudice to the application of Article 76 of the Rules, the Chamber would
remain seised of the questions covered by that Order.
10. In a letter dated 24 January 1986,and pursuant to point 2 of the above-
rnentioned Order indicating provisional measures, the Co-Agent of the Republic
of Mali transmitted to the Registrar thefinalcommuniqué, issued on 18January
1986,of the firstextriîordinary conference of Heads of State and Government of
the member countries of ANAD (Accord de non-agression et d'assistance en

matière de défense). That communiqué reported that the Heads of State of
Burkina Fasoand the Repubiic of Mali had agreed "to withdraw al1their armed
forces from either side of the disputed area and to effect their return to their
respective territories".
11. On 2 April 1986,within the time-limit fixed for that purpose, the Parties
filed their Counter-Mernorials. On the same day, they stated that they did not
wish to present any Further written pleadings. Since the Chamber did not con-
sider that any further written pleadings were necessary, the case was ready for
hearing.
12. Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Chamber,
having ascertained the viewsof the Parties, decided that copies of the pleadings

and documents annexed would be made accessible to thepublic with effect from
the opening of the oral proceedings.
13. After theclosiireof thewritten proceedings both Partiesproduced further
documents under Article 56of the Rules.The Parties havingbeen dulyconsulted
pursuant toArticles 31and 58,paragraph 2,of the Rules of Court,publicsittings
were held on 16-21 June and 24-26 June 1986, at which the Chamber was
addressed by the following :Pour le Burkina Faso : S. Exc. M. Ernest Ouedraogo,
M. Souleymane Diallo,
S. Exc. M. Emmanuel Salembere,
M. Alain Pellet,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot,
M. Jean Gateaud.

Pour la Républiquedu Mali : S. Exc. M. le lieutenant-colonel Abdourahmane
Maiga,
M. Jean Salmon,
M. Raymond Ranjeva,
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
M. DiadiéTraoré,
M. Paul Delmond.

14.A I'audiencedu 26juin 1986(matin) leBurkina Faso,qui avait déjàconclu
son dernier tour de parole, a priéla Chambre de l'entendreuveau aux fins de
lui permettre de commenter brièvement l'exposéfait le mêmejour par l'un des
membres de la délégation malienne.La Chambre a décidéde faire droit àcette
demande et d'autoriser la République du Mali à commenter à son tour les
observations qui seraient présentées I'audience par le Burkina Faso, soit ora-

lement, avant la clôture de la procédureorale, soit par écrit,dans lesante-
huit heures suivant celle-ci. La République du Mali a fait parvenir au Greffe,
dans les délaisfixés,une réponse écrite auxobservations de la Partie adverse
laquelle cette réponse aimmédiatement étécommuniquée.

15. Dans l'instance, les conclilsions ci-après ont étéprésentéespar les Par-
ties:

Au nom du Burkina Faso,
dans le mémoire et le contre-mémoire ainsi qu'à I'audience du 24 juin 1986

(après-midi) :
1. Le Burkina Faso demande respectueusement à la Chambre de la
Cour internationale de Justice constituéeen application du compromis du

16 septembre 1983 de dire et juger que le tracé de la frontière entre le
Burkina Faso et la Républiquedu Mali est constituépar la ligne suivante

1. A l'ouest du point de coordonnées géographiques

M = 0" 40'47" ouest
L = 15"00'03" nord

la ligne est celle qui résultede la carte de l'Institut géographiquenational
français au1/200 000, édition 1960,les villages de Dioulouna, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou et Koubo étant situésen territoire burkinabé.
2. A l'est du point de coordonnées géographiques
M = 0" 40'47" ouest

L = 15"00' 03" nord
la ligne suit les indications de la lettre 191CM2 du 19février 1935et de laFor BurkinaFaso : H.E. Mr. Ernest Ouedraogo,
Mr. Souleymane Diallo,
H.E. Mr. Emmanuel Salembere,
Mr. Alain Pellet,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot,
Mr. Jean Gateaud.

Forthe Republicof Mali : H.E. Lieutenant-Colonel Abdourahrnane Maiga,

Mr. Jean Salmon,
Mr. Raymond Ranjeva,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
Mr. Diadié Traoré,
Mr. Paul Delmond.

14. At the hearing held on the morning of 26 June 1986Burkina Faso, which
had alreadycompleteditslast round oforal argument, requested the Chamber to
enable it to comment briefly upon the statement made the samedayby a member
of the Malian delegation. The Chamber decided to accede to that request and to
authorize the Republic of Mali to comment in turn upon the observations to be
made at that hearing by BurkinaFaso,either orally, beforetheclosure of the oral
proceedings, or in writing within the ensuing 48 hours. The Republic of Mali
conveyed to the Registry, within the prescribed time-limit, a written reply to the

observations of the other Party, to which that reply was irnmediately commu-
nicated.

15. During the proceedings, the following Submissions werepresented by the
Parties :

On behaifof Burkina Faso,
in the Memorial and Counter-Memonal and at the hearing of 24 June 1986
(afternoon) :

"1. Burkina Faso respectfully requests the Chamber of the International
Court of Justice, formed in accordance with the Special Agreement of
16September 1983,to adjudge and declare that the course of the frontier
between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali is constituted by the
following line :

1. West of the point with the geographical CO-ordinates :
longitude 0" 40'47" W
latitude 15"00'03" N

the line is as shown on the 1:200,000 scale map of the French Institut
géographiquenational (1960edition),the villagesof Dioulouna, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou and Koubo being located in Burkinabe terntory.
2. East of the point with the geographical CO-ordinates :

longitude 0" 40'47" W
latitude 15" 00'03" N

the line corresponds to the information given in letter 191 CM2 of carte au 1/500 000, édition 1925,jusqu'. la-pointe nord de la mare d'In
Abao.
3. A partir de la pointe nord de la mare d'ln Abao, la lignesuit letracéde
la carte au 1/500 000, édition 1925,laissant au Burkina Faso la régiondu
Béli,jusqu'au point triple aveclafrontière du Niger qui est constituépar les

monts N'Gouma, situésau nord du guéde Kabia.

II. Le Burkina Faso prie respectueusement la Chambre de désigner trois
experts qui devront assister les Parties aux fins de l'opérationde démar-
cation, qui devra êtreachevéedans l'annéesuivant le prononcé de I'ar-
rêt.1)

Au nom de la Républiquedu Mali,

dans le mémoire et le contre-mémoire

Le Gouvernement de la République du Mali conclut qu'il plaise à la
Chambre :

Dire que letracéde lafrontière entre la Républiquedu Mali et le Burkina
Faso dans la zone contestée passe par les points suivants :

- Lofou,
- l'enclos en forme de mosquée situé à 2 kilomètres au nord de Diguel,

- un point situé à 3 kilomètres au sud de Kounia,
- le baobab de Selba,
- le Tondigaria,
- FourfaréTiaiga,

- Fourfaré Wandé,
- Gariol,
- Gountouré Kiri,
- un point à l'est de la mare de Kétiouairedont les coordonnéesgéogra-
phiques sont les suivantes :

longitude 0" 44' 47" ouest
latitude 14" 56'52" nord.

- la mare de Raf Naman,
et de ce point suit le marigot en passant notamment par la mare de Fadar-

Fadar, la mare d'In Abao, la mare de Tin Akoff et la mare d'ln Tangoum
pour aboutir au guéde Kabia ));

à l'audience du 26juin 1986(après-midi) :
Le Gouvernement de la Républiquedu Mali conclut qu'il plaise à la

Chambre :

1. Dire que le tracéde la frontière entre la République du Mali et le
Burkina Faso dans la zone contestée passe par les points suivants :
- Lofou,

- l'enclos en forme de mosquée situé à 2 kilomètres au nord de Diguel.

- un point situé à 3 kilomètres au sud de Kounia, 19February 1935,and on the 1:500,000scalernap, 1925edition, asfar as the
northern point of the pool of In Abao.

3. Frorn the northern point of the pool of In Abao, the line follows the
courseshown on the 1 :500,000scalernap, 1925edition, leaving the region of
the Bélito Burkina Faso, as far as the tripoint with the frontier of Niger,
which is forrned by the heights of N'Gourna, situated to the north of the
Kabia ford.

II. Burkina Faso respectfully requests the Chamber to appoint three
experts to assist the Parties for the purpose of the demarcation operation,
which is to be completed within one year of the delivery of the judg-
ment."

On behalJofthe Republic ofMali,
in the Memorial and Counter-Mernorial :

"The Governrnent of the Republic of Mali submits as follows :

May it please the Charnber
Tostate that the frontierline betweeen the Republic of Mali and Burkina
Faso in the dispiited area runs through the following points :

- Lofou,
- the rnosque-shaped enclosure situated 2 kilornetres to the north of
Diguel,
- a point situated 3 kilometres to the south of Kounia,
- the Selba baobab,

- the Tondigaria,
- Fourfaré Tiaiga,
- Fourfaré Wandé,
- Gariol,
- Gountouré Kiri,
- a point to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire, having the following geo-

graphical CO-ordinates :
longitude 0" 44'47" W
latitude 14" 56' 52" N

- the pool of Raf Naman,
and from that point follows the marigot passing, in particular, through the
pool of Fadar-Fadar, the pool of In Abao, the pool of Tin Akoff and the

pool of In Tangoum, terminating at the Kabia ford" ;
at the hearing of 26 June 1986(afternoon) :

"The Government of the Republic of Mali submits as follows :

May it please the Charnber
1. To state that the frontier line between the Republic of Mali and
Burkina Faso in the disputed area runs through the following points :

- Lofou,
- the rnosque-shaped enclosure situated 2 kilometres to the north of
Diguel,
- a point situated 3 kilornetres to the south of Kounia, - le baobab de Selba,
- le Tondigaria,
- FourfaréTiaiga,
- FourfaréWandé,
- Gariol,
- GountouréKiri,
- un point a l'estde la mare de Kétiouairedont les coordonnéesgéogra-

phiques sont les suivantes :
longitude 0"44'47" ouest
latitude 14' 56'52" nord,

- la mare de Raf Naman,
et de ce point suit le marigot en passant notamment par la mare de Fadar-
Fadar, la mare d'ln Abao, la mare de Tin Akoff et la mare d'InTangoum
pour aboutir au guéde Kabia.
2. S'abstenirdedéterminerquel estlepoint tripleentrela Républiquedu

Mali, le BurkinaFaso et le Niger.
3. DésignerdanssonarrêttroisexpertsquiassisterontlesPartiesauxfins
de l'opérationde démarcation (articleIV,paragraphe 3, du compromisdu
16septembre 1983).

16. La tâche confiée à la Chambre en la présente espècepar le com-
promis conclu entre les deux Parties le 16 septembre 1983 consiste à

indiquer le tracéde la frontière entre le Burkina Faso et la République du
Mali (dénomméeci-après le Mali) dans la zone contestée telle qu'elle est
définiepar ce compromis. Les deux Etats ont une frontière commune de
1380kilomètres selon le Burkina Fasoet de 1297kilomètresselon le Mali,
dont près de 900 kilomètres selon le Burkina Faso et près de 1022 kilo-

mètres selon le Mali ont pu êtredélimités d'uncommun accord entre les
Parties. La zone contestée-estdéfiniepar lecompromis comme «constituée
par une bande de territoire qui s'étend du secteur Koro (Mali) Djibo
(Haute-Volta) jusques et y compris la régiondu Bélio.Le Béliest le plus
important des cours d'eau temporaires de la région: venant des pentes

orientales du massif de Hombori, il coule vers lesud-est pour sejeter, hors
de la zone contestée, dans le fleuve Niger. En saison sècheil est composé
d'un chapelet de onze mares. Dans les conclusions qu'elles ont soumises à
la Chambre, les deux Parties ont indiqué le tracé de la frontière que
chacune d'elles considère comme fondé en droit (ces traces, ainsi que la

topographie de la région,sontindiquéssur lecroquis no 1 ') ; selon l'uneet
l'autre thèse,la frontière en litige suit un coursorientéapproximativement
d'ouest en est, entre le Mali au nord et le Burkina Faso au sud. Le point
terminal de la frontière à l'est, dont l'emplacement n'est pas déterminé,
constitue en même tempsun point setrouvant sur la frontièreséparant du

' On trouvera un exemplaire de ce croquis dans une pochette placéea la fin du
présent fasciculeou du volume C.I.J. Recueil 1986 selon le cas. (Note du Gre//e./ - the Selbabaobab,
- the Tondigaria,
- FourfaréTiaiga,
- FourfaréWandé,
- Gariol,
- GountouréKiri,
- a point to the eastof the poolof Kétiouaire,havingthe followinggeo-
graphicalco-ordinates :

longitude 0" 44'47" W
latitude 14" 56'52" N
- the pool of Raf Naman,
and fromthat point followsthe marigot passing, inparticular,through the

pool of Fadar-Fadar, the pool of In Abao, the pool of Tin Akoff and the
pool of In Tangoum,terminatingat the Kabia ford.
2. To refrain from determining the tripoint between the Republicof
Mali, Burkina Fasoand Niger.
3. Tonominate,in itsJudgment,three expertsto assistthe Partiesin the
demarcation operation (Art. IV, para. 3, of the Special Agreementof
16September 1983)."

16. The task entrusted to the Chamber in this case by the Special
Agreement concluded between the two Parties on 16 September 1983is
that of indicating the line of the frontier between Burkina Faso and the
Republic of Mali (hereinafter called "Mali") in the disputed area, as
defined in that SpecialAgreement. The two States have a commonfrontier
of 1,380 kilometres according to Burkina Faso and 1,297 kilometres
according to Mali, of which almost 900 kilometres according to Burkina
Faso and almost 1,022kilometresaccording to Mali have been successfully

delimited by agreement between the Parties. The disputed area is defined
by the SpecialAgreement as "a band of territory extending fromthe sector
Koro (Mali) Djibo (Upper Volta) up to and including the region of the
Béli".The Béliis the largest of thetemporary watercoursesin the region. It
originates in theeastern slopes of the Homborimountains and flows tothe
south-east beforejoining the Niger river outside the disputed area. In the
dry season it consists of a chain of 11pools. In their submissions to the
Chamber, each of the Partiesindicated thefrontier linewhich it considered
well-founded in law (these lines and the topography of the region are

shown on sketch-map No. 1 ') ;according to either contention, the dis-
puted frontier runs in an approximately west-east direction between Mali
tothenorth and Burkina Faso to the south. The end-point of the frontier to
the east,the position of which has not been determined, is also a point on
the frontier between Niger and the two disputant States and is, accord-

A copyof thisketch-map wilbe foundina pocketat thendofthisfascicleorinside
the backcoverof thevolume of I.C..I. Reports 1986. [Note by the Registv!
12Niger les deux Etats parties au présent litige ;il s'agit donc d'un point
triple. Par leprotocoled'accord de Niamey du 23juin 1964,conclu entre la

Haute-Volta et le Niger, ces deux Etats sont convenus qu'aux fins de la
délimitation de leur frontière commune ils auraient recours à certains
documents spécifiéspar le protocole et considérés commedocuments de
base ; toutefois, jusqu'à présent, les deux Etats n'ont pas effectué de
travaux de délimitation.Quant à la frontière entre le Mali et le Niger, il a
été décidé lors d'une récente rencontre entre des représentants decesdeux
Etats que des négociations bilatérales seraient ouvertes en vuede sa

détermination mais aucun accord n'a pour l'instant étéconclu à ce sujet.
Dans laprésenteaffaire, leMali considèreque, pour des raisons qui seront
examinéesplus loin, la Chambre doit s'abstenir de toute décision sur
l'emplacement du point triple susvisé.Le Burkina Faso, en revanche,
estimequ'une telledécision s'imposecommefaisant partie intégrante de la
tâche confiée à la Chambre.

17. Les Parties ont longuement discuté de la qualification du présent
différendau regard d'une distinction parfois faiteendoctrine entre con-
flits frontaliers>)ou <(conflits de délimitation )iet ((conflits d'attribution
territoriale >)Selon cettedistinction, les premiers viseraient lesopérations

de délimitation portant sur ce qu'on a pu appeler <(une parcelle géogra-
phiquement non autonome O, alors que les seconds auraient pour objet
l'attribution de la souveraineté sur l'ensemble d'une entitégéographique.
Les Parties paraissent finalement avoir accepté l'une et l'autre que le
présent différend s'apparente davantage aux conflits de délimitation,
mêmesi elles ne sont pas d'accord quant aux conséquences à en tirer. En
fait, dans la trèsgrande majoritédes cas, comme en l'espèce,la distinction

ainsi schématisée nese résout pas ultimement en un contraste de genres
mais exprime bien plutôt une différencede degrédans la miseenŒuvrede
l'opérationconsidérée.En effet chaque délimitation, aussi étroite quesoit
la zone controverséeque traverse le tracé,a pour conséquencede répartir
les parcelles limitrophes de part et d'autre de ce tracé. En la présente
affaire, il est à noter que le compromis, en son article 1, vise non pas
simplement une ligne à tracer mais une <(zone )>contestée,qu'il déclare

constituéepar une ((bande 1)de territoire englobant la région >)du Béli.
Par ailleurs l'effet d'une décision judiciaire, qu'elle soitrendue dans un
conflit d'attribution territoriale ou dans un conflit de délimitation, est
nécessairementd'établirune frontière. Il n'est pas sans intérêtde relever
que certaines conventions récentesde codification emploient des expres-
sionstellesque <(traitéétablissantune frontière )iou <(frontièreétabliepar
un traité )ipour englober lestraitésdedélimitationaussibien que lestraités

d'attribution ou de cession (voir convention de Vienne sur le droit des
traités,art. 62 ;convention de Vienne sur la succession d'Etats en matière
de traités, art. 11). Ainsi, dans les deux cas, il s'agit de clarifier une
situation juridique déterminée avec effet déclaratoire à la date du titre FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 563

ingly, a tripoint. By the Niamey Protocol of 23June 1964between Upper
Volta and Niger, those two States agreed that, forthe purpose of delimiting
their common frontier, they would have recourse to certain documents
which were mentioned in the Protocol and treated as basic documents.
However, the two States have not as yet carried out any delimitation
operations. As for the frontier between Mali and Niger, it was decided at a
recent meeting between representatives of those two States that bilateral
negotiations would be set in train with a view to determining it, but no
agreement has at present been concluded on the subject. In the present
case,Mali maintains,forreasonsto beconsidered below,that the Chamber
must refrain from taking any decision on the position of the above-
mentioned tripoint. Burkina Faso, on theother hand, maintains that such a
decision is necessary as an integral part of the task entrusted to the
Chamber.

17. The Parties have argued at length over how the present dispute is to
be classified in terrns of a distinction sometimes made by legal writers
between "frontier disputes" or "delimitation disputes", and "disputes asto

attribution of territory". According to this distinction, the former refer to
delimitation operations affectingwhat has been described as "a portion of
land which is not geographically autonomous" whereas the object of the
latter is the attribution of sovereignty over the whole of a geographical
entity. Both Partie:; seem ultimately to have accepted that the present
dispute belongs rather to the category of delimitation disputes, even
though they fail to agree on the conclusions tobe drawn from this. In fact,
however, in the great majority of cases, including this one, the distinction
outlined above isnot somuch adifference in kind but rather adifference of
degree as to the way the operation in question is carried out.The effect of
any delimitation, no matter how small the disputed area crossed by the
line,isan apportionment of the areas of land lyingon either sideof the line.
In thepresent case,itmay benoted that the SpecialAgreement, inArticle 1,
refers not merely to a line to be drawn, but to adisputed "area", which it
defines asconsisting of a "band" of territoryencompassingthe "region" of
the Béli.Moreover, the effect of anyjudicial decision rendered either in a
dispute asto attribution of territory or in a delimitation dispute, isneces-
sarily to establish a frontier. It is not without interest that certain recent
codifying conventions have used formulae such as a treaty which "estab-
lishes a boundary" or a "boundary established by a treaty" to cover both
delimitation treaties and treaties ceding or attributing territory (cf.Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 62 ; Vienna Convention on

Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Art. 11). In both cases, a
clarification is made of agiven legal situation with declaratory effect from
the date of the legal title upheld by the court. This clarificationis itself a
new element ;it was because the parties wished to see that element intro-juridique retenu par l'organejuridictionnel. Cette clarification elle-même
n'en constitue pas moins un élément nouveau,celui dont la recherche a
précisémentamenélesparties à s'adresserà l'organeconcerné ;eneffet,en
l'absence de controverse ou d'incertitude, les parties n'auraient point
cherché à saisir un tribunal. C'est donc moins la nature et la qualification
du présent différendque le Statut de la Cour et les termes du compromis

qui doivent déterminer la nature et l'étenduedu rôle et de la tâche de la
Chambre en l'espèce.
18. La Chambre se doit encore de dissiper un malentendu qui pourrait
résulter de la distinction susviséeentre <(conflits de délimitation et
conflits d'attribution territoriale))Cette distinction a entreautres effets
d'opposer <(titres juridiques))et <(effectivitéso. Dans ce contexte, I'ex-
pression titre juridique semble se référer exclusivement à l'idéede
preuvedocumentaire. Il esà peine besoin de rappeler que ce n'estpas là la
seule acception du mot <(titreo. Les Parties ont d'ailleurs fait usagede ce

terme endes sensdivers. En réalité la notion detitrepeut également et plus
généralementviser aussi bien tout moyen de preuve susceptibled'établir
l'existence d'un droit que la source mêmede ce droit. La Chambre se
prononcera en temps opportun sur la pertinence des moyens de preuve
produitspar les Parties aux finsd'établirleurs droits respectifs en l'espèce.
Elleexamineradès àprésentquelles sont les règlesapplicables aux fins de
l'affaire; ce faisant elle dégageranotamment la source des droits que les
Parties revendiquent.

19. Ladéterminationde lafrontière àlaquellela Chambre doit procéder
s'inscritdans un contextejuridique marqué parlefait que lesEtats en litige
sont tous deux issus du processus de décolonisation qui s'est dérouléen
Afrique au cours des trente dernièresannées.Leur territoire, comme celui
du Niger d'ailleurs, faisait anciennement partie des colonies françaises
regroupées souslenom d'Afrique occidentale française (AOF) ;sil'ons'en
tient à la situation telle qu'elle se présentaià la veille de l'indépendance
des deux Etats, abstraction faite des avatars administratifs antérieurs, on

peut dire que le Burkina Fasocorrespond à la colonie de la Haute-Volta et
la Républiquedu Mali à celledu Soudan(anciennementSoudan français).
Il est permis de penser que les Parties se sont inspirées du principe
expressémentproclamédans larésolution bienconnue (AGH/ Rés.16(1)),
adoptée à la première session de la conférence des chefs d'Etat et de
gouvernement africains, réunis auCaire en 1964,selon lequel <tous les
Etats membres [del'organisation de l'unité africaine] s'engagent à respec-
ter les frontièresexistant au moment où ilsont accédé à l'indépendance ;
elles ont en effet indiqué dans le préambule de leur compromis que le

règlement par la Chambre du différendqui les oppose doit être fondé
notamment sur le respect du principe de l'intangibilité des frontières
héritéesde la colonisation o. Il résultedes termes de ce texte ainsi que des
piècesdeprocéduredéposées par lesParties et de leursplaidoiries que l'uneduced that they went to court at al]. If there had been no dispute or
uncertainty, they would not have wished to do so. Hence it is not so much

the nature and qualification of the present dispute as the Statute of the
Court and the terms of the Special Agreement which must determine the
nature and extent of the Chamber's task and functions in this case.

18. The Chamber also feelsobliged to dispel a misunderstanding which
might anse from this distinction between "delimitation disputes" and
"disputes asto attribution of territory". One of the effects of this distinc-
tion is to contrast "legal titles" and"effecrivirés"In this context, the term
"legal title" appears to denote documentary evidence alone. It is hardly
necessary to recall that thisis not the only accepted meaning of the word
"title". Indeed, the Parties have used this word in differentsenses. In fact,
the concept of title may also, and more generally, comprehend both any
evidencewhichmay establishthe existenceofa right, and theactual source
of that right. The Chamber will rule at the appropriate juncture on the
relevance of the evidence produced by the Parties for the purpose of
establishing their respective rights in this case. It will now turn to the
question of the rules applicable to the case ; in so doing, it willinterdia,
ascertain the source of the rights claimed by the Parties.

19. The characteristic feature of the legal context of the frontierdeter-
mination to be undertaken by the Chamber is that both States involved
derive their existence from the process of decolonization which has been
unfolding in Africa during the past 30years. Their territories, and that of
Niger, were formerly part of the French colonies which were grouped
together under the name of French West Africa (AOF). Considering only
the situation which prevailed irnmediately before the accession to inde-
pendence of the two States, and disregarding previous administrative
changes, it can be said that Burkina Faso corresponds to the colony of
Upper Volta, and the Republic of Mali to the colony of Sudan (formerly
French Sudan). It is to be supposed that the Partiesdrewinspiration from
the principle expressly stated in the well-known resolution (AGHIRes. 16
(1)), adopted at the first session of the Conference of African Heads of
Stateand Government, meeting in Cairo in 1964,whereby the Conference
solemnly declared that al1member States of the Organization of African
Unity "solemnly .. .pledge themselvesto respect the frontiers existing on
their achievement of national independence", inasmuch as, in the pream-
ble to their Special Agreement, they stated that the settlement-of the
dispute by the Chamber must be "based in particular on respect for the
principle of theintangibility of frontiers inheritedfrom colonization". It is
clear from this text, and from the pleadings and oral arguments of the et l'autre s'accordent àla fois sur ledroit applicable et sur lepoint de départ
du raisonnement juridique qui doit conduire a la détermination de la
frontière entre leurs territoires dans la zone contestée.

20. Dès lors que, comme on l'a rappelé, les deux Parties ont expressé-
ment demandé à la Chambre de trancher leur différend sur la base
notamment du principe de l'intangibilité des frontières héritéesde la
colonisation O,la Chambre ne saurait écarterle principe de I'utipossidetis
juris dont l'application a précisémentpour conséquence le respect des
frontières héritées.Bien qu'il ne soit pas nécessaire.aux fins de la présente
affaire, de démontrer qu'il s'agit là d'un principe bien établi en droit

international, en matière de décolonisation, la Chambre désire en souli-
gner la portéegénérale,en raison de l'importance exceptionnelle qu'il revêt
pour le continent africain ainsi que pour les deux Parties. A ce propos il
convient d'observer que le principe de I'utipossidetis paraît bien avoir été
invoquépour la première fois en Amérique hispanique, étant donné que
c'est sur ce continent qu'on a assistépour la première fois au phénomène

d'une décolonisation entraînant la formation d'une pluralité d'Etats sou-
verains sur un territoire ayant antérieurement appartenu à une seule
métropole. Ce principe ne revêtpas pour autant le caractère d'une règle
particulière, inhérente à un système déterminéde droit international. Il
constitue un principe général, logiquement liéau phénomène de l'acces-
sion à l'indépendance, où qu'il semanifeste. Son but évident est d'éviter
que l'indépendance et la stabilité des nouveaux Etats ne soient mises en

danger par des luttes fratricides nées dela contestationdes frontières à la
suite du retrait de la puissance administrante.
21. C'est pourquoi, dèsque le phénomènede la décolonisation qui avait
caractériséla situation en Amérique hispanique au XIXe siècleest ensuite
apparu en Afrique au XXe siècle, leprincipe de I'utipossidetis, entendu
dans lesenssusindiqué, y a reçu application. Il faut voir, dans lerespect par
les nouveaux Etats africains des limites administratives et des frontières

établies par les puissances coloniales, non pas une simple pratique qui
aurait contribué a la formation graduelle d'un principe de droit interna-
tional coutumier dont la valeur serait limitée aucontinent africain comme
elle l'aurait été auparavant à l'Amériquehispanique, mais bien l'applica-
tion en Afrique d'une règle de portée générale.
22. Les nombreuses déclarations faites par des responsables africains,

lors de l'indépendance de leur pays, contenaient en germe les élémentsde
I'utipossidetis: elles confirmaient le maintien du statu quo territorial au
moment de l'accession al'indépendance et posaient le principe du respect
aussi bien des frontières résultant des accords internationauxque de celles
issues de simples divisions administratives internes. La charte de l'Orga-
nisation de l'unitéafricaine n'a pas négligé leprincipe de l'uti possidetis,
mais elle ne l'aqu'indirectement évoquéen son article 3aux termes duquel

les Etats membres affirment solennellement le principe du respect de la
souveraineté et de l'intégritéterritoriale de chaque Etat. Mais dès la pre-
mière conférence au sommet qui suivit la création de l'organisation de
l'unitéafricaine, les chefs d'Etat africains, par leur résolution susmention- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 565

Parties, that they are in agreement as regards both the applicable law and
the starting-point for the legal reasoning which is to lead to the determi-
nation of the frontier between their territories in the disputed area.
20. Since the two Parties have, as noted above, expressly requested the
Chamber to resolve their disputeon the basis, in particular, of the "prin-
ciple of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization", the
Chamber cannot disregard the principle of uti possidetis jurithe appli-
cation of which gives rise to this respect for intangibility of frontiers.
Although there isnoneed, forthe purposes of the present case,to showthat
this is a firmly established principle of international law where decoloni-
zation is concerned, the Chamber nonetheless wishes to emphasize its

general scope, in view of its exceptional importance for the African con-
tinent and for the twoParties.In thisconnectionitshouldbenoted that the
principle of utipossidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in
Spanish America, inasmuch asthis was the continent which first witnessed
thephenomenon of decolonization involvingtheformation of anumber of
sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan
State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule whichpertains solely
toone specificsysteniofinternational law.It isageneralprinciple, whichis
logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of indepen-
dence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the indepen-
dence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles
provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the
administering power.

21. It was for this reason that, as soon as the phenomenon of decolon-
ization characteristic of the situation in Spanish America in the 19th

century subsequentlyappeared in Africa in the 20th century, the principle
of utipossidetis,in the sense described above, fell to be applied. The fact
that the new African States have respected the administrative boundaries
and frontiers established by the colonial powers must beseennotas amere
practice contributing to the gradua1emergenceof aprinciple of customary
international law, lirnited in its impact to the African continent as it had
previously been to Spanish America, but as the application in Africa of a
rule of general scope.
22. The elements of utipossidetis were latent in the many declarations
made by African leaders in the dawn of independence. These declarations
confirmed the maintenance of the territorial status quo at the time of
independence, and stated the principle of respect both for the frontiers
deriving from international agreements, and for those resulting from mere
interna1 administrative divisions. The Charter of the Organization of
African Unity did not ignore the principle of utipossidetis,but made only
indirect reference to it in Article 3, according to which member States
solemnly affirm the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of everyState. However,at their first summitconferenceafter the
creation of the Organization of African Unity, the African Heads of State,
in their Resolution nientioned above (AGH/Res. 16(1)),adopted in Caironée(AGH/Rés. 16(1)),adoptéeau Caire en juillet 1964,tinrent à préciser
et à renforcer le principe de l'utipossidetisjuris qui n'apparaissait que de
façon implicite dans la charte de leur organisation.
23. Leprincipe considéré,telqu'ila trouvéson application bien connue
en Amérique hispanique, est constituéde différentséléments.Le premier,
mis en relief par le génitif latinjuris, accorde au titrejuridique la préémi-
nence sur la possession effective comme base de la souveraineté. Safina-

lité,à l'époquede l'accession à l'indépendance des anciennes colonies
espagnoles d'Amérique, était de priver d'effets les viséeséventuellesde
puissances colonisatrices non américaines sur des régionsque l'ancienne
métropole avait assignées à l'une ou à l'autre des circonscriptions et qui
étaientdemeurées non occupéesou inexplorées. Maisle principe de l'uti
possidetis ne s'épuisepas dans l'élémentparticulier que l'on vient de
décrire.Ilen estun autre,à savoirque,sous sonaspect essentiel, ceprincipe
vise, avant tout,àassurer le respect des limites territoriales au moment de
l'accessionà l'indépendance.Ces limites territoriales pouvaient n'êtreque
des délimitations entre divisions administratives ou colonies, relevant
toutes de la même souveraineté.Dans cette hypothèse, l'application du
principe de I'utipossidetisemportait la transformation de limites adminis-
tratives en frontières internationales proprement dites. Ce fut le cas pour
les Etats qui se sont formésdans les régions d'Amériquedépendant de la
couronne espagnole et pour les Etats parties à la présente affaire, qui se
sont constitués sur lesvastes territoires de l'Afrique occidentale française.

En tant que principe érigeant en frontières internationales d'anciennes
délimitations administratives établies pendant l'époque coloniale,I'uti
possidetis est donc un principe d'ordre général nécessairementlié à la
décolonisation où qu'elle se produise.
24. Les limites territoriales dont il s'agit d'assurer le respect peuvent
également résulterde frontières internationales ayant formé séparation
entre lacolonie d'un Etat et la colonie d'un autreEtat, ou entre leterritoire
d'une colonie et celui d'un Etat indépendant ou d'un Etat soumis à pro-
tectorat mais ayant conservésapersonnalité internationale. Or l'obligation
de respecter les frontières internationales préexistantes encas de succes-
sion dlEtats découlesans aucun doute d'une règlegénéralede droit inter-
national, qu'elle trouve ou non son expression dans la formule uti possi-
detis. A cet égard aussi, par conséquent, les nombreuses affirmations
solennelles relatives à l'intangibilité des frontières qui existaient au
moment de l'accession des Etats africains à l'indépendance, émanant
tantôt d'hommes d'Etats africains, tantôt d'organes de l'organisation de

l'unité africaineelle-même,ont manifestement une valeur déclaratoire et
non pas constitutive :elles reconnaissent et confirment un principe exis-
tant et ne préconisentpas la formation d'un principe nouveau ou I'exten-
sion à l'Afrique d'une règle seulementappliquée,jusque-là, dans un autre
continent.
25. On peut cependant se demander comment le principe ancien a pu
survivre aux conceptions nouvelles du droit international telles qu'elles se
sont expriméesenAfrique où la sériedesindépendances et l'émergencede inJuly 1964,deliberatelydefined and stressed theprinciple of utipossidetis
juris contained only in an implicit sense in the Charter of their organiza-
tion.
23. There are several different aspects to this pnnciple, in its well-
known application in Spanish America. The first aspect, emphasized by
the Latin genitivejuris, is found in the pre-eminence accorded to legal title
over effectivepossession as a basis of sovereignty. Its purpose, at the time
of the achievement of independence by the former Spanish colonies of
America, was to scotch any designs which non-American colonizing
powers might have on regions whch had been assigned by the former
metropolitan State to one division or another, but which were still unin-
habited or unexplored. However, there is more to the principle of uti
possidetisthan thisparticular aspect. The essenceof theprinciple liesin its
primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the
moment when independence isachieved. Suchterritorial boundaries might
be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions
or colonies al1subject to the same sovereign.In that case,theapplication of
the principle of utipossidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being
transformed into international frontiers in thefull senseof the term.This is

true both of the States whch took shape in the regions of South America
which weredependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to
the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French
West Africa. Utipossidetis, as a principle which upgraded former admini-
strative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to interna-
tional frontiers, is therefore aprinciple of a general kind which is logically
connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.

24. The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also
derive from international frontiers whch previously divided a colony of
one Statefrom a colony of another, or indeed a colonialterritory from the
territory of an independent State, orone whichwasunder protectorate, but
had retained its international personality. There is no doubt that the
obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of a
State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether
or not the rule is expressed in the formula uti possidetis. Hence the
numerous solemn affirmations of the intangibility of the frontiers existing
at the time of the independence of Afncan States, whether made by senior
Africanstatesmenor byorgans of the Organization ofAfrican Unity itself,
are evidently declaratory rather than constitutive : they recognize and
confirm an existingprinciple, and do not seektoconsecratea newprinciple

or the extension to Africa of a rule previously applied only in another
continent.

25. However, it may be wondered how the time-hallowed principle has
been able to withstand the new approaches to international law as
expressed in Africa, where the successiveattainment of independence andjeunes Etats se sont traduites par une certainecontestation du droit inter-
national classique.A première vueeneffetceprincipeenheurte defront un
autre, celui du droit despeuples disposer d'eux-mêmes. Mais en réalitlée
maintien du sratu quo territorial en Afrique apparaît souvent comme une
solution de sagesse visantà préserver les acquisdes peuples qui ont lutté
pour leur indépendance et à éviter larupture d'un équilibre qui ferait
perdre au continent africain lebénéficde tant de sacrifices.C'est lebesoin
vital de stabilité pour survivre, se développer et consolider progressive-
ment leur indépendance dans tous les domaines qui a amené les Etats
africains à consentir au respect des frontières coloniales, età en tenir
compte dans l'interprétation du principe de l'autodétermination des
peuples.
26. Le principe de l'utipossidetis s'est maintenu au rang des principes
juridiques les plus importants, nonobstant l'apparente contradiction
qu'impliquait sa coexistence avec les nouvelles normes. En effet, c'est par

un choix délibéré que les Etats africains ont, parmi tous les principes
anciens, retenu celui de l'utipossidetis. C'est une réqui ne saurait être
contestée.Au vude cequi précède,ilest évidentqu'on ne saurait mettreen
doute l'applicabilitéde I'utipossidetisdans la présente affaire simplement
parce que, en 1960,annéede l'accession à l'indépendancedu Mali et du
Burkina Faso, l'organisation de l'unité africaine,qui a proclamé ceprin-
cipe, n'existait pas encore et que la résolution précitée relatàvl'enga-
gement de respecter les frontières préexistantes ne date que de 1964.

27. Lesdeux Parties ont avancédesvuesopposéesquant à lapossibilité
d'invoquer l'équitédans la présenteespèce.Elles s'accordent pour rejeter
tout recoursà la facultéque la Chambre aurait eue, aux termes de I'ar-
ticle 38du Statut,destatuer ex aequoet bonosiellesy avaient consenti. Le
Mali insiste cependant pour que soit prise en considération cette forme

d'équitéqui est inséparable de l'application du droit international O,
laquelle équivaudraitselonlui àune équitéinfra legem.Le Burkina Faso ne
s'est pas élevécontre le recoursà cette notion, mais a déclarémal com-
prendre quelle en serait la portée concrète enl'espèce.Il a souligné qu'il
n'existait pas, en matière de délimitation de frontières terrestres, d'équi-
valent de lanotion de principeséquitables H àlaquelle ledroit applicable
dans le domaine de la délimitation des zones maritimes renvoie si fré-
quemment. Le Mali n'apas misencause cetteconstatation ;ilapréciséque
l'équité qu'ialvait en vue n'étaitautre que l'équité qui estnormalement
inhérente à la saine application du droit.
28. Il est clair que la Chambre ne peut, en la présenteaffaire, statuer ex
aequo et bono. N'ayant pas reçu des Parties la mission de procéder à un
ajustement de leurs intérêtsrespectifs, elle doit égalementécarter en'es-
pècetout recours à l'équité contrlaegem.La Chambre n'appliquera pasnon
plus l'équitépraeter legem. En revanche elle prendra en considération
I'équité tellequ'elle s'exprimdeans sonaspect infra legem,c'est-à-direcette FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 567

the emergence of new States have been accompanied by a certain ques-
tioning of traditional international law. At first sight this principle con-
flicts outright with another one, the right of peoples to self-determination.
In fact, however, the maintenance of the territorial status quo in Africa is
often seen as the wisest course, to preserve what has been achieved by
peoples who have struggled for their independence, and to avoid a dis-
ruption which would deprive the continent of the gains achieved by much
sacrifice. The essential requirement of stability in order to survive, to

develop and gradually to consolidate their independence in al1fields, has
induced African Statesjudiciously toconsent to the respecting of colonial
frontiers, and to take account of it in the interpretation of the principle of
self-determination of peoples.
26. Thus the principle of utipossidetis has kept itsplace among the most
important legal principles, despite the apparent contradiction which
explained its coexistence alongside the new noms implied. Indeed it was
by deliberate choice that African States selected, among al1the classic
principles, that of uti possidetis.This remains an undeniable fact. In the
light of the foregoing remarks, it is clear that the applicability of uti
possidetis in the present case cannot be challenged merely because in
1960,the year when Mali and Burkina Faso achieved independence, the
Organization of African Unity which was to proclaim this principle did
not yet exist, and the above-mentioned resolution calling for respect for
the pre-existing frontiers dates only from 1964.

27. In their pleadings and oral arguments, the two Parties have
advanced conflicting viewson the questionwhether equity can be invoked
in the present case. They both agree that no use should be made of the

Chamber's power, urider Article 38 of the Statute, to decide the case ex
aequoetbon0if they had agreed to this. However, Mali urges that account
should be taken of "that form of equity which is inseparable from the
application of interna.tional law", which it seesas equivalent toequity infra
legem. Althoughitdid not object to this concept being resorted to, Burkina
Faso considered that it was far from clear what the practical implications
would bein thiscase. It emphasized that in the field of territorial boundary
delimitation there isrioequivalent to theconcept of "equitable principles"
so frequently referred to by the law applicable in the delimitation of
maritime areas. Mali did not question this statement ; it explained that
what it had in mind was simplytheequity which isanormal part of the due
application of law.
28. It is clear that the Chamber cannot decide ex aequo et bonoin this
case. Sincethe Partie:;have not entrusted it with the task of carrying out an
adjustment of their respective interests,it must alsodismiss any possibility
of resorting to equity contra legem. Nor will the Chamber apply equity
prueter legem.On the other hand, it will have regard to equity infra legem,
that is, that form of equity which constitutes amethod of interpretation offorme d'équitéqui constitue une méthode d'interprétation du droit et en
est l'une des qualités. En effetcomme la Cour l'a dit: <Il ne s'agit pas
simplement d'arriver à unesolutionéquitable,mais d'arriver àunesolution
équitablequi repose sur le droit applicable. ))(Compétenceen matièrede
pêcheries,C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 33, par. 78 ;p. 202, par. 69.) La manière
dont la Chambre envisagelaprise en considérationconcrètedecetteéquité
en l'affaire ressortira de l'application qu'ellefera, tout au long du présent
arrêt,des principes et règlesqu'elle aura jugésapplicables.

29. La détermination du tracéde la frontière entre deux Etats relève
évidemmentdudroit international, mais les Parties s'accordent également
à reconnaître quecettequestion doit s'apprécieren l'espèce à lalumièredu
droit colonial français dit <(droit d'outre-mer o.Etant donnéque les ter-
ritoires des deux Etats ont fait partiede l'Afrique occidentale française, la

limite qui lesséparaitn'estdevenuefrontièreinternationale qu'au moment
de leur accession à l'indépendance.La ligne que la Chambre est appelée à
déterminer commeétantcellequi existait en 1959-1960n'étaitalors que la
limite administrative qui séparait deux anciennes colonies que le droit
français dénommait territoires d'outre-mer depuis 1946 ; àce titre, elle
était nécessairement définienon pas d'après le droit international mais
d'après la législationfrançaise applicable à ces territoires.
30. Une précision s'imposecependant en ce qui concerne l'application
du droit français d'outre-mer )>Par le fait de son accession à l'indépen-

dance, le nouvel Etat accède à la souveraineté avec l'assiette etles limites
territoriales qui lui sont laisséespar 1'Etat colonisateur. Il s'agit là du
fonctionnement normal des mécanismesde la succession d'Etats. Le droit
international - et par conséquent le principe de l'uti possidetis - est
applicable au nouvel Etat (en tant qu'Etat) non pas avec effet rétroactif
mais immédiatement et dès ce moment-là. Il lui est applicable en l'état,
c'est-à-dire à l7t(instantané ))du statut territorial existantà ce moment-là.
Leprincipe de l'utipossidetisgèleletitre territorial ; ilarrêtela montresans

lui faire remonter le temps. Ainsi le droit international ne fait-il aucun
renvoi au droit établipar un Etat colonisateur non plus qu'à aucune règle
juridique établieunilatéralement par un Etat quelconque ; le droit interne
français (et plus particulièrement celui que la France a édicté pour ses
colonies ou territoires d'outre-mer) peut intervenir, non en tant que tel
(comme s'ilyavait un continuumjuris, un relaisjuridique entre cedroitet le
droit international), mais seulement comme un élémentde fait, parmi
d'autres, ou comme moyen de preuve et de démonstration de ce qu'on a

appeléle <(legs colonial O, c'est-à-dire de 1'0instantané territorial ))à la
date critique.

31. En vue de faciliter la compréhension de ce qui suit, il convient dethe lawin force, and isone of itsattributes. As theCourthas observed :"It
is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution, but an equitable

solution derived from the applicable law." (Fisheries Jurisdiction, I.C.J.
Reports 1974, p. 33, para. 78 ;p. 202, para. 69.) How in practice the
Chamber will approach recourse to this kind of equity in the present case
willemergefrom itsapplication throughout this Judgrnent of theprinciples
and rules which it finds to be applicable.

29. The determination of a frontier linebetween twoStates isobviously
a matter of international law, but the Parties both recognize also that the

question has here to be appraised in the light of French colonial law, "droit
d'outre-mer". Sincetheterritories of the twoStateshad been part of French
West Africa, the former boundary between them became an international
frontier only at the moment when they became independent. The line
which the Chamber isrequired to determine asbeing that which existed in
1959-1960,was at that time merely the administrative boundary dividing
two former French colonies, called territoires d'outre-mer from 1946 ;as
such it had to be defined not according to international law,but according
to the French legislation which was applicable to such territoires.

30. One clarification is, however,necessary asconcerns the application

of French droit d'outre-mer. By becorning independent, a new State
acquires sovereignty with the territorial base and boundaries left to it by
thecolonial power. This ispart of the ordinaryoperation of the machinery
of State succession. International law - and consequentlythe principle of
utipossidetis - applies to the new State (as a State) not with retroactive
effect, but immediately and from that moment onwards. It applies to the
State as it is,i.e., to the "photograph" of the territorial situation then
existing. The principle of utipossidetis freezesthe territorial title ;it stops
the clock, but does riot put back the hands. Hence international law does
not effect any renvoi to the law established by the colonizing State, nor
indeed to any legal rule unilaterally established by any State whatever ;

French law - especially legislation enacted by France for its colonies and
territoires d'outre-mer - may play arolenot in itself (as if there were a sort
of continuumjuris, a legal relay between such law and international law),
but only asone factual element among others, or as evidence indicative of
what has been called the "colonial heritage", Le.,the "photograph of the
territory" at the critical date.

31. With a viewto a proper understanding of what follows,it should be

18 rappeler que dès le début du siècleet jusqu'à l'entréeen vigueur de la

Constitution françaisedu 27octobre 1946, l'Afrique occidentale française
a été dotée d'une organisation administrative territoriale centralisée. Pla-
cée sousl'autorité d'ungouverneur général, elleétaitdivisée en colonies
dont la création etla suppressionétaient du ressort de l'exécutàfParis ; à
la têtede chaque colonie se trouvait un lieutenant-gouverneur. Les colo-
nies étaientelles-mêmesconstituéesde circonscriptions de base appelées
cercles, lesquels étaient administréspar des commandants de cercle ;la
création et la suppression des cercles relevaient exclusivement du gouver-
neur généralq, ui en fixait l'étendue globale.Chaque cercleétaàtson tour
composéde subdivisions administréespar des chefs de subdivision. Enfin
les subdivisions comprenaient des cantons, regroupant plusieurs villages.
La création et la suppression de subdivisions et de cantons a l'intérieur
d'un cercle déterminé étaientde la compétencedu lieutenant-gouverneur
de la colonie dont ce cercle faisait partie.

32. Aux fins de déterminer dans les grandes lignes ce qu'était pour
chacune des deux Parties le legs colonial auquel devait s'appliquer l'uti
possidet insetracera brièvement lesoriginesdes coloniesfrançaises dont
ils'agit.Il n'estcependant pas nécessairepour cefaire de remonter au-delà
de 1919dans l'historique descolonies de l'Afriqueoccidentale française.A
cette époqueles territoires actuels du Mali et du Burkina Faso faisaient
tous deux partie de la colonie du Haut-Sénégalet Niger. En vertu d'un
décretdu présidentde la République française datédu ler mars 1919,les
cercles de Gaoua, Bobo-Dioulasso, Dédougou, Ouagadougou, Dori et
Fada N7Gourma, quijusque-là faisaient partie du Haut-SénégaletNiger,
ontétéérigésen unecolonie distincte portant le nom de Haute-Volta. Par
un décretdu 4 décembre1920,les territoires restants composant le Haut-
Sénégae lt Niger ainsi réduitont reçu la dénomination de Soudanfrançais,

et, par un décretdu 13octobre 1922,le territoire civil du Niger s'est vu
transformé en colonie autonome. La colonie du Soudan français (ou du
Soudan) a continué à exister comme telle ou commeterritoire d'outre-mer
jusqu'en 1959,moment auquel elle est devenue la République soudanaise
pour accéderensuite à l'indépendancedans le cadre de la Fédération du
Mali, le 20juin 1960. En revanche le décretdu ler mars 1919,créantla
Haute-Volta, fut abrogé par un décretdu 5 septembre 1932et les cercles
qui avaient composé laHaute-Volta furent rattachés, en tout ou en partie,
certains au Niger, d'autres au Soudan français ou à la Côte d'Ivoire. La
Chambre renvoie ici au paragraphe 73 ainsi qu'au croquis no2 ci-après,
qui montre la répartition des cercles dans la régionde la frontière con-
testée. La Haute-Volta fut reconstituée en 1947 par la loi 47-1707 du
4 septembre 1947,laquelle a purement et simplement abrogéle décretdu

5septembre 1932portant suppression de la colonie de la Haute-Volta et a
déclaréque les limites du territoire de la Haute-Volta rétabl)>seraient
((celles de l'ancienne colonie de la Haute-Volta a la datedu 5 septembre
1932 ))C'est cette Haute-Volta reconstituéequi a ensuite accédé à l'indé-
pendance le 5 août 1960, pour prendre, en 1984, le nom de Burkina
Faso.recalled that from the beginning of the century upto theentry into forceof
the French Constitution of 27October 1946,the territorial administration
of French West Africa was centralized. It was headed by a governor-
general,and wasdivided into colonies ;thepower to create or abolish these
belonged to the executive in Paris. At the head of each colony was a
lieutenant-governor. The colonies were themselvesmade up of basic units
called cercles which were administered by commandants de cercle ; the

creation and abolition of the cercles were the sole prerogative of the
governor-general, who decided their overall extent. Each cerclein turn was
composed ofsubdivisions,administered bychefsdesubdivision.Finally,the
subdivisionscomprised cantons,which grouped together a number of vil-
lages. The creation and abolition of subdivisionsand cantonswithin any
particular cerclecame within thejurisdiction of the lieutenant-governor of
the colony of which the cercleformed part.

32. For the purpose of determining in broad terms what for each of the
two Parties was the colonial heritage to which the utipossidetis was to
apply, theorigins of the French coloniesconcerned willbe briefly retraced.
For this purpose, however, it is unnecessary to go further back in the
history of the colonies of French West Africa than 1919.At that time, the
present territories of Mali and Burkina Faso both formed part of the
colony of Upper Senegaland Niger. Byvirtue of a decree of the President
of the French Republic dated 1March 1919,the cerclesof Gaoua, Bobo-
Dioulasso, Dédougou, Ouagadougou, Dori and Fada N'Gourma, which
had until then been part of Upper Senegaland Niger, wereestablished as a
separate colony with the name of Upper Volta. Bya decree of 4 December
1920,the remainingterritones, comprisingwhat was left of Upper Senegal

and Niger, were given the name of French Sudan, and by a decree of
13October 1922the Civil Territory of the Niger became an independent
colony. The colony of French Sudan (or Sudan) continued to existas such,
or as a territoire d'outre-mer,until 1959 when it became the Sudanese
Republic, and then achieved independence, as the Federation of Mali, on
20 June 1960.On the other hand, the decree of 1March 1919which had
created Upper Volta was rescinded by a decree of 5 September 1932,and
the cercleswhich had comprised Upper Volta were incorporated, in whole
or in part, into Niger and into French Sudan or the Ivory Coast. The
Chamber refers to paragraph 73 below and to sketch-map No. 2, which
showsthe distribution of the cerclesin the disputed frontier region. Upper
Volta was reconstituted in 1947by the law47-1707 of 4 September 1947,
which rescinded outright the decree of 5 September 1932that had abol-
ished the colony of Upper Volta, and stated that the boundanes of "the
re-established territory of Upper Volta" were to be "those of the former
colony of Upper Volta on 5 September 1932". It was this reconstituted
Upper Volta which subsequently obtained independence on 5 August
1960.and took the name of Burkina Faso in 1984. 33. Pour les deux Parties, il s'agit de rechercher quelle est la frontière

héritéede l'administration française, c'est-à-dire celle qui existait au
moment de l'accession à I'indépendance.Une certaine divergence de vues
apparaît toutefois entre elles en ce qui concerne la date préàiretenirà
cettefin. De l'avisdu Burkina Faso, la datà prendre en considérationest
cellede l'accessionde chaque Partieà I'indépendance, soit le20juin 1960
pour le Mali et le 5 août 1960pour le Burkina Faso. Selon le Mali, il faut
remonter jusqu'à la <(date limite de la participation des autorités colo-
niales françaisesà l'exercice des compétences d'organisation adminis-
trativeO,date que, pour les raisons indiquéesdans son mémoire, le Mali
fixe au 30janvier 1959 en ce qui concerne la République soudanaise et
au 28février1959pour cequi estde laHaute-Volta. Cependant lesParties,
tout en maintenant leurs thèses respectives quant aux motifs juridiques
justifiant le choix des dates susmentionnées, ont reconnu en fin de

compte que la question était sans incidence pratique en l'espèce. Elles
demandent à la Chambrede rechercher quelle était,dans lazonelitigieuse,
la frontière entre les territoires d'outre-mer du Soudan et de la Haute-
Volta telle qu'elle existait en 1959-1960.Bien qu'on ait pu dirà maintes
reprises, pendant la période coloniale,qu'il n'y avait pas de frontière par-
faitement déterminéepar des actes législatifsou réglementaires,les deux
Parties s'accordent pour conclure qu'au moment de leur indépendance
il y avait une frontière bien définie. Ellesacceptent aussi toutes deux
qu'aucune modification de la frontièren'estsurvenue entrejanvier 1959et
août 1960,ou depuis cette dernière date.

34. Les Parties se sont longuement expliquéessur la genèse et l'évolu-

tion du différend frontalier dont la Chambre est présent saisie.Toutefois
puisqu'ils'agitde définir letracédela frontièretellequ'elle existaitdans les
années1959-1960et que les Parties s'accordent pour refuser toute valeur
juridique aux actes d'administration ultérieursqui auraient pu êtreeffec-
tuéspar l'une d'elles sur le territoire de l'autre, l'historique des incidents
frontaliers et des efforts déployéspour mettre fin au différend n'est guère
pertinent. Un argument burkinabé méritenéanmoins une attention par-
ticulière.Cet argument est fondésur le comportement du Gouvernement
malien au coursdes négociationsqui ont précédé laconclusion desaccords
portant délimitation des 900 ou 1022kilomètres de frontière qui ne font
plus l'objet de contestation, ainsi que sur l'attitude de ce gouvernemeàt
l'égarddes travaux d'une commission de médiationde l'organisation de
l'unitéafricaine qui a siégé en1975. Selon le Burkina Faso, le Mali a

acceptécomme obligatoire la solution du différend esquisséepar cette
commission. Etant donné que cet argument basé sur l'acquiescement
aurait pour effet, s'il s'avérait exact,de rendre inutile toute recherche
destinée àétablirla frontière héritéede la période coloniale,ilconvient de
l'examiner dès à présent, à titre de question préalable.
35. Peu après leur accession à I'indépendance, lesParties ont mis en 33. For both Parties, the problem is to ascertain what is the frontier
which was inherited from the French administration, that is, the frontier
which existed at the moment of independence. However, their views
diverge somewhat asto the exact dateto bechosen for that purpose. In the
opinion of Burkina Faso, the datetobe taken into consideration is that of
the accession of each Party to independence : 20 June 1960for Mali and
5August 1960for Burkina Faso. In Mali's opinion, it is necessary to go
back tothe "last date on which the French colonial authorities ~artici~ated
in the exercise of jurisdiction for administrative organizat[onm, a date
which, for the reasonsexplained in itsMemonal, Mali fixesat 30January
1959for the Sudanese Republic and 28 February 1959for Upper Volta.
The Parties have however,while holding to their respective contentions as
to the legal grounds which warrant the choice of these dates, ultimately
admitted that thepoint has no practical implicationsfor the case.They are
requesting the Chamber to ascertain what, in the disputed area, was the
frontier between the territoiresd'outre-meof Sudan and of Upper Voltaas
it existed in 1959-1960.Although it was said on a number of occasions,
during the colonial period, that there was no frontier which was fully
determined by direct or delegated legislation, the two Parties both agree
that when they becarne independent there was a definite frontier. Both of
them also accept that no modification of the frontier took place between
January 1959and August 1960,or has taken place since.

34. The Parties have expounded at length the origins of the frontier
dispute which is presently before the Chamber. Since however the line of
the frontier has to be defined asit existed in the years 1959-1960,and the
Parties agree that no legal validity attaches to any subsequent acts of
administration which may have been performed by either of them on the
territory of theother,a reviewof thefrontier incidents and theefforts made

to bnng the dispute to an end would hardly bepertinent. Nevertheless, one
Burkinabeargumentwarrants particular attention.This argument isbased
on the conduct of the Malian Government during the negotiations which
led to agreements be:ingconcluded for the delimitation of the 900or 1,022
kilometres of frontier which are no longer in dispute, and on that Gov-
ernment's attitude towards the work of a Mediation Commission of the
Organization of African Unity which sat in 1975.According to Burkina
Faso, Mali accepted asbinding the solution to thedispute outlined by that
Commission. Since this argument from acquiescence would, if correct,
make it unnecessary to endeavour to establish the frontier inherited from
the colonial period, it should be dealt with at the outset as a preliminary
question.

35. Very soon after achieving independence, the Parties set up bilateralplace des structures de concertation bilatérale en vue de résoudre leurs
problèmes de frontière. Ainsi ont-elles, dèsle 29 novembre 1961,institu-

tionnalisélesréunionspériodiquesque tenaient déjà, à l'époque coloniale,
leschefs des circonscri~tions frontalières. enétablissant une ((commission
mixte composéedes cgefs decirconscription ))Ellesont ensuiteinstitué,le
25février1964,une (commission paritaire O, composéepour chaque Etat
d'un délégué du gouvernement, d'un géographe,d'un topographe et de
commandants de cercles frontaliers, dont la mission était de proposer,
avant le 15juin 1964, ladélimitationde lafrontière en prenant pour base
les travaux préparatoires deschefs de circonscription n.Cette commission

a étéremplacéepar une ((commission paritaire permanente O,créée le
8 mai 1968et composéedes ministres de l'intérieur ainsique de représen-
tants de divers ministères des deux Etats, à laquelle une tâche beaucoup
plus large était désormaisconfiée :la coopération généraleentre les deux
pays. Enfin une conférence desministres de l'intérieurdes deux Parties a
mis en place, la mêmeannée, une <commission technique mixte ))com-
poséepour chaque Etat d'un représentant du gouvernement, d'un topo-
graphe, d'un géographe ainsique des chefs de circonscription intéressés ;

ladite commission fut (<chargéed'étudieret de reconnaître la frontière
conformément auxdocuments antérieurs à l'indépendance détenuspar les
Gouvernements du Mali et de la Haute-Volta o. Les Parties ont produit
divers procès-verbaux et documents émanant de ces organes.
36. A la suite d'un conflit arméentre les deux pays, qui a éclaté le
14décembre 1974,des appels à la conciliation ont étélancés,notamment
par le chef d'Etat de la Somalie, présidenten exercicedel'organisation de
l'unitéafricaine, et par le présidentdu Sénégal. Le26 décembre1974,les

présidentsde la Haute-Volta, du Mali et du Togo se sont réunis à Lomé et
ont décidéde créerune commission de médiationcomposéedu Togo, du
Niger, de la Guinéeet du Sénégal. L'unedes tâches de la Commission
énoncées par lecommuniquéde Loméétait <(de rechercher une solution au
différend frontalier, sur la base des documentsjuridiques existants o. La
Commission de médiations'est réunieles 6 et 7janvier 1975et a créé une
sous-commission militaire et une sous-commission juridique ;le rôle de
cette dernière était,entre autres, d'élaborerun avant-projet de proposi-

tion à soumettre à la Commission comprenant ...l'esquisse d'une solu-
tion...))Le 11avril 1975,le chefde 1'Etatmalien a accordéune interview à
l'agence France-Presse, au cours de laquelle il a notamment déclaré :
Le Mali ...s'étend sur 1240000 kilomètres carrés, nous ne

pouvons nous battre de manière injustifiée,pour un bout de territoire
d'une longueur de 150kilomètres. Mêmesila Commission de l'Orga-
nisation de l'unitéafricaine décide objectivement que la ligne de
frontière passe par Bamako, le gouvernement que je présides'incli-
nera devant la décision. ))

37. La sous-commissionjuridique a présenté son rapport à la Commis-
sion de médiationle 14juin 1975 ;elley ((suggèreque lesparties acceptent
cequi suit...))Dans un paragraphe A,elledonnedes indicationssur lamise FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 571

negotiating machinery with a view to resolving their frontier problems.
Thus, as early as 29 November 1961,they gave institutional shape to the
regular meetings already held during the colonial period between theheads
of the frontier districts,by establishng a "mixed commission composed of
the chefs de circonscription".Subsequently, on 25 February 1964, they
instituted a "joint commission" comprising for each State a government
delegate, ageographer,a topographer and the commandantsof the frontier
cercles,its task being to make proposals by 15June 1964"for the delimi-
tation of the frontier on the basis of the preparatory work of the chefsde
circonscription".This commission was replaced by a "standing joint com-
mission" created on 8 May 1968,which comprised the Ministers of the

Interior together with representatives of various ministries of both coun-
tries. The task entrusted to this latter body was a much broader one :
general CO-operationbetween the twocountries. Finally, in the same year,
a conference of Ministers of the Interior of both Parties created a "mixed
technical commission", comprisingfor each State a government represen-
tative, a topographer, a geographer and the chefsde circonscriptioncon-
cerned. The task of this commission was "to survey and identify the
frontier in accordance with the pre-independence documents held by the
Governments of Mali and Upper Volta". The Parties have produced a
number of records and documents emanating from these bodies.

36. Following an armed conflict between the twocountries whichbroke
out on 14December 1974,appeals were made for conciliation, notably by
the head of State of Somalia, then President of the Organization of African
Unity, and by the President of Senegal.On 26 December 1974,the Presi-
dents of Upper Volta, Mali and Togo met at Loméand decided to set up a
Mediation Commissïon composed of Togo, Niger, Guinea and Senegal.
Oneof thetasks of theCommission asstated in the Lomécommuniquéwas
that of "seeking a solution to the frontier dispute on the basis of existing
legal documents". The Mediation Commission met on 6 and 7 January

1975and set up a Military Sub-Commission and a Legal Sub-Commis-
sion ; the latter's roll: included "drawing up an initial draft proposal for
submission to theCommission,comprising ...an outline solution. .."On
11 April 1975, the head of State of Mali granted an interview to the
France-Presse agency, during which he stated that :

"Mali extends over 1,240,000square kilometres, and we cannot
justifyfighting for ascrap of territory 150kilometres long. Evenif the
Organization of African Unity Commission decides objectively that

the frontier linepasses through Bamako, my Government willcomply
with the decision."

37. The Legal Sub-Commission presented its report to the Mediation
Commission on 14June 1975,suggesting "that the Parties should accept
the following ...". Paragraph A refers to the implementation of the prin- en Œuvre du principe de l'intangibilité des frontières coloniales et sur
l'utilisation des textes et descartescette fin. Dans un paragraphe B, la
sous-commission présente des propositions concrètes pour le tracé de la

frontière.Les 17et 18juin 1975,laCommission de médiations'estréunie à
Lomé.Avecla participation desprésidentsdela Haute-Voltaetdu Mali, la
Commission a adoptéun communiqué final aux termes duquel
la Haute-Volta et le Mali s'engagent à mettre un terme à leur
différend sur la base des recommandations de la Commission de
médiation.

Les deux parties acceptent la constitution par le président de la
Commission de médiation d'un comité technique neutre ..qui aura
pour mission de déterminer la position des villages de Dionouga,
Diolouna, Oukoulou et Koubo ;de reconnaître lafrontièreet de faire
des propositions de matérialisation àla Commission.

Le 10juillet 1975, les chefs d'Etat des deux Parties se sont réunis de

nouveau àConakry, à l'invitation du président de la Républiquede Gui-
née.Dans une déclaration commune rendue publique à cette occasion, les
Parties:
Saluent les efforts déployéset les résultats obtenus par la Com-
mission de médiation de l'organisation de l'unité africaine, et affir-

ment leur volontécommune de tout mettre en Œuvre pour dépasser
lesdits résultatsnotamment enfacilitant ladélimitationdelafrontière
séparantles deux Etats afin de sceller définitivement leur réconcilia-
tion )).
Lecomitétechniqueneutre dont ilavait étéquestionlors de la réuniondes
17et 18juin 1975abien été constituépar leprésidentde laCommission de
médiation mais n'a pas pu s'acquitter de sa mission. Il avait en effet été

proposé, pour que ledit comité puisse mener à bien cette mission, de
procéder à un relevésystématique de la zone frontalière sur la base de
photographies aériennes, travailqui devait êtreeffectuépar l'Institut géo-
graphique national français. Le Mali a refusé d'accorderles autorisations
nécessairesau survol desonterritoire et, endépitd'autres contactsentre les
Parties, les choses en sont restées làjusqu'à la conclusion du compromis
par lequel la Cour a étésaisie de l'affaire.
38. Les deux Parties reconnaissent d'une part que la Commission de
médiation de l'organisation de l'unitéafricaine n'était pas un organe
juridictionnel et ne disposait pas du pouvoir de prendre des décisions
juridiquement obligatoires et d'autre part qu'elle n'a jamais réellement
terminésestravaux, n'ayant pas prisjuridiquement actedes rapports de ses
sous-commissions et n'ayant elle-même soumis,dans le cadre de sa fonc-
tion de médiation, aucune solution définitiveet globale à l'appréciation

des Parties. Cependant le Burkina Faso développe uneargumentation à
deux volets visant à établirun acquiescement de la Partie malienne aux
solutions esquisséesdans ce contexte. Sur la base des faits énoncés ci- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 572

ciple of the intangibility of colonial frontiers, and to the use for that
purpose of texts and maps. In paragraph B,the Sub-Commissionpresents
specific proposals for the frontier line. On 17 and 18 June 1975, the
Mediation Commission met at Lomé. Withthe participation of the Presi-
dents of Upper Volta and Mali, the Commission adopted a final commu-

niquéstating that :
"Upper Volta and Mali undertake to bring their dispute toan end on
the basis of the recommendations of the Mediation Commission.

The two Parties agree to the establishment by the Chairman of the
Mediation Commission of a neutral technical committee ... the task
of this committee being to determine the location of the villages of

Dionouga, Diolouna, Oukoulou and Koubo, to reconnoitre the fron-
tier and to make proposals for its materialization to the Commis-
sion."
On 10July 1975,theheads of Stateof both Parties met again at Conakry, at
the invitation of the President of the Republic of Guinea. In a joint
declaration published on this occasion, the Parties

"welcome theefforts madeand the results achieved by the Mediation
Commission of the Organization of Afncan Unity, and affirm their
common intention to do their utmost to transcend [dépasser]these
results, especially by facilitating the delimitation of the frontier
between the two States in order to place the final seal on their
reconciliation".

The neutral technical comrnittee whch had been spoken of at the meeting
of 17and 18June 1975wasin fact setup by the chairman of the Mediation
Commission, but wasunable to fulfilitsfunction. To enable the cornmittee
to accomplish it, the proposa1 had been made that a systematic survey
should be made of the frontier zone on the basis of aerial photographs, a
task to be performed by the French Institut géographique national. Mali
refused to grant the necessary authorizations for overflightsof its territory,
and despite further contacts between the Parties, this was how matters
remained until the conclusion of the SpecialAgreement by which the case
was brought before the Court.

38. The two Parties agree, in the first place, that the Mediation Com-
rilission of the Organization of African Unity was not a jurisdictional
body, and lacked the powerto take legallybinding decisions ;in the second
place,that theComnussion neveractuallycompletedits work, sinceit took
rio steps formally to take note of the reports of its subcornmissions, and
submitted no definitive overall solution forconsideration by the Parties in
the context of its mediatingfunctions. However, Burkina Faso argues that
there wasacquiescence by Mali in the solutionsoutlined in thiscontext, on
two distinct grounds. On the basis of the facts descnbed above it argues,
firstly, that the final communiqué of the Lomé summit conference ofdessus,ilsoutienten premier lieuquelecommuniquéfinalde laconférence
au sommet de Lomédu 27 décembre 1974, créant la Commission de
médiation,doit êtreconsidérécomme un véritable accordinternational
liant lesEtats parties. Deplus, tout enreconnaissant que laCommission de
médiationn'étaitpas habilitée àrendre des décisions obligatoires,le Bur-
kina Faso allègueque lerapport de la sous-commissionjuridique, entériné
par le sommet des chefs d'Etat ou degouvernement tenu à Loméles 17et
18juin 1975,est devenu obligatoire pour le Mali parce que celui-ci s'est
déclaré par avance liépar lerapport qu'aurait pu rédiger laCommissionde

médiation, en vertu de la déclaration faite par le président du Mali le
11avril 1975. Le communiqué final de Lomédatédu 18juin 1975,qui
selon le Burkina Faso émanaitde la Commission de médiationélargie et
constituait lui aussi un accord international que les Parties sont tenues de
respecter, est venu renforcer les obligations du Mali à cet égard.Le Mali
conteste cette interprétation de la déclaration présidentielledu 11 avril
1975en faisant remarquer d'une part qu'il aurait fallu que la Commission
puisse prendre des décisions,ce qui n'étaitjuridiquement pas le cas, et
d'autre part que la réflexiondu chef de l'Etat malien n'étaitqu'<< une

boutade du type de cellesque l'on lance dans une conférencede presse O,
qui n'exprimait <(rien de plus que lesouci du Mali d'envisager avecbonne
volonté etbonne foi les recommandations de la Commission O.Le Mali
conteste égalementl'interprétation du communiquéfinal du 18juin 1975
avancéepar leBurkina Faso. Pour lui,laCommission de médiationn'afait
à proprement parler aucune recommandation et les chefs d'Etat n'ont pas
acceptéune ligne prédéterminée ; au contraire, en chargeant un comité
technique neutre de déterminerla position de certains villages,de recon-
naître la frontière et de faire des propositions de matérialisation à la

Commission, ilsont enjoint à cecomitéde faire de nouvellespropositions,
ce qui semble bien signifier, de l'avis du Mali, que celles des sous-com-
missions n'étaientpas définitives.
39. La déclaration faitepar le chef de 1'Etatmalien le 11avril 1975ne
s'inscrivait pas dans le cadre de négociationsou de pourparlers entre les
deux Parties ; tout au plus revêtait-ellela forme d'un acte unilatéraléma-
nantdu Mali. De tellesdéclarations <(concernant dessituations de droit ou
de fait peuvent certes avoir pour effet de créerdes obligationsjuridi-
ques ))à la charge de 1'Etatau nom duquel elles ont étéfaites, comme la
Cour l'a notédans les affaires des Essais nucléaires (C.I.J.Recueil 1974,

p. 267,472). Mais laCour,dans cesaffaires, a aussi précisé que cen'estque
<(quand 1'Etatauteurde ladéclaration entendêtreliéconformément àses
termes que cette intention confère à sa prise de position le caractère
d'un engagement juridique (ibid.)Tout dépenddonc de l'intention de
1'Etatconsidéré,et la Cour a à cet égardsoulignéque c'est à elle qu'il
appartient de se faire sa propre opinion sur le sens et la portée que
l'auteur a entendu donner à une déclaration unilatéraled'où peut naître
une obligation juridique ))(ibid.,p. 269, 474). En l'affaire des Activités
militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua

c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), la Cour a examiné une communication trans-27 December 1974, setting up the Mediation Commission, has to be
treated as a genuine international agreement binding upon the States
parties. Further, whileadmitting that the Mediation Commission was not
empowered to render binding decisions, Burkina Faso alleges that the

report of the Legal Sub-Commission, endorsed by the summit meeting of
Heads of State or Government held at Loméon 17 and 18 June 1975,
became binding for Mali because Mali had proclaimed itself already
bound by the report whch might have been made by the Mediation
Commission, by virtue of thedeclaration madeby the President of Malion
11April 1975.The effect of the Lomé finalcommuniquéof 18June 1975,
which according to Burkina Faso emanated from the enlarged Mediation
Commission and is also an international agreement which the Parties are
bound to observe, was to reinforce Mali's obligations in the matter. Mali
challenges this interpretation of the statement of its President of 11April
1975 ;it observes, in the first place, that the Commission would have to
have had a power of decision, which was not legally the case, and in the
second place, that the comment by Mali's head of State was merely "a
witticismof thekind regularly uttered at pressconferences", whichimplied
"no more than that Mali is anxious to consider the Commission's recom-
mendations with goodwilland in good faith". Malialsochallenges Burkina

Faso's interpretation of the final communique of 18June 1975.In Mali's
view, the Mediation Commission did not, strictly speaking, make any
recommendation, and the heads of State did not accept anypredeterrnined
line ;on the contrary, in entrusting a neutral technical committee with the
task of determining the position of certain villages, reconnoitring the
frontier, and making proposals to the Commission for its materialization,
they instructed that committee to produce new proposals, and this, in
Mali'sopinion, surely indicates that the proposals of the subcommissions
were not final ones.

39. The statement of Mali's Head of State on 11 April 1975was not
made during negotiations or talksbetween the two Parties ;at most,ittook
the form of a unilateral act by the Government of Mali. Such declarations
"concerning legal or factual situations" may indeed "have the effect of
creating legalobligations" for the Stateon whose behalf they are made, as

the Court observed in the Nuclear Tests cases(I.C.J. Reports 1974,pp. 267,
472).But the Court alsomade clear in those cases that it isonly "when it is
the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become
bound according to its terms" that "that intention confers on the decla-
ration the character of a legal undertaking" (ibid.)Thus it al1depends on
the intention of the State in question, and the Court emphasized that it is
for the Court to "form its own viewof the meaning and scopeintended by
the author of a unilateral declaration which may create a legal obligation"
(ibid.,pp. 269, 474). In the case concerning Military and Paramilitay
Activities inand agairistNicaragua (Nicaragua v. UnitedStates ofAmerica),
the Court examined a communication transmitted by the Junta of
National Reconstruction of Nicaragua to the Organization of Americanmise par lajunte de reconstruction nationale du Nicaragua à l'organisa-
tion des Etats américains,dans laquelle la junte énuméraitses objectifs,
mais la Cour n'a rien pu trouver dans cette communication << qui per-
mette de conclure à l'intention de faire naître un engagement juridique ))
(C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 132,par. 261). La Chambre estime devoir faire

preuve d'une plus grande prudence encore face à une déclaration unila-
téraleprivéede tout destinataire précis.
40. Pour apprécierlesintentions de l'auteur d'un acte unilatéral,il faut
tenir comptede toutes les circonstances de fait dans lesquellescet acte est
intervenu. Ainsi, dans lesaffaires desEssais nucléaires , Cour aconsidéré
que,puisque les Etats demandeurs n'étaientpas lesseuls à s'intéresseà la
poursuite éventuellepar leGouvernement français de sesessaisatmosphé-
riques, ce gouvernement avait, par ses déclarations unilatérales, <signi-
fié...à tous les Etats du monde, y compris le demandeur, son intention
de mettre effectivement fin à ces essais ))(C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 269,
par. 51 ; p. 474, par. 53). Dans le contexte particulier de ces affaires, le
Gouvernement français ne pouvait exprimer lavolontéde s'engager qu'au
travers de déclarationsunilatérales. En effeton voit mal comment il aurait

pu accepter les termes d'une solution transactionnelle avec chacun des
demandeurs sanscompromettre enmêmetempslaposition qu'ildéfendait
quant àla licéitéde sa conduite. Le cadre dans lequel s'inscrit laprésente
affaire est radicalement différent. Rien ne s'opposait en l'espèce àce que
les Parties manifestent leur intention de reconnaître le caractère obliga-
toire desconclusions de la Commission de médiationdel'organisation de
l'unité africainepar la voie normale :celle d'un accord formelfondésur
une condition de réciprocitéA . ucun accord de ce genre n'ayant été conclu
entre les Parties, la Chambre estime qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'interpréter la
déclaration faitepar lechef de1'Etatmalien le 11avril 1975comme un acte
unilatéral comportant des effets juridiques au regard du présent diffé-
rend.

41. Le deuxième volet de l'argumentation développée par le Burkina
Faso à l'effet d'établirun acquiescement malien a trait aux principes de
délimitation retenus par la sous-commissionjuridique de la Commission
de médiationde l'organisation de l'unitéafricaine. Dans son rapport, la
sous-commission n'a pas seulement fait étatdu principe de l'intangibilité
desfrontièrescoloniales mais a aussi défini,aux fins de son application, la
façon dont il convient de peser la valeur respective des moyens de preuve
produits - en l'espèce,des textes d'unepart et descartes de l'autre- et de
les confronter ou de les concilier en cas de besoin. Le Burkina Faso
considèreque la sous-commission a adoptédans ce domaine lesprincipes
mêmes dont ilpréconisel'application à ladélimitationde toute safrontière
avecle Mali. Il prétendaussi que le Mali a acceptéque cesprincipes soient
pris en considération aux fins de la délimitationde la plus grande partie

de la frontièrecommune. 11conclut que celui-ciserait dèslorsmal fondé à
en refuser l'application à la détermination de la frontière dans la zone
contestée,en vertu du principe qu'un Etat ne peut récuserdans un cas
déterminéles règleset principes auxquels il a acquiescédans des circons- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 574

States, in which the Junta listed its objective;but the Court wasunable to
find anything in that communication "from whch it can be inferred that
any legal undertaking was intended to exist" (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 132,
para. 261).The Chamber considers that it has a duty to show even greater

caution when it is aquestion of aunilateral declaration not directed to any
particular recipient.

40. In order to assess the intentions of the author of a unilateral act,
account must be taken of al1the factual circumstances in which the act
occurred. For example, in the NuclearTestscases, the Court took the view
that since the applicant States were not the only ones concerned at the
possible continuance of atmospheric testing by the French Government,
that Government's unilateral declarations had "conveyed to the world at
large, including the Applicant, its intention effectively to terminate these
tests" (I.C.J. Reports1974,p. 269, para. 51 ;p. 474, para. 53). In the par-
ticular circumstances of those cases, the French Government could not
expressan intention tobe bound othenvise than by unilateraldeclarations.
It is difficult to see how it could have accepted the terms of a negotiated
solution with each of the applicants without thereby jeopardizing its con-
tention that its conduct was lawful. The circumstances of the present case

are radically different. Here, there was nothing to hinder the Parties from
manifesting an intention toaccept the binding character of the conclusions
of the Organization of African Unity Mediation Commission by the nor-
mal method : a fornial agreement on the basis of reciprocity. Since no
agreement of this kirid was concluded between the Parties, the Chamber
finds that there are no grounds to interpret thedeclaration made by Mali's
head of State on 11April 1975as aunilateral act with legalimplications in
regard to the present case.

41. The second argument advanced by Burkina Faso to establish
acquiescence by Mali concerns the principles of delimitation approved by
the Legal Sub-Comniission of the Organization of African Unity Media-
tion Commission. In its report, the Sub-Commission did not refer solelyto
the principle of the intangibility of colonial frontiers ;it also defined, for
the purpose of applying it, the appropriate method of appraising the

respective weight of the evidence produced - specifically, the texts on the
one hand and the maps on the other -, and of contrasting or reconciling
these where necessary. Burkina Fasoconsiders that the principles adopted
by the Sub-Commission in this matter were the same as those which it
contends should be applied to the delimitation of the whole of its frontier
with Mali. It also claims that Mali agreed to these principles being taken
into consideration for the purpose of delimiting the greater part of the
common frontier. It concludes therefore that Mali may not reject their
application to the determination of the frontier in the disputed area, in
viewof the principle that a Statecannot disclaim in a particular instance
rules and principles to which it has acquiesced in comparable circum-tances comparables, lorsque la mise en Œuvrede ceux-cilui devient défa-
vorable. Ce dernierprincipe doitêtrecombiné,selon leBurkina Faso. avec
celui de l'unitédu tracé frontalier. La délimitation de la frontière dans
la zone litigieuse devrait ainsi, pour cette Partie, êtreenvisagéedans un
contexte global ; seules des raisons déterminantes pourraient à ses yeux
justifier que les principes de délimitation etles moyens de preuve recon-
nus par les Parties comme pertinents aux fins du tracéde leur frontière
communesur environ 1000kilomètres cessentde l'êtrepour délimiter les
300 kilomètres restants. Le Mali affirme pour sa part qu'il ne pouvait,

même à titre de compromis, accepter le rapport de la sous-commissionju-
ridique en tant qu'instrument contenant,quant au fond, les germes d'une
solution raisonnable, et il prétend qu'il ne l'a d'ailleurs jamais accepté.
Se référantaux principes imputéspar le Burkina Faso à la sous-commis-
sionjuridique, le Mali rejette la position de la Partie adverse concernant
notamment la valeur des cartes et les comportements d'effectivité.
42. A cet égard,il convient de rappeler que la Chambre, dont l'arrêt
sera considérécommerendupar la Cour (Statut, art. 27), est tenue de
régler le présent différend <(conformément au droit international i)
(art. 38).C'estdonc surla base du droit international que la Chambreaura

à fixerletracéde lafrontièreet,pour cefaire, àpeser lavaleurjuridique des
divers moyens de preuve que les Parties ont soumis à son appréciation.Il
importe donc peu que le Mali ait ou non adoptéune attitude particulière,
soit au cours de négociationssur des questions de frontière,soit à l'égard
des conclusions de la sous-commission juridique de la Commission de
médiationde l'organisation de l'unité africaine, etquecette attitude puisse
ou non s'interprétercomme traduisant une prise de position déterminée,
voireun acquiescement, quant aux principes et règles - ycompris ceuxqui
définissent la valeur des divers moyens de preuve - applicables à la
solution du différend.Si ces principes et règlessont applicables en tant

qu'élémentsde droit dans la présenteaffaire, ils le sont quelle qu'ait été
l'attitude du Mali ;dans le cas contraire, la Chambre ne pourrait en tenir
compte que silesdeux Parties lelui avaientdemandé, ou avaient réservé à
ces règleset principes une place spécialedans le compromis, à titre de
((règles expressémentreconnues par les Etats en litige (Statut, art. 38,
par. 1 a)) :

(([L]a Cour est tenue ..de s'inspirer de toutes les sources de droit
visées à l'article 38, paragraphe 1,de son Statut, dont l'alinéaa) lui
prescrit d'appliquer les dispositions du compromis. r)(C.I.J.Recueil
1982, p. 37, par. 23.)

43. Sil'argument, fondésur l'idéed'un acquiescement, qui vient d'être
exposépar la Chambre, a ététraitépar elle àun stade initial de son arrêt,
c'estdu fait qu'ilrevêt lecaractèred'une question préalable. En effet si la FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 575

stances, when their operation becomes disadvantageous to itself. This

latter principle,according to Burkina Faso,must be combined with that of
the unity of the frontier line. It thus argues that the delimitation of the
frontier in the disputed area has to be approached as a whole ;it takes the
viewtha tunlessthere are compellingreasons to thecontrary, theprinciples
of delimitation and the evidence already recognized by the Parties as
relevant for the purpose of drawing their common frontier over approxi-
mately 1,000kilometres, do not cease to be relevant in delimiting the re-
maining 300 kilometres. Mali however states that it could not accept the
report of the Legal Sub-Commission, on its merits, as an instrument
potentially offering a reasonable solution, even on a compromise basis,
and claims that it never did accept it. Referring to the principles imputed
by Burkina Faso to the Sub-Commission, Mali rejects the position of the
other Party particularly on the questions of the importance of the maps
and conduct evincing effectivity.
42. It must be recalled in this connection that the Chamber, whose
judgment "shall beconsidered asrendered by theCourt" (Statute, Art. 27),
is bound to settle the present dispute "in accordance with international
law" (Art. 38).Accordingly, it is on the basis of international law that the
Chamber will have to fix the frontier line, weighing for that purpose the
legal force of the respective evidence submitted by the Parties for its
appraisal. It is therefore of little significance whether Mali adopted a
particular approach, either in the course of negotiations on frontier ques-
tions, or with respect to the conclusions of the Legal Sub-Commission of

the Organization of African Unity Mediation Commission, and whether
that approach may or may not beconstrued to reflect a specificposition, or
indeed to signifyacquiescence, towards the principles and rules, including
those which determine the respective weight of the various kinds of evi-
dence applicable to the dispute. If theseprinciples and rules are applicable
as elements of law in the present case, they remain so whatever Mali's
attitude. If the reverse is true, the Chamber could only take account of
them if the two Parties had requested it to do so, or had given such
principles and rules a special place in the Special Agreement, as "rules
expressly recognized by the contesting States" (Art. 38,para. 1(a), of the
Statute).

"While the Court is ...bound to haveregard to al1the legalsources
specified in Article 38,paragraph 1,of the Statute. . it isalso bound,
in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), of that Article, to apply the
provisions of the Special Agreement." (I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 37,
para. 23.)

43. The reason why the argument from the notion of acquiescence, as
set out above, has been dealt with by the Chamber at an initial stage of
its Judgment is that it is in the nature of a preliminary question. If theChambre avait retenu la thèse selon laquelle le rapport de la sous-com-
mission juridique de la Commission de médiation était devenu obliga-
toire, elle n'aurait eu qu'à l'entériner.Les Parties ont cependant toutes
deux, dans d'autres contextes encore, eu recours à des arguments fondés
sur l'acquiescement, l'estoppelou le comportement des Parties. Le Mali a
fait étatde <(l'incohérencede l'attitude de la Haute-Volta, puis du Bur-
kina Faso ))vis-à-visd'une disposition réglementaire (l'arrêté 2728AP du
27 novembre 1935)sur laquelle, comme on leverra par la suite, ilfonde ses

prétentionsdans la partie occidentale de la zone contestée.Pour sa part le
Burkina Faso prétend, à propos d'unprojet de définitiond'unelimite entre
lescolonies du Soudan françaiset du Niger en 1935,qui auraitétéaccepté
par le gouverneur du Soudan comme constituant une description de la
limite existante, que <(ce que le Soudan français a accepté s'impose ...à la
Partie malienne au titre de la succession d'Etats )).La Chambre estime
devoir réserver cesquestions pour les aborder, le cas échéant,lorsqu'elle
procédera à l'examen des textes considérés.

44. Avant desepencher sur lesdiversmoyens depreuve invoquéspar les
Parties à l'appui du tracéde la frontièrequ'ellesrevendiquent, la Chambre
doit réglerune autre question préalable, celle de savoir de quels pouvoirs
elle dispose au regard de la fixation du point triple qui constitue le point
terminal de la frontière entre les Parties. Dans son mémoire, leMali fait
observer que ladétermination du point triple Niger/Mali/Burkina Faso ne
peut êtreopéréepar lesdeux Parties sans l'accord du Niger et ne peut pa:

non plus êtreeffectuéepar la Chambre, qui ne saurait affecter les droits
d'un Etat tiers non présent à l'instance. L'extrémité orientale de la fron-
tière dans la zone contestée doit êtredéterminée, auxtermes du même
mémoire,de manière telle qu'il ne soitpas portéatteinte à ces droits ;il ne
pourrait en êtreainsi, de l'avis du Gouvernement malien, que si la déli-
mitation s'arrête en unpoint donnéneconstituant pas lepoint terminal. Le
Burkina Faso, en revanche, considère que la Chambre doit s'acquitter
pleinement de lamission qui lui estconfiéepar lecompromiset qu'elledoit
à cet effet seprononcer surla situation du point triple. En remplissant ainsi
samission, la Chambreneporterait nullement atteinte, selonlui,aux droits

du Niger puisque sa décisionaurait pour seul objet de déterminerle tracé
de la frontière entre les Parties. Pour le Burkina Faso, s'il se trouve que
le point de rencontre entre cette frontière et celle du Niger constitue un
point triple, sa détermination ne sera que la conséquencede l'arrêtde la
Chambre, non sonobjet. Le Mali repousse l'argument selonlequel lecom-
promis obligerait la Chambre à déterminer le point triple et fait remar-
quer que le compromis vise une (zone contestée ))constituée par une
bande de territoire qui s'étenddu secteur Koro (Mali) Djibo (Haute-
Volta) jusques et y compris la régiondu Béli ))Rien n'est dit dans ce

texte, soutient le Mali, sur le point exact où la Chambredoit commencer
ou arrêter sontracé. LaChambre ne pourrait déterminer le point triple FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 576

Chamber had upheld the contention that the report of the Legal Sub-
Commission of the Mediation Commission had become binding, it would
onlyhave had to endorse it. Both theParties havehoweverresorted in other
connections to arguments bearing upon acquiescence, estoppel or the
conduct of the Parties. Mali has referred to "the inconsistency shown by
Upper Volta and thereafter by Burkina Faso" towards aregulation (Order
2728APof 27November 1935)on which,aswillbe seenlater, Mali rests its
claims in regard to the western part of the disputed area. For its part,
Burkina Faso argues in connection with a projected definition of the
boundarv between thecolonies of French Sudan and Niger in 1935.said to
have bein accepted by the Governor of Sudan as a description of the
existing boundary, that "what was accepted by French Sudan is therefore
binding upon Mali by virtue of State succession". However, the Chamber
considers that these questions should be reserved and examined, if
necessary, when the Chamber turns to its examination of the texts in
question.

44. Before turning to the various kinds of evidence invoked by the
Parties to support their claims in regard to the line of the frontier, the
Chamber must dispose of a further prelirninary question, namely : what
are itspowers in the matter offixingthe tripoint whichformsthe end-point
of thefrontier between the Parties. In its Memorial, Mali observes that the
tripoint NigerIMalilBurkina Fasocannot bedeterrninedby the twoParties
without Niger's agreement, nor can it be determined by the Chamber,
which may not affect the rights of a third State not a party to the pro-
ceedings. According to Mali, the eastern extremity of the frontier in the
disputed area must be determined in such a way as not to infringe these
rights, and thiscould onlybe done ifthedelimitation wereto terminate at a
given point which is not the end-point. Burkina Faso, on the other hand,
considers that the Cliamber must perform the whole of the task entrusted
to it by the Special Agreement, and must for that purpose decide the

position of the tripoint. In its view, if the Chamber discharges its task in
this manner, it would not infringe the rights of Niger,since the soleobject
of itsdecision would be to determine the line of the frontier between the
Parties. Burkina Faso believes that although the meeting-point between
that frontier and the frontier of Niger is a tripoint, the determination of
that point will be a consequence and not the object of the Chamber's
judgment. Mali rejects the argument that the Special Agreement requires
the Chamber todetermine the tripoint, pointing out that the text refers toa
"disputed area" consisting of "a band of territory extending from the
sector Koro (Mali) Iljibo (Upper Volta) up to and including the region of
the Béli".According to Mali, the text is silent asto the actual point where
theChamber's line is to begin or end ;and the Chamber cannot determine
the tripoint without simultaneously decidingthequestion of Niger's rights
in its relation to each of the Parties. Burkina Faso replies by, interalia,sans trancher en même temps laquestion des droits du Niger dans ses rap-
ports avec chacune des Parties. Le Burkina Faso réplique notamment

en attirant l'attention de la Chambre sur le préambule du compromis,
aux termes duquel les Parties recherchent <(la délimitation et ..la démar-
cation définitivesde leur frontière commune 1).Tout en maintenant sa
conclusion formelle qui fait mention du <point triple O, le Burkina Faso
admet cependant qu'il vaudrait peut-être mieux que l'arrêt se réfère à
((l'extrémitéorientale de la frontière commune i)entre les Parties plutôt

qu'au point triple.
45. De l'avis de la Chambre, il faut d'abord rappeler la distinction
existant entre, d'une part, la question de la compétencequi lui est conférée
par le compromis conclu entre les Parties et, d'autre part, la question de
savoir <(si lejugement sollicitépar le demandeur est de ceux que la Cour
peutrendre dans lecadre de safonctionjudiciaire ))question examinéepar

la Cour,notamment en l'affaire du Cameroun septentrional (C.I.J. Recueil
1963, p. 31). Comme elle l'a aussi indiquédans cette affaire, <(même si,
une fois saisie, elle estime avoir compétence, la Cour n'est pas toujours
contrainte d'exercer cette compétence i)(ibid., p. 29). Mais en l'absence
de ((considérations qui [peuvent] l'amener à ne pas statuer )) (C.I.J.

Recueil 1974, p. 271, par, 58),la Cour a le devoir d'exercer les fonctions
que lui confère son Statut. Par ailleurs la Cour a encore confirmé récem-
ment leprincipesuivant lequelelle ((nedoit pas excéderlacompétenceque
lui ont reconnue les Parties, mais ...doit exercer toute cette compétence O
(Plateau continental(Jamahiriya arabe libyenne/Malte), C.I.J. Recueil1985,
p. 23). En la présente espèce,la Chambre considère qu'il ressort claire-

ment des termes du compromis - préambule compris - que I'inten-
tion commune des Parties était d'obtenir de la Chambre l'indication du
tracéde la frontière entre leurs territoires respectifs dans toute la ((zone
contestée ))et que cette zone représentait pour elles la totalitéde la fron-
tière non encore délimitéed~ - -ommun accord.

46. La Chambre estime en outre qu'une tellecompétencene se trouve
pas limitéedu seul fait que le point terminal de la frontière se situe sur la
frontièred'un Etat tiers non partie à l'instance. En effetlesdroitsde 1'Etat
voisin, le Niger, sont sauvegardés entout étatde cause par lejeu de l'ar-
ticle 59du Statut de la Cour, lequel dispose que : La décisionde la Cour
n'est obligatoire que pour les parties en litige et dans le cas qui a été

décidé. Les Partiesauraient pu à tout moment conclure un accord por-
tant délimitation de leur frontière selon la conception commune qu'elles
auraient pu avoir de son tracé,et un tel accord, tout en les liantjuridique-
ment en vertu du principepacta sunt servanda, ne serait pas opposable au
Niger. Une décisionjudiciaire, qui <n'est qu'un succédanéau règlement
direct et amiable i)d'un différendentre les parties (C.P.J.I. sérieA no 22,

p. 13), ne fait que substituer à la solution résultant directement de leur
volonté commune la solution dégagéepar le juge en vertu du mandat
qu'elles luiont confié.Dans lesdeuxcas, la solution n'ade valeurjuridique
et obligatoirequ'entre les Etats qui l'ont acceptée,soitdirectement,soit du
fait de l'acceptation de la compétence du juge pour régler l'affaire.Adrawing the Chamber's attention to the preamble to the Special Agree-

ment, according to which the Parties are seelung "the definitive delimita-
tion and demarcation of their cornrnon frontier". Whle holding to its
forma1submission, whichmentions the "tripoint", Burkina Faso neverthe-
less concedes that it might be preferable for thejudgment to refer to "the
easternextremity of thecommonfrontier" between the Parties, rather than
to the tripoint.

45. In the Chamber's opinion, it should first be recalled that there is a
distinction between the question of thejurisdiction conferred upon it by
the Special Agreement concluded between the Parties, and the question
whether "the adjudication sought by the Applicant is one which the
Court's judicial function permits it to give", a question considered by the
Court in the caseconcerningthe NorthernCameroons,among others (I.C.J.
Reports 1963, p. 31).As it also statedin that case, "even if the Court, when
seised, finds that it hasjurisdiction, the Court is not compelled in every

case to exercise that jurisdiction" (ibid., p. 29). But in the absence of
"considerations which would lead it to decline to givejudgment" (I.C.J.
Reports 1974, p. 271, para. 58), the Court is bound to fulfil the functions
assigned to it by its Statute. Moreover, the Court has recently confirmed
the principle that it "must not exceed thejurisdiction conferred upon it by
the Parties, but it must also exercise that jurisdiction to its full extent"
(ContinentalShey (LibyanArab Jarnahiriyu/Malta), I.C.J. Reports 1985,
p. 23). In the present case, the Chamber finds it to be clear from the
wording of the Special Agreement - including its preamble - that the
common intention of the Parties was that the Chamber shouldindicate the
frontier line between their respective territories throughout the whole of
the "disputed area", and that this area was for them the whole of the
frontier not yet delimited byjoint agreement.
46. The Chamber also considers that its jurisdiction is not restricted
simply because the end-point of the frontier lies on the frontier of a third
State not a party to the proceedings. The rights of the neighbouring State,
Niger, are in any event safeguarded by the operation of Article 59 of the

Statute of theCourt, whichprovides that "The decision of theCourthasno
binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular
case". The Parties could at any time have concluded an agreement for the
delimitation of their frontier,according to whatever perception they might
have had of it, and an agreement of this lund, although legally binding
upon them by virtue of the principle pacta sunt servanda, would not be
opposable to Niger. Ajudicial decision, which "is simply an alternative to
the direct and friendly settlement" of the dispute between the Parties
(P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 22, p. 13), merely substitutes for the solution
stemmingdirectlyfrom their shared intention, the solution arrived at by a
court under the mandate which they have given it. In both instances, the
solutiononlyhas legaland binding effect asbetween the States which have
accepted it, either directly or as a consequence of having accepted the supposer donc que la Chambre, dans son arrêt,identifie un point qui
représente pour elle la limite extrêmevers l'est de la frontière entre les

Parties, rien ne s'opposerait ce que leNiger fassevaloir des droits,à l'en-
contrede l'uneou l'autre des Parties, sur des territoires situés l'ouestdu
point identifié par la Chambre.
47. Certes, en l'affaire du Plateau continental (Jamahiriya arabeli-
byenne/Malte),la Cour a limitésa décision à une zone géographiquedéter-
minée et s'en est expliquée commesuit :

aucune compétencen'a étéconférée à la Cour pour déterminer les
principes et les règles régissant ldélimitationsaveclesEtats tiers, ni
pour décidersi les prétentions des Parties en dehors de la zone en
question l'emportent sur les prétentions des Etats tiers de la région))
(C.I.J. Recueil 1985, p. 26, par. 21).

Mais le processus par lequel le juge détermine le tracé d'unefrontière
terrestre entre deux Etats se distingue nettement de celui par lequel il
identifie les principes et règlesapplicables à la délimitation du plateau
continental. Les considérationsjuridiques dont il faut tenir compte pour
déterminer l'emplacement d'une frontière terrestre entre des parties ne
dépendent aucunement de la situation de la frontière qui séparele terri-
toire de l'une ou l'autre de ces parties de celui d'un Etat tiers, même si,
comme dans la présenteespèce,les droits en cause, pour les trois Etats,
proviennent d'un seulet mêmeEtat prédécesseur.En revanche, en matière
de délimitation du plateau continental, un accord entre les parties, par-
faitement valable et obligatoire pour elles sur le plan conventionnel, peut,
dèsqu'on prend en considération les rapports entre les parties et un Etat
tiers, s'avérercontraire aux règlesdu droit international régissantle pla-
teau continental (voir PlateaucontinentaldelamerduNord, C.I.J. Recueil

1969,p. 20,par. 14 ;p. 27-28,par. 35-36).Il s'ensuit que lejuge saisid'une
demande portant sur la délimitation d'un plateau continental doit se
garder de statuer, mêmesi lesparties en litigeYy autorisent, sur des droits
afférents à des zones où s'expriment des prétentions d'Etats tiers, préten-
tions qui risquent de fausser les considérationsdedroit - et surtout celles
ayant trait aux principes équitables - ayant servi de base à sa décision.
48. Tout au plus convient-il que la Chambre examine si, en l'espèce,des
considérations liées à la sauvegarde des intérêtsde 1'Etattiers concerné
devraient l'amener à s'abstenir d'exercer sacompétence pour identifier le
tracéde la lignejusqu'au bout. A cet égard laChambre ne perd pas de vue
le fait que le Niger et le Burkina Faso sont convenus, par le protocole
d'accord de Niamey du 23juin 1964,de << considérercomme documents de

base pour ladétermination de la frontière entre euxun arrêté généralpris
par le gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentale française le 31 août
1927,un erratum audit arrêté, endate du 5 octobre 1927,et une carte de
1960au 1/200 000 de l'Institut géographiquenational français, qui cons-
tituent précisémentles documents que le Burkina Faso invoque à l'appui
de sa thèseconcernant l'emplacement du point terminal de sa frontière
avec le Mali. Le Burkina Faso, relevant ce fait,en déduit que, sila fixation FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 578

court'sjurisdiction to decide the case.Accordingly, onthe supposition that
the Chamber's judgment specifies a point which it finds to be the east-

ernmost point of the frontier, there would be nothing to prevent Niger
fromclaimingrights, vis-à-viseither of the Parties, to territories lyingwest
of the point identified by the Chamber.
47. AdmittedIy, in the case of the ContinentalSheif(Libyan ArabJama-
hiriya/Malta), the Court confined its decision to a certain geographical
area because, as it explained,
"the Court has iiot been endowed withjurisdiction to determine what

principles and rulesgovern delimitations with third States, or whether
the claims of the Parties outside that area prevail over the claims
of those third States in the region" (I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 26,
para. 21).
But the process by which a court determines the line of a land boundary
between two States can be clearly distinguished from the process by which
it identifies the principles and rules applicable to the delimitation of the
continental shelf. The legal considerations which have to be taken into

account in determining the location of the land boundary between parties
are in no way dependent on the position of the boundary between the
territory of either of those parties and the territory of a third State, even
where, as in the present case, the rights in question for al1three States
derive from one and the same predecessor State. On the other hand, in
continental shelf delimitations, an agreement between the parties which is
perfectly valid and binding on the treaty level may, when the relations
between theparties and a third Stateare taken into consideration, prove to
be contrary to the rulesof international lawgoveming thecontinental shelf
(see North Sea Continental Shelf, 1.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 20, para. 14 ;
pp. 27-28,paras. 35-36).It follows that a court dealing with a request for
the delimitation of a continental shelf must decline, even if so authorized
by the disputant parties, to rule upon rights relating to areas in whch third
States have such claims as may contradict the legal considerations -
especiallyin regard toequitable principles - which would have formed the
basis of its decision.

48. At most, the Chamber should consider whether, in this case, con-
siderations related to the need to safeguard the interests of the third State
concerned require it to refrain from exercisingits jurisdiction to determine
the whole course of the line. In this regard, the Chamber is not unrnindful
of the fact that Niger and Burkina Faso agreed by the Niamey Protocol of
23 June 1964,to "treat as basic documents for the determination of the
frontier" between them ageneral Order issuedby the Govemor-General of
French West Afnca on 31 August 1927,an erratum to that Order dated
5 October 1927and a 1:200,000scale map of the Institut géographique
national from the year 1960, these being the same documents as those
invoked by Burkina Faso in support of its contention regarding the loca-
tion of the end-point of the frontier with Mali. Pointing to this fact,
Burkina Faso infers that if this point were fixed according to the infor- de ce point devait être effectuéed'aprèsles indications fournies par ces

documents, aucune atteinte ne serait portée aux droits du Niger. La
Chambre ne peut partager ce point de vue. En effet du seul fait que les
mêmesdocuments servent de point de départ au raisonnement de la
Chambre et aux négociationsentre le Burkina Faso et le Niger on ne
saurait inférer que la conclusion pratique à laquelle l'une et les autres
aboutiraientquant àl'emplacement du point terminal de la frontièreentre
leBurkina Faso et leMali serait nécessairement lamême.Ilest évidentque
l'interprétation que la Chambre devra donner, aux fins de la présente
affaire, de l'arrêgénérad le 1927et de son erratum ne sera pas opposable
au Niger, qui n'a pas participéà l'instance et n'aen conséquencepas pu
exprimer sesvues.Par ailleurs,le Maliprétend, pour desraisons qui seront

examinéesplus loin, que l'arrêté généd rel1927étaitviciépar une erreur
defait et dèslors inapplicable. Cet argument, dont le bien-fondéest ainsi
soumis au jugement de la Chambre dans la présente espèce, paraît à
première vuenepas avoirété retenu dans lecontexteduprotocole d'accord
de Niamey ;maisc'estlà encoreunequestion quiéchappe à lacompétence
delaChambre, laquellen'apas reçu mandat desparties à ceprotocolepour
l'interpréter.
49. En réalitéc,omme les Parties semblent s'enêtreaperçues vers la fin
delaprocédure,laquestion estmal posée.Ils'agiteneffetpour laChambre
non pas de fixerun point triple, cequi exigeraitleconsentement de tous les

Etats concernés, maisde constater, au vu des moyens de preuve que les
Parties ont mis à sa disposition, jusqu'où s'étend lafrontière héritéede
1'Etatcolonisateur. Certes une telle constatation implique, comme corol-
laire logique,à la fois la présencedu territoire d'un Etat tiers au-delà du
point terminal et l'exclusivitédes droits souverains des Partiesjusqu'à ce
point.Toutefoisce n'estlàqu'unedouble présomption,fondamentaledans
tout litige territorial. Cette présomption demeure en principe irréfragable
dans lecontextejudiciaire d'une affairedéterminée,encesensque ni l'une
ni I'autredesparties en litigene pourrait, aprèsavoirdéclaréposséder une
frontièrecommune avecl'autre jusqu'àun point déterminés ,eraviserpour
exciper de l'existencede la souverainetéd'un Etat tiers ;mais ladite pré-

somption ne constitue pas pour autant une caused'opposabilité,endehors
de cecontexte, à l'encontre de 1'Etattiers. C'estd'ailleurslà tout lesensde
l'article 59du Statut déjàcité.Il est vrai que dans une affairedéterminéeil
peut ressortir du dossierque lesintérêtsjuridiquesd'unEtat tiers(<seraient
non seulement touchéspar une décision, maisconstitueraient l'objet même
deladite décision )>(Or monétairepris a Romeen 1943, C.I.J. Recueil1954,
p. 32), de sorte que la Cour devrait exercer le pouvoir qu'elle possèdede
((refuser d'exercersajuridiction )(C.I.J. Recueil1984, p. 431,par. 88).Tel
n'est cependant pas le cas en l'espèce.
50. La Chambre arrive donc à la conclusion qu'il est de son devoir de
statuer surtout lepetitum quiluiaétéconfié c,'est-à-dired'indiquer letracé

de la frontière entre les Parties sur toute l'étenduede la zone contestée.Ce
faisant elle indiquera l'emplacement du point terminal de la frontière à
l'est, point où cette frontière cesse de séparerles territoires du Burkina FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 579

mation contained in these documents, there would be no infringement of

Niger's rights.The Chamber cannot share this view. From the mere fact
that the same documents are used as the starting-point for the Chamber's
reasoning and for the negotiations between Burkina Faso and Niger, it
cannot be inferred that the practical conclusions reached in both opera-
tions, regarding the location of the end-point of the frontier between
Burkina Faso and Mali, would necessarily be the same. It is clear that the
interpretation given by the Chamber, for the purposes of this case, of the
1927Order and its erratum willnot be opposable to Niger, which has not
participated in the proceedings and consequently has been unable to state
its views. Mali further claims, for reasons to be exarnined later, that the
Order of 1927was invalidated by a factual error and is therefore inap-
plicable. This argument, the correctness or otherwise of which has to be
decided by the Chamber, does not at first sight appear to have been put
forward in the context of the Niamey Protocol ;but this is again a matter
outside thejurisdiction of the Chamber, whichhasnot been called upon by
the parties to that Protocol to interpret it.

49. The fact is, as the Parties seem to have realized towards the end of
theproceedings, that thequestionhas been wronglydefined. The Chamber
isin fact required,not to fixatripoint, whichwould necessitate theconsent
of al1the States concerned, but to ascertain, in the light of the evidence
whichthe Parties havemade available toit, how far the frontier which they
inherited from the colonial power extends. Certainly such a finding
implies, as a logical corollary, both that the territory of a third State lies
beyond the end-point, and that the Parties have exclusivesovereign rights
up to that point. However, this is no more than a twofold presumption
which underlies any boundary situation. This presumption remains in
principle irrebuttable in the judicial context of a given case, in the sense
that neither of the disputant parties, having contended that it possesses a
common frontier with the other as far as a specific point, can change its
position to relyon the allegedexistenceof sovereigntypertaining to a third

State ; but ths presumption does not thereby create a ground of opposa-
bility outside that context and against the third State. Indeed, this is the
wholepoint of the above-quoted Article 59of the Statute. It istruethat in a
givencase it may be clear from the record that the legalinterests of a third
State "would not only be affected by a decision, but would form the very
subject-matter of the decision" (Monetaty Gold Removedfrom Rome in
1943, 1.C.J. Reports 1954,p. 32)so that the Court has to use its power "to
refuse to exercise itsjurisdiction" (1.CC.. Reports 1984, p. 43 1,para. 88).
However, this is not the case here.
50. The Chamber therefore concludes that it has a duty to decide the
whole of the petiturn entrusted to it ; that is, to indicate the line of the
frontier between the Parties over the entire length of the disputed area. In
so doing, it will define the location of the end-point of the frontier in the
east,the point where this frontier ceasesto divide the territories of BurkinaFaso et du Mali ;mais, ainsi qu'ila été précisé ci-dessusl,a Chambre n'en
décidera pas pour autant que ce point est un point triple intéressant le
Niger. Conformément à I'article59précitél,eprésent arrên te serapas non
plus opposable au Niger en ce qui concerne le tracéde ses propres fron-
tières.

51. Parmi les élémentsde preuve citéspar les Parties en la préscnte

affaire, le document fondamental est la loi française 47-1707 du 4 sep-
tembre 1947<< tendant au rétablissementdu territoire de la Haute-Volta )>.
La décisionde supprimer la colonie de la Haute-Volta avait été prise sous
forme de décret.S'ila fallu une loi pour revenir sur cette décision,c'est
qu'en vertude l'article 86de laConstitution de la République françaisede
1946seul le Parlement français pouvait désormaisdéterminer l'étendue et
enconséquenceleslimites d'un territoire d'outre-mer. Comme il a déjàété
indiqué, laloi de 1947disposait (art. 2) que les limites du territoire rétabli
de la Haute-Volta seraient << cellesde l'ancienne coloniede la Haute-Volta

à la date du 5 septembre 1932 ;I'article 3 prévoyait enoutre que << des
modifications pourr[aient] êtreultérieurementapportéesaux limites ter-
ritoriales fixées à I'article 2, aprés consultation des assemblées locales
intéressées )).Pour cequi est de la zone contestée,aucunemodification n'a
étéeffectuée en vertude cette disposition, de sorte que les limites de la
Haute-Volta dans cette zone étaient toujours,au moment de son accession
à l'indépendanceen 1960,celles qui existaient à la date du 5 septembre
1932.On ne trouvecependant nidans lestexteslégislatifset réglementaires
ni dans les documents administratifs pertinents de description complète
du tracéde lalimite entreleSoudan françaiset la Haute-Volta pendant les

deux périodes oùcescoloniesont coexisté,c'est-à-direentre 1919et 1932et
entre 1947et 1960.Lesprincipaux textes de cette nature que lesParties ont
produitsdevant la Chambresont d'une portéelimitéeetla valeurjuridique
ou l'interprétation de la p-up-rt d'entre eux font l'objet de controverses
entre les Parties.
52. Outre la loi susviséedu 4 septembre 1947,les documents essentiels
sont les suivants (par ordre chronologique) :

- ledécret du le7mars 1919, déjà mentionné,ayant créé la colonie de la
Haute-Volta ;
- un arrêtépris par le gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentale
française le 31 décembre 1922, <portant réorganisation de la régionde
Tombouctou (Soudan français). Cet arrêté disposait :

<<Le cerclede Gao ...est délimité ...A I'ouest,par une lignepartant
de Saleah sur leNiger ..et passant par En Amaka, Tinamassarori, les
mares de Oussodia Mersi, Inabao et, à partir de ce point, la limite
septentrionale de la Haute-Volta. )) FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 580

Fasoand Mali ; but, as explained above, this willnot amount to a decision

by the Chamber that this is a tripoint which affects Niger. In accordance
with Article 59 of the Statute, tlus Judgment will alsonot be opposable to
Niger as regards the course of that country's frontiers.

51. Among the evidence cited by the Parties in the present case, the
basic document is the French law 47-1707of 4 September 1947"for the
re-establishment of the territory of Upper Volta". The decision to abolish
the colony of Upper Volta had been made in the form of a decree. The
reason whyalawwasnecessary to reversethat decision wasbecause, under
Article 86 of the Constitution of the French Republic of 1946,only the
French Parliament could then determine the extent, and accordingly the
boundaries, of a territoire d'outre-mer.As noted above, the 1947law pro-
vided (Art. 2) that the boundaries of the territory were to be "those of the

former colony of Upper Volta on 5 September 1932" ; Article 3 also
provided that "the territorial boundaries defined in Article 2 may be
modified following consultation with the local assemblies concerned". As
far as the disputed area is concerned, no modifications were made under
this provision, so that the boundaries of Upper Volta in that area at the
time of its accession to independence in 1960remained those which had
existed on 5 September 1932.However, neither the legislative and regu-
lative texts, nor the relevant administrative documents, contain any com-
pletedescription of the course of the boundary between French Sudan and
Upper Volta during the two periods when these colonies CO-existed,Le.,
between 1919and 1932,and between 1947and 1960.The principal texts of
this kind which the Parties have produced to the Chamber are limited in
scope, and the legal significance or the interpretation of most of these are
matters of dispute between the Parties.

52. Apart from the above-mentioned lawof4September 1947,the most
important documents in question are the following (in chronological
order) :
- the decree of 1 March 1919, already mentioned, which created the
colony of Upper Volta ;
- an Order issued by the Governor-General of French West Africa on
31 December 1922 "for the reorganization of the region of Timbuktu"

(French Sudan). This Order provided that
"The cercle of Gao ... is delimited ... To the West by a line
beginning at Saleah on the Niger. .. and passing through En Amaka,
Tinarnassarori, the pools of Oussodia Mersi and In Abao, and, from
that point, the northern boundary of Upper Volta."Les Parties sont d'accord pour conclure de ce texte que la limite existant
entre le Soudan et la Haute-Volta en 1932passait par la mare d'In Abao
mais ellessont en désaccordsur la question de savoir si la ligne divisait la
mare ou y étaitseulement tangente ;
- un arrêté générap l ris par le gouverneur générap lar intérimde 1'Afri-
que occidentale française le 31 août 1927, <<fixant les limites des colonies
de la Haute-Volta et du Niger )>modifiépar un erratum du 5 octobre
1927, publié au Journal offici el l'Afrique occidentale française du

15octobre 1927.Certes,cet arrêté concernait, ainsiqueson texteleprécise,
la frontière entre la Haute-Volta et le Niger, et non la frontière entre la
Haute-Volta et le Soudan français. Mais les deux Parties reconnaissent
que, sauf à établirs'ilétaitviciépar l'erreur,comme le soutient le Mali, ce
texte est pertinent aux fins de la présente affaireétant donné quele point
de départ dela ligne frontière entre la Haute-Volta et leNiger constituait
en même temps lepoint terminal de la frontièreentre la Haute-Volta et le
Soudanfrançaiset celuide lafrontièreentre leSoudan français et leNiger,
c'est-à-dire le point triple susindiqué ;

- ledécretdu5 septembre 1932,déjàmentionné,portant suppression de
la colonie de la Haute-Volta ;
- un échangede lettresintervenuen 1935entre legouverneur générad le
l'Afrique occidentale française et les lieutenants-gouverneursdu Soudan
français et du Niger (lettre 191 CM2 du 19 février 1935 du gouverneur
général aux lieutenants-gouverneurs ; réponsedu lieutenant-gouverneur
du Soudan du 3 juin 1935). On notera en passant que la lettre 191CM2
est le seul texte disponible qui mentionne un point défini en termes de
coordonnées de latitude et de longitude :le point 1" 24' 15" ouest et
14"43' 45"nord. Pour faciliter lacompréhensiondes développementsqui

suivent ce point sera dorénavant dénommé<< point P ));
- un arrêté (2728 AP) <portant délimitation descercles de Bafoulabé,
Bamako et Mopti (Soudan français) ))pris le 27 novembre 1935 par le
gouverneur généralpar intérimde l'Afrique occidentale française. On se
rappellera qu'à cette date la Haute-Volta n'existait plus,les territoiresqui
l'avaient antérieurement constituéeayant été partagésentre le Soudan
français, le Niger et la Côte d'Ivoire. Le cercle de Mopti, circonscription
alors soudanaise et aujourd'hui malienne, était limitrophe du cercle de
Ouahigouya, circonscription égalementsoudanaise à l'époque, maisen-

suite redevenue voltaïque (à partir de 1947)et aujourd'hui burkinabée.La
limite entre ces deux cercles était destinéeà constituer à nouveau, dans sa
plus grande partie, la limite entre les territoires d'outre-mer de la Haute-
Volta et du Soudan. Aux termes de l'article premier de l'arrêté du 27 no-
vembre 1935,le cercle de Mopti était limité à l'est par <une ligne sen-
siblement nord-est, laissant au cercle de Mopti les villages de Yoro,
Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou, Koubo ...r)Une formuleanalogue est
utiliséepar un arrêtédu 2 août 1945, portant réorganisation du cercle
de Mopti, dont on ignore s'ilajamais été publiéL . es Parties ne s'enten-
dent pas sur l'effetjuridique qu'il faut reconnaître à cette disposition.

Elles s'opposent surle point de savoir si la ligne indiquéepar le texte, en FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 581

The Parties both conclude from this text that the boundary which existed
between Sudan and Upper Volta in 1932ran past the pool of In Abao, but
disagree on the question whether the line intersected the pool or was
merely tangential to it ;
- a general Order issued by the Governor-General ad interimof French
West Africa on 31 August 1927 "fixing the boundaries of the colonies of
Upper Volta and Niger", modified by an "erratum" of 5 October 1927,

published in theJournalofficielof French WestAfrica on 15October 1927.
Admittedly this Order, as its text makes clear, dealt with the frontier
between Upper Volta and Niger, and not thefrontier between Upper Volta
and French Sudan. But the two Parties recognize that this text, unless
shown to beinvalidatedbyerror as Maliclaims,isrelevant for thepurposes
of the present case, since the starting-point of the frontier line between
Upper Volta and Niger was also the end-point of the frontier between
Upper Volta and French Sudan and of the frontier between French Sudan
and Niger, that is, the tripoint mentioned above ;

- the decree of 5 September 1932, already mentioned, for the abolition

of the colony of Upper Volta ;
- an exchange of letters which took place in 1935between the Gover-
nor-General of French West Africa and the Lieutenant-Governors of
French Sudan and Niger (letter 191CM2 of 19 February 1935 from the
Governor-General to the Lieutenant-Governors ;a reply by the Lieuten-
ant-Governor of French Sudan dated 3 June 1935). It may be noted in
passing that letter 191CM2 is the only available text which mentions a
point defined in ternis of CO-ordinatesof latitudeand longitude : thepoint
1" 24' 15" W, 14"43'45" N. For the sake of easier reference in the pas-
sages to follow, this point will be called "point P" ;

- an Order (2728AP) "for the delimitation of the cerclesof Bafoulabé,
Bamako and Mopti (French Sudan)", issued on 27 November 1935 by the
Governor-General ad interim of French West Africa. On that date, it will
be remembered, Upper Volta no longer existed, since the territories which
formerly comprised it had been distributed among French Sudan, Niger
and the Ivory Coast.The cercleof Mopti, which was Sudanese at that time
and is now Malian, bordered upon the cercleof Ouahigouya, which was
also a Sudanese unit at the time, but subsequently became Voltan again
(from 1947 onwards) and is now part of Burkina Faso. Most of the
boundary between these two cercles was again to form the boundary
between the territoiresd'outre-merof Upper Volta and Sudan. According

to Article 1of the Order of 27 November 1935,the cercleof Mopti was
bounded on the east by "a line running markedly northeast, leaving to the
cercleof Mopti the villages of Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou,
Koubo ...".A sirnilarform of words is used inan Order of 2August 1945
for the reorganization of the cercleof Mopti ;it is not known whether this
Order waseverpublished. The Parties do not agreeupon the legaleffectsto
be attributed to this provision. They are at odds as to whether the line
indicated in the text, in "leaving" the villages in question to the cercleof laissant au cercle de Mopti les villages en question, avait pour effet
d'attribuer à ce cercle des villages qui auparavant faisaient partie d'un
autre cercle ou si, au contraire, la définitionde cette ligne impliquait que
ces villages appartenaient déjàau cercle de Mopti.

53. Outre lestextesréglementairesouadministratifs précitésl,esParties

ont produit un matériau cartographique a la fois volumineux et diversifié
consistant en une sériede cartes et decroquis dont la date, l'origine, l'objet,
la qualité technique et le degréde précision sont autant d'élémentsde
différenciation ;ellesont aussi consacrédesdéveloppementsapprofondis,
tant dans leurs écrituresque dans leurs plaidoiries, à la question théorique
de la force probante de la cartographie. Au cours de la procédure, la
question de savoirquelle est la valeurjuridique de cesdiversélémentset de
leur hiérarchiea étéabondammentdiscutée.Pour les deux Parties, le titre
qui a prééminencedans le système colonial est le titre législatifet régle-
mentaire. Le Mali considèreque «lesautres preuves O,ycompris lescartes
et les comportements d'autorités administratives, doivent êtreappréciés
quant àleur fiabilità l'aune d'une série de critères.Le Burkina Faso,pour
sa part, accepte la primautédes textes sur les cartes,maisconsidère que le

titre peut êtreécrit oucartographique.
54. La Chambre peut se borner au stade actuel de son raisonnement à
formulerun principe. En matièrededélimitationde frontièresou deconflit
territorial international, les cartes ne sontque de simples indications,plus
ou moins exactesselonlescas ;ellesneconstituentjamais - à ellesseuleset
du seul fait de leur existenc- un titre territorial, c'est-à-dire undocument
auquel le droit international confère une valeur juridique intrinsèque aux
fins de l'établissementdes droits territoriaux.Certes, dans quelques cas,les
cartes peuvent acquérir une telle valeur juridique mais cette valeur ne
découlepas alors de leurs seules qualités intrinsèques : elle résultede ce
que ces cartes ont étéintégrées parmi les élémentq sui constituent I'ex-
pression de lavolontéde I'Etat ou des Etats concernés. Ainsien va-t-il, par
exemple, lorsquedescartes sont annexées à un texte officieldont ellesfont
partie intégrante. En dehors de cette hypothèse clairement définie, les

cartes ne sont que des élémentsde preuve extrinsèques, plus ou moins
fiables, plus ou moins suspects, auxquels il peut êtrefait appel, parmi
d'autres élémentsde preuve de nature circonstancielle, pour établir ou
reconstituer la matérialité desfaits.
55. Le poids des cartes en tant qu'élémentsde preuve dépend de di-
verses considérations.Les unes ont trait à la fiabilitétechnique descartes.
Cette fiabilités'est beaucoup accrue, notamment avec les progrès qu'ont
connus la photographie aérienneet laphotographie par satellitedepuis les
années cinquante. Mais seules en sont résultéesune fidélitéplus grande
dans la représentation cartographique de la nature et une correspondance
de plus en plus exacte entre l'une et l'autre. Les indications relevant de
l'intervention humaine que sont la dénomination des localités et descaractéristiques géographiques(la toponymie) ainsi que la figuration des
frontièreset autres limitespolitiques n'ensontpaspour autant plus fiables.
Certes la fiabilité des indications toponymiques s'est également trouvée
accrue, quoique dans une mesure moindre,par descontrôlessur leterrain ;
maispour ce quiest delafigurationdesfrontières, leserreurs sont,de l'avis
des cartographes, encore fréquentes,notamment lorsque cette figuration
se rapporte a des confins d'accès difficile.
56. Les autres considérations dont dépend le poids des cartes en tant
qu'éléments de preuve ont traità laneutralitéde leur source par rapport au

différend considéré et aux partiesà ce différend. Lajurisprudence relati-
vement ancienne avait montré a l'égarddes cartes une réticence marquée
qui s'estestompéequelque peu dans les décisionsplus récentes,du moins
quant à la fiabilité technique des cartes. Mais mêmelà où les garanties
ci-dessus décritessont réunies,la valeurjuridique descartes reste limitée à
celle d'une preuve concordante qui conforte une conclusion à laquelle le
juge est parvenu par d'autres moyens, indépendants des cartes. En con-
séquence, hormis l'hypothèseoù elles ont été intégréesparmi les éléments
qui constituent l'expression de la volontéde 1'Etatles cartes ne peuvent a
elles seules êtreconsidéréescomme des preuves d'une frontière car elles
constitueraient dans ce cas une présomption irréfragable, équivalant en

réalité à un titre juridique. Elles n'ont de valeur que comme preuves à
caractèreauxiliaire ouconfirmatif,cequi exclutégalement lapossibilitéde
leur conférerla qualitéde présomptions juri tantum ou réfragables,ayant
pour effet de renverser le fardeau de la preuve.

57. La Chambre en vient maintenant a considérerles cartes produites
dans l'espèce.Elle ne dispose d'aucune dont on puisse dire avec certitude
qu'elle traduit les intentionsde l'administration coloniale expriméesdans
les textes pertinents relatifà la frontière en litige. La loi du 4 septembre

1947 <(tendant au rétablissement du territoire de la Haute-Volta ne
faisait référence a aucune carte ;elle contenait seulement un renvoi, en
termes généraux, aux limites ((de l'ancienne colonie a la date du 5 sep-
tembre 1932 )).Aucune des deux Parties n'apu identifier la carte, s'ilyen a
eu une, que le législateurfrançais aurait utiliséeen 1947afin d'avoir une
imageplus claire de ceslimites. Pour ce qui est de l'arrêtde 1927et de son
erratum, le Mali a produit une carte intitulée Nouvelle frontière de la
Haute-Volta et du Niger (Suivant erratum du 5 octobre 1927a l'arrêté en
datedu 3 1août 1927) )>mais ce document ne donne aucun renseignement.
sur l'organisme officielqui l'aurait établieou l'autorité administrativequi
aurait approuvé le tracé y figuré.Une carte étaitjointe àla lettre 191CM2

du gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentalefrançaiseen datedu 19fé-
vrier 1935mais cette carte n'apas été retrouvée. Enfin l'arrêté2728AP du
27 novembre 1935 précisait les limitesdu cercle de Mopti telles [que]
transcrites sur lescartes [y]annexées ))mais les Parties n'ont pas non plus
réussi à retrouver ces cartes et l'une d'elles a doutéqu'elles aientjamaisboundaries, does not thereby become more reliable. Of course, the relia-
bility of the toponymic information has alsoincreased,although to alesser
degree, owing to verification on the ground ;but in the opinion of car-
tographers, errors are still common in the representation of frontiers,
especially when these are shown in border areas to which access is diffi-
cult.

56. Other considerations which determine the weight of maps as evi-

dence relate to the neutrality of their sources towards the dispute in
question and the parties to that dispute. Since relatively distant times,
judicial decisions have treated maps with a considerable degree of cau-
tion : less so in more recent decisions, at least as regards the technical
reliability of maps. But even where the guarantees described above are
present, maps can still have no greater legal value than that of corrobo-
rative evidence endorsing a conclusion at whch a court has arrived by
other means unconnected with the maps. In consequence, except when the
maps are in the category of a physical expression of the will of the State,
theycannot in themselvesalone be treated asevidenceofafrontier, sincein
that event they would form an irrebuttable presumption, tantamount in
fact to legaltitle. The only value they possessis as evidence of an auxiliary
or confirmatory kind, and this also means that they cannot be given the
character of a rebuttable orjuris tanturn presumption such as to effect a
reversa1of the onus of proof.

57. The Chamber now turns to the maps produced in this case. Not a
single map available to the Chamber can reliably be said to reflect the
intentions of the colonial administration expressed in the relevant texts
concerning the disputed frontier. The law of 4 September 1947"for the

re-establishment of theterritory of Upper Volta" made no reference to any
map ; al1it contained was a reference in general terms to the boundaries
"of theformer colony ...on 5September 1932".Neither of the two Parties
has been able to identify themap, if there was one, which was used by the
French lawmakers in 1947in order to obtain a clearer picture of those
boundaries. As regards Order 2336 of 1927 and its erratum, Mali has
produced a map bearing the inscription "New frontier of Upper Volta and
Niger (according to the erratum of 5 October 1927 to the Order dated
31August 1927)" ; however, the document offers no information as to
which officia1 body compiled it or which administrative authority
approved theline shown on it. Amap was annexed to letter 191CM2 from
theGovernor-General of French WestAfrica dated 19February 1935,but
this map hasnot been found. Finally, Order 2728AP of27November 1935
defined the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti "as transcribed on the maps
annexed" thereto, but here again the Parties have been unable to find the
maps in question, and one of them doubts whether they ever existed. Thusexisté. LaChambre se trouve ainsi confrontée à une situation peu com-
munequi n'estpas de nature a luifaciliter la tâche:ellen'aa sadisposition
aucune carte qui illustrerait d'une manière officielleet directe lelibellédes
quatre textes susvisés, essentiels en l'espèce,alors mêmeque, selon la
volontéde leurs auteurs, deux de ces textes devaient êtreaccompagnés-e -
telles cartes.
58. La documentation cartographique apris dans cetteaffaire des pro-
portions assez inusitéesau point de créer undouble paradoxe : d'une part
la Chambre a devant elle une masse considérable de cartes. croauis et

dessins pour une régiondite pourtant en partie inconnue et d9aut;e part
aucun tracé frontalier indiscutable ne peut êtredégagéde cet abondant
matériaucartographique. A celas'ajoute lefait assezcurieux que,comme il
vient d'êtreindiqué,chaquefoisqu'il estquestion d'unecarte annexéea un
acte réglementaire oujointe à un document administratif que la Chambre
doit interpréter,c'estprécisémentcettecarte-la,parmi toutes lesautres que
les Parties ont pu assembler, qui fait défaut. Ces circonstances dictent
d'embléeune vigilance particulière dans l'examen du dossier cartogra-
~hiaue.
r ,59. Parmi toutes les cartesqui ont étéproduites, deux paraissent, glo-

balement, avoir une importance toute particulière aux fins de l'affaire.
Elles ont longuement retenu l'attention des Parties, et le Burkina Faso s'y
est référé expressémend tans ses conclusions. Il s'agit de la carte des
colonies de l'Afrique occidentale française au 1/500 000, édition 1925,
dresséepar le service géographique de l'Afrique occidentale française a
Dakar et imprimée à Paris par Blondel la Rougery (carte de reconnais-
sance ;assemblage des feuilles de Hombori D 30 et Ansongo D 31) et de
la carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 1/200 000, publiéepar l'Institut géo-
graphique national français et originairement éditéeentre 1958 et 1960
(feuilles d'Ansongo, In Tillit, Dori, Tera et Djibo).

60. La première de ces deux cartes,dénomméeci-après <carte Blondel
la Rougery O,revêtpour le Burkina Faso une importance particulière du
fait qu'elleest restéejusqu'en 1960la carte à laplusgrande échellepubliée
par le service géographique du gouvernement généralde l'Afrique occi-
dentale française. Sefondant sur une circulaire administrative 93CM2 du
4 février 1930, le Burkina Faso prétend que les autorités territoriales
devaient s'yréférer pour fixerou modifier leslimites administrativeset que
lesfonctionnaires coloniaux s'estimaient liéspar cette carte. Le texte de la
circulaire 93 CM2 du 4 février1930 n'apas été déposé et la Chambre ne

dispose à son sujet d'autres informations que celles contenues dans une
lettre du Il juillet 1935adresséepar le service géographiquede l'Afrique
occidentalefrançaise au directeurdesaffaires politiques et administratives
du gouvernement généralde l'Afrique occidentale française. Se référanta
un projet de texte définissant des limites de circonscription, le service
géographique indiquait :

Il y aurait lieu de provoquer des précisionssupplémentaireset de
demander au lieutenant-gouverneur du Soudan de vouloir bien sethe Chamber is confronted with an unusual situation which does not ease
its burden. It has no rnap available to it whch can provide a direct officia1
illustration of the words contained in the four texts already mentioned,
which are essential to the case,even though their authors had intended two
of these texts to be accompanied by such maps.

58. The cartographic documentation has assumed unaccustomed pro-

portions in this case, to the point of creating adual paradox. On the one
hand, the Chamber is faced with a considerable body of maps, sketches
and drawings for a region which is nevertheless described as being partly
unknown ;and, on the other hand, no indisputable frontier line is discer-
nible from this abiindance of cartographic materials. To this must be
added the somewhat curiousfact that, asjust explained, whenever there is
some question of a rnap annexed to a regulation or enclosed with an
administrative document which the Chamber has to interpret, that is the
verymap, ofal1thosewhichthe Parties havemanaged toassemble, whichis
found tobe missing.Thesecircumstances cal1for specialvigilancefromthe
outset when examining the file of maps.
59. Of al1 the maps produced, two appear to be of special overall
significance for the purposes of the case. The Parties have devoted much
attention to these, and Burkina Faso has referred expressly to them in its
submissions. These are the 1:500,000scale rnap of the colonies of French
WestAfrica, 1925edition, compiled bytheGeographical Serviceof French

West Africa at Dakar and printed in Pans by Blondel la Rougery (recon-
naissance rnap ; compilation of the Hombori D 30 and Ansongo D 31
sheets) ;and the 1:200,000scalernap of West Africa, issued by the French
Institut géographique national, which was originally published between
1958and 1960(Ansongo, In Tillit, Dori, Tera and Djibo sheets).

60. For Burkina Faso the first of these two maps, described hereafter as
the "Blondel la Rougery map", is of special importance because, until
1960, it remained the largest-scale rnap published by the Geographical
Serviceof the Governorship General of French West Africa. Relyingon an
administrative circular, 93CM2 of 4 February 1930,Burkina Faso claims
that the territorial authorities had to refer to this rnap in order to fix orto
modify the administrative boundaries and that the colonial officiais con-
sidered themselvesbound by it. The text of circular 93CM2 of 4 February
1930 has not been filed, and the only information about it which is
available to the Chamber iscontained in a letter of 11July 1935,addressed

by the Geographical Service of French West Africa to the Director of
Political and AdministrativeAffairs in the officeof the Governor-General
of French West Africa. With reference to a draft text defining district
boundaries, the Geographical Service stated :

"It would be appropriate to seekfurther information and to request
the Lieutenant-Governor of the Sudan to comply with the instruc- conformer aux directives de la circulaire généraleno 93 CM2 du
4 février1930qui stipule que << l'arrêtédoit se borner à donner des

indications générales etàspécifierdans un article spécialque lalimite
estcellequi est tracéesur lacarte..(échelleet nom de la feuille)jointe
au présent arrêté.
La carte à utiliser doit êtrecelle qui est publiée par le service
géographiquedugouvernement général - à la plus grande échellequi
existe (cf. même circulaire).)>

La Chambre ne peut interpréter ce texte comme signifiant qu'il éti.lrdu
devoir desadministrateurs de seréférer àlacarte publiée<< àlaplus grande
échellequi exist[ait] lorsque ceux-ci s'informaient de l'emplacement de
limites administratives ; elle estime que ce texte prescrivait simplement
l'utilisation de cette carte comme fond cartographique lorsqu'il était
nécessairede reporter des limites existantes sur une carte quelle qu'elle
soit. Le Burkina Faso a d'ailleurs finalement expliquéque, si les adminis-
trateurs s'estimaient liéspar une carte du servicegéographiquede l'Afrique
occidentale française pour ce qui était des limites indiquées, c'étaitparce
qu'ils avaient eux-mêmes modifié cettecarte, et que celle-ciétaitdevenue,
du fait de la correspondance administrative échangée à son sujet, un
document administratif. Il s'ensuit, de I'avis de la Chambre, que même
pour le Burkina Faso les limites administratives figurant sur la carte

Blondella Rougery tellequ'elle aété dresséepar leservicegéographiquene
jouissent d'aucune autorité particulière en elles-mêmes.
61. En ce qui concerne la carte IGN de 1958-1960,la Chambre relève
qu'elle comporte un tracé frontalier dont un segment, indiqué par des
croisillons continus dans l'édition originale, est figurépar des croisillons
discontinus dans des éditions postérieures. En général,cette carte a reçu
l'approbation des deux Parties pour ce qui est de la représentation de la
topographie. En revanche, pour cequi est des toponymes, le Burkina Faso
émetdes réservesquant à ladésignationdu mont N'Gouma surcettecarte.
De soncôtéleMali n'accepte point la limite frontalièreindiquéesur ladite
cartepar une ligne en croisillons. Cela mis àpart, cette carte, de I'avisdu
Mali, est la fiabilitémêmepour la topographie et la toponymie O,tandis
que, pour le Burkina Faso, les cartes de I'IGN offrent les garanties de la

précision technique ainsi que de l'autoritéofficielle, puisqu'elles ontété
dressées parun organisme officiel impartial directement liéaux autorités
administratives de l'époque.Parmi les documents soumis à la Chambre
figureune noteen date du 27janvier 1975,établiepar I'IGN, concernant la
mise en place des frontières sur les cartes. Selon cette note, des cartes au
1/200 000 de la frontière Mali/Haute-Volta avaient étélevéesavant I'in-
dépendance de ces deux Etats. La note fournit les précisions suivantes
quant aux procédés utilisés pour la mise en place des frontières sur ces
cartes :

<<Puis, à l'aide des textes, les opérateurs ont essayéde mettre en
place la frontière par rapport au fond de carte. Malheureusement
l'imprécisiondes textes a empêché de tracer une limite suffisamment tions in general circular No. 93 CM2 of 4 February 1930 which
stipulates that 'the order must be confined to general indications,
specifyingby means of a special clause that theboundary is as drawn
on the rnap ... (scale and title of the sheet) annexed to this
order'.
The rnap used must be the largest-scale rnap in existence published
by the Geographical Serviceof the Governorship General (cf. same
circular)."

The Chamber cannot interpret this text asmeaning that the administrators
had a duty to refer to the published "largest-scale rnap in existence" when
informing themselvesof the positions of administrative boundaries ;in its
view the text simply required this rnap to be used as a cartographie base
whenever it was necessary to portray existing boundaries on a rnap of any
kind. Moreover, Burkina Faso itself explained subsequently that if the
adrninistratorsconsidered themselvesbound by arnapof theGeographical
Serviceof French WestAfricain regard to the boundaries shown onit, this
was because they had themselves modified the rnap and,as a result of the
exchangeof administrativecorrespondence about it, that rnaphad become

an administrative document. It follows, in the Chamber's opinion, that
evenforBurkina Fasotheadministrative boundaries shownon the Blondel
la Rougery rnap as compiled by the Geographical Service do not in
themselves possess any particular authority.

61. As for the IGN rnap of 1958-1960,the Chamber observes that it
depicts a frontier line of which one segment, represented by a continuous
series of crosses in the original edition, is represented in subsequent edi-
tions by a broken series of crosses. In general this rnap has enjoyed the
approval of both Parties in its depiction of the topography. On the other
hand, as regards toponyms, Burkina Faso expresses reservations as to the
designation of mount N'Gouma on this map. Mali does not accept the
frontier lineshown on this rnapby arowof small crosses. Inother respects,
the rnap is described by Mali as "a mode1of reliability from the stand-
points of topography and toponymy" and, for Burkina Faso, the IGN
maps offer guarantees of both technical precision and officia1authority,
since they werecompiled by an impartial officia1body directlyconnected
with the administrative authorities of the period. Among the documents
submitted to theChamber isanotedated 27January 1975,compiled by the
IGN, on the subject of the positioning of the frontiers on the maps.

According to that note, the 1:200,000 maps of the Mali/Upper Volta
frontier had been surveyedbefore the twoStatesbecameindependent. The
note givesthe followingexplanation of how thefrontiers wererecorded on
those maps :

"Then, with the help of the texts, the cartographers tried to locate
thefrontierin relation to the rnap base. Unfortunately, theinaccuracy
of the texts made it impossible to draw a sufficiently reliable boun- sûre dans certainesparties :en effet certainsnoms citésdans lestextes
n'ont pas étéretrouvés,d'autres correspondaient à des villages dis-
parus ou déplacés,ou bien encore la configuration réelledu terrain
(tracédes rivières,position des montagnes) apparaissait comme dif-
férentede celle décritepar les anciens levés d'itinéraires.
La frontière réelleétait alorsmise en place d'après les renseigne-

mentsfournis par leschefs descirconscriptionsfrontalières et d'après
lesrenseignements recueillis sur le terrain auprès deschefs de villages
et de populations.

62. On peut conclure de ce texte que la carte établie en 1958-1960par
I'IGN - organismeneutre par rapport aux Parties au présentdifférend -,
tout en n'ayant pas valeur de titrejuridique, constitue une représentation
visuelle à la fois des textes disponibleset des renseignements recueillissur

le terrain. Cela ne suffit pas pour que la Chambre puisse en déduire, sans
plus, que le tracéfrontalier figuré par des croisillons continus ou discon-
tinus dans les éditionssuccessives de la carte de I'IGN correspond par-
faitement à la limite héritéede l'administration coloniale. Il lui faut con-
sidérerdans quelle mesure les élémentsde preuve apportéspar cettecarte,
ou par n'importe quelle carte,corroborent lesautres preuves produites :la
Chambre ne saurait retenir lesindications fournies par lacarte quand elles
sont contredites par d'autres indications dignes de foi sur lesintentions de

la puissance coloniale. Cependant, en tenant compte de la date à laquelle
les levésont étéeffectués et de la neutralité de la source, la Chambre
considèreque, si toutes les autres preuves font défaut ou ne suffisent pas
pour faire apparaître un tracéprécis, la valeur probante de la carte de
I'IGN devient déterminante.
63. Outre les textes et les cartes énumérés ci-dessus, les Parties ont
invoqué à l'appui de leurs thèses respectives les effectivités coloniales )),

autrement dit le comportement des autorités administratives en tant que
preuve de l'exercice effectifde compétences territoriales dans la région
pendant la période coloniale. Pour le Burkina Faso, les <effectivités >)
peuvent conforter un titre existant, écrit oucartographique, mais lorsqu'il
s'agit d'en peser la valeur probante, elles doivent êtreconstamment rap-
portéesau titreconsidéréet ne peuvent en aucun cas sesubstituer à lui. Le
Mali, pour sa part admet qu'on ne peut en principe invoquer des effec-
tivités)) à l'encontre d'un texte, mais maintient qu'en l'absence de des-

cription conventionnelleou législatived'une limite il faut bien faire appel
A d'autres moyens pour établir cettelimite, la recherche des <effectivités
devenant alors essentielle. Le rôle joué en la présente affaire par ces
((effectivités )estcomplexeet la Chambreaura à peser soigneusementleur
valeurjuridique danschaque casd'espèce. Elledoi tcependant indiquerdès
à présent, en termes généraux, la relationjuridique qui existe entre les
t(effectivités )et lestitres servant debase à lamiseenŒuvredu principede
I'utipossidetis.A cet effet plusieurs éventualitésdoivent êtredistinguées.

Dans le cas où le fait correspond exactement au droit, où une adminis-
tration effective s'ajoute à I'utipossidetisjuris, 1'0effectivité))n'intervient FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 586

dary in certain areas. Some names quoted in the texts could not be
found, others referred to villages whch had disappeared or been
moved, or again the actual nature of the terrain (course of rivers,
position of mountains) appeared different from that described in the
former itinerary surveys.
The actual frontier was, therefore, recorded in the light of infor-
mation supplied by the heads of thefrontier districts and according to
information gathered on the spot from the village chiefs and local
people."

62. From this text the conclusion may be drawn that the map compiled
in 1958-1960by the IGN - a body neutral towards the Parties to the
present dispute -, althoughit does not possessthe status of a legaltitle, isa

visualportrayal both of the available texts and of information obtainedon
the ground. This in itself isnot sufficient to permit theamber to infer
that the frontier line depicted in the form of small crosses, whether in a
continuous or a broken series,in the successiveeditions of the IGN map,
corresponds entirely with the boundary inheritedfrom thecolonialadmin-
istration. It has to consider howfar the evidenceoffered by tlus or any map
corroborates the other evidence produced. The Chamber cannot uphold
the information given by the map where it is contradicted by other trust-
worthy information concerning the intentions of the colonial power.
However, having regard to the date on which the surveys were made and
the neutrality of the source, the Chamber considers that where al1other
evidenceis lacking, or is not sufficient to showan exact line, theprobative
value of the IGN map becomes decisive.

63. Apart from the texts and maps listed above, the Parties have
invoked in support of their respective contentions the "colonial effec-
tivitéis n",ther words, the conduct of the administrative authorities as
proof of the effectiveexerciseof territorial jurisdiction in the region during
the colonial period. For Burkina Faso, the effectivi ctéssupport an
existing title, whether written or cartographical, but when their probative
value has to be assessed they must be systematically compared with the
title in questio;in no circumstances can they be substitutedfor the title.

For its part, Malidrnits that in principlethe effectivciannst be brought
into operation where they are contrary to the text of a treaty, but argues
that in asituation where there is no boundary described in conventional or
legislativeform,it isnecessaryto ascertainthe boundary byother methods,
and an investigation of the effectivti hensbecomes essential. The role
played in this case by such effectivii stcomplex, and the Chamber will
have to weighcarefully the legalforce of these in each particular instance.
It must however state forthwith, in general terms, what legal relationship
exists between such acts and the titles on which the implementation of the
principle of utipossiil iserosnded. For this purpose, a distinction must
be drawn among several eventualities. Where the act corresponds exactly
to law, where effective administration is additional to the utipossidetisen réalitéque pour confirmer l'exercicedu droit né d'untitre juridique.
Dans le cas où le fait ne correspond pas au droit, où le territoire objet du
différend est administré effectivement par un Etat autre que celui qui
possède letitrejuridique, il y a lieu de préférerle titulaire du titre. Dans
l'éventualitéoù 1'~effectivité ne coexiste avecaucun titrejuridique, elle
doit inévitablementêtreprise en considération. Il est enfin des cas où le
titre juridique n'est pas de nature à faire apparaître de façon précise
l'étendue territorialesur laquelle ilporte. Les effectivités peuvent alors

jouer un rôle essentielpour indiquercommentletitre est interprétédans la
pratique.

64. A ce stade de son raisonnement la Chambre tient à relever le
caractère trèsparticulier de la présente affaireen ce qui concerne lesfaits
qu'il s'agit de démontrer et les preuves qui ont été produites,ou qui
auraient pu l'être. Elledoit rechercher quelle étaitla situation frontalière
en 1932,dans une région d'Afrique à I'époque malconnue et peuplée en
grande partie de nomades, où les moyens de transport et de cornrnunica-
tion n'étaientque très limités.Afind'identifier cette situation, la Chambre
doit sereporter aux textes législatifset réglementaires,ui n'ont mêmepas

tous été publiés,aux cartes et croquis dressésà I'époque,dont la précision
et la fiabilité sont parfois douteuses et qui se contredisent, ainsi qu'à des
documents administratifs établis pour un systèmede gouvernement qui
n'existe plus depuis près de trente ans, documents qu'il a fallu recueillir
dans divers dépôtsd'archives. Bien que les Parties aient fourni un dossier
aussi complet que possible, la Chambre ne peut pas avoir la certitude de
statuer en pleine connaissance de cause. Le dossier présente desincohé-
rences et des lacunes, dont quelques-unes sont connues : les Parties ont
informé laChambre qu'elles n'ont paspu retrouver certains documents,
comme par exemple les documents cartographiques mentionnés au para-
graphe 57ci-dessus. Mais mêmesices documents avaient été retrouvés, la
Chambre ne saurait exclure que, dans la masse d'archives de I'adminis-

tration de l'Afrique occidentale française, aujourd'hui disperséesdans
plusieurs pays, il puisse encore exister d'autres documents précieux.

65. Dans cesconditions, ilest évidentqu'aucun despouvoirs en matière
de preuve conférés à la Cour par les articles 48,49 et 50 de son Statut ne
pourrait permettre àla Chambrede résoudreleproblème.D'autre part, la
solution ne peut êtrecherchéedans une application systématique de la
règle relativeà la charge de la preuve. Par exemple, à propos de certains
villagesdont ilya lieude déterminer lasituation administrativeentre 1927
et 1935, le Mali prétend qu'il appartient au Burkina Faso d'établirle
caractère voltaïque des villages à I'époque.Or, s'ilest vrai que <(c'est en
définitive au plaideurqui cherche à établirun fait qu'incombe lacharge de
la preuve ))(Activitésmilitaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua etcontre

celui-ci,C.I.J. Recueil1984,p. 437,par. 101),le Mali aussi doit établirlesjuris,theonlyrole of effectivitéisto confirm theexerciseof the right derived
from a legal title. Where the act does not correspond to the law, where the

territory whch is the subject of thedispute iseffectivelyadministered by a
State other than the one possessing the legal title, preference should be
given to the holder of the title. In the event that the effectivitédoes not
CO-existwith any legaltitle, it must invariably be taken into consideration.
Finally, there are cases where the legal title is not capable of showing
exactly the territorial expanse to which it relates. The effectivité can then
play an essential role in showing how the title is interpreted in prac-
tice.

64. At this stage of its reasoning, the Chamber must emphasize that the
present case isa decidedly unusual one asconcerns thefacts which have to
be proven and the evidencewiuch has been, or might have been, produced
for this purpose. The Chamber has to ascertain where the frontier lay in
1932in a region of Africa little known at the time and largely inhabited by
nomads, in which transport and communications were very sketchy. In
order to identify this the Chamber has to refer to the legislative and

regulative texts, not al1of which were even published ; to the maps and
sketch-maps compiled at the time, maps which are sometimes of doubtful
accuracy and reliability and which contradict oneanother ; and to admin-
istrative documents which, having been drawn up for the purposes of a
system of government which ceased to exist nearly 30years ago, have had
to be obtained from various collections of archives. Although the Parties
have provided it with a case file as complete as possible, the Chamber
cannot however be certain of deciding the case on the basis of full know-
ledge of the facts. The case file shows inconsistencies and shortcornings.
Someof these are already known ;the Parties have informed the Chamber
that they were unable to locate certain specific documents such as, for
example, the cartographic documents mentioned in paragraph 57 above.
But even if those documents had been located, the Chamber cannot pre-
clude the possibility that the large body of archives fromthe French West
Africa administration, now dispersed among several countries, may con-
tain further documents of considerable relevance.
65. In these circumstances,it isclear that the Chamber cannot resolvethe
problem by means of any of the powers in the matter of evidence under

Articles 48-49 and 50of the Statute of the Court. Nor can the solution be
looked for in a systematic application of the rule concerningthe burden of
proof.For example, inrespect of certain villagesof which it is necessary to
determine the administrative situation between 1927and 1935,Mali claims
that itisfor Burkina Fasoto demonstrate the Voltancharacter ofthe villages
during that period. While it is true that "ultimately . . it is the litigant
seeking to establish :factwho bears the burden of provingit" (Militaryand
Paramilitary Activities in and againsr Nicaragua, 1.C.J. Reports 1984,
p. 437, para. 101),it is also for Mali to establish the facts underlying itsfaits servant de baseà sesprétentions,c'est-à-dire en l'espècedémontrerle
caractère soudanais de ces villages pendant la période susmentionnée.Le
compromis du 20octobre 1983par lequel la Cour aété saisiene traitede la

question de la charge de la preuve que pour souligner que la procédure
écritequ'il prévoitnelapréjugepas (art. III, par. 2).Quoiqu'il en soit,dans
un différend commecelui-ci,lerejet éventuelde tel ou tel argument, motif
pris de ce que les allégationsde fait sur lesquelles il repose n'ont pas été
prouvées, ne suffit pasen lui-mêmepour quela thèsecontraire puisse être
retenue. La Chambre doit indiquer le tracéde la frontière litigieuse sur la
base desdocuments et autres preuves que lui ont présentésles Parties :les
doutes qu'elle aexprimésci-dessus sur le caractèresuffisant de cespreuves
ne font que rendre cette tâche plus difficile.

66. Dans son mémoire, leBurkinaFasoa divisélafrontièrecontestéeen
deux secteurs, le secteur ouest dit des quatre villages et le secteur est
allant du point de coordonnées 14' 43' 45" nord et 1 '24' 15"ouest jus-
qu'aux hauteurs de N'Gouma. Dans lesconclusions qu'ilaprésentéestout
au long de la procédure,le Burkina Faso a divisé la ligne qu'ilpropose en
deux secteurs définispar rapport à un tout autre point, celui de coordon-
néesgéographiques 0' 40'47" ouest et 15' 00'03" nord ; la Chambre
examineraplus loin lasignification qu'il yaurait lieud'attribuer à cepoint.
Selon le Mali, la régioncontestéepeut êtrediviséeen deux secteurs aussi :
l'un allant du village de Yoro à la mare de Kétiouaire, àpropos duquel il

existe, de l'avis de cette Partie, une délimitation assez précise, et l'autre
partant de la mare de Kétiouairepouraboutir aux hauteurs de N'Gouma et
auguéde Kabia. Dans soncontre-mémoire,leBurkina Fasoa préféré avoir
recours à une division de la frontièreen trois secteurs:lepremier allant de
Dionouga au point de coordonnées 14" 43'45" nord et 1 O 24' 15" ouest
(région desquatre villages),ledeuxième allant dudit point au mont Taba-
karach (régionde Soum) et le troisième allant du mont Tabakarach au
point triple. C'està cette même divisionque les conseils du Burkina Faso
ont fait appel au cours de la procédure orale. Ces divers systèmes de
division de la frontière reposent cependant sur desconsidérations étroite-
ment liéesaux conclusions des Parties relativement aux titresou preuves à
prendre en considération pour la détermination du tracéde la frontière
dans chaque secteur. La Chambre ne saurait partant entériner d'emblée
l'une quelconque de ces divisions sans courir le risque de préjuger sa

décisionsur les thèsesen présencequant au fond. Il convient donc qu'elle
examine d'abord de plus près les titres législatifs et réglementaires ainsi
que les documents administratifs invoquéspar les Parties, et énumérés
ci-dessus, et qu'elle apprécie la valeur de chacun d'eux afin d'être en
mesure de lesutiliser, le caséchéant,pour indiquerle tracéde la ligne dans
le secteur auquel ils sont censés serapporter. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 588

claims, that is,to demonstratethat the villageswere Sudanese at that time.
The SpecialAgreement of 20October 1983by which the case was brought
before the Court deals with the question of the burden of proof only in
order tomake itclear that it isnot prejudged by thewrittenprocedure there
provided for (Art. 3,para. 2). In any event, however,in acase such as this,
the rejection of any particular argument on the ground that the factual
allegations on which it is based have not been proved is not sufficient to
warrant upholding the contrary argument. The Chamber has to indicate
the line of the frontier on the basis of the documents and other evidence
presented to it by the disputant Parties. Its task is further complicated by
the doubts it has expressed above regarding the sufficiency of this evi-
dence.

66. In its Memonal, Burkina Fasodivided the disputed frontier into two
sectors :the westernpart, described asthesector of the "four villages",and
the eastern sector, extending from the point with the CO-ordinates
1" 24' 15" W and 14"43'45" N asfar as the heights of N'Gouma. In its
submissions however, throughout the proceedings, it divided the line it
proposed into two sectors in relation to a different point (geographical
CO-ordinates0" 40' 47"Wand 15"00'03" N) ; the Chamber willconsider
later what significance is to be attached to this point. For Mali, the
disputed region can also be divided into two sectors :one extending from
the villageof Yoro to the pool of Kétiouaire,forwhich, according to Mali,
a fairly precise delimitation exists, and the other from the pool of
Kétiouaireto the heights of N'Gouma and the Kabia ford. In its Counter-
Memorial, Burkina Faso preferred to adopt a division of the frontier into
three sectors :the first from Dionouga to the point with the CO-ordinates

1" 24' 15"Wand 14"43'45" N (the region of the four villages),the second
from the former point to mount Tabakarach (the Soum region), and the
third from mount Tabakarach to the tripoint. Ths was also the division
adopted by counsel for Burkina Faso during the oral proceedings. How-
ever,thesevarious methodsfordividing the frontier relyon considerations
whch are closely linked with the subrnissions of the Party in question
relating to the titlesbrevidence to be taken into consideration in order to
determine the line of'the frontier in each sector. The Chamber therefore
cannot adopt any such method of division at the outset without running
the risk of prejudging its decision on the opposing contentions on the
merits. It is therefore appropriate for the Chamber to deal first with the
legislativeand regulative titles and the administrative documents invoked
by the Parties, and to consider what weight to attach to each of these, in
order subsequently to be able to make use of them, where appropriate, in
order to indicate the course of the line in the sector to which they are
deemed to relate. 67. Dans l'ordre chronologique, et après le décretdu ler mars 1919

ayant créé la coloniede la Haute-Volta - qui ne donnait aucune précision
quant aux limites de cette colonie - le premier de ces textes est l'arrêté,
du 31décembre1922portant réorganisationde la régiondeTombouctou.
Les Parties s'accordent pour reconnaître tant la validitéque la pertinence
de ce texte : la Chambre peut dès lors réserverla question de son inter-
prétation pour le stade auquel elle procédera à l'examen du tracéde la
ligne.
68. Vient ensuite un arrêté en date du 31 août 1927pris par le gouver-
neur généralpar intérim de l'Afrique occidentale française, aux termes
duquel :

BLes limites des colonies du Niger et de la Haute-Volta sont
déterminéesdésormais commesuit :

1) Limites entre le cercle de Tillabéryet la Haute-Volta ;
Cette limite est déterminéeau nord par la limite actuelle avec le
Soudan (cerclede Gao)jusqu'à lahauteur de N'Gourma, àl'ouestpar
une ligne passant au guéde Kabia, mont de Darouskoy, mont de
Balébanguia, à l'ouestdes ruines du villagede Tokébangou, montde
Doumafondé, quis'infléchitensuite vers le sud-est laissant àl'estles
ruines Tong-Tong ...

Le 5 octobre 1927un erratumaudit arrêtéa étéadopté, qui a substituéau
texte précité letexte suivant :

<Les limites des colonies du Niger et de la Haute-Volta sont
déterminéescomme suit :

Une ligne partant des hauteurs de N'Gouma, passant au guéde
Kabia (point astronomique), au mont d'Arounskoye, au mont de
Balébanguia, à l'ouestdes ruines du villagede Tokebangou, au mont
de Doumafende et à la borne astronomique de Tong-Tong ; cette
ligne s'infléchitensuite vers le sud-es...)>

Il existe également unecarte au 1/1000000, déjà mentionnée, intitulée
Afrique occidentalefrançaise, nouvelle frontièrede la Haute-Voltaet du
Niger (Suivant erratum du 5 octobre 1927 à l'arrêté endate du 31 août
1927) ))mais le Mali, tout en présentant cette carte à la Chambre, fait
observer qu'elle nedonne aucun renseignement sur l'organisme officielqui
l'aurait établieou l'autorité administrativequi aurait approuvé le tracé y
figuré.Iciencore,lesdeux Parties s'accordentpour reconnaître quel'arrêté
et son erratum ont été adoptésrégulièrementpar l'autorité administrative
compétenteetque cestextes sontpertinents aux finsde laprésenteespèce.
Elles avancent néanmoins des interprétations opposéesde ces textes. La

Chambrepourrait enprincipe réservercette question pour le stade auquel
elleexamineraletracédelaligne à lalumièredestextesetautres moyensde
preuve produits par les Parties. Cependant leMali, sefondant sur ce qu'il
considère êtrel'interprétation correcte des textes eu égard a la réalité FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 589

67. After thedecree of 1March 1919whch created thecolony of Upper
Volta but did not specify its boundaries, the first of these texts in chro-

nological order is the Order of 31December 1922for the reorganization of
the Timbuktu region. The Parties agree in recognizing that ths text isboth
valid and relevant ;the Chamber can therefore postponethe question of its
interpretation to the stage of its examination of the course of the line.

68. Next comes an Order dated 31 August 1927,issued by the Gover-
nor-General ad interim of French West Africa, according to which

"the boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are hence-
forward determined as follows :
(1) Boundaries between the cercleof Tillabéryand Upper Volta ;

This boundary isdetermined to the North by the existing boundary
with Sudan (cercleof Gao) as far as the height of N'Gourma, and to
the West by aline passing through the Kabia ford, mount Darouskoy,
mount Balébanguia,to the Westof the ruins of the village of Toké-
bangou, mount Doumafondé,and then headingsouth-east, leavingto
the east the ruins of Tong-Tong ..."

On 5October 1927an erratum to that Order was adopted, which replaced
the above-quoted text with the following text :

"The boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are
determined as follows :
A line starting at the heights of N'Gouma, passing through the
Kabia ford (astronomic point), mount Arounskoye, mount Baléban-
guia to the Westof the ruins of the village of Tokebangou, mount
Doumafende and the astronornic marker of Tong-Tong ; this line
then heads south-east . .."

There also exists a 1 :1,000,000map, already mentioned, entitled "French
West Africa :New frontier of Upper Volta and Niger (according to the
erratum of 5October 1927to the Order dated 31August 1927)".Mali has
laid this map before the Chamber, but observes that it contains no infor-
mation as to what officia1 body compiled it or which administrative

authority approved the line shown on it. Here again, the two Partiesagree
that the Order and its erratum were duly adopted by the administrative
authority withjurisdiction in the matter, andthat these texts are relevant to
the present case. However, they advance conflicting interpretations of
these texts. The Chamber could in principle reserve this question for the
stage of its reasoning when it turns to the course of the line in the light of
the texts and theother evidenceprovided by the Parties. But Mali, arguing
from what it considers to be the correct interpretation of the texts in
relation to the geographical situation in thearea, claims that the Order andgéographiquedans la région,soutient que l'arrêté et l'erratum sont viciés
par une erreurde fait, de telle sorte que le Burkina Faso ne seraitpas fondé
à s'en prévaloir utilement. C'estpourquoi la Chambre se penchera dès
maintenant sur la question de l'interprétation de l'arrêté.

69. Les deux Parties ont avancédiverses explications de la nécessité
éprouvéepar l'administration coloniale d'édicter l'erratum à l'arrêtéde
1927 et elles ont présenté à la Chambre des documents à caractère de
travaux préparatoires. Il convient de noter d'emblée que,si la tâche de la
Chambre était d'interpréter etd'appliquer,en tantque texteréglementaire,
cet arrêtémodifiédu 5octobre 1927afin d'établirles limites de la Haute-
Volta en 1932,elledevrait examinersaportée et apprécierla pertinence du
texte initialdu 31août 1927ainsi quedes travaux préparatoireséventuels à
lalumièredes règlespropres àl'ordrejuridique dans lequell'arrêtpuise sa
valeur réglementaire, c'est-à-direledroit colonial français. Or la Chambre
rappelle que l'arrêtéde 1927 ne concerne pas directement la limite sou-
dano-voltaïque, mais bien la limite entre la Haute-Volta et le Niger, et
qu'aux finsde la présenteespèceellene s'yréfèreque comme àun élément
de preuve susceptible d'apporter quelque lumièresur les intentions de la

puissance coloniale quant au tracédela limite entre leSoudan français etla
Haute-Volta. Sur un plan plus général d'ailleurs, laChambre a déjàeu
l'occasion de souligner (paragraphe 30) que si le droit colonial intervient
dans cette affaire, ce n'est pas comme tel, du fait d'un renvoi que le droit
international feraià ce droit, mais seulement àtitre d'élémentde preuve
de la situation existant au moment de l'accession à l'indépendancedes
deux Etatsparties. La Chambre estdonc libre d'examiner souscetangleles
deux versions successivesde l'arrêtde 1927,en attribuant néanmoinsplus
de poids au texte modifiépar l'erratum en tant que reflet de l'intention
définitivement arrêtée des autoritéscoloniales, et de prendre en considé-
ration les travaux préparatoires si le besoin s'en fait sentir.

70. Il ressort des termes du texte de l'arrêté modifié que le point de

départ de la limite entre le Niger et la Haute-Volta, qui était en même
temps le point terminal de la limite entre le Soudan français et la Haute-
Volta, était constitué,dans l'esprit des auteurs de ce texte, par lhau-<
teurs de N'Gouma )),qui se situaient dans la régiondu guéde Kabia r).
L'emplacement de ce guéne fait pas de douteet ne soulèveaucune con-
troverse entre les Parties. Tel n'est pas le cas pour les <<hauteurs de
N'Gouma o.On signalera qu'un comitétechnique neutre,composéde trois
cartographes nomméspar la sous-commissionjuridique de la Commission
de médiationdel'organisation de l'unitéafricaine, s'estrendu sur leslieux
en mai 1975 avec mission << de déterminer la position réelledes monts
N'Gouma r)Cecomitéaconstatél'existence, d'unepart, d'un ensemblede
pitons rocheux s'élevantau nord du guéde Kabia et, d'autre part, d'un
mont ou colline situéau sud-est du gué.Cesdeux élémenttsopographiques

correspondent aux deux situations possibles d'un <mont N'Gouma nsui-
vant les différentescartes produites par les Parties. Pour le Burkina Faso,
les <hauteursdeN'Gouma rsesituent au nord du guéde Kabia et, selon le FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 590

the erratum are invalidated by a factual error, so that Burkina Faso may
not properly rely upon it. For this reason, the Chamber will deal at this

point with the interpretation of the Order.

69. The two Parties have advanced various explanations of the fact that
the colonial administration found it necessary to issue an erratum to the
1927Order, and have subrnitted to the Chamber documents of the nature
of travaux préparatoires. It should be noted at the outset that if the
Chamber's task were to interpret and apply the Order as amended on
5 October 1927 as a regulative text, for the purpose of establishing the
boundaries of Upper Volta in 1932,it would have toexamineits scope and
appraise the relevance of the initial text of 31 August 1927,and of any
travauxpréparatoires, in the light of the particular rules of the legalsystem
frorn which the Order derives its force as a regulation, Le.,French colonial
law.But the Chamber recalls that the 1927Order does not directly concern
the boundary between Sudan and Upper Volta, but only the boundary
between Upper Volta and Niger, and that for the purposes of this case, the
Chamber is consulting the Order solelyas evidencewluch may shed some
light on the intentions of the colonial power concerning the course of the
boundary between French Sudan and Upper Volta. In addition, from a

more general perspective, the Chamber has already had occasion to
emphasize (paragraph 30) that if colonial law has any role to play in this
case it does so not in its own right, by way of a renvoi from international
law to colonial law, but solelyas evidenceof the situation which existed at
the timewhen the twoStatesParties achievedindependence. The Chamber
is therefore free to examine in this light the two successiveversions of the
1927 Order, while nonetheless attributing greater weight to the text as
modified by the erratum as a reflection of the definitive intentions of the
colonial authorities, and to take thetravauxpréparatoires into considera-
tion if this proves to be necessary.
70. It is clear from the actual wording of the text of the amended Order
that the starting-point of the boundary between Niger and Upper Volta,
which was also the end-point of the boundary between French Sudan and
Upper Volta, was consideredby the authors of this text to be the "heights
of N'Gouma", which weresituated in the region of the "Kabia ford". The
location of this ford is not in doubt, nor is it a matter of disagreement
between the Parties. This does not apply to the "heights of N'Gouma". It
should be noted that a neutral technical cornmittee, comprising three

cartographersappointed by the Legal Sub-Commission of the Organjza-
tion of African Unity Mediation Commission, went to the spot in May
1975with a mission "to determine the trueposition of mounts N'Gouma".
This cornmittee reported having found, first, a collection of rocky spurs
rising to the north of the Kabia ford and, secondly, an elevation or hi11
situated to the soutlieast of the ford. These two topographical features
correspond respectively to the two possible locations of a "mount N'Gou-
ma" according to the various maps produced by the Parties. For Burkina
Faso the "heights of N'Gouma" are situated tothe north of the Kabia ford,Mali, le <<mont N'Gouma ))se situe au sud-est du gué ;chaque Partie
développe des arguments à l'effet de démontrer le manque de crédibi-

lité des données cartographiquesou autres qui lui donneraient tort. Le
comité techniquede cartographes de 1975pour sa part est parvenu en la
matière à une conclusion qui sera examinée plus loin(paragraphe 170
ci-après).
71. De l'avis du Mali, le gouverneur général, enadoptant l'arrêté de
1927et son erratum, a cru retenir un point mais s'est trompé surl'objet
mêmede sa décision. L'actejuridique en question, fondésur des motifs de
fait matériellementerronésetinexacts, manquerait donc de validitédans la
stricte mesure de cette erreur. En effet, pour le Mali, il est possible que la
carte de 1925 (feuille d'Ansongo) au 1/500 000 ait servi de référence
cartographique à l'élaborationde l'arrêté de 1927et de son erratum. Or,
toujours selon le Mali, cette cartecomporte une erreur quant à l'emplace-
ment du mont N'Gourna puisqu'elle lesitue au nord du guéde Kabia, la
position exacte de N'Gouma, au sud-est de cegué,étantcelleindiquéesur

la carteau 1/200 000,éditée par I'IGN en 1960.La thèsemalienne revient
donc àécarter l'arrêtée 1927,corrigépar son erratum, en tant qu'élément
permettant de localiser les «hauteurs de N'Gouma et, partant, le point
terminal de la frontière,au motif que ce texte serait viciépar une erreur de
fait. Cette erreurconsisterait avoirpris en considérationun emplacement
deshauteursde N'Gouma qui serait erronéen fait. Aprèsavoir analyséles
règles dudroit des contrats et du droit administratif français qui régissent
la matière, le Mali conclut que, au regard de l'ensemble du droit interne
français, I'arrêtéde 1927ne peut, parce que comportant une erreur sur
l'objet de la décision,êtreconsidéré commeun titre valable et pertinent.
Pour cequi est du droit international, le Mali soutient que la novation des
limites territoriales du Soudan français et de la Haute-Volta en frontières
internationales du Mali et du Burkina Faso exclut toute confirmation

internationale de plein droit d'un acte déjànul en droit interne.
72. Austade actuel de son arrêt,laChambre secontentera d'examinersi
elle peut ou doit prendre en considération I'arrêtéde 1927,ou si elle doit
l'écartercomme nul et non avenu. Pour démontrerl'invaliditéde I'arrêté il
faudrait établir,par despreuves ou desargumentsqui nedépendraientpas
eux-mêmesde la validitéou de l'invaliditéde l'arrêté edte son erratum et
qui dépasseraientla simpleconstatation d'une divergenceentre cartes, que
les mots <(les hauteurs de N'Gouma Pdésignaienten 1927des élévations
autres que celles qu'envisageait le gouverneur général au moment de la
rédactionde l'arrêté od ue l'erratum. Or sicelapouvait êtreétabli,il serait
par la même occasiondémontréquel'emplacementdu point terminal de la
lignesesituait àunendroit autreque celuiindiquépar l'arrêté :dans cecas,
la validité ou lanon-validitéen droit administratif français de I'arrêté ne
présenteraient plus aucun intérêtE . n tout étatde cause, cette question est

étrangèreau problèmedont la Chambre est saisie. En la présenteespèce,
I'arrêtéet son erratum n'ont d'autre valeur que celle d'un élémentde
preuve. Si I'arrêté avaiéttéviciépar une erreur de fait, des conséquences
auraient pu en découler au niveaude lavaliditéjuridique d'unepartie de la FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 591

and according to Mali "mount N'Gouma" lies to the south-east of the
ford ;eachParty has produced arguments to demonstrate whyno credence
should be given to whatever cartographic or other material contradictsits

claim. The 1975 technical committee of cartographers reached its own
conclusion on the matter, and this will be examined later (paragraph 170
below).
71. Mali argues that when the Governor-General adopted the 1927
Order and its erratum he believed he was selecting a particular point but
wasin fact in error on the verysubject-matter oflusdecision, whichwithin
the compass of that error, but only so far, would invalidate the legal act in
question, based as it was on wrong and inaccurate grounds of fact. Here
Mali postulates that when the 1927Order and erratum were drawn up it
may well have been the 1:500,000 1925map (Ansongo sheet) which pro-
vided thecartographic support. But thismap,accordingto Mali, misplaces
mount N'Gouma bylocatingit to the north of the Kabia ford ;the correct
position of N'Gouma, to the south-east of the ford, is that shown on the
1:200,000map published by the IGN in 1960.In sum, Mali would exclude
the 1927 Order, corrected by its erratum, as a source for locating the
"heights of N'Gouma" and, consequently, theend-point of thefrontier, on
the ground that the text is invalidated by a factual error. This error is said
to reside in the use of a position for the heights of N'Gouma which is
factually inaccurate. After analysing the rules of the law of contract and
French administrative law on the question, Mali concludes that, by the
lights of French internal law as a whole, the Order of 1927 cannot be
treated as a valid and relevant title because it contains an error in regard to

the subject-matter of the decision. As for international law, Mali argues
that thechange of status of the territorial boundaries of French Sudan and
Upper Volta, whereby they have become the international frontiers of
Mali and Burkina Faso, precludes any automatic confirmation on the
international plane of an act void in internal law.
72. At the present stage of its Judgment, the Chamber has only to
consider whether it may or must take account of the Order of 1927,or
should lay it aside as nul1and void. To show the invalidity of the Order, it
would be necessary to establish,through evidence or arguments not them-
selves dependent on the validity or invalidity of the Order and erratum,
and taiung the matter further than the mere observation of a discrepancy
between maps, that in 1927the words "the heights of N'Gouma" denoted
elevations other than those envisaged by the Governor-General at the
moment of drafting the Order or the erratum. But it would thereby alsobe
shown that theend-point of the linewaslocated at adifferent spotfrom the
one stated in the Order, and the validity or invalidity of the Order in
French administrative lawwould then become academic. At al1events, this
question does not enter into the problem with which the Chamber has to
deal. In the present proceedings, it is solely the evidentiary value of the
Order and erratum which counts. If the Order was flawed by a factual
error, thiscould havehad someimplicationsfor the legalvalidity ofpart of
the boundary between Upper Volta and Niger. The significance of thelimite entre la Haute-Voltaet leNiger. La valeur de l'arrêté comme preuve
de l'emplacement du point terminal de la limite entre le Soudanfrançais et
la Haute-Volta est une question indépendante. La conclusion sur la vali-
ditéde l'arrêté peud tépendre de la conclusion sur la position des <(hau-
teurs de N'Gouma mais cette secondeconclusion ne saurait dépendre de
la première. Même le Mali,pour qui I'arrêté manquede validitéjuridique,
s'ensert à titre d'élémendte preuve a l'appui de la thèsequ'ildéfendquant
a l'emplacement réeldu point terminal de la ligne. Il n'est donc pas
nécessaireque la Chambre poursuive l'étudede l'interprétation de l'arrêté
de 1927afin d'établirsa validitéjuridique : il lui suffira d'examinerà un
stade ultérieur de son arrêtquelle est la valeur probante de l'arrêtéd ,e

l'erratum et des travaux préparatoires encequiconcerne l'emplacement du
point terminal de la limite soudano-voltaïque.

73. Dans l'ordre chronologique, le texte réglementaire qu'ilfaut men-
tionnerensuite est ledécretdu 5septembre 1932.Un des effets decedécret
aété d'abroger purement et simplement ledécretdulermars 1919créantla
colonie de la Haute-Volta et de supprimer ainsi cette colonie. On lit en
outre dans ce décret,entréen vigueur le lerjanvier 1933 :

tArt. 2 - Les cercles de Fada et de Dori (le canton d'Aribinda
excepté)sont rattachés à la colonie du Niger.
Lecercle de Ouahigouya, lecanton d'Aribinda du cercle de Dori et
la partie du cercle de Dedougou situéesur la rive gauche de la Volta-
Noire, sont rattachés à la colonie du Soudan français ... )>(Voir ci-

après croquis no 2.)
Par un arrêté du gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentalefrançaise
endatedu 17novembre 1932,lesterritoires de la colonie de la Haute-Volta
rattachés au Soudan français par le décret susviséont étéréorganisés
comme suit :

<1. Le cercle de Ouahigouya, faisant actuellement partie de la
Haute-Volta, et le canton de l'Aribinda, détachédu cercle de Dori,
forment une seule circonscription dénommée :cercle de Ouahigouya
et ayant son chef-lieu à Ouahigouya ...))

Cet arrêté est égalemententréen vigueur le leijanvier 1933.C'estdans ce
contexte administratif qu'est intervenu, entre le gouverneur généralde
l'Afrique occidentalefrançaise et les lieutenants-gouverneurs du Niger et
du Soudan français, un échange de lettres que le Burkina Faso invoque à
l'appui de ses prétentions.
74. Pour apprécier la signification que le Burkina Faso attribue à cet

échangede lettres, survenu en 1935, il convient de le replacer dans les
circonstances de l'époque. Par l'effetdu décret du 5 septembre 1932,la
Haute-Volta avait cessé d'exister àpartir du leijanvier 1933et lescerclesOrder asevidenceof thelocation of theend-point of the boundary between
French Sudan and Upper Volta is a separate question. Any finding on the
validity of the Order may well depend on what is found as regards the
position of the "heights of N'Goums", but the converse cannot be true.
Even Mali, which contends that the Order iswanting in legalvalidity, uses
itasevidencein support of itscontention regardingthe true position of the
end-point of the line. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Chamber
further to construe the 1927Order with the aim of deterrnining its legal
validity ;it will suffice, at a later stage in this Judgment, to examine the
value of the Order, of the erratum and of the travaux préparatoires, as

evidenceof the position of the end-point of the boundary between French
Sudan and Upper Volta.

73. In chronological order, the next regulative text that has to be men-
tioned is the decree of 5 September 1932,one of whose effects was the
outright abrogation of the decree of 1March 1919which had created the
colony of Upper Volta, and hence the abolition of that colony. The new

decree, which came into force on 1 January 1933, also provided as fol-
lows :
''Art.2 - The cercles of Fada and Dori (except the canton of
Aribinda) are annexed to the colony of Niger.
The cercle of Ouahigouya, the canton of Aribinda within the
cercleof Dori and that part of the cercle of Dedougou located on

the left bank of the Black Volta are annexed to the colony of French
Sudan .. ."(See sketch-map No. 2 below.)
By an Order of the Govemor-General of French West Africa dated
17November 1932,the territories of the colony of Upper Volta which had

been annexed to French Sudan by the above-mentioned decree were
reorganized as follows :
"1. The cercle of Ouahigouya, at present forming part of Upper
Volta, and the canton of Aribinda, detached from the cercle of Dori,
are to form a singleunit under the name of cercleof Ouahigouya, with

its chief town at Ouahigouya . . ."
This Order alsocame into force on 1January 1933.It was in this admini-
strative setting that anexchange of letters took place between the Gov-
ernor-General of French West Africa and the Lieutenant-Governors of
Niger and French Sudan, and this correspondence is relied upon by Bur-
kina Faso.

74. To appreciate the significance attached by Burkina Faso to this
exchange of letters, which occurred in 1935,it must be viewed against the
background of the period. As a result of the decree of 5 September 1932,
Upper Volta had ceased to exist as from 1January 1933,and the cercles (suppressiondela1

T t +\ + 1HAUTE-VOLTA (+ -"
SOUDAN FRANC& nsongo 11932)

[mu Cerclevoltdique transfe;;
au Soudan français
[ Cercle vtranrféd
Fada ~'~ourrnrau Niger - -r
Z - + + 1 the suppression of
-
i- 1 UPPER-VOLTA + -16'
FRENCH SUDAN (1932)
nsongo

Hombori
\+

+

NIGER + -x.

Ïl

11 Voltanwnsf.rr.d
rFrench Sudan
Ouagadougou
[=] Volts.itrsnsfmri-d
Fada riGcurma <Nip.,
-1 + 11 - Q.
7 ---?i-. - -
O m 1W hm
f1 P 0' P 1 i.
rqui l'avaient composéeavaientété rattachés,dans larégionconsidérée, soit
au Soudan français, soit au Niger. Là où des territoires voltaïques limi-
trophes du soudan français étaient devenus nigériens, l'ancienne limite
entre le Soudan français et la Haute-Volta a continué de séparer deux
colonies distinctes, le Soudan français et le Niger ; là où des territoires

voltaïques avaientétérattachésau Soudanfrançais, l'ancienne limiteentre
les deux coIonies s'esttransformée en limite entre deux cercles,désormais
soudanais. Il ressort des textes réglementairescitésquele démembrement
de la Haute-Volta a étéeffectuésur la base de l'étatdes cercles et des
cantons tels qu'ils existaient en 1932. La Chambre croit donc pouvoir
conclure àl'identité entreleslimites qui séparaientle Soudanfrançais et la
Haute-Volta en 1932et celles qui séparaientle Niger et le Soudanfrançais
en 1935,mais uniquement pour ce qui est des zones auxquelles seréfère la
première hypothèse envisagée ci-dessus. Ainsi que le montre le croquis
no2, la limite soudano-nigérienne de 1935se confondait avec l'ancienne
limite soudano-voltaïquedepuis l'extrémité orientale decette dernière,qui
avait constitué,avant 1932,lepoint triple (point X sur lecroquis) entre les
colonies du Soudan français, du Niger et de la Haute-Volta jusqu'à un

autre point triple (pointY),où avaient convergé,avant 1932,la limiteentre
les cercles voltaïques de Dori et Ouahigouya et la limite entre le Soudan
françaiset la Haute-Volta. Ainsi qu'il a étéindiqué,lecercle de Dori, par
l'effet du décretdu 5 septembre 1932,fut amputé de son canton d'Ari-
binda, désormais rattachéau Soudan français, pour être,dans cette éten-
due réduite, attribué au Niger. La Chambre doit en conséquence tenir
compte de tout élémentde preuve pouvant servir à démontrerquel étaitle
tracé de la frontièreentre le Soudan français et le Niger à cette époque,
mais seulement pour cequi estde la partie de laditefrontièrequi s'étendait
entre ces deux points. Au sud (entre le point Y et le point Z), ce qui était
en 1935la frontière soudano-nigérienne s'est vu transformé en 1947,par
le jeu de la réintégrationdu canton d'Aribinda et du cercle nigériende
Dori dans la Haute-Volta ressuscitée,en simple limite administrative vol-

taïque entre deux cantons du cerclede Dori. A l'ouest,entre lepoint Yetle
point W, ce qui n'était en1935 qu'une limite administrative entre deux
cercles soudanais (Mopti - englobant Bandiagara - et Ouahigouya) est
redevenu frontière entre le Soudan français et la Haute-Volta.
75. Dans une lettre 191 CM2 du 19 février1935,adresséesimultané-
ment aux lieutenants-gouverneurs du Niger et du Soudan français, le
gouverneur générad lel'Afrique occidentale française s'estexprimécomme
suit :

(La limite entre votre colonie et celle du Niger [Soudan] n'a
actuellement qu'une valeur de fait résultant de textes ne comportant
pas la description géographique de cette limite. Il m'apparaît néces-
sairepour assurer dans desconditions satisfaisantes le règlementdes
diverses questions administratives concernant la régionfrontalière

soudano-nigérienne ainsi que pour son report précissur la carte, de
fixerpar un texte, la limite dont ils'agit. Pour mepermettre d'adresser FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 594

which had comprised it had been annexed, in the region in question, either
to French Sudan or to Niger. Wherever Voltan territories bordering on
French Sudan had become part of Niger, the former boundary between

French Sudan and Upper Volta continued to divide two separate colonies,
Sudan and Niger ;whereverVoltan territories had been annexed toFrench
Sudan, the former boundary between the two colonies was transformed
into a boundary between two cercles within French Sudan. From the
passages quoted it is clear that the dismemberment of Upper Volta was
carried out on the basis of the cerclesand cantons such as they existed in
1932. Hence the Chamber believes it may conclude that the boundaries
between French Sudan and Upper Volta in 1932and those between Niger
and French Sudan in 1935matched, though only in the areas referred to in
the former of the hypotheses contemplated above. As the attached sketch-
map No. 2 shows, the 1935boundary between French Sudan and Niger
was identical with theformer boundary between French Sudan and Upper

Volta from its eastern extremity, which before 1932had been the tripoint
(marked Xon the sketch)between the colonies of French Sudan, Niger and
Upper Volta, to another tripoint (marked Y),where the boundary between
the Voltan cerclesof Dori and Ouahigouya had encountered, before 1932,
that between French Sudan and Upper Volta. As already explained, as a
result of the decree of 5 September 1932 the cercle of Dori, minus the
cunton of Aribinda, which was annexed to French Sudan, was allotted to
Niger. The Chamber must therefore take into account any evidence as to
where the boundary then laybetween French Sudan and Niger, but only as
regards the line between these two points. To the south (from point Y to
point Z),what in 1935was the boundary between French Sudan and Niger
was transformed in 1947,owing to the reincorporation of the canton of
Aribinda and the Niger cercleof Dori into the restored colony of Upper

Volta, into a mere administrative boundary within that colony between
two cantons of thecercleof Dori. To the West,between point Y and point
W, what had been in 1935 merely an administrative boundary between
two Sudanese cercles (Mopti - including Bandiagara - and Ouahi-
gouya) became once more the frontier between French Sudan and Upper
Volta.

75. In letter 191CM2 of 19February 1935,addressed simultaneously to
the Lieutenant-Governors of Niger and French Sudan, the Governor-
General of French West Africa stated as follows :

"The boundary between your colony and that of Niger [Sudan] has

only de facto value at present, being based on texts which do not
include a geographical description of this boundary. 1 feel it is neces-
sary, in order to ensure satisfactory regulation of the various admini-
strative issues pertaining to the frontier region between Sudan and
Niger, and its exact portrayal on the map, to fix the boundary in
question by means of a text. To enable me to sendthe Department the au Départementlespropositions réglementaires,je vousserais recon-
naissant de vouloir bien me communiquer d'urgence votre avissur le
projet ci-dessous :
(<D'un point situé à la frontière algérienne ...des hauteurs de
Gorontondi, des monts Tin Garan, Ngouma, Trontikato, par la
pointe nord du mont Ouagou, la pointe nord de la mare d'In Abao,
le sommet des monts Tin Eoult et Tabakarach et s'infléchitvers le

sud-ouest jusqu'au point de latitude 14' 43'45" et de longitude
1O 24' 15" (ouest de Greenwich). ))...
Aux termes du dernier alinéade cette lettre, une carte était jointe, << sur
laquelle a étéreportée la situation des divers points précités, telle qu'elle
découledes travaux géographiquesles plus récentso.Cette carte n'a pas
étéretrouvée.

76. Dans sa réponsedu 3juin 1935lelieutenant-gouverneurdu Soudan
français, aprèsavoir constatéque les propositions du gouverneur général
intéressaientquatre cerclessoudanais, dont seullecerclede Moptidoit être
considéré aux finsde la présenteaffaire, s'est exprimé ainsi :
(<Le projet de limite tel qu'il est indiquédans la lettre 191CM2

ci-dessus viséene semble pas devoir êtremodifiésauf en ce qui
concerne : 1)la partie intéressantle cercle de Mopti dont l'adminis-
trateur propose que la mare de Kébanaire située presque à la limite
des cercles de Mopti, Gourma-Rharous, et Dori (ce dernier faisant
partie de la colonie du Niger) soit mentionnée dans la description
géographiquede la limite qui, dès lors, serait modifiéecomme suit
(lettre 191CM2 précitée, page 2,lignes 4 et5 avant-dernières) : ..((le
sommet des monts Tin Eoult et Tabakarech et la mare de Kéba-
naire...

On notera que, d'aprèsles diverses copies de ces lettres produites par les
Parties, le gouverneur généralmentionnait le mont ((Tabakarach (ou
même <<Tabanarach ))),nom que, dans sa réponse,le lieutenant-gouver-
neur orthographiait <<Tabakarech o. Il ressort égalementde cette réponse
que l'administrateur du cercle de Gao avait proposé qu'unlevésoit effec-
tuéentre Labézanga et Anderamboukane, régionqui n'intéresse pas le
présent différend.Pour des raisonsadministratives, il n'apasétéprocédé à

ce levé. Leprojet du gouverneur général n'aconnu aucune suite.
77. L'interprétation quipourrait être donnéede cet échangede lettres
fait l'objet d'une controverseentre les Parties. Pour le Burkina Faso, ces
lettres,
<<siellesn'ontpasl'autoritéformelled'un acteadministratif enbonne

et due forme, n'enconstituent pas moins l'expressionauthentique par
l'autorité compétente à l'époque ..de sa conviction quant au tracéde
la délimitation O,
c'est-à-direquant au tracéd'une limiteexistant àl'époque.En revanche,de
l'avisdu Mali, lalettre du gouverneur général n'esq tu'un actepréparatoire necessary regulatory proposals, 1 would be glad if you would send me
your opinion, as a matter of urgency, concerning the following draft
[projet] :
'From a point located on the Algerian frontier . ..the heights of
Gorontondi, mounts Tin Garan, Ngouma, Trontikato, via the
northern peak of mount Ouagou, the northern point of the pool of
In Abao, and the summits of mounts Tin Eoult and Tabakarach,
and then bends southwestas far asthepoint of latitude 14"43'45"

and longitude 1"24' 15" (west of Greenwich).' .. ."
The final paragraph of the letter specified that there was a map annexed
"showing the location of the various points mentioned, asderived from the
most recent geographical work" ;this map has not been traced.

76. In his reply of 3 June 1935 the Lieutenant-Governor of French
Sudan, after noting that the Governor-General's proposals affected four
Sudanese cercles(only one of which, the cercle of Mopti, requires con-
sideration in the present proceedjngs), expressed the following vie~ :

"There does not seem to be any need to alter the projected boun-
dary described inletter 191CM2 referred to above,exceptwith regard
to the following :(1)the part relating to the cercleof Mopti, in which
the administrator is proposing that the pool of Kébanaire situated
almost on the boundary of thecerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and
Dori (the latter forming part of the colony of Niger) should be
included in the geographical description of the boundary, which
would accordingly be amended as follows (letter No. 191 CM2,
page 2,lines4 and 5from theend) :'the summitsof mounts Tin Eoult
and Tabakarech and the pool of Kébanaire .. .'."

It will be noted that, according to the various copies of these letters
produced by the Parties the Governor-General mentioned mount "Taba-
karach" (or even "Tabanarach") whereas the Lieutenant-Governor's reply
spelt the name as "Tabakarech". From this letter it also emerges that the
administrator of the cercle of Gao had proposed having a survey made
between Labézangaand Anderamboukane, a region not relevant to the
present dispute. For administrative reasons, tius survey was not under-
taken. The Governor-General's draft remained in abeyance.
77. The Parties cannot agree on the interpretation of this exchange of
letters. According to Burkina Faso, these letters

"although they do not possess the formal authority of an adminis-
trative act in due form, nevertheless constitute an authentic expres-
sion by the competent authority of the period ... of his conviction as
to the course of the boundary line"
that is, the line of a boundary which existed at the time. Mali's opinion

differs :the Govemor-General's letter is merely a preparatory documentd'un projet de décisionadministrative de délimitation entre le Soudan
français et le Niger et elle est en conséquencedépourvuede tout effet de
droit. Le Mali contesteen outreque la lettre puisse avoir quelque valeur de
preuve en tant que description de la frontière dans la région envisagée et
soutient que l'attribution d'une telle valeur à la lettre ne serait guère
conciliable avec son texte même,la réactiondes chefs de circonscription
administrative et le fait que le projet de délimitation qui y étaitannoncéa
finalement avorté,si bien qu'aucun actejuridique n'a pris forme.
78. S'il s'avéraitque l'intention du gouverneur général avait été de
définirune limite làoù iln'enexistait pas, ou de modifier lalimite existante
pour mieux répondreaux besoins de l'administration coloniale, il faudrait
évidemment retenir l'objection du Mali selon laquelle la proposition à

l'examen n'ajamais ététransformée en acte réglementaire et n'a donc
aucune valeur légale.Tout dépend donc de savoir si, comme le prétendle
Burkina Faso, la lettre 191CM2 se bornait à décrireune limite existante.
Le Mali ne soutient pas qu'il n'y avait point de limite entre le Soudan
françaiset le Niger, maisilestime que la lettre du gouverneur généraldoit
êtreinterprétéc eomme traduisant I'intention de définire novo lalimite de
droit, c'est-à-dire de considérer comme dépourvue d'intérêt la situation
telle qu'elle existait et de s'orienter vers la définitiond'une situation nou-
velle.
79. Avant de rechercher quelle étaitl'intention du gouverneur général
en ce qui concerne la limite dans cette région,il convient de noter l'argu-
ment avancépar le Burkina Faso, selonlequel l'absence de protestation de
la part du lieutenant-gouverneur du Soudan français contre le tracé de la
limite indiquéepar la lettre 191CM2 valait et vaut acceptation de ce tracé,
ce que le Soudan français a accepté s'imposant au Mali au titre de la
succession d'Etats. Le Burkina Faso soutient égalementque l'acceptation
du tracéde la ligne par le Soudan françaisa eu pour effet de couvrir toute
erreur qu'aurait pu commettre le gouverneur généralquant à I'emplace-

ment de la limite administrative. Le Burkina Faso ne renonce pas pour
autant à sa thèse selon laquelle la lettre 191CM2 a valeur de description
de la limite de fait existant en 1935,thèselaquelle vient s'ajouter l'argu-
ment fondésur l'acquiescement. La Chambre examinera d'abord ce der-
nier argument ;elle recherchera ensuite l'interprétation qu'il convient de
donner à la lettre 191CM2 eu égard à la situation en 1935.Il lui appa-
raîtra alors, selon que ladite lettre se sera avérée avoireu une portée inno-
vatrice ou seulement descriptive, si l'argument avancépar le Burkina
Faso et fondésur un prétendu acquiescement malien doit êtreexaminé
au titre d'argument principal ou seulement complémentaire àl'appui de
sa thèse.
80. La Chambre estime ne pas pouvoir retenir l'argument fondésur la
prétendue acceptation, par le lieutenant-gouverneur du Soudan français,
du tracé indiquédans la lettre du gouverneur général,pour les raisons
suivantes. Tout d'abord, lesauteursdeslettres considérées ne setrouvaient
pas sur un pied d'égalitéet leur compétence territoriale n'était pas la
même :lelieutenant-gouverneurrépondait à unecommunication émanant FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 596

for a draft adnunistrative decision on delimitation between French Sudan
and Niger, and is consequently without legal effect. Mali also denies that
the letter has any evidentiary value as a description of the frontier in the
region concerned and argues that to attribute such a value to the letter
would be impossible to reconcile with the actual text of the letter, the
reaction of the heads of administrative districts and the fact that nothing
evercame of the draft delimitation it adumbrated, so that no legalact ever
took shape.

78. If it had demonstrably been the Governor-General's intention to
define a boundary where none existed, or to modify the existing boundary
inthe light of therequirements of colonial administration, Mali's objection
that the proposal considered was never transformed into a regulative
instrument, and therefore has no legal force, would obviously be cogent.
Everything therefore depends on whether, as Burkina Faso claims, letter
191CM2 did no more than describe an existing boundary. Mali does not
argue that there was no boundary between French Sudan and Niger, but
considers that the Governor-General's letter has to be interpreted as
reflecting an intention to define the legalboundary de novo,that is,to treat
the existing situation as irrelevant and focus on the definition of a new
situation.

79. Before considering the intentions of the Governor-General as
regards the boundary in this region, the Chamber must note Burkina
Faso'scontentionthat the absence of protest by the Lieutenant-Governor
of French Sudan againsttheboundary line described inletter 191CM2 did
and does amount to an acceptance of that line, and that what French

Sudan accepted is binding on Mali by virtue of State succession. Burkina
Faso also maintains that acceptance of the course of the line by French
Sudan would override any error which the Governor-General might have
made concerning the position of the administrative boundary. It so con-
tends without, however, abandoning its submission that letter 191CM2
amounts to a description of the actual boundary in 1935,a submission
supplemented by the argument from acquiescence.The Chamber willfirst
consider that argument and next seek to determine what interpretation is
warranted of letter 191CM2, having regard to the circumstances prevail-
ing in 1935.According to whether the letter is found to have been inno-
vatory or merely descriptive in scope,it willthen becomeclear, either that
the argument advanced by Burkina Faso on the basis of a supposed
acquiescence by Mali merits examination as a major contention, or that it
is merely adjunctive to its case.

80. In the Chamber's view,theargument from the supposed acceptance
by the Lieutenant-Governor of French Sudan of the line indicated in the
Governor-General's letter is untenable, for the following reasons. The
writers of the letters were not of equal standing, nor did they possess the

same territorial cornpetence :the Lieutenant-Governor in question was
replying to acommunication from hissuperior. That being so,it isdifficultde son supérieur hiérarchique. Dans ces circonstances, on voit mal com-
ment un acquiescement, qui suppose le libre exercice de la volonté,aurait
pu intervenir. Mais il y a plus :l'hypothèse de base que ledit argument
suppose est que la description figurant dans la lettre 191CM2 ne corres-
pondait pas à la limite existante, si limite il y avait, entre les colonies du
Soudan françaiset du Niger. Lesrecherches de la Chambre portent sur les
limites de la Haute-Voltaà la veillede sonindépendance, limites assignées
par l'effetde la loi de 1947.La question qui sepose est donc cellede savoir

si,en 1947,la Haute-Volta rétablie a héritéde la nouvelle limitequi aurait
vu lejour en 1935 à la suite de l'acceptation, par les autorités soudanaises,
de la lettre 19CM2. La réponse à cettequestion est négative. D'unepart la
loi de 1947a reconstituéla Haute-Volta dans ses limites de 1932et si, en
1935,une de ceslimites, devenue limite entre leSoudanfrançaiset leNiger,
avait étémodifiée,cette modification aurait été inopérante dès l'entrée en
vigueur de la loi de 1947.D'autre part il ne faut pas perdre de vue que le
gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentalefrançaise n'ajamais pris d'ar-
rêté pour donner suitea sa proposition de 1935.Quelle que soit sa valeur
comme moyen de preuve ou comme simple élémentd'information quant
aux vues ou aux intentions du gouverneur général, l'échangd ee lettres de
1935n'aurait pu avoirpour effet, aux fins du droit administratif colonial,
seul applicable a l'époque,d'instaurer entre les deux colonies une limite

dont aurait pu hériterla Haute-Volta.
81. La chambre en arrive à présent au problème de l'interprétation et
de la portéede l'échangede lettres de 1935.Le Mali souligne que la lettre
191CM2 commence par les mots : <La limite ..n'a actuellement qu'une
valeur de fait ))et en déduitque ladite lettre constate en réalitél'absence
d'une limite légaleentre les deux colonies. 11explique pourtant que, selon
son interprétation de la lettre, il existait bel et bien une limite entre le
Soudan français et le Niger, que cette limite était fournie par des textes
existant à l'époque, maisque l'on ignore aujourd'hui quels étaient ces
textes, et que silegouverneur générala éprouvéle besoin de proposer une
définition, c'est que la représentation cartographique de la limite n'était
pas satisfaisante. Réservantpour l'instant laquestion du sensa attribuer a
l'expression <<valeur de fait )),la Chambre est d'avis que, si une limite
possédant au moins cette valeur existait en 1935, iln'y a pas de raison de

supposer que la mêmelimite n'existait pas en 1932,date critique pour la
mise en Œuvre de la disposition de la loi de 1947 fixant les limites de la
Haute-Volta. Ce serait alors cette limite defacto qui aurait définile legs
colonial de 1960,auquel la Chambredoit a présents'attacher. Dans cette
optique, il importe peu que legouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentale
française n'ait pu mener à bien son projet de «fixer par un texte, la limite
dont il s'agito.Ce qui compte, en l'espèce,c'estde déterminerquelle était
cette limite en prenant en considération tous les indices disponibles, y
inclus la lettre 191CM2.
82. Pour le Mali, ilest clair que le texte de la lettre 191CM2 constituait
la traduction <en mots ))de la ligne tracéesur la carte au 1/500 000 de
1925,c'est-à-dire sur la carte Blondel la Rougery, mentionnée au para- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 597

to see how the idea of acquiescence, which presupposes freedom of will,
can arise. In addition, it must be borne in mind that theargument isbased
on theassumption that thedescriptioncontained in letter 191CM2 did not
correspond to theexistingboundary, if there wasone, between the colonies
of French Sudan and Niger. Now, the Chamber's investigations relate to
the boundaries of Upper Volta on the eveof itsindependence, boundaries
which were assigned to it as a result of the 1947law. Thus the question is
whether, in 1947,the restored Upper Volta would have inherited any new
boundary arising in 1935 after acceptance by the authorities of French
Sudan of letter 191CM2. The answer to that question is negative. On the
one hand, the 1947law reconstituted Upper Volta within its 1932boun-
daries, and if one of them, after conversion into a boundary between
French Sudan and Niger, had undergone alteration in 1935, that modi-

fication would have become ineffective on that law'sentry into force. On
the other, it must not be overlooked that the Governor-General of French
West Africa never issued any order to give effect to his 1935 proposal.
Whatever its value as evidence,or as mere information regardingthe views
or intentions of the Governor-General, the 1935exchange of letters could
not in colonialadministrative law, the only lawapplicable in the matter at
the time, have resulted in the institution of an intra-colonial boundary
which could have been inherited by Upper Volta.

81. The Chamber now cornes to the problem of the interpretation and
significance of the 1935 exchange of letters. Mali stresses that letter 191
CM2 begins with the words "the boundary .. .has only de facto value
[valeur defait] at present" and infers that this letter actually records the
absence of any legal boundary between the two colonies. Yet it explains
that, on its own interpretation of the letter, a boundary did in fact exist
between French Sudan and Niger. that this boundary derived from texts
which existed at the time, though it is no longer known what texts these
were, and that if the Governor-General felt the need to propose a defini-
tion, that wasbecause thecartographie representation of the boundary was
not satisfactory.Setting aside for the moment the question of the meaning
tobe ascribed to the term "valeurdefait'', it is theChamber's viewthat, if a

boundary of at least such value existed in 1935, there is no reason to
suppose that the same boundary did not exist in 1932,the critical date for
the implementation of the provision in the 1947 law which fixed the
boundaries of Upper Volta. It would then be this defacto boundary that
defined the heritage bequeathed in 1960by colonization, which it is now
the Chamber's business to discern. From that standpoint, it matters little
that the Governor-General of French West Africa was unable to bring to
fruition hisplan "to fixtheboundary in question by means of a text". What
is important in these proceedings is to ascertain where that boundary lay,
taking account of al1available indications, including letter 191CM2.
82. To Mali, it is clear that the text of letter 191 CM2 was a verbal
interpretation of the line drawn on the 1925 1:500,000scale map, that is,
the Blondel la Rougery map mentioned in paragraph 59 above, an excerptgraphe 59ci-dessus, dont un extrait estjoint au présentarrêt(voir ci-après
croquis no 3). Sans entrer à ce stade dans le détailde la correspondance
entre les indications figurant dans le texte de la lettre et les toponymes
apparaissant surcette carte à proximitéde la ligne yindiquée,la Chambre
pense qu'ilesthautement probableque lerédacteurde lalettre ait euladite
carte sous lesyeux. Le Mali a également soulignéles insuffisances de cette

carte et soutenu qu'aucune valeur probante ou de description ne peut être
attribuée à des mesures prises sur la foi de renseignements ((soit erronés,
soit fantaisistes o.Pour l'instant cependant, la Chambre n'examine que la
question du caractère prétendument modificateur ou déclaratoire de la
lettre 191CM2. Il s'agitd'abord de rechercher quelle a pu êtrel'intention
du gouverneur général à cet égard ;et la conformitédu texte de la lettre
avec la limite administrative présentéepar la carte de 1925tend plutôt à
renforcer l'idéeque la lettre était censéedonner une description d'une

limite existante. En effet, si le but recherchéétait de modifier une limite
existante ayant <valeur de fait O,il aurait fallu que le gouverneur général
ait eu connaissance d'une telle limite, qui ne correspondait pas à celle
indiquéesurla carte Blondel la Rougery, et qu'ilait choisi de lui substituer
cette limite cartographique. Une telle interprétation des faits n'est guère
conciliable avecletexte de la lettre 191CM2. Leproblèmede savoir,d'une
part, si la carte considéréedonnait une représentation exacte de la topo-

graphie ou siparcontre elleavait induit legouverneur généralenerreur et,
d'autre part, quelles auraient étéles conséquencesjuridiques éventuelles
d'une telle erreur sera examinéplus loin.
83. Le Mali présente un autre argument, tiréde ce que la lettre du
gouverneur général qualifie elle-mêmd ee <(projet les indications qu'elle
contient. Selon le Mali, l'idée mêmd ee projet semble exclure des mesures
rétroactivescar un projet consiste en un travail et une rédaction prépara-
toires qui décrivent ceque l'on pense faire ou atteindre. La Chambre

reconnaît que c'est bienen cela que consiste un projet. Mais elle relèveque
la lettre considéréecontenait un projet de texte qui aurait pu prendre par la
suite la forme d'un arrêté - texte réglementaire dont on envisageait
l'adoption - et qu'un tel <projet ))pouvait très bien entériner et définir
une limite qui existait, fût-ce seulement avec une <(valeur de fait ))sans
pour autant perdre le caractère prospectif d'un projet. Le Mali observe en
outre que rien n'établit que l'autoritécompétente pour fixer une limite

colonialese soit engagée à ce que la ligne proposéesoit une <(ligne de fait
d'une manière définitive )):le gouverneur général ne pouvaitêtreliépar
des avis émanant des chefs de colonie ou d'autres organes sans que la loi
ne leprévoie expressément.La Chambre admet que legouverneur général
aurait très bien pu changer d'avis et prendre un arrêté définissant d'une
autre manière la limite soudano-nigérienne. Mais pour la Chambre il ne
s'ensuit pas qu'il ne faille pas tenir compte en droit du fait décritpar la
lettre.

84. Le Mali voit égalementdans les réactions manifestéespar les chefs
de circonscription à l'égardde la lettre 191CM2 une indication tendant à
prouver que cettelettre neconstituait qu'une proposition sans rapport avec FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 598

from which is annexed to this Judgment (sketch-map No. 3below). With-
out at this stage expandingthe correlations of detail between the wording
of the letter and the place-names appearing near the line on the map, the
Chamber believesthat the author of the letter, most probably,had this map
in front of him. Malihas alsoemphasized the deficiencies of this map, and
maintained that no probative or descriptive value can be attributed to
measures taken on the basis of information "which is either erroneous or
fanciful". For the moment, however, the Chamber is considering only the
question whether, as claimed, letter 191 CM2 was of an amending or
declaratory nature. What must first be ascertained iswhat theintentions of
the Governor-General may have been in that respect ; and the concor-
dance between the text of the letter and the administrative line presented
by the 1925 map lends greater weight to the idea that the letter was
intended to give a description of an existing boundary. This is because, if

the objective were to modify an existing boundary having "defacto value",
the Governor-General must then have known of this boundary, and been
aware that it did not match the boundary shown on the Blondel la Rougery
map, deliberately substituting the boundary on the map for the existing
boundary. It isdifficult to reconcile this interpretation of the facts with the
text of letter 191 CM2. Whether, on the one hand, the map in question
accurately represented the topography, or instead led the Governor-
General into error. and what, on the other hand, would be the legal con-
sequences of such error, are questions that will be dealt with later.

83. A further argument presented by Mali relies on the fact that the
letter itself describes the indications it gives as of the Governor-General's
'projet". According to Mali, the very idea of aprojet seems to preclude
retroactive measures, since aprojet implies preparatory work and a draft

description of the contemplated action or objective. The Chamber
acknowledges that this correctly defines the purpose of a projet. But it
points out that the letter in question contained a draft text which might
subsequently have taken the form of an order - a legislative text intended
for adoption - and that such aprojetrnightwell haveendorsedand defined
a boundary which already existed, even if only with a "valeurde fait",
without thereby forfeiting the prospective character of a projet.Mali also
observes that there isnothing to show that the authority withjurisdiction
to fix a colonial boundary undertook that the proposed line would be a
"definitively de facto line [ligne de fait d'une manière définitive]": the
Governor-General could not bebound by the opinions of heads ofcolonies
or other organs failing express provision otherwise in law. The Chamber
concedes that the Cjovernor-General could well havechanged his mind and

issued an order defining theboundary between French Sudan and Niger in
some other way. But for the Chamber it does not follow that the fact
described in the letter ought not to be taken account of in law.
84. Mali also perceives, in the reactions of thechefsde circonscriplion to
letter 191CM2, an indication to the effect that the letter merely contained
a proposal unrelated to the existing situation. The Lieutenant Governor-la situation existante. Le lieutenant-gouverneur généraldu Soudan, par
télégramme-lettredu 11 mars 1935, avait transmis copie de la lettre du
gouverneur général etdu croquisyannexéaux chefs des cercles soudanais
intéressés, en leurdemandant leur avis sur le projet de texte qu'elle con-
tenait. C'est surla réponsedes commandants de cerclede Mopti et de Gao
à son télégramme-lettreque le gouverneur du Soudan s'est fondépour
répondre à son tour, le 3juin 1935, à la lettre du gouverneur général.De
l'avisdu Mali, (<c'était lavocation prospectivede l'opérationenvisagéequi
expliquait cette consultation large ;il y allait d'o une technique pour ne
pas avoir àrépondre àun problèmeou àunedifficultéquibrûlait lesdoigts
de tout un chacun o.
85. La Chambre ne partage pas cette manièrede voir. Elleconsidèreau
contraire qu'un indice précieuxde la nature de l'opération à laquelle se

sont livréslegouverneur généraelt leslieutenants-gouverneurs du Soudan
français et du Niger est fourni par les réponsesde ces derniers. Le lieu-
tenant-gouverneur du Soudan a consulté les commandants des cercles
soudanais intéresséset a fait part de leursobservations dans sa réponseau
gouverneur généraldu 3juin 1935.Or, de l'avisde la Chambre, il ressort
clairement de ces observations que les commandantsde cercle sontpartis
del'idéeque letexte qui leur avait étsoumis étaitdestiné à définirlalimite
existanteet qu'ilsdevaient attirer l'attention de leur supérieurhiérarchique
sur tout aspect de la définitionproposéequisemblait soit s'enécarter,soit
trancher une situation de fait qui n'était pasclaire (limite Labézanga/
Anderamboukane), soit encore négliger un détailqui aurait pu contribuer
à rendre la définitionplus précise(mare de Kébanaire).Tenant compte de
cette considération, ainsi que de tous les autres élémentsdont les Parties
ont fait état pendant la procédure,la Chambre arrive àla conclusion que

la définition de la limite entre le Soudan et le Niger, pour la partie de
cette limite qui intéresse la présente affaire, telle qu'elle figure dans la
lettre 191CM2 du gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentale française
en date du 19 février 1935, correspondait, dans l'esprit aussi bien du
gouverneur généralque de tous lesadministrateurs qui ont été consultés, à
la situation existante. Reste la question de savoir si les insuffisances ou
erreurs que le Mali attribue à la carte Blondel la Rougery, vu les liens
étroits entre cette carte et la lettre 191 CM2, étaient de nature à priver
d'effetl'intention du gouverneur généraldedéfinirpar un textela situation
existante. La Chambre réservecette question pour l'examiner au moment
où elle aura àappliquer ladite lettre afin de définirle tracé dela frontière
dans la zone contestée.
86. Cependant une dernière observation s'impose. La description pré-

citéede la limite indiquéepar la lettre 191CM2 (paragraphe 75ci-dessus)
ne concernait que le segment de cette limite qui se rapporte à la frontière
contestéeenla présenteaffaire. Mais le texte de cette lettre se poursuit en
ces termes :

delà [lepoint Plelle[lalimite]rejoint leGorobol au point delatitude
14"27' 30" et de longitude O 14'45" (ouest de Greenwich) ;ellesuit FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 600

General of the Sudan, in a letter-telegram dated 11 March 1935, had
transmitted copies of the Governor-General's letter and of the annexed
sketch-map to the Sudan cercleheadsconcerned,requesting their opinions
on the draft text. The Governor-General based his reply of 3June 1935to
the Governor-General's letter on the replies of the cerclecommanders of
Mopti and Gao to that letter-telegram. In the opinion of Mali, "it was the

fonvard-looking character of the planned operation which explained this
wide-ranging consultation" ; "it was a tactic to avoid dealing with a
problem or a difficulty which was burning everyone's fingers".

85. The Chamber does not share this view :it considers that a valuable
indication of the nature of the process carried out by the Governor-
Generaland by the Lieutenant-Governors of Sudan and Niger is found in
the replies he had from them. The Lieutenant-Governor of Sudan con-
sultedthe commandantsdecercleconcerned, and conveyed their comments
in his reply to the Governor-General of 3 June 1935. In the view of the
Chamber. it is clear from these comments that the commandants decercle
started from the idea that the text submitted to them was intended to
define the existing boundary, and that their superior's attention should be
drawn to any aspects of the proposed definition which seemed either to
depart from the existing boundary, or to resolve a factual situation which
was unclear (the Labézanga/Anderamboukane boundary), or to omit
some detail which might help to clarify the definition (pool of Kébanaire).
In viewof thisconsideration, and of al1the other factors mentioned by the
Parties during the proceedings, the Chamber reaches the conclusion that

the definition ofths portion of the boundary between Sudan and Niger in
that part of it which is relevant in the present case, contained in theetter
191 CM2 from the Governor-General of French West Africa dated
19 February 1935, corresponded, in the mind both of the Governor-
General and of al1the administrators who were consulted. to the de facto
situation. It still has to be ascertained whether the flaws or errors Which
Mali ascribes to the Blondel la Rougery map were such, given the close
connections between this mapand letter 191CM2,as to renderinoperative
the Governor-General's intention of defining the existing situation by
means of a text. The Chamber willdeal with thisquestion when it comes to
apply the letter for the purpose of defining the line of the frontier in the
disputed area.

86. One final observation is, however, necessary. The aforementioned
description of the boundary in letter 191 CM2 (paragraph 75 above)
concerned only that segment of the boundary which relates to the frontier
in dispute in the present case. But the text of ths letter continues as
follows :

"from there [point Plit [theboundary] rejoins the Gorobol at the point

of latitude 14" 27' 30"and longitude 1" 14'45" (westof Greenwich) ; ce marigotjusqu'en un point situé à environ 3 kilomètres à l'ouest de
Tin Abalak ...

Il s'agit ici de la limite orientale du cercle de Ouahigouya, laquelle tient
compte du rattachement du canton d'Aribinda à ce cercle par l'effet du
décret du 5 septembre 1932.Cette limite ne correspond donc plus à celle
représentéesur lacarte Blondella Rougery,qui date de 1925.Lecroquis de
l'Afrique française au 1/1000000, feuille ND 30,figure une limite orien-
tale du cerclede Ouahigouya, dans son éditionde 1926,qui est identique à
cellereproduite sur la carte Blondel la Rougery. Mais dans son éditionde
1946apparaît une limite qui correspond à la description que contient la
lettre 191CM2 et qui vient d'être citéA e.ucun texte réglementaire n'avait
entre-temps été pris sur la base de la lettre 191CM2. La Chambre considère
donc que la modification apportéeau croquis entre 1926et 1946constitue

un élémentde preuve qui tend àdémontrerle caractère déclaratoirede la
lettre 191CM2.

87. Le27novembre 1935,legouverneur générap lar intérimdel'Afrique
occidentalefrançaiseapris un arrêté (2728AP) <(portant délimitation des

cercles de Bafoulabé,Bamako et Mopti (Soudan français) D.Le cercle de
Mopti, circonscription alors soudanaise et aujourd'hui malienne, était
limitrophe du cercle de Ouahigouya, qui, par I'effet du décret du 5sep-
tembre 1932,avaitété rattachéà la coloniedu Soudan françaiset auquel le
canton d'Aribinda avait étéincorporéen vertu d'un arrêtédu 17novembre
1932(paragraphe 73 ci-dessus). Aux termes de la disposition liminaire de
l'article premier de I'arrêté du 2n7ovembre 1935, <(les limites des cercles
de Bafoulabé, Bamakoet de Mopti sont précisées comme suit et telles
qu'ellessont transcrites sur les cartes annexéesau présentarrêté o. On se
rappellera que lescartes auxquelles cette disposition se réfère n'onjtamais
été retrouvées,sibien que la Chambrene peut s'entenirqu'au seul textede

l'arrêté. L'articleremier,sous-titre 3,de cetarrêtédécritlalimiteorientale
du cercle soudanais de Mopti de la manière suivante :
((De ce dernier point une ligne méridiennerejoignant au nord le
parallèle 13" 30', puis une ligne sensiblement nord-est, laissant au
cercle de Mopti les villages de Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agou-

lourou, Koubo, passant au sud de la mare de Toussougou pour
aboutir en un point situé à l'est de la mare de Kétiouaire.))

88. Pour apprécier la pertinence de l'arrêté 2728 AP, il convient de
rappeler de nouveau le contexte dans lequel cet arrêtéa été pris (voir
paragraphe 74 ci-dessus). Par I'effet du décretdu 5 septembre 1932,la

Haute-Volta avait cessé d'exister et les cerclesqui l'avaient composée
avaient étérattachés,dans la régionen question, soit au Soudan français,
soit au Niger. Là où des territoires voltaïques limitrophes du Soudan
français étaientdevenus nigériens, l'anciennelimite entre le Soudan fran- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 601

it follows this marigot as far asa point situated approximately 3 kilo-

metres to the west of Tin Abalak . ..".
This refers to the eastern boundary of the cercle of Ouahigouya, which
takes account of the annexation to that cercleof the cantonof Aribinda, in
consequence of the Decree of 5 September 1932.Accordingly, this boun-
dary no longer corresponds to the one shown on the Blondel la Rougery
map, whichdates from 1925.The Croquisde l'Afriquefrançaise on the scale
1:1,000,000,ND 30 sheet, shows an eastern boundary for the cercle of
Ouahigouya, in its 1926edition, which is identical to the one reproduced
on the Blondel la Rougery map. But its 1946edition depicts a boundary

which corresponds to the above-quoted description in letter 191CM2. No
regulative text had been issued in the meantime on the basis of letter 191
CM2.The Chamber therefore takes theviewthat thealteration made to the
sketch-map between 1926and 1946is evidence of the declaratory purport
of letter 191CM2.

87. On 27 November 1935,the Governor-General ad interimof French
West Africa issued an Order (No. 2728 AP) "for the delimitation of the

cerclesof Bafoulabé,Bamako and Mopti (French Sudan)". The cercleof
Mopti, an administrative unit whichwas then part of French Sudan and is
now part of Mali, bordered the cercle of Ouahigouya, which had been
transferred by the Decree of 5 September 1932to the coloily of French
Sudan, and into which the cantonof Aribinda had been incorporated by
an Order of 17November 1932(paragraph 73 above). According to the
opening phrase of Article 1 of the Order of 27 November 1935, "the
boundaries of the cerclesof Bafoulabé, Bamakoand Mopti are defined as
follows and as drawn on the maps annexed to this Order'". It will be
recalled that the maps here referred to havenever been traced, so that the
Chamber can only refer to the actual text of the Order. Article 1,para-
graph 3, ofthe Order describes theeastern boundary of the Sudanese cercle
of Mopti as follows :

"From this latter point a meridian line intersecting the parallel
13"30',and then a line running markedly north-east, leaving to the
cercle of Mopti the villages of Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agou-
lourou, Koubo, passing to the south of the pool of Toussougou
and culrninating at a point located to the east of the pool of
Kétiouaire."

88. The relevance of the Order 2728AP will be apparent if the circum-
stances in which this Order was issuedare again recalled (seeparagraph 74
above). As a result of the Decree of 5 September 1932Upper Volta had
ceased to exist, and the cercleswhich had comprisedit had, in the region in
question, been transferred either to French Sudan or to Niger. Wherever
Voltan territoriesborderingupon French Sudan had becomepart of Niger,
the former boundary between French Sudan and Upper Volta continuedçais et la Haute-Volta a continué de séparerdeux colonies distinctes, le
Soudan français et le Niger ;là où des territoires voltaïques avaient été
rattachés au Soudan français, l'ancienne limite entre les deux colonies
s'est transforméeen limite entre deux cercles, désormaissoudanais. L'ar-
rêté 2728AP a eupour résultatde définirlalimite administrativequisépa-
rait le cercle de Mopti d'une part du cercle de Ouahigouya et d'autre part
du cercle de Dori. Ainsi qu'il a déjàétéindiqué,les cercles de Mopti et
de Ouahigouya faisaient partie du Soudan françaisen 1935mais le cercle
deOuahigouyaavait,avant 1932,appartenu àlacolonie dela Haute-Volta,
de telle sorte que, par l'effet de la loi du 4 septembre 1947,ut réintégré
à la Haute-Volta. Le cercle de Dori, qui en 1935faisait partie du Niger,
avait égalementappartenu àla Haute-Volta avant 1932,et a ainsi subi le
mêmesort en 1947.
89. Pour le Mali, l'arrêt2728AP, en définissantcette limite, ne faisait
que confirmer l'étatde fait existant en 1932tandis que, pour le Burkina

Faso, la limite ainsi définie modifiait lasituation tellequ'elle seprésentait
jusque-là. Les deux Parties s'accordent toutefois pour reconnaître qu'au-
cune modification decette limite n'estintervenue entre 1932et 1935,année
au cours de laquelle l'arrêt2728AP a été pris. Dèslors, dans la mesure où
cet arrêtéapporterait la preuve de l'emplacement de la limite entre les
cercles de Mopti et de Ouahigouya à la veille de son adoption en 1935,il
apporterait en mêmetemps la preuve de l'emplacement de la limite sépa-
rant le Soudan français et la Haute-Volta en 1932,limite confirméepar la
loi du 4 septembre 1947ayant rétablicette dernière colonie. Le Burkina
Faso a soutenu que I'arrêté 2728 AP ne constitue plus un titrejuridique
valable,puisqu'il aétéimplicitement abrogépar la loidu 4septembre 1947,
mais uniquement en raison du caractère modificatif que cette Partie attri-
bue à l'arrêté.Cette abrogation ne constitue donc pas un obstacle à
l'examen par la Chambre de l'effet de I'arrêté :tout au contraire, il lui
faudra d'abord établirle caractère ou déclaratoire ou modificatif de l'ar-
rêté avant de pouvoir ensuitedéterminer sila loi de 1947l'aeffectivement
abrogé.

90. La Chambre commencera par rechercher si elle peut tirer de l'exa-
men du texte mêmede I'arrêté 2728 AP et du contexte administratif dans
lequelcelui-ci aétépris desindications quant àla portéeque legouverneur
généralpar intérim de l'Afrique occidentale française avait entendu lui
attribuer. Lepréambulede I'arrêté seréfè àrun certain nombrede textes,
tant antérieurs que postérieurs au décret du 5 septembre 1932 portant
suppression de la colonie de la Haute-Volta, mais ne mentionne aucune-
ment ce dernier. Parmi ces textes figurent I'arrêté2790 du 5 décembre
1925modifiépar I'arrêté 1111AP du 30 avril 1928et portant suppression
du cercle de Hombori et,entre autres, rattachement des cantons de Mon-
doro, Boni, Sarniéréet Hombori au cercle de Bandiagara (subdivision de
Douentza)et l'arrêté 2862APen datedu 15décembre1934portant notam-
ment suppression du cercle de Bandiagara et rattachement de son terri-
toire au cercle de Mopti. Le premier de ces arrêtés constituaitla base
réglementairede lalimite existant en 1932,au moment delasuppression deto divide two separate colonies, French Sudan and Niger ; wherever Vol-
tan territories had been annexed to French Sudan, the former boundary
between these twocolonies was transformed into a boundary between two
cercleswhich werenow Sudanese. The consequence of Order 2728AP was
to define theadministrativeboundary whichdivided the cercleof Mopti on
the one hand, from the cercleof Ouahigouya, and on the other from the
cercleof Dori. As already stated, in 1935the cerclesof Mopti and Oua-
higouya belonged to French Sudan, but before 1932the cercleof Ouahi-
gouya had belonged to the colony of Upper Volta, so that the law of
4 September 1947 restored it to Upper Volta. The cercleof Dori, which in
1935belonged to Niger, had also belonged to Upper Volta before 1932,
and so underwent a similar transfer in 1947.

89. In Mali'sview, Order 2728AP, by sodefining the boundary, merely
confirmed the situation which had existed in 1932,whereas for Burkina
Faso, the boundary sodefined involved a modification of the pre-existing
situation. However, both Parties agree that there was no modification of
this boundary between 1932and 1935,the year in which Order 2728 AP
was issued. Therefore, in so far as the Order proves the position of the

boundary between the cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouya before the Order
was adopted in 1935,it also proves the boundaries between French Sudan
and Upper Volta in 11932t,he boundaries whichwereconfirmed by the Law
of 4September 1947when the colony wasre-established. Burkina Faso has
argued that Order 2728 AP is no longer a valid legal title since it was
impliedly abrogated by the Lawof4September 1947,but solelybecauseof
the modifying effect which that Party ascribes to the Order. This abroga-
tion does not therefore debar the Chamber from enquiring into the effects
of the Order ; on the contrary, it has first to establish whether the Order
was declaratory or of a modifyingnature, so asto be able subsequently to
determine whether the Law of 1947did in fact abrogate it.

90. The Chamber will begin by considering whether there are any
indications tobe derivedby analysing the actual text of Order 2728APand
the administrative context in which it was issued, concerning the scope
which the Govemor-,General ad interimof French West Africa intended it
to have. The preamble to the Order refers to a number of texts, both prior
to and subsequent to the Decree of 5 September 1932for the abolition of
the colony of Upper Volta,but makes no mention of that particular decree.
Among these texts are Order 2790of 5 December 1925,modified by Order

1111AP of 30 April 1928,for the abolition of the cercleof Hombori and
(inter alia) the transfer of the cantons of Mondoro, Boni, Sarniéréand
Hombori to the cercc'of Bandiagara (subdivisionof Douentza) and Order
2862 AP, dated 15 December 1934, for the abolition of the cercle of
Bandiagara and the transfer of itsterritory to the cercleof Mopti. The first
of these Orders is the regulation which created the boundary which, in
1932, when the colony of Upper Volta was abolished, divided it fromla colonie de la Haute-Volta, entre le cercle de Bandiagara (Soudan fran-
çais) et cette dernière. Du texte du second arrêtéi,l ressort entre autres,
d'une part, que ladite limite, désormais limite du cercle de Mopti, de-
meurait inchangée(art. l) et, d'autre part, qu'un arrêté général ultérieur
devait préciser les limitesd'ensemble de ce cercle ainsi agrandi.
91. L'arrêté 2728 AP, ayant ainsi énuméré les textes antérieursà son

adoption jugés pertinentsau regard de son objet, dispose ensuite, au para-
graphe liminaire de son article premier, que ((les limites des cercles d...
Mopti sont précisées comme suit ... Cette formule fait sans aucun doute
écho àla formule utiliséeà l'article2de I'arrêt2862AP susvisé :il semble
dèslors évident,en l'absence de tout autre texte susceptible d'être pris en
considération à cet égard,que l'arrêté 2728 AP a bien constituéI'arrêté
généralannoncé par l'arrêté2862 AP. Il existe partant au moins une
présomption que I'arrêté 2728 AP n'a pas eu pour fin ni pour effet de
modifier leslimitesexistanten 1935entre lescerclessoudanais de Mopti et
deOuahigouya, limitesqui séparaientlescoloniesdu Soudan françaiset de
la Haute-Volta avant la suppression de cette dernière conformémentaux
termes du décretdu 5 septembre 1932.Il paraît en effet peu vraisemblable

qu'on ait eu l'intention d'aller au-delà du texte adoptél'annéeprécédente.
Cette présomption sevoit confortéepar le fait que l'arrêté considéré est
intitulé<<Arrêté portant délimitation des cerclesde Bafoulabé, Bamakoet
Mopti (Soudan français) r)et non <(Arrêté portantmodification territo-
riale dans le cercle de ...)),comme par exemple un arrêtégénéraldu
17novembre 1932mentionnédans sesconsidérants.Maisjusqu'à présent
la Chambre n'aque constatél'existenced'uneprésomption : elledoit main-
tenant rechercher si le contenu de l'arrêté 2728 AP - et en particuler
l'énumérationqui y est faite des villagesbordant la limite entre lescercles
deMopti et de Ouahigouya - apour effet d'infirmer ou deconfirmercette
présomption. Acette fin elledoit examiner lesélémentsdocumentaireset
cartographiques qui permettent de localiser ces villages, ainsi que les

diverses communications administratives contemporaines de la prépara-
tion de I'arrêté.
92. Tout au longdelaprocédure,lapremièrepartiede lafrontièrequela
Chambre est appelée à définir,celle pour la détermination de laquelle il
faut précisément dégagelra portéede l'arrêté 2728 AP, a étédénommée
<<le secteur des quatre villages )).Or les termes <<quatre villages ))ne
paraissent pas avoir toujours revêtula même significationpour les deux
Parties. Le texte réglementaireconsidéré visecinq villages,dont lepremier
(Yoro) sesitueincontestablement en territoire malien et n'estpas en litige.
Lesquatre autres sont Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou et Koubo. Lors
de la sessionqu'ellea tenue les7et 8 octobre 1971,lacommission paritaire
permanente créée par lesParties (voirparagraphe 35ci-dessus)a chargé la

commission technique mixte de vérifier, auxfins de la délimitationde la
frontière,la position exactedes villagesportant ces noms. Au cours de la
procédure devant laChambre il est apparu que, de l'avisdes deux Parties,
levillagede Dioulouna pouvait êtreidentifiéavecceluide Dionouga. Aux
fins du présent arrêt,les termes << quatre villages)> seront utiliséspour FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 603

Bandiagara (French Sudan). From the second Order it is clear, in thefirst
place, that this boundary, which was now the boundary of the cercleof
Mopti, remained unchanged (Art. 1) and, in the second place, that a
subsequent Order was to define the overall boundaries of this enlarged
cercle.
91. Having listed the texts prior to its adoption whch were deemed
relevant to its purpose, Order 2728 AP continues, in the introductory
paragraph of Article 1, with the provision that "the boundaries of the

cercles of ... Mopti are defined as follows . . ."This form of words
undoubtedly echoes that used in Article 2 of the above-mentioned Order
2862AP :it therefore seemsclear, in the absence of any other text whch
would have to be taken into account in this respect, that Order 2728 AP
wasinfact the Order contemplated by Order 2862AP.Consequently, there
is at least a presumption that neither the aim nor the result of Order 2728
AP was to modify the boundaries which existed in 1935 between the
Sudanese cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouya, boundaries whichdivided the
colonies of French Sudan and Upper Volta before the abolition of the
latterpursuant to the Decree of 5 September 1932.Indeed, it seemshardly
likely that an intention would have been formed to go beyond the text
adopted the previous year. This presumption is borne out by the fact that
the title of the Order reads "Order for the delimitation of the cerclesof
Bafoulabé, Bamako and Mopti (French Sudan)" and not "Order for a
territorial modification in the cercleof.. .",like,for example, an Order of
17November 1932~nentionedin the preamble to Order 2728 AP. But so
far theChamber has merely stated that a presumption exists ;it must now
enquire, therefore, alhether the content of Order 2728AP - especially the
indication of the villagesborderingupon theboundary between the cercles
of Mopti and Ouahigouya - operates to reverse or to confirm this pre-

sumption. For ths purpose, it is necessary to examine the documentary
and cartographic information from which these villagescan be located, as
well as the various administrative communications which were contem-
poraneous with the preparation of the Order.
92. The first part of the frontier which the Chamber is required to
define, the part forwhich the scopeofOrder 2728AP has to beascertained,
has throughout the proceedings, been called "the sector of the four vil-
lages". The words "four villages" do not however seemalways to have had
the samemeaning forthe twoParties tothe case.The textin question refers
to fivevillages,the first of which (Yoro) is indisputably situated in Malian
territory and is not in issue. The four others are Dioulouna, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou and Koubo. At its meetings of 7 and 8 October 1971, the
Standing Joint Commission established by the Parties (see paragraph 35
above) requested a rnixed technical commission to ascertain, for the pur-
pose of delimiting the frontier, the exact position of the villages bearing
these names. During the proceedings before the Chamber it became clear
that, in the opinion of both Parties, Dioulouna can be identified with the
village of Dionouga. For the purposes of this Judgrnent the words "four
villages" will be used todenote the villages mentioned in Order 2728AP,désigner lesvillages de Dioulouna/Dionouga, Oukoulou, Agoulourou et
Koubo que l'arrêté 2728AP mentionne. La Chambre seréservede revenir
sur la question de savoir si tous ces villages existent encore aujourd'hui,
s'ilsont changéde nom depuis 1935,et mêmes'ilsexistaient tous à cette
date. Elle note toutefois que le Mali s'est parfois référé aux <quatre
villages de Dionouga, Kounia, Selba et Douna, que le mémoire malien
fait mention aussi de Orotougna ou Orotoungo ainsi que du village bur-
kinabéde Digue1et qu'à l'audience l'un de ses conseils a indiqué que,

pour le Mali, les <quatre villages sont ceux de Dioulouna, Agoulourou,
Koubo et Douna. Sans chercher à déterminer à ce stade si ceux de ces
villages qui ne portent pas l'un ou l'autre des noms mentionnés dans
l'arrêté2728AP entrent en ligne de compte aux fins du présentlitige, la
Chambre tient à souligner qu'ils ne sont pas couverts par l'expression
<(quatre villages au sens où l'entend leprésent arrêt.
93. Selon le Burkina Faso, la portée modificatrice de l'arrêté de 1935
quant àlasituationadministrativedes villagespeut sedéduire à lafoisde la
divergence manifeste entre les dispositions de cet arrêté et les cartes offi-

cielles de l'époque,des travaux préparatoires de l'arrêté ed te l'attitude
de l'administration après 1947.En ce qui concerne les cartes, le Burkina
Faso soutient que, sur toutes celles dont il dispose et qui sont suffisam-
ment détailléespour indiquer l'emplacement des quatre villages, cesder-
niers sont <(sans exception ))figurés au sudde la délimitation adminis-
trative pertinente, donc en territoire actuellement burkinabé. Comme on
l'adéjà remarqué (paragraphe59ci-dessus), le Burkina Faso attache à cet
égard une importance toute particulière à la carte Blondel la Rougery au
1/500 000 qui laisse clairement les villages d'Oukoulou, d'Agoulourou et
deKoubo à la Haute-Volta. Le Burkina Faso fait aussi observer que, dans

son éditionoriginale, la carte au 1/200 000 de I'IGN (égalementmention-
née auparagraphe 59ci-dessus)figureen croisillonscontinus tout lesecteur
occidental de lafrontière enlitige,c'est-à-dire celuides((quatre villages)).
La Chambre a cependant déjàindiquéqu'ellene saurait accepter la thèse
du Burkina Faso selon laquelle les cartes dresséespar le service géogra-
phique du gouvernement générad l e l'Afrique occidentale françaiseparti-
cipent en quelque sorte de la nature des actes administratifs et sont cons-
titutives de titrejuridique en droit administratif et colonial français.
94. Le Mali attire l'attention de la Chambre sur le fait que le Burkina
Faso ne se fonde en l'espèceque sur des cartes généraleset n'a déposé

aucun croquis détailléétablipar des administrateurs voltaïques. Pour sa
part, le Mali a présenté à la Chambre une carte du Gourma datant de
1901 -1902ou de 1909-1910sur laquellelevillagede Dioulouna est situéau
nord de la limite considérée. Il a aussi produit un croquis du canton de
Mondoro, dressé en 1923par un administrateur colonial et signépar le
commandant de la région,qui était annexé à une liste des villages com-
posant ce canton ; ce croquis indique l'emplacement de Dioulouna ainsi
quedeDouna et d'ourotongo, villagesapparemment non contestés. Deux
autres croquis, datant respectivement de 1948et de 1953,ont été projetés
en audience.that is, Dioulouna/Dionouga, Oukoulou, Agoulourou and Koubo. The
Chamber reserves the question whether al1 these villages exist today,
whetherthey havechanged their names since 1935,orevenwhether theyal1
existed then. It also notes that Mali has sometimes referred to the "four

villages" of Dionouga, Kounia, Selba and Douna, that its Memorial also
mentions Orotougna or Orotoungo and the Burkinabe village of Diguel,
and that during the hearing, its counsel stated that for Mali the "four
villages" arethose of Dioulouna, Agoulourou, Koubo and Douna. With-
out seekingtoestablish at this stagewhether suchof these other villagesas
werenot mentioned in Order 2728APare relevant for the purpose of these
proceedings, the Chamber emphasizes that they are not included in the
term the "four villages" as employed in this Judgment.

93. According to Burkina Faso, the fact that the 1935 Order modified
theadministrativesituation of thevillagescanbeinferredfromthe obvious
discrepancy between the provisions of the Order and the officia1maps of
the period, from the travaux préparatoiresof the Order and from the
attitude of theadministrationafter 1947.Asfarasthemapsareconcerned,
Burkina Faso claims that on al1the maps availableto it which are suffi-
ciently detailed to show the position of the four villages, al1the villages
without exception are shown to the south of the relevant administrative
boundary, and accordingly on territory which is now Burkinabe. As
observed above(paragraph 59),Burkina Fasoattaches specialsignificance
to the Blondella Rougery map on the scale 1:500,000,whichclearlyleaves

thevillagesof Oukoulou,Agoulourou and KoubotoUpper Volta. Burkina
Faso also observes that the original edition of the IGN 1:200,000map
(also mentioned in paragraph 59 above), represents the whole of the
western sector of the disputed frontier, that of the "four villages", as a
broken line of crosses.The Chamber has howeveralreadyindicated that it
cannot accept Burkina Faso's argument that the maps compiled by the
Geographical Service of the office of the Govemor-General of French
West Africa areto some extent administrativeacts, and aresourcesof legal
title in French administrative and colonial law.

94. Mali drawsthe Chamber's attention to thefact that Burkina Faso is
in this connection relying only on general maps, and has not filed any
detailed sketch-map compiled by Voltan administrators. Mali has pre-
sented to the Chamber a map of the Gourma dating from 1901-1902or
1909-1910,on which the villageof Dioulouna is shown to the north of the
boundary. It has also presented a sketch-map of the cantonof Mondoro,
compiled in 1923 by a colonialadministrator and signed by the comman-
dant of the region, annexed to a list of the villagescomprising that canton.
This sketch-map intlicates the location of Dioulouna as well as of Douna
and Ourotongo, villages which are not apparently in dispute. Two other
sketch-maps, dating respectively from 1948 and 1953, were projected

during the oral proceedings. 95. La Chambre a déjàindiqué(paragraphe 65ci-dessus)pourquoi elle
ne saurait se fonder sur l'argument du Mali selon lequel le fardeau de la
preuve repose sur le Burkina Faso, c'est-à-dire que ce serait à cette Partie
qu'il reviendrait d'établirle caractère voltaïque des villages entre 1927et
1935.Elleprend commepoint dedépartde sonraisonnement lefait,attesté
par l'arrêté génér2a7 l28 AP, qu'en 1935 les autorités administratives
connaissaient l'existence, prèsde la limite qui séparait alorsles cercles de
Mopti et de Ouahigouya, de quatre villages portant les noms de Diou-
louna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou et Koubo. A ce stade la Chambre doit se
placer uniquement dans le contexte des années1932(date viséepar la loi

de 1947pour définirles limites de la Haute-Volta) et 1935 :elle n'a pas à
considérersi les villagesdont il est question existent encore aujourd'hui
ou portent toujours le mêmenom. De même,en vue de rechercher quelle
étaitl'intention du gouverneur générae ln 1935,ellene doit retenir que les
cartes et documents qui existaient à l'époque.Pour ce qui est des cartes,
I'emplacement des villagesconcernéspeut êtredéduit deséléments géné-
ralement concordants que fournissent :

- Une carte, sans intitulé ni date (elle remonterait à 1900-1902
ou 1909-1910selon le Mali), représentant le Gourma et portant la réfé-
rence 12 D/6, ainsi qu'un croquis annexé à un recensement des villagesdu
canton de Mondoro établien 1923,sur lesquels Dioulouna est indiqué,
mais non les autres villages mentionnésdans l'arrêté 2728AP. Ces autres
villages,d'après I'emplacementqui leur est donnésur lescartes ci-dessous
mentionnées,ne devaient apparemment pas figurer sur les cartes et cro-
quis précitésparce que se trouvant en dehors de la régionadministrative
viséepar ces cartes et croquis.

- Une carte du Niger moyen au 1 / 1000000, établiepar le lieutenant
Desplagnes en 1905,sur laquelle chacun descinq villagescitéspar l'arrêté
est figuré : Yoro, Dioulouna (orthographié << Dioukouna ))),Oukoulou,
Agoulourou et Koubo.
- Une carte de l'Afrique occidentale au 1/2 000000, feuille no 2 :
Tombouctou, éditéepar le servicegéographiquedes colonies en 1922,sur
laquelle apparaissent Yoro, Dioukouna, Oukoulou (orthographié <Oko-
lou O) et Koubo, mais pas Agoulourou. Une édition postérieurede cette
carte (1932) ne mentionne toutefois plus que Yoro et Koubo.
- La carte des colonies de l'Afrique occidentalefrançaise au 1/500 000

(carte Blondel la Rougery) de 1925qui indique Yoro, Oukoulou, Agou-
lourou et Koubo, mais pas Dioulouna.
- L'Atlas descerclesdel'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaisef,ascicule IV,carte
no59,cerclede Ouahigouya (servicegéographiquede l'Afriqueoccidentale
française, 1926) qui, lui aussi, indique Yoro, Oukoulou, Agoulourou et
Koubo, mais pas Dioulouna.
- Un croquis de l'Afrique française au 1/1000000, feuille ND-30 :
Ouagadougou, dresséen 1926,sur lequel sont figurés Yoro,Oukoulou et
Koubo mais pas Dioulouna et Agoulourou.

96. Pour ce qui est de l'appartenance àtelle ou telle entitéadministra- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 605

95. The Chamber has already stated(paragraph 65above)whyitcannot
uphold Mali's argument that the burden of proof in this respect is on
Burkina Faso, in the sense that it would be for Burkina Faso to demon-
strate the Voltan character of the villagesbetween 1927and 1935.It takes
asa starting-point ofitsreasoning thefact, attested byOrder 2728AP, that
in 1935the administrative authorities wereaware of the existence, closeto
the boundary between the cercles of Mopti and Ouahigouya, of four
villages bearing the names of Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou and
Koubo.At thisstage thechamber must remain solelywithinthecontext of
1932(the reference date in the 1947law for the purpose of defining the
boundaries of Upper Volta) and 1935 ; it is not required to consider
whether the villagesin question still exist today, or whether they stillbear
the same names, Similarly, in order to ascertain the intentions of the
Govemor-General i.n1935,it has to consider only such maps and docu-
ments asexisted at the time.Asfar asthemaps are concerned, the location
of the villages follows from the information provided by the following

maps, which are broadly consistent :
- A map, untitlecland undated (according to Mali it dates from 1900-
1902or 1909-1910),representing the Gourma and bearing the reference
12 D/6, and a sketch-map annexed to a 1923census of villagesbelonging
to the cantonof Mondoro, on which Dioulouna isgiven,but not the other
villagesmentioned in Order 2728AP.These other villages,inviewof their
position on the maps mentioned below, apparently should not appear on

the aforementioned maps and sketch-maps since they lay outside the
administrative region covered by the maps and the sketch.

- A rnap of central Niger on the scale 1:1,000,000,compiled by Lieu-
tenant Desplagnes in 1905,on whicheach of thefivevillagesreferred toin
the Order is shown :Yoro, Dioulouna (spelt "Dioukouna"), Oukoulou,
Agoulourou, and Koubo.
- A rnap of WestAfrica on the scale 1:2,000,000,sheet No. 2 :Tim-
buktu, published by the Geographical Service for the colonies in 1922,
which showsYoro, Dioukouna, Oukoulou (spelt "Okolou") and Koubo,
but not Agoulourou. However, a later edition of this rnap (1932)mentions
only Yoro and Koubo.
- The rnap of the coloniesof French West Africa on the scale 1 500,000
(the Blondel la Rougery rnap of 1925) which shows Yoro, Oukoulou,
Agoulourou and Koubo, but not Dioulouna.
- The Atlas des cercles de l'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise fascicle IV,
rnap No. 59, cercleof Ouahigouya (Geographical Serviceof French West

Africa, 1926),whichalsoshowsYoro,Oukoulou, Agoulourou and Koubo,
but not Dioulouna.
- A sketch-map of French Africa on the scale 1:1,000,000(sheet ND-
30, Ouagadougou) compiled in 1926,which shows Yoro, Oukoulou and
Koubo, but not Dioulouna or Agoulourou.
96. As for the administrative unit or units to which the villages aretive des quatre villages, ilapparaît que toutes ces cartes,à l'exception de

celle qui a étéétabliepar le lieutenant Desplagnes en 1905,figurent une
limiteadministrative définiepar une ligne, laquelle ne suit cependant pas
un tracé identique sur chaque carte. Il apparaît en outre que :
- Yoro, quand il est figuré, sesitue toujours au nord-ouest (côté sou-
danaidmalien) de cette ligne.
- Dioulouna/Dioukouna, lorsqu'il est indiqué,se trouve toujours du

côtésoudanais/malien de cette ligne ;toutefois la ligne reproduite sur la
carte Blondel la Rougery et dans l'Atlasdescercles(1926)passe aunord de
l'emplacement où les autres cartes situent Dioulouna.
- Agoulourou, Oukoulou et Koubo, quand ils sont représentés,sont
toujours localisésdu côtévoltaïque/burkinabé de cette ligne.
97. Entre autres preuves documentaires, le Malia soumis à la Chambre

des extraits d'une publication officielle du gouvernement généralde
l'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise datant de 1927et intituléeRépertoiregéné-
ral des localitésdel'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise(fascicules IV et VIII). Il
ressort de cette publication qu'en 1927le gouvernement généralavait re-
censéles localités suivantes :au Soudan français, un village du nom de
Dioulouna dans lecantondeMondoro, cerclede Bandiagara, et un village
du nom de Koubo dans le canton de Hombori, également cerclede Ban-
diagara. Les extraits du Répertoirequi ont étésoumis à la Chambre ne
permettent pas à celle-cid'établirsi les mêmesnoms se retrouvent sur la
liste des localités voltaïques,ou si les noms de Oukoulou et Agoulourou
figurent soit sur la liste des localitéssoudanaises soit sur la liste des loca-
lités voltaïques. La Chambre croit cependant pouvoir tirer une con-
clusion négativesur tous ces points du silence des deux Parties àce sujet.

Par un arrêté2862 AP, en date du 15 décembre 1934,le cercle souda-
nais de Bandiagara a étésupprimé et son territoire rattaché au cercle
de Mopti. Le mêmearrêtéprévoyait que <(les limites d'ensemble des
cercles de ..Mopti [seraient] précisées ultérieuremenp tar arrêtégéné-
ral )>Il s'ensuit que,àsupposer que le villagedénomméKoubo dans l'ar-
rêté 2728AP soitidentique au villagedénomméKoubo dans leRépertoire,
lesvillagesde Dioulouna et Koubo auraient appartenu au cerclede Mopti
aussi bien avant qu'après l'adoption de l'arrêté 2728 AP.
98. Sil'on devaitse fondersur lesindications fournies par lescartes, et
en particulier par la carte Blondel la Rougery de 1925,pour en déduire
qu'au moins Agoulourou et Oukoulou ne faisaient pas partie du cercle de
Mopti avant l'arrêté 2728 AP de 1935,force serait de conclure que les

autoritéscoloniales auraient visé,dans le seulmembre de phrase << laissant
au cercle de Mopti les villages de Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulou-
rou, Koubo ...))à la fois un village(Yoro) qui sans aucun doute apparte-
nait déjàau cerclede Mopti, un village(Dioulouna)pour lequel iln'yapas
concordance entre les cartes et les documents administratifs, et trois vil-
lages (Oukoulou, Agoulourou et Koubo) qui selon les cartes n'apparte-
naient pas à cette époqueau cercle de Mopti. Tout bien pesé,la Chambre
estime peu vraisemblable que si telle avait étéla situation le gouverneur FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 606

supposed to belong, al1 the maps, except Lieutenant Desplagnes' 1905
map, include a line indicating an administrative boundary, but this does
not follow an identical course on every map. In that respect :

- Yoro, where shown, is always situated to the north-west (the Suda-
nese/Malian side) of the line.
- Dioulouna/Dioukouna, where shown, is always on the Sudanese/
Malian sideof the line ; however,the lineshown on the Blondella Rougery

map and on theAtlas descercles(1926)runs to thenorth ofwhat, according
to the other maps, is the position of Dioulouna.
- Agoulourou, Oukoulou and Koubo, where shown, are always on the
Voltan/Burkinabe side of the line.
97. The documentary evidence submitted by Mali to the Chamber
includes extracts from an officia1publication of the officeof the Governor-
General of French West Africa dating from 1927, entitled Répertoire
généraldes localitésde l'Afriqueoccidentale française(fascicles IV and

VIII). This publication shows that in 1927the Governor-General's office
had recorded the following localities :in French Sudan, a village named
Dioulouna in the cantonof Mondoro, cercleof Bandiagara, and a village
named Koubo in the cantonof Hombori, also in the cercleof Bandiagara.
The extracts from the Répertoiresubmitted to the Chamber are not suf-
ficient to establish whether the same names appear on the list of Voltan
places, or whether the names of Oukoulou and Agoulourou appear on
either theSudanese orthe Voltan lists.However, the Chamber believesit is
warranted in concluding from the silence of both Parties on ths rnatter
that this is not the case. By an Order 2862 AP of 15 December 1934,the
Sudanesecercleof Bandiagarawasabolished, and itsterritory wasannexed
tothe cercleof Mopti. The Order alsoprovides that "the overall boundaries
of the cercleof ... Mopti will be defined later by a General Order". It
followsfrom this, assuming the villagenamed Koubo in Order 2728AP to
be identical with the villagenamed Koubo in the Répertoire,that these two
villages (Dioulouna and Koubo) would have been part of the cercle of
Mopti both before and after the adoption of Order 2728 AP.

98. Ifit werecontended, on the basis of the maps, especially the Blondel
la Rougery map of 1925,that Agoulourou and Oukoulou at least did not
belong to the cercleof Mopti before Order 2728AP of 1935,the conclusion
would be inescapable that the colonial authorities were using the single
phrase "leaving to the cercle of Mopti the villages of Yoro, Dioulouna,
Oukoulou, Agoulourou, Koubo ..." to refer simultaneously to a village
(Yoro) which indubitably did belong to the cercle of Mopti, a village
(Dioulouna) as to which the maps and the administrative documents do
not agree,and three villageswhichaccording to themapsdid not belong to
the cercleof Mopti. On careful consideration, the Chamber thinks it very
unlikely that, if that had been the situation, the Governor-General would
have been so imprecise. As regards the maps, the Chamber has alreadygénéraa lurait étési peu explicite. Pour ce qui est des cartes, la Chambre a
déjàindiqué (paragraphe 55) qu'elles peuvent avoir une valeur probante
considérabledans la mesure où elles reflètent des faits physiques - par
exemple, l'existence et l'emplacement d'un village-, tout en n'ayant
qu'unevaleur limitéedans lamesure où ellesindiquent une lignepurement
abstraite, une limite administrative qui ne concorde pas avec les autres
moyens de preuve produits. Constatant qu'il n'est guère possiblede par-
venir en l'espèce à une solution qui concilierait tous les éléments enpré-
sence, la Chambre conclut que ces élémentsne renversent pas la pré-
somption, déjàétablie, selon laquelle l'arrêt2 é728 AP avait un caractère
déclaratoire.

99. En ce qui concerne les travaux préparatoiresde l'arrêté 2728AP, le
Burkina Faso a invoquéunenote du 5 décembre1934portant en marge la
mention modification territoriale au Soudan )),dans laquelle ledirecteur
des affaires politiques et administratives du gouvernement de l'Afrique
occidentalefrançaise s'adressait en ces termes au chef du cabinet militaire
(service géographique) :

aJ'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaître que lescontre-propositions
objet de votre note susviséeconcernant les modifications à apporter
auxcerclesde Bafoulabé, Bamakoet Mopti par suitedu rattachement
respectif des cercles de Satadougou, Baninko et Bandiagara ne sou-
lèventaucune objection de principe de ma part. ))

Soulignant l'utilisation du terme <(modifications dans cette note, le
Burkina Faso y voit la confirmation du caractère modificatif de l'arrêté
2728 AP. La Chambre, eu égard au contexte particulier - celui de la
suppressiondu cerclede Bandiagara et de son rattachement consécutif au
cercle de Mopti par l'effet de l'arrêté2862 AP du 15 décembre 1934
(paragraphe 90 ci-dessus) - dans lequel le texte précité s'inscrivait mani-
festement, estime ne pas pouvoir admettreque lemot (<modifications ait
pu viser dans ce texte autre chose que les effets de la réorganisation

envisagée.Cette conclusion est confirmée par un autre document de
l'époquedéposépar le Mali : un << Extrait du projet d'arrêtéportant
suppression des cercles de Satadougou, Baninko et Bandiagara qui sont
érigéesnsubdivisionsrattachées respectivement aux cerclesde Bafoulabé,
Bamako et Mopti. Ce texte n'est pas daté,mais comme il se réfère à un
<<projet d'arrêté ayant lmêmeobjet que l'arrêté du 15décembre1934il
est évidentqu'il est antérieur à cette date. Il ne jette aucune lumièresur
l'effetde l'arrêt2728APcar lalimiteorientale du cerclede Mopti quiyest
décrite correspond à celle de l'ancien cerclede Bandiagara telle qu'elle
existait avant le rattachement àce dernier cercle d'une partie du cercle de
Hombori, en vertu de l'arrêté du 5 décembre 1925 modifiéensuite par

l'arrêtédu 30 avril 1928.
100. Pour ce qui est des travaux préparatoires qui ont précédé l'adop-
tion par le gouverneur générad l e l'arrêt2728AP, il convient d'examiner
surtout, parmi lesdocuments produits, ceuxque le Mali ajoints enannexeindicated(paragraph 55)that they maybe of considerableprobative value
in sofar as theyreflectphysical facts - e.g.,the existenceand position of a

village-, but are of Limitedweight where theyshow a purely abstract line,
an administrativeboundary which fails to match the other evidence pro-
duced. The Chamber recognizes that it is hardly possible to arrivein this
case at a solution capable of reconciling al1 the factors involved, and
concludes that this material does not reverse the presumption, already
mentioned, that Order 2728 AP was declaratory in nature.

99. Asfor the travauxpréparatoiresof Order 2728AP,Burkina Fasohas
relied on a note dated 5 December 1934 bearing a marginal reference
"Territorial modification in the Sudan", in which the Director of Political
and Administrative Affairs of the Governorship of French West Africa
wrote as follows to the military chefde cabinet (Geographical Service) :

"1 have the honour to advise you that 1 have no objection in
principle to the counter-proposals contained in your aforemen-
tioned note concerning the modifications to be made to the cer-
clesof Bafoulabé,Bamakoand Mopti consequentuponthe respective
annexation of the cercles of Satadougou, Baninko and Bandia-
gara."
Emphasizing the use of the word "modifications" in that note, Burkina
Faso considers that it confirms that Order 2728 AP was of a modifying

character.In the light of what was obviously thecontext of thedocument,
i.e., the abolition of the cercle of Bandiagara and its attachment to the
cercleof Mopti as a result of Order 2862AP of 15 December 1934(para-
graph 90 above), the Chamber does not consider it possible to take the
word "modifications" here to mean anything other than the effects of the
proposed reorganization. This conclusion is borne out by another docu-
ment from that period filed by Mali : an "Extract from the draft Order
abolishingthe cerclesof Satadougou, Baninko and Bandiagara, which are
converted into subdivisionsannexed to the cerclesof Bafoulabé, Bamako
and Mopti respectively". This text is undated, but from the fact that it
refers to a "draft Order" dealing with the same subject as the Order of
15December 1934 it is clear that it isprior to that date. The text does not
serve to elucidate the effects of Order 2728 AP, since the description it
gives of the eastern boundary of the cercleof Mopti matches that of the
former cercleof Bandiagara,as it wasbefore the annexation to it of a part
of thecercleof Hombori, in consequence of theOrder of 5December 1925,
subsequently modil'iedby the Order of 30 April 1928.

100. Turningtothe travauxpréparatoireswhichpreceded the Governor-
General'sadoption of Order 2728AP,it isnecessaryto examineamong the
documentssubmittedparticularly thosewhichwereannexed by Mali toitsà son contre-mémoire.Selon ces documents, le 2 janvier 1935,le gouver-
neur du Soudan français a transmis à l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti
réorganiséun tracé géographique )des limites de ce cercle établipar le
gouverneur général à Dakar, en lui demandant s'ilavait une objection a
soulever. En réponse àcettecommunication, l'administrateur du cerclede

Mopti, par un télégramme-lettredu 26février1935,dont copie n'apas été
déposéea ,urait transmis au gouverneur du Soudandescartes indiquant les
limites des subdivisions du cercle de Mopti. Le gouverneur a répondu le
20 mars 1935 àce télégramme-lettreen demandant à l'administrateur de
fournir <<lesindications générales susceptiblesde déterminerleslimitesen
question (principaux points géographiquesrencontrés : montagne, cours
d'eau,mares, etc.,jalonnant lesligneslimites) ))et de lesporter surlacarte.
Le dossier de l'affaire renferme aussiun document daté du 25 mai 1935,
intitulé<(Délimitationdes subdivisions du cerclede Mopti ))et portant la

signature de l'administrateur de cecercle. 11està noter que,aux termes de
ce texte, la limite au sud de la subdivision de Douentza, après avoir
atteint levillagede Yoro, remonte ensuite au nord-estjusqu'à lamare de
Toussougou O,etque salimite <<à l'est)part de <(lamare deToussougou
suivant une lignesinueuseendirection du nord-ouest o.Cesdeux limites
semblentcorrespondre respectivement aux limites àl'est et au nord ))
du cerclede Mopti indiquéesdans l'arrêté 2728AP. Par une lettre du 3juin
1935,non produite à l'instance, le gouverneur du Soudan français aurait

transmis au gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentale française une
description deslimitesdu cerclede Mopti. On est en droit de supposer que
cette description se fondait sur le document élaborépar l'administrateur
du cerclede Mopti le25mai 1935.Le 15juin 1935,ladite description a été
soumise par le directeur des affaires politiques au service géographique
((pour examen et avis technique o.

101. Il ne faut pas perdre de vue que, pendant ce temps, les adminis-
trateursétudiaient lespropositions faites par legouverneur générad lanssa

lettre 191CM2 du 19février1935au sujet de lalimite entre lescoloniesdu
Soudan français et du Niger. Le 11mars 1935le gouverneur du Soudan
françaisa demandé à l'administrateur du cerclede Mopti, entre autres,son
avis sur le projet de texte contenu dans la lettre 191CM2 du gouverneur
généralP . ar télégramme-lettredu 19mars 1935l'administrateur arépondu
dans les termes suivants :

<<Honneur faire connaître que ne trouve aucune modification à
apporter au projet de texte relatif à la frontière Soudan-Niger.
La mare de Kébanaire situéepresque à la limite des cercles de
Mopti-Gourma-Rharous et Dori pourrait êtrementionnée ..comme
suit: <(le sommet des monts Tin Eoult et Tabakarach et la mare de
Kébanaire,etc.

102. En réponse àlacommunicationdu directeurdesaffaires politiques
en date du 15juin 1935,le servicegéographiquede l'Afrique occidentale
française lui a adresséune note le Il juillet 1935. Cette note, intitulée FRONTIERDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 608

Counter-Memorial. According to these documents,on 2January 1935the
Govemor of French Sudan transmitted to the administrator of the reor-
ganized cercleofMoptia "geographicaloutline" of theboundaries of that
cercle produced by the Govemor-General at Dakar, asking the adminis-
trator whether he had anyobjectiontoit. It appears that theadministrator
of Mopti, in reply to this communication,sent the Govemor of Sudan a
letter-telegram of 26 February 1935, no copy of which has been filed,
transmitting to him maps showingtheboundaries of thesubdivisionsof the

cercleof Mopti.The Governor replied to this letter-telegramon 20 March
1935 asking the administrator to supply "general indications for deter-
mining the boundaries in question (chief geographical features encoun-
tered along the course of the boundanes :mountain, watercourse, pools,
etc.)", and to mark these on the map. The case file includes further a
documentdated 25 May 1935entitled "Delimitation of the subdivisionsof
the cercleof Mopti" and bearingthesignature of theadministrator of that
cercle.It willbe noted that accordingto this text the "southern" boundary
of the subdivisionof Douentza, after reaching the village of Yoro, "then
headsnortheast asfar as the pool of Toussougou", and that the "eastern"
boundary starts "from the pool of Toussougou", following an "undulating
line running northwest". These two boundaries appear to correspond,
respectively,totheboundaries "to theeast" and "to the north" of thecercle
of Mopti as described in Order 2728AP. Bya letter of 3June 1935,which
was not produced in the proceedings, the Governor of French Sudan
apparently transmitted to the Governor-General of French West Africa a
description of the boundaries of the cercle of Mopti. It is reasonable to
supposethat this description was based on thedocumentprepared by the
administrator of the cercleof Mopti,dated 25May 1935.On 15June 1935,
this description was submitted by the Director of Political Affairs to the
Geographical Service "for consideration and technical advice".
101. It must be borne in mind that dunng this periodtheadministrators
were also studying the proposals made by the Governor-General in his

letter 191CM2 of 19February 1935,concerningtheboundary between the
colonies of French Sudan and Niger. On 11March 1935the Governor of
French Sudan asked theadministrator of the cercleof Mopti, among other
things, for his opinion of the draft text set out in letter 191CM2 from the
Govemor-General. Bya letter-telegram dated 19March 1935the admini-
strator replied as follows :
"Honour inform you no amendmentfound necessary to draft text
relating to Sudan-Nigerfrontier.
The pool of 'Kébanaire' situatedalmost on the boundary of the
cerclesof Mopti-Gourma-Rharousand Dori might be mentioned ...
as follows :'the summits of mounts Tin Eoult and Tabakarach and

the pool of Kébanaire,etc. ...'."
102. In reply to the communication from the Director of Political
Affairs dated 15June 1935,a note was addressed to him by the Geogra-
phical Serviceof French West Africa on 11July 1935.This note, entitled609 DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER (ARRÊT)

<Limites des cercles de Mopti, Bamako et Bafoulabé )>contient le com-
mentaire suivant relativement aux limites du cerclede Mopti tellesque les
avait envisagéesle directeur des affaires politiques :

((Mais en ce qui concerne le texte concernant le cercle de Mopti
la description de la limite sud (à partir ..s'infléchissantau sud-est,
vers ..jusqu'à la fin) et celle de la limite est ne semblent pas corres-

pondre à l'étatde fait actuellement existant. Il m'a d'ailleurs été im-
possible de suivrecette description sur lescartes officiellesdu service
géographique, lespoints viséspar le texte n'y figurant pas (mare
de Ouairé,villagede Dioulouna, mare de Toussougou, puits d'Agouf,
mares de Fossa et de Dourgana). ))

Le document, annexé à la communication du 15juin 1935, sur lequel
portent lescommentaires du servicegéographique, ne figurepasau dossier

fourni par les Parties. Rien ne permet évidemment à la Chambre de savoir
dans quelle mesureceprojet étaitconforme au texte finalement adopté.On
relèvera à cepropos que les mots ((s'infléchissantau sud-est O,citéspar le
servicegéographique,ne seretrouvent pasdans la définitiondeslimites du
cercle de Mopti contenue dans l'arrêté 2728AP.Cet arrêté ne mentionne
pas non plus la marede ((Ouairé ))mais il ressort du document du 25 mai
1935intitulé <<Délimitations des subdivisions du cercle de Mopti 1)que

cette mare setrouvait au nord-ouest de Yoro et que référence n'yavait été
faite qu'aux fins de la définitiond'unelimite de subdivision. D'autre part,
bien que la mare de Kétiouaire n'apparaisse sur aucune descartes que les
Parties ont pu seprocurer, leservicegéographiquen'émetpas de réserves à
son sujet :on pourrait conclure que, si le projet commenté mentionnait
cette mare, le service géographique connaissait alors son emplacement.

103. Le 5 août 1935,le gouverneur du Soudan français a fait part à

l'administrateur du cerclede Mopti des difficultés éprouvéepsar leservice
géographiqueetlui a demandéde préciser letracédes limitesde son cercle
sur la carte (à la plus grande échelleexistante ))publiéepar ce service,
<((feuilleMopti et Homboriau 1/500000) r)c'est-à-direlacarte Blondella
Rougery. L'administrateur du cercle a répondule 9 août 1935en deman-
dant qu'on lui fournisse un exemplaire de cette carte. Le 20 septembre
1935, l'administrateur du cercle a retourné au gouverneur du Soudan

français l'exemplaire qui lui avait été fournipar le service géographique,
après yavoir ((tracéau crayon bleu les limites des subdivisions du cercle
mentionnéessur leprojet d'arrêté ci-joint o.L'administrateur a tenu par la
même occasion à préciser : ((Ce tracé esttrès approximatif car ces cartes
établies depuis plus de quinze ans présentent des lacunes et beaucoup
d'inexactitudes. ))Le gouverneur du Soudan a communiqué cette mise en
garde au gouverneur générae ln même tempsque la descriptiondes limites
sud et est du cerclede Mopti ainsiquelescartes,qui n'ont d'ailleurspas été

retrouvées.Le service géographique a alors mis au point, le 18 octobre
1935,une description des limites topographiques du cercle de Mopti cor- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 609

"Boundaries of thecerclesof Mopti, Bamako and Bafoulabé",contains the
following remarks on the boundaries of the cercle of Mopti as contem-
plated by the Director of Political Affairs :

"But asregards the text concerning the cercleof Mopti, the descrip-
tion of the southern boundary (from '. ..heading southeast, to-
wards ...'to the end)and that of theeasternboundary do not seemto
correspond to the current state of affairs. Moreover, 1have found it

impossible to l'ollowthis description on the officia1 maps of the
Geographical Service,since the points referred to in the text arenot
shown (pool of Ouairé,village of Dioulouna, pool of Toussougou,
well of Agouf, pools of Fossa and Dourgana)."

The document annexed to the communication of 15June 1935,and which
isreferred toin the observations by the Geographical Service,isnot among
the case-file supplieti by the Parties. The Chamber clearly has no means of
knowing how far this draft corresponded with the text which was ulti-
mately adopted. It may be noted in this connection that the words "head-
ing south-east" quoted by the Geographical Service are not found in the
definition of theMopti cercleboundariescontained in Order 2728AP. Nor
does that Order mention the pool of "Ouairé",but it is apparent from the
document dated 25 May 1935entitled "Delimitation of the subdivisionsof
the cercleof Mopti", that this pool lay to the north-west of Yoro, and had
only been referred to for the purpose of defining a subdivisionboundary.
Moreover, although the pool of Kétiouaire does not appear on any of the
maps which have been obtained by the Parties, the Geographical Service
expresses no resemations about it ;it may be concluded that, if the draft
which was commented upon included a mention of this pool, the Geo-
graphical Service must have known where it was.
103. On 5 August 1935,the Governor of French Sudan informed the

administrator of the cercleof Mopti of the difficulties experienced by the
Geographical Service,and askedhim to drawtheoutline of the boundaries
of his cercle on the "largest-scale map in existence" published by that
service "(Mopti and Hombori sheet, scale 1:500,000)",i.e., the Blondel la
Rougery map. The cercleadrninistrator replied on 9 August 1935request-
ing a copy of ths map. On 20 September 1935the cercle administrator
returned to the Governor of French Sudan the copy which had been
supplied to him by the Geographical Service,having "drawn on it in blue
pencil the subdivisionboundaries of the cerclewhich are mentioned in the
attached draft Order". At the same time, the administrator pointed out
that "These lines are very approximate since these maps, compiled more
than 15years ago, contain gaps and many inaccuracies". The Governor of
the Sudan cornmunicated this warning to the Governor-General simulta-
neouslywith the description of thesouthern and easternboundaries of the
cercleof Mopti and the maps, which have not been traced. The Geogra-
phical Service then produced, on 18 October 1935,a description of the
topographical boundaries of the cercle of Mopti, corresponding to therespondant àcelleque contient l'arrêté2728AP, tout en indiquantque les
limites des subdivisions de ce cercle devaient faire l'objet d'un arrêté
local.

104. Le Burkina Faso estime pouvoir déduire du libelléde la note
précitéedu 1l juillet 1935, et en particulier de la phrase selon laquelle
certaines descriptions ((ne semblent pas correspondre à l'étatde fait
actuellement existant )),que le projet d'arrêté2728 AP impliquait bel et
bien une modification des limites du cercle de Mopti antérieurement
fixées.La Chambre ne pense pas pouvoir souscrire à cette opinion. Elle
croit au contraire, au vu de l'ensembledu texte de ceprojet, que 1'0état de
fait auquel leservicegéographiqueseréféraitétaitceluiqui apparaissait
sur les cartes et non celui qui existait sur le terrain. Il est évidentque le
servicegéographiquen'aurait pas pu déterminer,par exemple, si la cons-
tatation quela limitepassait <(au sud de la mare de Toussougou )était ou

non conforme à la situation qui existait sur le terrain, puisque ce service
ignorait l'emplacement de cette mare. LaChambre a déjàeu l'occasionde
relever que les cartes disponiblesen 1935ne concordent pas avecd'autres
documents administratifs.Dès lors,lefaitque leservicegéographiqueapu
constater que le projet d'arrêté qui lui étaitsoumis ne correspondait pas,
quant auxpoints indiqués,auxcartes dont ildisposait peut signifierque le
projet apportait desmodificationsauxcartes officiellesexistantes ;celane
permet pas d'affirmerqueleslimitesjuridiquement établiesenétaientpour
autant également modifiées.
105. La Chambre estime devoir conclure que les travaux préparatoires
de l'arrêté2728AP, pris dans leur ensemble, sontdenature à confirmerla

présomption suivantlaquelle cet arrêté n'avait nipour objet ni pour effet
de modifier les limites du cercle de Mopti telles qu'elles existaient avant
son adoption.

106. Ayant ainsi établidans quelle mesure les divers textes réglemen-
taires ou administratifs invoquéspar les Parties sont applicables pour la
détermination de la ligne frontière, la Chambre en vient maintenant à
la question de la mise en Œuvre de leurs termes. A cet égard,la tâche
principale de la Chambre consiste à identifier les élémentstopogra-

phiques utiliséscommepoints de repèredans ces documents et à les loca-
liser tant sur les cartes que sur le terrain, en les situant par rapport aux
toponymes modernes. Mais cefaisant, la Chambredoit revenir sur lessys-
tèmesde division de la ligne auxquels les Parties ont eu recours aux fins
de leur argumentation. La Chambre étant arrivée à la conclusion que
lalettre 191CM2 du gouverneur générad le l'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise
en datedu 19février1935valait description de lalimiteexistant àl'époque
entre le Soudan français et le Niger, il semblerait en résulterqu'un point
de la frontière, le point (celui de coordonnéesgéographiques1 O 24' 15"
ouest et 14' 43'45" nord) serait désormaisidentifié, etque la division en
deux secteursproposéepar leBurkina Faso pourrait dèslors êtreretenue,description in Order 2728AP, stating that "The subdivisionboundaries [of
this cercle]must be fixed by local Order".

104. Burkina Faso believes it can be inferred from the wording of the
above-mentioned note of 11July 1935,especially from the phrase obser-

ving that certain descriptions "do not seem to correspond to the current
state of affairs", that the draft of Order 2728 AP did in fact imply a
modification of the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti as previously fixed.
The Chamber finds it cannot endorse this view. Rather, in view of the
complete text of this draft, it considers that the "state of affairs" to which
theGeographical Servicewasreferring was the one which appeared on the
maps and not the one which existed on the ground. It is obvious that the
Geographical Servicewould not have been able to ascertain, for example,
whether the statement that the boundary ran "south of the pool of Tous-
sougou" actually corresponded with the situation on the ground, since the
Servicedid not know the position of this pool. The Chamber has already
found that the maps available in 1935do not agree with other adminis-
trative documents. Accordingly, the fact that the Geographical Service
found that the draft submitted to it did not correspond, for the points
indicated, to the maps it had available, may mean that this draft made
changes to the existingofficia1maps ;it does not warrant afindingthat the
legally-established boundaries were likewise altered.

105. The Chamber believes it must be concluded that the travauxpré-
paratories of Order 2728 AP, taken as a whole, tend to confirm the pre-
sumption that the Order did not have either the object or the effect of

modifying the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti as they existed before its
adoption.

106. Having thus established how far the various regulative or admini-
strative texts relied on by the Parties are applicable in determining the
frontier line, thehamber now cornes to thequestion of how these can be
implemented. In this respect the Chamber's task is chieflyto identify the
topographical elements usedasreferencepoints in thesedocuments, andto
locate them on the maps and on the ground in relation to the modern
place-names. But when doing so, the Chamber must retum to thequestion
of themethods of division of the lineused by theParties for the purpose of
their arguments. Sincethe Chamber has reached the conclusion that letter
191 CM2 from the Governor-General of French West Africa dated
19February 1935 was a description of the boundary existing at the time
between French Sudan and Niger,it might seemto followthatone point on
the frontier, point P, is now identified (the point with the geographical
CO-ordinates 1" 24' 15" W and 14" 43'45" N) and that Burkina Faso's
proposed division into two sectors can therefore beadopted, theone sector
lyingto the Westof that point and the other to theeast, asfaras theend ofle premier se situant à l'ouest de ce point et le second à I'est,jusqu'à

l'extrémité de lafrontièreentre leBurkina Faso et leMali dans cette direc-
tion. Avant de se prononcer sur cette question, la Chambre examinera les
relations qui peuvent êtreétabliesentre leséléments d'information fournis
par les divers textes écrits qu'elledoit appliquer.
107. L'arrêté du 31décembre1922 (<portant réorganisationde larégion
de Tombouctou et la lettre 191CM2 du gouverneur générad l e l'Afrique
occidentale française en date du 19février1935se renforcent mutuelle-
ment en ce qu'ils mentionnent la mare d'In Abao (arrêtéde 1922) ou
Inabao (lettre de 1935)commel'un despoints derepèrepar lesquelspassait

lalimiteséparantleSoudanetla colonievoisine,laHaute-Volta àpartirde
1922et le Niger à partir de 1935.De mêmela lettre 191CM2 de 1935se
trouve êtreen harmonie avec I'arrêté du 31 août 1927 ((fixant les limites
descolonies de laHaute-Volta et du Niger ))lequelimpliquait que lepoint
terminal de lafrontièreentre la Haute-Voltaet leSoudanfrançaissesituait
aux hauteurs de N'Gouma )>.En effet la limite décritedans la lettre de
1935ne se terminait plus à N'Gouma, étant donnéle rattachement, entre-
temps intervenu, de certains cercles voltaïques au Niger, mais elle n'en
continuait pas moins à passer par (entre autres) les((monts Tin Garan,

N'Gouma, Trontikato ...
108. Lerapport qui existeentre lalignedécritedans l'arrêté 2728AP du
27novembre 1935et celledu projet de description de lalettre 191CM2 du
19févrierde la mêmeannéeest encore plus significatif, mais aussi plus
compliqué.L'arrêté 2728AP définitles limites orientale et septentrionale
du cercle de Mopti par référence à des élémentstopographiques. Il ne
précisecependant pas de quelles entités administrativesles limites consi-
déréesséparaientcc eercle. La Chambre constate que,pour ce qui est de la
régionquela présente affaire concerne,la limite dite << à l'est suivait un
tracédesud-ouestennord-est et séparaitsuccessivementlecerclede Mopti

de deux cercles situésau sud-est de la ligne : le cercle soudanais de Oua-
higouya et le cercle nigériende Dori. La limite dite << au nord ))séparait
quant à elle le cercle de Mopti du cercle soudanais de Gourma-Rharous.
Le point (situé àI'estde la mare de Kétiouaire mentionnédans I'arrêté
étaitdonc le point triple où se rencontraient les cercles de Mopti, Gour-
ma-Rharous et Dori. La limite (à l'est))passait cependant aussi par un
autre point triple, celui où cette limite rencontrait, plus à l'ouest, la
limite séparantles cerclesde Ouahigouya(Soudan) et de Dori (Niger). La
lettre 191CM2 du 19février1935avait pour but de définir lalimite entre

lescolonies du Soudan français et du Niger :entre lesdeux points triples,
Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori et Mopti/Gourma-Rharous/Dori (voirci-après
croquis no4),cettelimiteseconfondait aveccelleque I'arrêté 2728APavait
pour objet de préciser. Lescoordonnéesgéographiquesqui, dans la lettre,
définissaientle point terminal de la limite soudano-nigérienne sont donc
celles du point triple Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori.

109. Au sujet de ce dernier point, il est à noter en premier lieu qu'il
correspond à l'extrémité nord-ouest du cercle de Dori telle qu'elle figurethe frontier between Burkina Faso and Mali. But before pronouncing on
this, the Chamber must consider the relationship between the information
provided by the various written texts which it has to apply.

107. The Order of 31 December 1922 "for the reorganization of the
region of Timbuktu" and the letter 191CM2 from the Governor-General

of French West Africa dated 19February 1935bear each otherout, in that
both refer to the pool of In Abao (1922 Order) or Inabao (1935 letter) as
one of the reference points of the boundary between Sudan and the
neighbouring colony, from 1922onwards Upper Volta, and from 1935on
Niger. Similarly, the letter 191 CM2 of 1935 agrees with the Order of
31August 1927"fixing the boundaries of the colonies of Upper Volta and
Niger", which implied that the end-point of the frontier between Upper
Volta and French Sudan was situated at the "heights of N'Gouma". The
boundary contemplated in the 1935 letter, a boundary which no longer
ended at N'Gouma because of the transfer of certain Voltan cercles to
Niger, nevertheless continued to run through (inter alia) "mounts Tin
Garan, N'Gouma, 'Trontikato ...".

108. Even more significant, but also more complex, is the relationship
between the line described in Order 2728 AP of 27 November 1935and
that givenin the draft description in letter 191CM2 of 19February of the
same year. Order 2728AP defines the eastern and northern boundaries of
the cercle of Mopti by reference to topographical elements. It gives no
indication which administrative entity was separated from that cercleby
each boundary. The Chamber notes that, in the region relevant to the

present case, the so-called "eastern" boundary followed a southwest-
northeast direction, and divided the cercleof Mopti from two cercleslying
successively to the southeast of the line :the Sudanese cercleof Ouahi-
gouya and the Niger cercleof Dori. The so-called "northern" boundary
divided the cercleof Mopti from the Sudanese cercleof Gourma-Rharous.
The point "located 1.the east of the pool of Kétiouaire"mentioned in the
Order is therefore the tripoint where the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rha-
rous and Don met. However, the "eastern" boundary also ran through
anothertripoint,that is,the meeting-point between thatboundary and the
boundary between the cerclesof Ouahigouya (Sudan) and Dori (Niger).
The purpose of letter 191 CM2 of 19 February 1935 was to define the
boundary between the colonies of French Sudan and Niger :between the
two tripoints, Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori and Mopti/Gourma-Rharous/
Don (see sketch-map No. 4, below) that boundary was identical with the
line which Order 2728 AP was intended to define. The geographical co-
ordinates given in the letter by way of definition of the end-point of the
Sudan-Niger boundary are therefore those of the tnpoint Mopti/Ouahi-
gouya/Dori.
109. With regard to this latter point, it should first be noted that it
corresponds to thenorthwestern extremity of the cercleof Dori asshowninsur les cartes de l'Atlasdescercles(fascicule IV, cartes 53et 59)de 1926et
surla carte Blondella Rougery de 1925,cartes qui ont été dresséesavant la
suppression de la Haute-Volta et le transfert du canton d'Aribinda du
cerclede Dori aucerclede Ouahigouya. Lescartes mises àladisposition de
laChambre n'indiquent pas leslimites de cecanton. Il ressort toutefois des
éditionssuccessivesde 1926etde 1933du croquis de l'Afriquefrançaise au
1/1000 000 (feuille ND-30 :Ouagadougou), cartes déposéespar le Bur-

kina Faso, que la modification des limites du cercle de Dori qu'avait
entraînéletransfert du canton d'Aribinda n'apas eupour effet demodifier
l'emplacement du point triple Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori. On peut en
second lieu s'étonner qu'austadede la rédactionde l'arrêté 2728AP, soit
ennovembre 1935,leservicegéographiquen'aitpas crubon deproposer au
gouverneur générallamention du point P dans la définitionde la limitedu
cercle de Mopti ; c'est en effet ce point qui avait étéutilisé auxfins de
définir,dans la lettre 191 CM2 de février1935,l'extrémitéouest d'une
limite dont l'extension seconfondait aveccellede la limite qu'allait déter-
miner l'arrêté 2728 AP, tout au moins dans la mesure où ces limites
devaient l'uneet l'autre relier lesdeux points triplesmentionnés ci-dessus.
Cela est d'autant plus curieux que l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti,
ayant reçu copie de la lettre 191 CM2, avait informé le lieutenant-gou-
verneur du Soudan, par télégramme-lettredu 19mars 1935,qu'ilne trou-
vait <aucune modification à apporter au projet de texte relatià la fron-
tièreSoudan-Niger O,sous réserved'une suggestion tendant à ajouter une

référence à la mare de Kébanaire. L'administrateur du cercle de Mopti
avait donc de la sorte acceptéque le point P, mentionnédans la lettre, se
trouvait bel et bien sur la limite de son cercle.
110. On aurait pu croire que lamention, dans lalettre 191CM2 de 1935,
d'un point définipar des coordonnéesdelatitude et de longitudeaurait eu
pour effet de simplifierlatâche dela Chambrequi aurait ainsidisposéd'un
repèresolide et fiable aux fins de la déterminationdu tracéde la ligne.Tel
n'est cependant pas le cas. Il semble en. effet clairement résulter des
documents de l'époqueque,silepoint Pa été définiaveccette précision, ce
n'est pas parce qu'il correspondait à un élémenttopographique caracté-
ristique dont il fallait calculer les coordonnées ou parce que l'on avait en
vue le placement ultérieur, à l'endroit concerné, d'uneborne astrono-
mique. Le point déterminépar les coordonnées susviséesconstituait le
point de rencontre de trois limites de cercles définiesquant à elles en
termes topographiques ;or il n'ya guèrede doute que c'esten se fondant
sur les donnéesfourniespar une ou plusieurs cartes que le rédacteurde

la lettre 191CM2 a pu attribuer à ce point une position chiffrée.Il s'en-
suit que, dans le présent contexte,c'est lepoint établide cette façon qui,
paradoxalement, fait le moins autorité. Là où les limites décritesdans la
lettre 191CM2 ou l'arrêté 2728 AP se définissent en termes d'éléments
topographiques, c'est-à-dire là où elles passent par un mont ou une mare
déterminés, laChambre ne peut, une fois ceux-ci identifiéssur le terrain,
qu'y faire passer la ligne qu'elle doit tracer. Mais il ne faut pas perdre de
vue que les cartes de base disponibles en 1935étaient,selon I'IGN lui- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 613

the maps of the Atlas descercles(fascicle IV, maps 53 and 59) of 1926,as
wellas in the Blondel la Rougery map of 1925,mapsdrawnup before the
abolition of Upper Volta and the transfer of the cantonof Aribinda from
the cercleof Don to the cercleof Ouahigouya. Themapsmade available to
the Charnber do not show the boundaries of that canton.However, from
the successive editions of 1926 and 1933 of the sketch-map of French
Africa on the scale 1 1,000,000(ND 30 sheet :Ouagadougou, maps filed

by Burkina Faso), it isplain that the modification of theboundaries of the
cercleof Dori which resulted from the transfer of the cantonof Aribinda
did not result in modifying the location of the tripoint Mopti/Ouahi-
gouya/Dori. In the second place, it may seem surprising that at the time
when Order 2728AP was compiled, in November 1935,the Geographical
Service did not see fit to propose to the Govemor-General that point P
should be mentioned in the definition of the boundary of the cercle of
Mopti ; that was thepoint used in the letter 191CM2 of February 1935to
define the western end-point of a boundary the extension of whch was
identical with that of the boundary which was to be defined by Order
2728AP, at least in so far as both boundaries connected the two tripoints
mentioned above. This is the more curious in that theadministrator of the
cercleof Mopti,after receivinga copy of letter 191CM2, had informed the
Lieutenant-Governor of the Sudan, by aletter-telegram of 19March 1935,
that he found "no amendment ... necessary to draft text relating to
Sudan-Niger frontier" except for the suggested addition of a reference to
the pool of Kébanaire. The administrator of the cercle of Mopti had
therefore accepted that point P mentioned in the letter was indeed on the
boundary of his cercle.
110. It might be thought that the reference in letter 191CM2 of 1935to

a point defined by CO-ordinatesof latitude and longitude would have
simplified the Chamber's task, sinceit would thus have a firm and reliable
key point for the purpose of determining the course of the line. That is
however not so. From the documents of the period it seemsclear that the
reason for giving a precise definition of point P was not that it corre-
sponded to a typical topographical feature the CO-ordinatesof which
should be calculated, nor for the purpose of later fixing an astronomic
marker at that point. The point to which the CO-ordinatesrefer was the
meeting-point of three cercleboundaries, whichwerethemselvesdefined in
topographical terms, and there is little doubt that it was on the basis of the
data supplied by oneormore mapsthat the author of letter 191CM2 gavea
definition of this point in figures. Paradoxically, it follows that it is the
point so defined which is the least authoritative in the present case. When
the boundaries described in the letter 191CM2 or in Order 2728 AP are
defined in terms of topographical features, aspassing through acertain hiIl
or pool, then once these have been identified on the ground the Chamber
must necessarily ensure that the line it has to draw passes through them.
But it must be borne in rnind that the basic maps available in 1935,
according to the IGN itself, were most inaccurately drawn, so that "the
position of certain details may be misplaced by several hlometres" (Notemêmed , 'uneprécisiongraphiquetrèsfaible,sibien que << la position de cer-
tains détails peut êtreerronéede plusieurs kilomètres ))(note du 27jan-

vier 1975sur lamiseen place des frontières).Siladéfinitiond'une limitese
réfèrea la fois à des détails de cette nature et à un point chiffrédont les
coordonnéesont étédéduites d'unetelle carte, il n'ya qu'un seul moyen
de respecter la cohérence des limites voulue par les administrateurs
coloniaux : en cas de conflit entre la topographie et les coordonnées,
il faut s'en teniràla topographie. Dans le cas présent,si les coordonnées
mentionnées dans la lettre 191 CM2 devaient apparaître imprécises ou
inexactes au VU des points de repère topographiques révélé psar des cartes
et d'autres donnéesgéographiques disponiblesen 1986 - plus fiables que
celles établiesavec les moyens techniques auxquels il pouvait êtrefait
appel en 1935 - la Chambre devrait, pour interpréter correctement la
lettre considérée,les corriger, voire les écarter.
111. Pour établirquel est le rapport entre I'arrêté 2728 AP et la lettre

191CM2, il y a lieu de tenir compte tout particulièrement de l'attitude de
l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti. Celui-ci avait sans aucun doute des
cartes à sa disposition mais ne possédait pas lacarte Blondel la Rougery
(feuilleHombori de la sérieau 1/500 OOO)c ,omme en témoignesa com-
munication au gouverneur du Soudan français du 9 août 1935. Or le
19mars 1935cet administrateur aapprouvé,pour la limitede son cercle,le
projet de description figurant dans la lettre 191 CM2, description qui
n'étaitque la traduction en mots ))de la ligne qui figurait sur la carte
Blondel la Rougery. Si, compte tenu des élémentsdocumentaires ou car-
tographiques dont ildisposait,l'administrateur du cerclede Mopti n'arien
trouvéa redire à cette description, il est permis de penser que, en ce qui
concerne la partie de la ligne qui constituait en mêmetemps une limite du
cercle de Mopti, la description figurant dans la lettre correspondait à la

réalitéadministrative. On relèvera aussique l'administrateur de Mopti a
retournéau lieutenant-gouverneur du Soudan français les feuilles Hom-
bori et Mopti delacarte au 1/500 000,aprèsyavoirtracéau crayon bleu les
limites telles qu'il lesconnaissait et que c'estsur la base de césfeuilleset
non pas d'un exemplaire vierge de la feuille Hombori que le servicegéo-
graphique a mis au point la définition deslimites du cercledestinéeàêtre
inscrite dans I'arrêté2728AP. Cetteconstatation confirmela conclusion a
laquelle la Chambre est parvenue et qui consiste a rejeter l'argument selon
lequel la figuration, sur la feuille Hombori au 1/500 000, des villages de
Koubo, Agoulourou et Oukoulou au sud de la limite qu'elle comporte,
démontreque I'arrêté 2728AP aeu pour effet de lestransférerdu cerclede
Ouahigouya au cercle de Mopti.

112. Au moment où la Chambreaborde lapartie essentiellede sa tâche,
elle se trouve confrontée au problème suivant :les Parties ne lui ont pas
clairement indiqué quel est le point terminal de la frontière déjàétabliedated 27January 1975on the positioning offrontiers). If thedefinition of a
boundary refers both to details like these and to a calculated point with
CO-ordinatesderived from such a map, there isonly one wayto observe the
consistency among boundaries sought by the colonial adrninistrators :
where the topography and the CO-ordinatesfail to agree, the topography
must be preferred. Inthe present instance, ifitwere to prove tobe the case,
on the basis of reference-points shown on maps and in other geographical
sources which are more reliable, in 1986, than those compiled with the
technical data available in 1935,that the geographical CO-ordinatesmen-
tioned in letter 191CM2 are impreciseor inaccurate, then for the Chamber
togiveacorrect interpretation of theletter itwouldhave tocorrect them,or
even disregard theni.

111. To establish the relationship between Order 2728 AP and letter
191CM2, particular account must be taken of the attitude of the Mopti
cercleadministrator. He must doubtless have had maps available to him,
but he did not possess the Blondella Rougery map (the Hombori sheet of
the 1:500,000series),asisshownby hiscommunication tothe Governor of
French Sudan on 9August 1935.Now on 19March 1935thisadministrator
himself approved, for the boundary of his cercle,the draft description set

out in letter 191CM2, that description being simply the verbal equivalent
of the line shown on the Blondel la Rougery map. If, having regard to the
documentary or cartographic information in his possession, the Mopti
administrator made no objection to that description, it may be assumed
that, as regards the portion of the line which was at the same time a
boundary of the cercleof Mopti, the description contained in the letter
corresponded to the administrativesituation. It should alsobe noted that
the Mopti administrator returned to the Lieutenant-Governor of French
Sudan the Hombori and Mopti sheets of the 1:500,000map, afterdrawing
on them in blue pencil the boundaries asheknewthem tobe ;and itwason
the basis of these sheets, and not from a clean copy of the Hombori sheet,
that the Geographical Serviceprepared the definition of the cercleboun-
daries to be set out in Order 2728 AP. This confirms the Chamber's
conclusion that it cannot accept the argument that the depiction on the
1:500,000 Homborï sheet of the villages of Koubo, Agoulourou and
Oukoulou south of the boundary shown on it proves that Order 2728AP
had the effect of transferring them from the cercleof Ouahigouya to the
cercleof Mopti.

112. Now that the Chamber turns to the essential part of its task, it
encountersapracticalproblem :the Parties have not clearlyindicated to it
theend-point of thefrontier already established between them by common entre ellesd'uncommun accord, c'est-à-dire quelle est l'extrémité oues dte
lazonecontestée.Dans sesconclusions, le Mali demande à la Chambrede
direetjuger que letracéde lafrontièredans lazonecontestéepasse par une

sériede points qu'ilcite successivement et dont le premier est << Lofou )).
Par ailleurs cette Partie a produit une carte, intitulée<(Zone litigieuse -
Points de passage de la frontière O, selon laquelle Lofou se trouverait à
29 kilomètres au sud de Dionouga, à I'ouest- côtémalien - du <(tracé
frontalier portésur la carte à 1/200 000 ))de YIGN. Le Burkina Faso n'a
pas mis en cause l'exactitude de cette indication. A l'audience l'undes
conseils du Mali a affirméque Lofou semblait êtreun point non contesté.

Cela paraît également ressortirdu contre-mémoiredu Burkina Faso dans
lequel il est préciséque Lofou est un <(village malien cultivépar des
Burkinabés )).Sur la carte susmentionnée que le Mali a présentée à la
Chambre figureune lignetracée à l'encre rouge,qui illustre lesconclusions
de cette Partie. Cette ligne part deofou et suit le<<tracéfrontalier de la
carte de 1'IGNjusqu'à un point dont les coordonnées géographiques
semblent êtreles suivantes : 1" 59'01" ouest et 14O24'40" nord. Le Bur-
kina Faso n'a pas, quant à lui, identifiédans ses conclusions le point de

départ dela ligne qu'il incombe à la Chambre de tracer ; il s'estborné à
soumettre à la Chambre une carte (consistant en un extrait d'un assem-
blage de cinq feuilles de la carte de YIGN au 1/200 000) sur laquelle
figurent à la fois le tracé de la frontière qu'il demande à la Chambre
d'entériner et la représentationqu'ildonne desprétentionssuccessivesdu
Mali. Sur cette carte, les tracés proposés respectivement par les deux
Parties se coupent en un point situé surle <(tracé frontalier))mentionné

ci-dessus, mais à quelque 18 kilomètres au nord de Lofou. Le Burkina
Faso déclareégalementque, aux fins de la délimitationdéjàétabliepar
accord, les Parties se sont fondéessur le tracéde la carte de YIGN au
1/200 000.
113. La Chambre croit pouvoir conclure que les Parties reconnaissent
toutes deux letracéfrontalierindiquésurla carte de I'IGN au sud du point
de coordonnéesgéographiques 1 59'01 " ouest et 14"24'40" nord ;elle
estime que c'est donc à partir de ce point que les Parties lui demandent

d'indiquer le tracéde leur frontière commune vers l'est.

114. Les textes réglementairesdont l'objet est de fixer les limites des
circonscriptions - l'arrêté2728 AP est l'un d'eux - se contentent géné-
ralement, pour ce faire, de mentionner les villages qui composent un
.canton ou qui sont attribués à un cercle déterminé, sansfournir d'autre

précision géographique.Il convient en conséquenced'examiner le sens à
donner au mot <(villageo. Acet égard leproblèmetientnotamment au fait
que les habitants des villages de la région cultivent souventdes terrains
assez éloignésde ces villages, parfois séparésde ceux-ci par des terres
incultes ou incultivables, et qu'ils s'installent dans des<(hameaux de cul-
ture ))dépendantd'unvillageprincipal. Cettepratique compliqued'autant FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 615

agreement, that is to Say, the western end of the disputed area. In its

submissions,Malirequested the Charnber to decide that thefrontier linein
thedisputed area runs through a seriesof defined points, the first of which
is"Lofou". According to arnap alsopresented by Mali, entitled "Disputed
area - crossing points on the frontier", Lofou is tobefound 29kilometres
tothe south of Diounouga, to the West - the Malian side - of the "frontier
line shown on the 1:200,000scalemap" of the IGN. Burkina Faso has not
challenged the accuracy of this. One of Mali's counselexplainedduring the
oral proceedings that Lofou wasnot apparently a disputedpoint.This also
appeared from the Counter-Memorial of Burkina Faso, where it is stated
that Lofou is a "Malian village cultivated by Burkinabes". On the rnap
mentioned above submitted to the Chamber by Mali, there is a line in red
ink, which corresponds to its submissions. This line begins at Lofou and
followsthe "frontier line" of the IGN rnap asfaras apoint apparently with
the followinggeographical CO-ordinates :1 "59'01 "Wand 14"24'40" N.
As for Burkina Faso, it did not in its submissions identify the starting-

point of the line to be drawn by the Chamber ; it merely submitted to the
Chamber a rnap (comprising an extract from a compilation of five sheets
from the IGN 1:200,000map) indicating both the frontier line which it
asksthe Chamber to endorse, and what it allegesto be the successiveclaims
of Mali. On that map, the respective lines proposed by the two Parties
intersect at a point lying on the "frontier line" mentioned above, but
approximately 18 kilometres to the north of Lofou. Burkina Faso also
Statesthat, for the purpose of the delimitation alreadymade by agreement,
the Parties based themselves on the line on the IGN 1:200,000 scale
map.

113. The Chamber considers that it can justifiably conclude that the
Parties both accept thefrontier lineof the IGN rnap south of thepoint with
the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 59'01" W and 14" 24'40" N ; it finds

therefore thatit isfrom that point that they are requesting the Chamber to
indicate the line of their common frontier in an easterly direction.

114. The regulativetexts intended to fixthe districtboundaries - Order
2728 AP being one of these - generally do so merely by referring to the
villagescomprising a cantonor allocated to acertain cercle,withoutfurther
geographical clarification. This therefore calls for a consideration of the
meaning to be ascribed to the word "village". The problem arises parti-
cularly because the inhabitants of the villages in the region frequently
cultivate land at a distance from the village itself, sometimes separated
from it by areas comprising uncultivated or arid land, and they take up
residence in "farming harnlets" which form dependencies of the main
village.This system further complicates the Chamber's task of drawing ala tâche de la Chambre, chargéede tracer une ligne qui, en tant que limite
de tel ou tel village,constitue l'ancienne limiteadministrative d'une colo-
nie et, de ce fait, la frontière actuelle entre les territoires des Parties. La
Chambre doit décider si,au regard de la délimitation à laquelle elle est
priéede procéder,les hameaux de culture fontpartie des villagesdont ils
dépendent.Dans une régionoù il n'estpas rare que des villages,au fildu

temps, changent d'emplacement ou de nom, voire disparaissent, il n'est
guèreaiséde déterminerquelleétaitla localisation deshameaux de culture
en 1932, à supposer qu'une telle opération soit nécessaireaux fins de la
délimitation qu'il appartient à la Chambre d'effectuer.
115. Le Mali a souligné qu'il revendiqueles villagesjadis administra-
tivement soudanais, dans toute leur extension légale,c'est-à-direnon pas
les terres cultivéespar des Maliens, mais les terres relevant adrninistrati-
vement des villages maliens. Il cite à ce propos un arrêtépris par le
lieutenant-gouverneur par intérimdu Soudan le 30 mars 1935, ((portant
réorganisation de l'administration indigène dans la colonie du Soudan

français O, dont l'article 2 dispose que : (<Le village représente l'unité
administrative indigène. Il comprend l'ensemble de la population y habi-
tant et tous les terrains qui en dépendent. Pour le Mali, (les terrains
qui ...dépendent des villagescomprennent enparticulier leshameaux de
culture. SelonleBurkina Faso,en revanche,lesadministrateurs français de
l'époqueconnaissaient bien lephénomènede l'imbrication des villagesde
culture et étaientconscients de l'impossibilitéd'établirune carte adminis-
trative qui tînt compte du rattachement (<personnel ))ou des activitésde
culture. Cet étatde chosesappelait une certaine souplessequi, de l'avisdu
Burkina Faso, a précisément été apportéepar l'arrêté du 30 mars 1935,

dont l'article7 stipule en effet :
(Leschefsde plusieurs villagesvoisinspourront préparerentre eux
aprèsavisdesconseilsde villageintéressés des conventions collectives
relativesà lapêche, à lachasse,aux terrains deculture,aux terrains de
parcours, aux zones de transhumance. Ces contrats ne devront en

aucun casmodifier lesloisourèglementsen vigueuret seront soumis à
l'approbation du chef de circonscription qui en fera assurer la pas-
sation dans les conditions prévuespar le décret du 2mai 1906sur les
conventions indigènes.

Le Burkina Faso a aussi attirél'attention de la Chambre sur les distances
considérables existant entre les villages et les hameaux de culture qui en
dépendent, distances imposéespar la pauvretéde la terre et le mode de
culture qu'elle impose. Il a en outre soulignéque la ligne frontière déjà
arrêtée d'un commun accord entre les Parties séparede nombreux villages
de leurs hameaux de culture. Ilen conclutqu'une utilisation trop extensive
de lanotion de hameaux deculture àdesfinsde délimitationpeutavoirdes
conséquences néfastes.
116. Dans le systèmecolonial le village a pu, à certaines fins adminis-
tratives, comprendre tous lesterrains qui endépendaient,maislaChambre

est loin d'être convaincue que,lorsqu'un village constituait un élément FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 616

line which, as the boundary of certain villages, constitutes the former
administrative boundary of a colony, and consequently the present fron-
tier between the territories of the Parties. The Chamber has to decide

whether, in the light of the delimitation it is asked to effect, the farming
hamlets form part of the villages on which they depend. Moreover, in a
regionwhereit iscommon forvillages,in thecourse of time, to change their
locations or names, or even disappear, it is no easy matter to decide what
was the position of farminghamlets in 1932,should this be necessary for
the delimitation which the Chamber has to effect.

115. Mali has emphasized that it is claiming those villages which were
formerly administratively Sudanese to their legal extent ;that it is not
claiming land cultivated by Malians, but land which administratively
appertains to Malian villages.It quotes an Order issued by the Lieutenant-
Govemor ad interintof the Sudan on 30 March 1935, "for the reorgani-
zation of the native administration in the colony of French Sudan", Arti-
cle2of whch provides that "the villageis the native administrative unit. It
comprises the whole of the population residing there and al1 the land
dependent on it." For Mali, "the land dependent on" avillageincludes the
farming harnlets. Burkina Faso argues, however, that the French admini-
strators of the period were well aware of the phenomenon of the over-
lappingfarming villages,and the impossibility of drawing an administra-
tivemap taking account of attachment on a "personal" basis orin relation

to farming activities. This state of affairs necessitated a degree offlexi-
bility, which was, in Burkina Faso's view, provided by the Order of
30 March 1935,since Article 7 provided that :

"The chefs of a number of neighbouring villages may prepare
among themselves, after consulting the councils of the villages con-
cerned, collectiveagreements for fisheries,hunting,farmland, grazing
lands and transhumance areas. In no circumstances may these agree-
ments modify the laws or regulations in force, and they will be sub-

mitted for approval to the district head, who will have them issued in
accordance with the terms of the decree of 2 May 1906 on native
agreements."
Burkina Faso has also drawn attention to the considerable distances
between the villages and the farming hamlets depending on them, these
distances being imposed by the poor soi1and the patterns of cultivation
this necessitates. It has alsopointed out that thefrontier line already fixed
by joint agreement between the Parties divides numerous villages from
their farming hamlets. From this it concludes that excessive use of the
concept of farming hamlets for delimitation purposes could have unfor-

tunate results.
116. While under the colonial system a villagemay, for certain admini-
strative purposes, have comprised al1 the land depending on it, the
Chamber isby no means persuaded that when a village wasa feature usedservant àdéfinirla composition - et partant l'extension géographique -
d'une entitéadministrative plus large, les hameaux de culture aient tou-
jours dû êtrepris en considération pourle tracéde lalimite de cetteentité.
En effet, à l'époque coloniale, lefait que les habitants d'un village se
trouvant dans une colonie française aillent cultiver des terres situéessur le
territoire d'une colonie française voisine, eà plus forte raison sur celui
d'un autre cercle relevant de la même colonie, n'était nullemenetn con-

tradiction avec la notion de limite bien déterminéeentre les diverses
colonies ou cercles. C'est de cette situation que les Parties ont héritéau
moment de leur accession à l'indépendance etc'estlafrontière,tellequ'elle
existaità cemoment-là, quelaChambre estappelée àidentifier. LesParties
n'ont pas priélaChambrede réglerlesort des droits fonciers ou autres qui
s'exerçaient,à laveillede l'indépendancedes deux Etats, de part et d'autre
delalimite séparantlesdeux coloniespréexistantes.Side telsdroits étaient
sans effets sur l'emplacementde cette limite, ils n'affectent pas non plus le
tracéde lafrontière ;et ce n'estque ce tracéque lesParties ont demandé à
la Chambre d'indiquer. D'un point de vue pratique, l'existence de tels
droits n'a pas soulevéde questions graves, comme en témoignent les
accords conclus pour résoudreles problèmesadministratifs qui se posent

dans lescirconscriptionsfrontalières des deux Etats. A titre d'exemple,un
accord du 25 février1964viseentreautres les (problèmesdesterreset du
maintien des droits d'usage de part et d'autre de la frontière ))et prévoit
que les droits d'usagedes ressortissants des deux Etats sur les terres de
culture, pâturage, pêcherieet points d'eau demeurent maintenus confor-
mémentaux coutumes de la région )).
117. Ilne faut toutefoispas non plus systématiser àl'excèsladistinction
ainsi faite entre le village considéré entant qu'entité territoriale et les
terrains de culture qui en dépendent.Tout est, dans ce domaine, question
de circonstances. La Chambre estime que ce n'est qu'aprèsavoir examiné
dans chaque cas les preuves et autres élémentsd'information dont elle

dispose quant àl'extension d'unvillagedonnéqu'ellesera à mêmedejuger
siun terrain déterminédoitêtretraitécommepartie du villageconcerné,en
dépitde leur discontinuité, ou,au contraire, comme hameau satellite non
inclus dans les limites du village a proprement parler.

118. L'arrêté 2728APde 1935définissant lalimite entre les cercles de
Mopti et de Ouahigouya par référence auxvillages (laissés au premier
cercle, il convient d'identifier cesvillages et d'en déterminerl'extension
territoriale. Lepremier villagementionnédans l'arrêté eY storo. Ainsiqu'il

aété précisé(paragraphe 92ci-dessus),leBurkina Faso ne metpas encause
le caractère malien de ce village, qui se situe à quelque 15 kilomètres à
l'ouestdu tracé frontalier figurant sur la carte de I'IGN au 1/200 000,à la
hauteur de Lofou. Pour cequiestdes limitesgéographiquesdecevillage,la
Chambreconstate que le Mali a indiquén'avoir aucune difficulté à accep-
ter la ligne de la carte deI'IGN au 1/200 000 jusqu'à un certain point, FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 617

to define the composition - and therefore the geographical extent - of a
wider administrative entity, the farming hamlets had always to be taken
into consideration in drawingthe boundary of that entity. In the colonial
period, thefact that the inhabitants of one villagein a French colonyleft in
order to cultivate land lying on the territory of another neighbouring
French colony, or afortiori on the territory of another cerclebelonging to
the same colony, did not contradict the notion of a clearly-defined boun-
dary between the various colonies or cercles.This was the situation inheri-
ted by the two Parties at the moment of acheving independence ;and it is
the frontier as it existed at that moment which the Chamber is required to
identify. The Parties have not requested the Chamber to decide what
should become of the land rights and other rights which, on the eveof the
independence of both States, were being exercised across the boundary
between the two pre-existing colonies. If such rights had no impact on the
position of that boundary, then they do not affect the line of the frontier,
and it is this linealone which the Parties have reauested the Chamber to

indicate. From a practical point of view, the existence of such rights has
posed no major problems, as is shown by the agreements which they have
concluded to resolvethe administrative problems which anse in the fron-
tier districts of the two States. For example, an agreement of 25 February
1964 deals, among other matters, with the "Problems of land and the
maintenance of rights of use on either sideof the frontier", andit provides
that "Rights of use of the nationals of the two Statespertaining to farm-
land, pasturage, fisheries and waterpoints willbe preserved in accordance
with regional custom".
117. It is however also important not to over-systematize this distinc-
tion between the village as a territorial unit and the farming land depen-
dent on it. In thismatter, it al1depends onthe circumstances. The Chamber
considers that it is only when it has exarnined the evidence and other
information available to it relating to the extent of aparticular villagethat
itwillbe ableto ascertain whether aparticular pieceof land is to he treated
aspart of that villagedespite its lackof aconnection with it, oras asatellite

hamlet which does not fa11within the boundaries of the villagein the strict
sense.

118. Since Order 2728 AP of 1935defines the boundary between the
cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouya in terms of villages "left" to the former
cercle, these villages have to be identified, and their territorial extent
ascertained. The first villagementioned in the Order is Yoro. As we have
seen (paragraph 92 above), Burkina Faso does not deny that this village,
which is situated sonie 15kilometres Westof the frontier line shown on the
IGN 1:200,000 scale map, at the level of Lofou, is Malian. As for the
geographical boundaries of this village, the Chamber notes that Mali has
stated that it has no difficulty in accepting the line of the IGN 1:200,000
scale map up to acertainpoint, a point determined not by reference to the déterminé en fonctionnon pas de l'extension du village de Yoro mais de
celledu villagede Dionouga. Etantdonnéque cette ligneest aussicelleque
le Burkina Faso propose, la Chambre conclut qu'il n'y a aucune contes-
tation quant à cette premièrepartie de la frontière.
119. L'emplacementdu villagede Dionouga, quelesParties s'accordent
àassimiler au villagede (Dioulouna e mentionnédans l'arrêté 2728AP,
est défini,d'après un rapport du 14 avril 1972 d'une sous-commission
technique de la commission technique mixte Haute-Volta/Mali, par les

coordonnéesgéographiques 1' 57' 00"ouest et 14O32'12" nord. Sur la
carte de l'IGN, ce village est situà proximité immédiatedu tracé fron-
talier, du côté burkinabé, prèsde l'infléchissementde la ligne vers le
nord-est. Dans ce secteur, il est donc évidentque cette ligne ne représente
aucunement la limite définie par l'arrêté 2728 AP, puisque celui-ci avait
laissé levillagede Dioulouna/Dionouga au cercle de Mopti. La Chambre
nepeut enconséquencefairedroit alaconclusion du Burkina Faso suivant
laquelle la frontière serait(celle qui résultede la carte de l'Institut géo-
graphique national français au 1/200 000, édition 1960, les villages de
Dioulouna ..étantsituésen territoire burkinabé )>.eMali soutient quani
à lui que, dans les environs de Dioulouna/Dionouga, la frontière doit

passer par (l'enclosen forme de mosquéesitué à 2 kilomètresau nord de
Diguel o.
120. Al'appui decette conclusion, leMaliinvoqueleprocès-verbaldela
réunionde la commission technique mixte Haute-Volta/Mali, tenue du
5 au 17avril 1972,ainsi que des indications recueilliesle5septembre 1985
auprès des anciens de Dioulouna, porteurs, selon lui, d'une vieille
tradition orale. Parmi ces élémentsd'information, la Chambre retient
surtout ce qui suit: en ce qui concerne le village de Dioulouna, les popu-
lations locales ont déclaré à la commission technique mixte que

sous le régime colonial, les travauxde piste, pour Dioulouna, s'ar-
rêtaientà Tondigaria, àla hauteur de lapierreblanche (10kilomètres
environ au sud de Dioulouna) ...));

en ce qui concerne le village burkinabé de Diguel, elles lui ont rapporté

que
souslerégimecolonial lestravaux de piste s'arrêtaient à Sagarabane
(Gravillons Rouges) a sept (7) kilomètresenviron au nord [du village
de Diguel] )).

De l'avisde laChambre, cesinformations sur lestravaux de pisteentrepris
par ordredes administrateurs coloniauxconcernés ont une certaine valeur

en tant que preuve. D'unepart ellesconstituent un indicedes limites que,
selon les témoignages précités, ceasdministrateurs considéraient comme
cellesde leurcirconscription :ce n'estqu'au stade de sarépliqueoraleque
le Burkina Faso a avancé que, à l'époque coloniale, lerecrutement de la
main-d'Œuvre souscontrainte étaitliénon pas aux limites des circons- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 618

extent of the village of Yoro, but according to that of the village of
Dionouga. Since this line is also that proposed by Burkina Faso, the
Chamber concludes that there isno disputeconceming thisfirst part of the
frontier.
119. The position of the villageof Dionouga, which the Parties agree in
identifying with the villageof "Dioulouna" mentioned in Order 2728AP,
is defined, according to the report of a technical subcommission of the
Mixed Technical Commission of Mali and Upper Volta dated 14April
1972,by the geographical CO-ordinates1" 57'00" W and 14" 32' 12" N.
On the IGN map, this village is situated in the immediate vicinity of the
frontier line on the Burkinabe side, close to the point where the line bends
north-eastwards. In this sector, it is therefore clear that this line can no
longer represent the boundary defined in Order 2728 AP, since the latter
left the villageof Dioulouna/Dionouga to the cercleof Mopti. The Cham-
ber cannot thereforeuphold Burkina Faso'ssubmission that the frontier is
"as shown on the 1/200,000scalemap of the FrenchInstitut géographique

national, 1960 edition, the villages of Dioulouna ... being located in
Burkinabe territory". Mali, on the other hand, claims that the frontier in
the vicinity of Dioulouna/Dionouga should run through "the mosque-
shaped enclosure situated two kilometres to the north of Diguel".

120. In support of this submission, Mali quotes the minutes of the
meeting of the Mixed Technical Commission of Mali and Upper Volta,
held from 5 to 17April1972, and theinformationobtained on 5September
1985from the "older residents" of Dioulouna who, according to Mali, are
themselves the repository of an ancient oral tradition. Of al1ths infor-
mation, what the Chamber finds particularly noteworthy is the fact that,
on the subject of Dioulouna, the local people told the Mixed Technical
Commission that :

"under the colonial régime,track-making work for Dioulouna stop-
ped at Tondigana, at the levelof the white Stone(about 10km to the
south of Dioulouna) ..."

and as regards the Burkinabe village of Diguel,

"under the colonial régime,the track-making work stopped at Saga-
rabane (Gravillons Rouges) at seven(7) kilometres approximately to
the north [of the village of Diguel]".

In the Chamber's opinion, this information about the track-makingworks
carried out at the behest of colonial administratorshas a certain eviden-
tiary value. First, this information is a guide to what, according to the
aforementioned testimony, those administrators considered to be the
boundaries of their districts. Only initsoral replydid Burkina Fasosuggest

that the recruitment of forced labour under the colonial régime wascon-
nected not with the district boundaries, but rather with the availablecriptions mais à l'abondance de main-d'Œuvre disponible, mais sans en
apporter aucune preuve. D'autre part ces informations révèlentl'impor-
tance que ces travaux revêtaientdans la viedespopulations souslerégime

colonial ;c'est ainsi qu'ellesen conservaient un souvenir préciset fiable.
Par ailleurs, il est permis de supposer que ces travaux ont continué,bien
qu'épisodiquement,jusqu'à une époque assez récente. En revanche la
tradition invoquéeen faveur de l'enclosen forme de mosquéeremonte à
une réunionqui se serait tenue vers 1913entre un administrateur colonial
et des chefs indigènes; toutefois aucun procès-verbalde cette réunionou
autre preuve écrite yrelative n'a été présentéà la Chambre.
121. Le Mali admet que les distances ci-dessus citéessont entachées
d'une erreur d'appréciation évaluée à 23,5 pour cent, la distance réelle
entre les villages de Dioulouna et de Diguel étant de 13 et non pas de
17kilomètres. Il affirme qu'<en corrigeant les renseignements [recueillis
auprèsdes populations] en fonction de cette erreur moyenne, le point [de
rencontre entre lesdeux villages]se situà 7,65kilomètresde Dionouga et
à 5,35kilomètresde Diguel o.La Chambre ne pense pas devoir aller aussi

loin dans la recherche de la précisionmathématique ; elleestime pouvoir
conclure que la limite administrative existant au moment considéréde
l'époque colonialecoupait la piste reliantDioulouna/Dionouga à Diguel
à une distance approximative de 7,5 kilomètres au sud de Dionouga et
que le tracéde la frontière entre le Burkina Faso et le Mali fait donc de
même.
122. Après Yoro et Dioulouna, l'arrêté 2728AP mentionne les villages
d'Oukoulou et d'Agoulourou. Selon le Burkina Faso, Oukoulou pourrait
correspondre au villageactuellement dénommé Oukoulourou.Sefondant
notamment sur une carte de 1905(carte du Niger moyen établiepar le
lieutenant Desplagnes), leMali considèrequant àlui quecedernier village
serait celui que le texte de 1935visesous le nomd'Agoulourou, et qu'Ou-
koulou porterait aujourd'hui lenom de Kounia. LaChambre soulignequ'il

est absolument sans importance, aux fins de la présente affaire,que les
deux villagesdont il s'agitexistent ou non aujourd'hu: si,en seréférantà
certains villages,legouverneur généraal définien1935unelimiteappelée à
devenir une frontière internationale, le fait que ces villages aient disparu
par la suite n'a pas pour effet de modifier la limite ainsi définie. La
Chambre est également d'avis qu'il nefaut pas suivre le raisonnement
adoptéparles Parties, lequelconduirait à rechercher quels sont lesvillages
qui, de nosjours, pourraient se situerà l'emplacement des villages cités
dans l'arrêté2728 AP et à établirquelle est actuellement l'extension ter-
ritoriale de ces villages,pour en déduirele tracéde la frontière. La limite
que la Chambredoit identifier est cellequi existait en 1932.La pertinence
de l'arrêtéde 1935 tient au fait que, comme la Chambre l'a constaté,il
définitpar écrit lasituation telle qu'elle était en 1932.
123. Ayant conclu à l'identitédu village actuel d'Oukoulourou et du

villaged'Agoulourou mentionnédans l'arrêté 2728AP, le Mali excipedes
informations suivantes, recueillies par la commission technique mixte en
avril 1972 :supply of labour, but produced no evidence of this. Secondly, such infor-
mation shows how important these operations were in the lives of the
population under the colonial régime ; thus they had an accurate and
reliable recollection of them. Moreover, it is reasonable to suppose that
such operations have continued to take place from time to time until a
fairly recent period. On the other hand, the tradition invoked in regard to

the mosque-shaped enclosure goes back to a meeting between a colonial
adrninistrator and native chiefs held about 1913 ;and no minutes or other
written evidence of that meeting have been produced.

121. Mali concedes that there is a margin of error, estimated at 23.5per
cent, in the distances quoted above, the true distance between the villages
of Dioulouna and Diguel being 13,not 17kilometres. Mali itself suggests
that "if the information [obtained from the local inhabitants] is corrected

in the light of this average error, the point [i.e.,the meeting-point between
the twovillages]issituated at 7.650kilometres from Dionouga and at 5.350
kilometres from Diguel". Although the Chamber does not think it neces-
sary to endeavour to achieve such mathematical accuracy, it can nonethe-
lessconclude that the administrative boundary at the relevant time dunng
the colonial period intersected the track between Dioulouna/Dionouga
and Diguel at a distance of approximately 7.5 kilometres to the south of
Dionouga, and that theline of the frontier between Burkina Faso and Mali
consequently does the same.

122. After Yoroand Dioulouna, Order 2728AP goeson to mention the
villages of Oukoulou and Agoulourou. According to Burkina Faso,
Oukoulou could be the villagetoday called Oukoulourou. Mali, in reliance
mainly on a 1905map (the map of central Niger compiled by Lieutenant
Desplagnes), considers that the latter village isidentical to Agoulourou in
the 193~ -ext. and that Ouko~l~u is now called Kounia. The Chamber
would emphasize that it is quite irrelevant to the present case whether or
not the villagesexist today ;if in 1935,the Governor-General referred to

certain villagesin defininga boundary whch was subsequently to become
aninternational frontier, thefact that thesevillageshave sincedisappeared
does not result in any modification of the boundaq so defined. The
Chamber also considers it must reject the logic adopted by the Parties, of
seeking to ascertain which villagemay nowadays be situatedon the site of
any one of the villages mentioned in Order 2728 AP, and to establish the
present territorial limit of those villagesin order to define thefrontier. The
boundary which the Chamber has to identify is the one which existed in

1932.The relevance of the 1935Order liesin the fact that, as the Chamber
has found, it defines in written form the situation prevailing in 1932.

123. Having concluded that the present-day village of Oukoulourou
and the villageof Agoulourou mentioned in Order 2728AP are identical,
Mali relieson the followinginformation obtained by the Mixed Technical
Commission in April 1972 : <Depuis cinquante-quatre (54) ans, les habitants de Douna (Ré-
publique du Mali) cultivent à Selba et à Okoulourou, sans autorisa-
tion préalabledequi que [ce]soit, pour la bonne raison que ceszones

leur appartiennent. Aucun Voltaïque n'exploite ces terres.
Présentement, une seule famille de Douna exploite les terres de
Selba. La raison en est
a) l'appauvrissement des terres ;
6) l'abandon par lesjeunes à la suite de la déportationde leurs vieux
parents opposés au rattachement de leur village au canton de

Hombori.
Souslerégimecolonial lestravauxde pistepour Douna s'arrêtaient
à la hauteur du baobab de Selba(non loin d'une borne astronomique
situéeau bord de lamare de Selba).Lesmêmes travauxpour levillage
de Sô (République de Haute-Volta) s'arrêtaient àla hauteur de ce
mêmebaobab. Ce baobab est donc la limite entre les deux villages.

11demande enconséquence àla Chambrede faire passer la ligne frontière

par le baobab de Selba.
124. D'une manière générale, comme lC ahambre l'a déjàobservé, les
travaux de piste constituent un élément significatifdes <(effectivités
susceptibles de prouver lesintentions des administrateurs coloniaux. Il n'y
a toutefoispas lieud'établirl'extensiongéographiqueduvillagedeDouna
compte tenu des terrains qui en dépendent etde ses hameaux de culture,
-uisq-e celui-cin'est nimentionnédans l'arrêté 2728AP ni situéau même
endroitque ceux des villagescitésdans cet arrêté qui auraient entre-temps
disparu. Mêmesi levillage d'Agoulourou n'existe plus,la Chambre doit
rechercher quelles en étaient les limites en 1932-1935 ;le fait qu'à son
emplacement se trouve aujourd'hui un hameau de culture (Okoulourou)

qui porte presque le même nom maisdépend du village de Douna ne
permetpas deconclure que levillagede Dounapourrait déterminerletracé
de la ligne. Au stade actuel de son raisonnement, la Chambre se borne à
déclarerque letracéqu'elle estchargéed'indiquer passe au sud desvillages
de Kounia et d'Okoulourou, dont la situation correspond à celle des
villages d'Oukoulou et d'Agoulourou sur les cartes viséesaux paragra-
phes 95et 96 ci-dessus ; elleréservepour l'instant ladéfinitiondes limites
précisesde ces deux derniers villages.
125. L'arrêté 2728AP mentionne ensuite levillagede Koubo, àpropos
duquel il existe une certaine confusion de toponymes. Selon le procès-
verbal des réunions de la commission technique mixte des 8 et 9 avril
1972 :

<(De Douna la commission s'estrendue au villagedeKobou, situé
à vingt-sept (27) kilomètres environ à l'es...
Lesnotables, interrogés, précisenq t u'ilya lieude ne pasconfondre
Kobou, village, et Koubo, hameau de culture. Ce dernier est situé à

quatre (4) kilomètres environ au sud de Kobou. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 620

"For fifty-four (54) years, the inhabitants of Douna (Republic of

Mali) have been farming at Selba and at Okoulourou,without prior
permission from anybody, for the good reason that these areas
belonged to them. No Voltans cultivate these lands.
Atpresent, onlyone familyfromDouna isfarmingthe Selbalands.
The reason is :
(a)the impoverishment of the soi1 ;
(b) an exodus of young people following the deportation of their
elderlyparents, who wereopposedto their villagesbeing annexed
to the cantoo nf Hombori.

Under the colonial régime,track-making worksfor Douna stopped
at the level of the Selba baobab tree (not far from an astronomic
marker situatedat the edgeof thepool of Selba).The sameoperations
for the villageof Sô(Republic of Upper Volta) stopped at the levelof
the same baobab. Thus this baobab is the boundary between the two
villages."

Mali therefore asks the Chamber to draw the frontier line through the
Selba baobab.
124. Generally speaking, as the Chamber has obsewed above, track-
making works are a significant element of the "effectivi wthish"may
prove theintentions of thecolonialadministrators. But thequestion isnot
what was the geographical extent, taking into account thedependent land
or thefarming hamlets, of thevillageof Douna, which isneither mentioned
in Order 2728AP nor situated at the same spotas any of the villagesthere
mentioned which have since disappeared. Even if the villageof Agoulou-
rou no longer exists, the Chamber nonetheless has to ascertain what its
boundaries were in 1932-1935 ;the fact that a farming hamlet (Okoulou-
rou) isnow situated on the samespot and bears almost the samename, but
isdependenton the villageof Douna, does not warrant the conclusion that
the villageof Douna may determine the course of the line. At the present
stage of its reasoning, thehamber will merely state that the line it is to
draw must run to the south of the villagesof Kounia and Okoulourou,the
location ofwhch corresponds to that of Oukoulou and Agoulourou on the

maps referred toinparagraphs 95and 96 above,reservingfor the moment
the question of defining the boundaries of the two latter villages.

125. Order 2728APmentions next the villageof Koubo, where there is
someconfusion of nomenclature. According totheminutes of themeetings
of the Mixed Technical Commission of 8 and 9 April 1972 :

"From Douna the Commission went to the village of Kobou,
situated at twenty-seven (27) km approximately to the east ...
When questioned,the dignitaries explained that the villageKobou
and the farrning hamlet Koubo shouldnot be confused. The latter is

situated about four (4) km to the south of Kobou. Notons que, si sur la coupure IGN (feuille de Djibo) à l'échelle
1/200 000, édition 1960, figure le village de Kobou, le hameau de
Koubo n'existepas. Par contre il existe, à quatre (4) kilomètresenvi-
ron au sud, le hameau de Kobo. ))

D'autres passages du procès-verbal sont ensuite consacrésau village de
Kobou et au hameau qui se trouve au sud de celui-ci,maiscehameau y est
dénommé <(Koubo ))et non ((Kobo )comme dans le dernier paragraphe
qui vient d'être cité et sur la carte de1'IGN.Le procès-verbal donne les
précisionssupplémentairessuivantes, fournies par les notables du village
de Kobou :

(Le village de Kobou existe depuis soixante-neuf (69) ans. Le
hameau de culture du nom de Koubo, situé à environ quatre (4)
kilomètresau sud,est issu du villageet aussi vieuxque cedernier ;ily
existeun puitsforépar leshabitants de Kobou, ilyaquatorze (14)ans.
Aucun Voltaïque n'y habite ...
La limite avec la Haute-Volta est Tondegarian, au sud de Koun-
diri.

Le Maliaffirmeque, d'aprèsla tradition oralequi peut êtrerecueilliedans
les villages et auprès des nomades de la région,la frontière dans cette
zone est constituéepar le Tondigaria, affleurement discontinu de pierres
blanches très caractéristique. Cet affleurement passerait par les points
suivants, que le Mali cite dans ses conclusions commedevant déterminer
le tracéde la ligne : le Tondigaria (quelque 18kilomètresau sud-sud-est

de Kobou), FourfaréTiaiga, FourfaréWandé,Gari01et Gountouré Kiri
(ce dernier se trouvant au sud-est de la mare de Soum).
126. La Chambre constate que, pour soutenir que le Tondigaria cons-
titue la frontière, le Mali ne se fonde sur aucune considération liée à
l'emplacement ou àl'extension du village connu en 1935sous le nom de
Koubo, que ce villagecorresponde aujourd'hui au villagedeKobou ou au
hameau de Kobo. Saprétentionrepose uniquement sur une tradition orale
sansrapport avecle titre écritque constitue l'arrêté 2728AP. LaChambre
ne saurait interpréter le texte de cet arrêté, auxtermes duquel la limite

laiss[e] au cercle de Mopti le village de ..Koubo O, comme visant un
élément géographique ou topographique,aussi caractéristiquesoit-il, qui
n'yestpasmentionné etdont,en outre, il n'apas été prouvéqu'ildéfinirait
lalimiteverslesuddes (<terrains quidépendent du villagede Koubo. Les
informations dont dispose la Chambre ne suffisent pas à établir avec
certitude sic'estlevillagede Kobou ou lehameau de Kobo qui correspond
au village de Koubo visépar l'arrêté 2728 AP ; mais étant donné quele
hameau n'est qu'à 4 kilomètresde distance du villageelleestime qu'ily a
lieude lesconsidérercommeun tout et de tracer la lignefrontièrede façon

à leslaissertous deux au Mali. Iciencore, laChambre réservepour l'instant
la question de l'emplacement précisde cette ligne. FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 621

Weshould note that although the villageof Kobou is shown on the

IGN 1/200,000 extract (Djibo sheet) 1960 edition, the hamlet of
Koubo does not exist. On the other hand, there is a hamlet of Kobo
about four (4) km to the south."
Subsequent passages in the minutes are devoted to the village of Kobou
and the hamlet found to the south of it, but that hamlet is then spelled
"Koubo" instead of "Kobo" as in the last paragraph quoted and on the
IGN map. The minutes add the following details, supplied by the digni-
taries of the village of Kobou :

"The village of Kobou has existed for sixty-nine (69) years. The
farming hamlet with the name Koubo, situated about four (4) km to
the south, originated from the villageand is as old as the villageitself.
There is a well in it which was dug by the inhabitants of Kobou
fourteen (14) years ago. No Voltans live there . . .
The boundary with Upper Volta is Tondegarian, to the south of
Koundiri."

Mali claims that, according to oral tradition in the villagesand among the
nomads of the region, the frontier in this area is the Tondigaria, a highly
characteristic discontinuous outcrop of white Stones. It runs through the
following points, which Mali cites in its submissions as determining the
course of the line:Tondigaria (approximately 18kilometres to the south-
southeast of Kobou), FourfaréTiaiga, FourfaréWandé,Gari01and Goun-
touréKiri (the latter lying south east of the pool of Soum).

126. The Chamber notes that Mali does not base its claim that the
Tondigaria constitutes the frontier on anything connected with the loca-
tion or extension of the village known in 1935under the name of Koubo,

whether that village now corresponds to the village of Kobou or to the
hamlet of Kobo. Its claim is based solelyon an oral tradition unrelated to
the written title constituted by Order 2728 AP. The Chamber cannot
interpret the text of therder, whch defines the boundary as "leaving to
the cercleof Mopti the villageof. . Koubo", as referring to a geographical
or topographicalfeature, howevercharacteristic, whichisnot mentioned in
the text of the Order, and for which no evidence has been offered that it
defines the southward boundary of the "land depending" on the villageof
Koubo. The information available to the Chamber is not sufficient to
establish with certainty whether it is the villageof Kobou or the hamlet of
Kobo which corresponds to the villageof Koubo referred to in Order 2728
AP ;but given that the hamlet is only 4 kilometres from the village, the
Chamber considersit reasonable to treat them as a whole, and to draw the
line in such a manner as to leave both of them to Mali. Here again, the
Chamber reservesfor themoment thequestion of the exact position of this

line. 127. La ligne décritedans l'arrêté 2728AP, aprèsavoir laisséau cercle
de Mopti lescinqvillagesdont ilvientd'être question,seprolonge dans une
direction <<sensiblementnord-est )>,en (passant au sud de la marede Tous-
sougou pour aboutir en un point situé à l'est de la mare de Kétiouaire )).
L'emplacement de ces mares pose un problème : aucune des cartes con-
temporaines de l'arrêté que les Parties ont présentées àla Chambre n'in-
dique de mares portant ces noms. Pour ce qui est de la mare de Tous-

sougou, il n'y a rien d'étonnant à cela, puisque le service géographique
de l'Afrique occidentale française avait déjà informé le directeur des
affaires politiques etadministratives, par lanote susmentionnéedu 11juil-
let 1935(paragraphe 102),que cette mare étaitl'un despoints viséspar la
lettre 191CM2 qui ne figuraient pas sur les cartes officielles.Ce n'estque
vers 1960qu'un village de Toussougou apparaît sur certaines cartes de
I'IGN en mêmetemps qu'un détail hydrographique (mare ou ((zone
inondable O) au sud-ouest decevillage,dénommé FétoMaraboulé.Ils'agit

de la carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 1/200 000, feuille ND-30-XVII, et
de la carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 1/500 000, feuille ND-30-N.E.
Selon le Mali, ce détaildoit êtreassimilé à la mare de Toussougou. Pour
le Burkina Faso, il existe deux mares distinctes, celle de Toussougou
et celle de Maraboulé. Le Burkina Faso a déposéune carte, établie en
1973 aux fins d'un inventaire des ressources hydrauliques en Haute-
Volta, qui révèle l'existencede deux mares. Le Mali explique qu'il s'agit
d'une seule mare, mais dont l'extension varie selon les saisons :elle serait

plus petite pendant la saison sècheet plus grande pendant la saison des
pluies.
128. LaChambrenote qu'ilexiste au moinsune mare dans la régiondu
villagedeToussougou, selonlesdeux Parties, maisqu'elles n'ont offertque
des cartes comme élémentsde preuve à ce sujet. Or les cartes sont loin
d'êtreclaires et formelles sur cepoint. Surla carte de I'IGN deux symboles
signalent, au sud du village, l'existence de deux points d'eau, et le topo-
nyme ((FétoMaraboulé ))indique une ((zone inondable ))prolongéepar
des <zones humides ))Une (Carte géologiquede reconnaissance de la

Haute-Volta ))déposée par le Burkina Faso montre deux détails, coloriés
enbleu, qui semblent êtredes mares, sans qu'ily ait correspondance quant
à leurs formes et à leur emplacement avec la carte de l'IGN. Le fond
cartographique de la carte hydraulique déposéeégalementpar le Burkina
Faso n'est autre que la carte de PIGN, sur laquelle des symboles ont été
ajoutéspour désigner les ressources hydrauliques.La Chambre se heurte
manifestement à de graves difficultés puisqu'ellene dispose que de docu-
mentscartographiques contradictoires. Elleestime cependant quela carte

hydraulique de 1973, établieprécisémentaux fins d'un inventaire des
ressources hydrauliques, constitue un élémentde preuve d'une valeur
particulière.Or sur cette carte apparaissent deux symboles distincts, dont
chacun représente une mare non pérenne ;il est préciséque la mare de
Féto Maraboulé est à sec pendant neuf mois de l'année maisaucune
précision n'estdonnée à propos de la mare de Toussougou. La Chambre
croit pouvoir en déduireque mêmependant la saison des pluies les deux FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 622

127. The line described in Order 2728AP, after leaving to the cercleof
Mopti the five villagesjust discussed, continues "markedly north-east",
"passing to the south of the pool ofToussougou and culminating in apoint

located to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire".There is a problem asto the
whereabouts of these pools :none of the maps contemporary with the
Order which the Parties have been able to present to the Chamber shows
any pools bearing these names. As far as the pool of Toussougou is
concerned this is not surprising, since the Geographical Serviceof French
West Africa had already informed the Director of Political and Admini-
strativeAffairs in the aforementioned notedated 11July 1935(paragraph
102),that this pool was one of the points givenin the text of the projected
description of the boundaries of the cercleof Mopti which did not appear
on the officia1maps ofhisservice.Only around 1960did certain IGN maps
showavillageofToussougou,as wellasahydrological feature (apool or an
"area liable to flooding") to the south-west of this village called Féto
Maraboulé. These maps are the 1:200,000 rnap of West Africa, sheet
ND-30-XVII ; 1:500,000 rnap of West Africa, sheet ND-30-N.E. This
feature,according to Mali, is to be identified with the pool of Toussougou.
Burkina Faso claims there are two separate pools, Toussougou and Mara-
boulé. BurkinaFaso has filed a map, compited in 1973for the purpose of

an inventory of hydraulic resources in Upper Volta, which records the
existence of two pools. Mali explains that it is a single pool, the extent of
which varies with the season :it shrinks in the dry season and swellsin the
rainy season.

128. The Chamber notes that there is at least one pool in the region of
the villageof Toussougou, according to both Parties, but theonly evidence
theyhave offered on the matter consists of maps. But themapsarefar from
clear or definitive in this regard. On the IGN map, two symbols to the
south of the village indicate the existence of two water-points ;and the
name "Féto Maraboulé" indicatesan "area liable to flooding" which is
surrounded and extended by "water logged areas". A "geological recon-
naissance rnap of Upper Volta" filed by Burkina Faso shows two features
marked in blue which seemto be pools, but do no€correspond in shape or
position to those on the IGN map. The cartographic base of the rnap of
water resources, also filed by Burkina Faso, is in fact the IGN map, on

which symbolshave been added to denote water resources. Obviously the
Chamber is here confronted with a major difficulty, since it has only
contradictory cartographic documents available to it. However, it consi-
ders that the 1973map, compiled for the very purpose of providing an
inventory of water resources, is a particularly valuable piece of evidence.
On this rnap there are two distinct symbols, each representing a non-
permanent pool ;thepool of FétoMarabouléisstated asbeing dry for nine
months of the year, no details being givenfor the pool of Toussougou. The
Chamber believes it can be inferred from this that even during the rainy
season the two pools remain separate, forrning two independent water
pointsfrom theviewpointof aregister ofwater resources. Hencethere isnomares restent distincteset constituent deux points d'eauindépendantsdu
point de vue du recensement des ressources hydrauliques. Il n'est dèslors
pas évident qu'on doive assimilerla mare de FétoMaraboulé àla mare de
Toussougou viséepar l'arrêté 2728 AP.
129. D'autre part il convient de prendre en considération les effets
qu'une telle assimilation aurait sur le tracéde la ligne. Selon la carte des
ressources hydrauliques, la mare de Toussougou se situe à une latitude
approximative de 14"45' ;l'extension maximalevers le sud de la mare de
FétoMaraboulése situe à une latitude approximative de 14"41'.Lepoint
indiqué dans la lettre 191 CM2 a pour coordonnées géographiques

1" 24' 15" ouest et 14"43'45" nord ; il se situe doncà l'ouest des deux
mares, sur un parallèlequi passe entre la pointe sud de la mare de Tous-
sougou et la pointe sud de la mare de FétoMaraboulé.Une ligne droite
partant de la régiondes villagesde Kounia et d'Oukoulou pour se diriger
au sud de la mare de Toussougou ne passerait pas par ce point mais à
quelque6 kilomètres au sudde celui-ci ;une ligne ayant le mêmepoint de
départ pour se diriger au sud de Féto Maraboulé passerait à quelque
8,5kilomètres au sud dupoint considéréC . ommela Chambre l'aindiqué,
il n'est pas certain que l'extrémité ouestde la limite entre le Soudan
français et la Haute-Volta, prévue par la lettre 191 CM2, se trouvait
précisémentau point Pdéfinipar lescoordonnées mentionnéesdans cette

lettre. Il semble mêmeque ce ne soit pas le cas puisque aucune des deux
lignes ici considérées ne passepar ce point. Néanmoins, s'agissant d'in-
terpréter la mention de la mare de Toussougou dans I'arrêté 2728 AP, la
Chambre croit devoir retenir, des deux interprétations possibles, celle qui
aurait pour effet de minimiser la marge d'erreur que comporterait la
définition du point triple donnée par la lettre 191 CM2, sauf raisons
prépondérantespour adopter l'interprétation contraire.11ne faut pas non
plusperdre devuequelevillagede Kobou, <(laissé))au cerclede Mopti par
I'arrêté2728AP, sesitue aux environs du mêmeparallèleque lepoint P. Si
la ligneenvisagéepar I'arrêté avait passé aussi loin au sudde cevillageque
la ligne qui se dirigerait au sud de FétoMaraboulé,il serait peu vraisem-
blable qu'on eût éprouvéle besoin de mentionner ce village.

130. Avant de rechercher l'emplacement de la mare de Kétiouaire,
égalementmentionnéedans l'arrêté 2728 AP, la Chambre estime néces-
saire de faire le point en ce qui concerne le premier secteur du tracéde la
ligne. Partant du point de coordonnéesgéographiques1 " 59'01" ouest et
14" 24'40" nord, définiauparagraphe 112ci-dessus, laligne sedirigevers
lenord, en suivantsur 3,5kilomètresapproximativementla lignequifigure
en croisillons discontinus sur la carteGN de 1958-1960,jusqu'à un point
de coordonnéesgéographiques 1O58' 49"ouest et 14O28'30" nord. A ce
point elle s'infléchit vers l'est,en coupant la piste qui relie Dionouga et
Digue1 àquelque 7,5kilomètres au sudde Dionouga, et sepoursuit vers le
village de Kounia. La ligne doit ensuite <<laisser))au Mali les villages de
Kounia, Oukoulourou et Koubo,avant decontinuer tout droit versla mare

de Toussougou. En ((laissant))certains villagesà l'une oul'autre circons-
cription administrative, une limite peut suivre les limites précisesde ces FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 623

obvious or necessaryidentity between the pool of FétoMarabouléand the
pool of Toussougou referred to in Order 2728 AP.

129. What must alsobe taken into consideration istheimpact of suchan
identification on the course of the line. According to the map of hydraulic
resources, the pool of Toussougou islocated at a latitude of approximately
14"45' ; the maximum southward extension of the pool of FétoMara-
boulé liesat a latitude of approximately 14" 41'.The geographical co-
ordinates of the point indicated by letter 191CM2 are l" 24' 15"W and
14"43'45" N ;it therefore liesWestof the twopools, on a parallel running
between the southern point of the pool of Toussougou and the southern
point of the pool of FétoMaraboulé. A straight line starting from the
region of the villagesof Kounia and Oukoulou and heading to the south of
the pool of Toussougou would pass, not through this point, but about 6
kilometres to the south of i;aline with the samestarting-point heading to
the south of FétoMarabouléwould pass about 8.5kilometres to the south

of thepoint in question. As the Chamber has pointed out, there can be no
certainty that the western extrernity of the boundary between French
Sudan and Upper Volta, ascontemplated in letter 191CM2, lay at exactly
the point P, defined by the CO-ordinatesmentioned in that letter. Indeed
this appears not to be the case, since neither of the two lines in question
here passes through this point. Nevertheless, in interpreting the reference
to the pool of Toussougou in Order 2728AP, the Chamber believesthat of
the twopossible interpretations itmust opt forthe one whichwould reduce
to aminimum the margin of error involvedin definingthe tripoint givenin
letter 191 CM2, short of compelling grounds for choosing the contrary
interpretation. It is also important to bear in mind that the village of
Kobou, which was "left" to the cercle of Mopti by Order 2728 AP, is
situated on approximately the same latitude as point P. If the line con-
templated in the Order had run as far south of this village as the line
heading to the south of FétoMaraboulé, itis doubtful whether it would
have been thought necessary to mention this village.
130. Before investigating the position of the pool of Kétiouaire, also

mentioned in Order 2728 AP, the Chamber considers it necessary to
summarize the situation regarding the first segment of the line. Beginning
from the point with the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 59'01" W and
14" 24'40" N, defined in paragraph 112above, the line heads northward,
and foradistance of approximately 3.5kilometresit followsthe lineshown
in abroken seriesof smallcrosseson the IGNmap of 1958-1960,asfar asa
point with the geographical CO-ordinates1 "58' 49"W and 14"28'30" N.
At tlus point it turns eastwards, intersecting the track between Dionouga
and Digue1about 7.5 kilometres to the south of Dionouga, and continues
towards the village of Kounia. The line then has to "leave" to Mali the
villages of Kounia, Oukoulourou and Koubo, before continuing in a
straight line towards the pool of Toussougou. A boundary "leaving" cer-
tain villages to any particular administrative district may follow the exact624 DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER (ARRÊT)

villages, quelle qu'en soitla forme, ce qui aura comme résultat uneligne
assez sinueuse. Une limite peut aussi, pourvu qu'elle respecte l'apparte-
nance administrative des villages, suivre un tracédroit ou se composer
d'une sériede lignes droites suivant une orientation générale, avec des
infléchissements peu marqués. Les cartes coloniales de l'époque,par

exemple l'Atlasdescerclesde 1926,montrent àl'évidenceque c'étaitplutôt
cette dernière forme qu'empruntaient les limites des cercles. Il n'est pas
sans intérêtde noter par ailleurs que la description, donnée par l'admi-
nistrateur du cerclede Mopti, de la limite de subdivision qui correspond à
lalimiteprévuepar l'arrêté 2728APne visequ'unelignepartantdu village
de Yoro et ([remontant] ensuite au nord-est jusqu'à lamare de Toussou-
gou )).La Chambre conclut qu'en ajoutant la précision selon laquelle la

ligne devait <(laisser))au cercle de Mopti levillagede Yoro et les (quatre
villages M,le servicegéographiquede l'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise n'en-
tendait pas que la ligne devait de ce fait prendre une forme plus compli-
quée.A cela vient s'ajouter que rien ne permet de déterminerl'extension
préciseen 1935 des villages d'Agoulourou et d'Oukoulou. La Chambre
estime dèslorsqu'unelignequi contourne verslesud lesvillagesactuelsde
Kounia et d'Oukoulourou à une distance de 2 kilomètrescorrespond à la

limitedécritepar l'arrêté 2728AP, pour autant qu'il soit possible en 1986
de déterminerle tracéde cette limite.
131. Selon les termes de l'arrêté 2728 AP, la ligne doit ensuite passer
<<au sud de la mare de Toussougou )).Pour les raisons déjàexposées,la
Chambre est d'avis que cette mare n'est pas la mare de FétoMaraboulé
mais celle, plus petite, qui se situe près du village de Toussougou. L'ex-
pression ((au sud de la mare ))n'a pas la même significationque d'autres
expressions telles que ((passant par la pointe sud de la mare ; l'espace

entre la ligne et la mare résulteraitde ce que, pour le rédacteurde l'ar-
rêté 2728AP, la ligne devaitcontinuerjusqu'à un point (<situéà l'estde la
mare de Kétiouaire o. Avant de définirle tracéde la lignepar rapport à la
mare de Toussougou, il faut que la Chambre cherche à localiser la mare
de Kétiouaire.
132. La limite du cerclede Mopti <(àl'est)),limite qui séparait cecercle
de celuide Dori en 1935.se terminait. selon lestermes de l'arrêté 2728AP.

en ((un point situé àl'estde lamare de Kétiouaire )).Ilconvient de rappeler
de nouveau qu'au moment où il rédigeait cetarrêté le gouverneur général
avait reçu du lieutenant-gouverneurdu Soudan françaisune réponsedatée
du 3juin 1935 à sa lettre du 19 février1935. Le lieutenant-gouverneur
indiquait dans sa réponseque l'administrateur du cerclede Mopti propo-
sait ((que la mare de Kébanaire situéepresque à la limite des cercles de
Mopti, Gourma-Rharous, et Dori ...soit mentionnéedans la description

géographiquede lalimite ..))Lesdeux Parties enont d'abord concluque la
mare de Kébanaireetlamare de Kétiouairen'étaientqu'uneseuleetmême
mare, dont le nom avait simplement ététranscrit avec deux orthographes
différentes.Cependant au cours des plaidoiries l'un des conseils du Bur-
kina Faso a exprimé des doutes à ce sujet. La Chambre note que la
proposition de modification faite au lieutenant-gouverneur du Soudan FRONTIERDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 624

boundaries of these villages,whatever shape they take, and will result in a
somewhat undulating line. Provided it observes the administrative appur-
tenance of thevillages,aboundary mayalsofollowastraight lineor consist
of a series of straight lines al1running in the same general direction, with
some minor deviations. The colonial maps of the period, for example, the

1926Atlas des cercles,show clearly that the latter was the form most
frequently taken by the cercleboundaries. It is also of relevance that the
description given by the adrninistrator of the cercleof Mopti of the sub-
division boundary corresponding to the boundary contemplated in Order
2728 AP refers to a single line starting from the village of Yoro and
subsequently "heading northeastward as far as the pool of Toussougou".
The Chamber concludes that in adding the detail that the line was to
"leave" to the cercleof Mopti the villageof Yoro and the "four villages",
the Geographical Serviceof French West Africa did not intend the line to
take a more cornplex form as a result. In addition, there is no means of
determiningthe preciseextent of the villagesofAgoulourou and Oukoulou
in 1935. The Chamber therefore considers that a line which skirts the
present-day villages of Kounia and Oukoulourou at a distance of 2 kilo-
metres to the south corresponds to the boundary described in Order 2728
AP, as far as the course of this boundary can be determined in 1986.

131. According to Order 2728AP, the line must next pass "to the south
of the pool of Toussougou". For the reasons already explained, in the
Chamber's view this pool is not the pool of Féto Maraboulé, but the
smaller pool lying close to the village of Toussougou. The expression "to
thesouth of thepool" does not have thesarnerneaning asother expressions
suchas "passing through the southern point of the pool" ;thegap between
the line and the pool would be a consequence of thedraftsman's intention,

inOrder 2728AP, that the lineshouldcontinue asfaras apoint "located to
the east of the pool of Kétiouaire". Beforedefining the course of the linein
relation to the pool of Toussougou, the Chamber must atternpt to locate
the pool of Kétiouaire.
132. The boundary of the cercleof Mopti "to the east", the boundary
which according to Order 2728 AP divided it from the cercleof Dori in
1935,terminates at "a point located to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire".
It should again be recalled that when drafting this Order, the Governor-
General had received the reply of the Lieutenant-Governor of French
Sudan dated 3June 1935to his letter of 19February 1935.In his reply the
Lieutenant-Governor had stated that the administrator of the cercle of
Mopti wasproposing :"that the pool of Kébanaire, situatedalrnost on the
boundary of thecerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori. ..shouldbe
included in the geographical description of theboundary ..."At first,both
Parties concluded from this that the pool of Kébanaire and the pool of
Kétiouairewereone and the same, the name having been transcribed with
two different spellings. During the oral proceedings, however,counsel for
Burkina Faso expressed somedoubt on thispoint. The Chamber notes that
the modification proposed to the Lieutenant-Governor of French Sudanfrançais par l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti (voir paragraphe 101
ci-dessus) renferme une certaine contradiction dès lors qu'on s'attache
exclusivement à ses termes. En effet, si l'on ajoute, comme le proposait
l'administrateur de cercle, les mots et la mare de Kébanaire entre la
référenceau mont Tabakarach et les mots <(et s'infléchit vers lesud-
ouest )figurant dans letexte de la lettre du gouverneur générali,lapparaît
que la mare en question aurait dû se situer près du mont Tabakarach et à
proximité du coude formépar la rencontre du secteur est/ouest et du

secteur nord-est/sud-ouest de la ligne.Or, selonl'administrateur de cercle
lui-même,la mare était ((situéepresque à la limite des cercles de Mopti-
Gourma-Rharous et Don ))et le point où les limites de ces cercles con-
vergeaient se trouvait, d'aprèstoutes les cartes disponibles, sur le secteur
nord-est/sud-ouest de la ligne, bien au sud du mont Tabakarach.
133. La Chambre constate d'une part qu'aucune descartes mises à sa
disposition n'indiquede mare portant l'unou l'autredecesnomsetd'autre
part que la commission technique mixte Haute-Volta/Mali, au cours des

séancesde travail qu'ellea tenues du 5au 17avril 1972,n'aguère recueilli
que des informations négatives. En effet laplupart des populations inter-
rogéesignoraient l'existence d'unemare de Kétiouaire, etles populations
maliennes de Soum ont indiquéun emplacement que le Mali ne retient
plus. La Chambre constatepar ailleurs que le comité techniquede carto-
graphes nommé par la sous-commission juridique de la Commission de
médiationdel'organisation de l'unitéafricaine n'apas pu éclaircirdavan-
tage la situation ;ce comité a néanmoins faitobserver à la sous-commis-
sionjuridique quelamare de Kébanairen'aurait en aucun caspu sesituer à

l'ouest du point P, puisque devant se trouver entre Tabakarach, déjà
repéré à l'est, et ce point géographique )).
134. On nepeut perdre de vueque la lignedécritedans l'arrêté 2728AP
de 1935commelimite du cerclede Mopti ((àl'est)>,avant d'atteindre son
point terminal quiétaiten mêmetemps lepoint triple descerclesde Mopti,
Gourma-Rharous et Dori, devait passer par le point triple des cercles de
Mopti, Ouahigouya et Don, bien que le texte de l'arrêté 2728 APn'en fît
pas mention (voir ci-dessus croquis no2). Etant donné que la Chambre a

choisi d'indiquer le tracéde la frontière d'ouest en est, il serait logique
qu'elle définissece dernier point avant de déterminer la situation du
premier, plus à l'est. Mais la Chambre a déjàexpliqué(paragraphe 110
ci-dessus) la raison pour laquelle elle ne peut tenir pour définitivement
acquis que leplus occidental de ces deuxpoints étaitbien lepoint P,celui
définipar lescoordonnéesgéographiquesfigurant dans la lettre 191CM2
de 1935.Réservant cette question pour l'instant, elle poursuivra d'abord
l'examen de l'emplacement de la mare de Kétiouaire.

135. LeBurkina Faso est d'avis, d'unepart, que la mare de Kétiouaire/
Kébanaire, <décritepar des indications contradictoires dans une époque
où la régionétaitmal connue, ne peut êtrelocalisée avec précision ))et,
d'autre part, que sa localisation n'estpas nécessaire auxfins du tracéde la
ligne frontière. Il est vrai que la proposition, faite en 1935par I'adminis- FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 625

by the administrator of the cercleof Mopti (seeparagraph 101above) also
revealsacertaincontradiction, at least if it isinterpreted strictly according
to its terms. If, as the cercleadministrator proposed, the words "and the
pool of Kébanaire"areadded between the reference to mount Tabakarach
and the words "and then bends south-west" contained in the text of the
Governor-General's letter, it appears that the pool in question wouldhave
had to lie close to mount Tabakarach and in the vicinity of the bend
between the east/west sector and the north-east/south-west sector of the
line. But according to thecercleadministrator himself, the pool was "situ-
ated almost on the boundary of the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous
and Dori" ;but the meeting-point of thesecercleboundaries, according to

al1the available maps, lay on the north-east/south-west sector of the line,
well to the south of mount Tabakarach.
133. The Chamber observes first, that none of the maps available to it
showany pool bearing either of thesenames, and secondly, thatthe Upper
Volta/Mali Mixed Technical Commission, during its working sessions
between 5 and 17April 1972,obtained little more than negative informa-
tion. The localpeople,when questioned, wereunaware of the existenceofa
pool of Kétiouaire,and the Malian inhabitants of Soumgavea location for
it which Mali has sincerejected. The Chamber alsonotes that the technical
committee of cartographers appointed by the Legal Sub-Commission of
the Organization of African Unity Mediation Commission was unable to
throw any further light on thesituation, though it did observe to the Legal
Sub-Commission that, in any event, the pool of Kébanairecould not have
been situated West of point P, "since it must lie between Tabakarach,
already identified to the east, and this geographical point".

134. It isimportant not to losesight of the fact thatthe line described in
Order 2728AP of 1935astheboundary "to theeast" of thecercleof Mopti,
before reaching its end-point which was simultaneously the tripoint

between the cercles of Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, had to pass
through the tripoint between the cerclesof Mopti, Ouahigouya and Dori,
although there is no mention of this in Order 2728 AP (see sketch-map
No. 2 above). Sincethe Chamber has chosen to proceed from Westto east
when indicating the line of the frontier, it would be logical forit to define
this latter point before determining the position of the former, which is
further to the east. But the Chamber has already explained (paragraph 110
above)whyitcannot regard it assettled that themorewesterly of these two
points was in fact point P, the one defined by geographical CO-ordinates
contained in the letter 191 CM2 of 1935. Resewing this question, the
Chamber will first pursue the question of the position of the pool of
Kétiouaire.
135. Burkina Faso is of the opinion that, first, the pool ofétiouaire/
Kébanaire,"of whichcontradictorydescriptions weregivenat a timewhen
the region was poorly known, cannot be preciselylocated" and, secondly,
that its localization isnot necessaryin order to draw the frontier line. It is
true that the proposa1 made in 1935by the administrator of the cercleoftrateur du cercle de Mopti et transmise par le lieutenant-gouverneur du
Soudan français au gouverneur générad l el'Afriqueoccidentale française,
qui visait l'incorporation, dans la description de la limite entre le Soudan
françaiset le Niger, d'une mention de la mare de Kébanaire,neparaît pas

avoir étéconsidéréepar son auteur comme un élément essentiel à la
définitionde cette limite ;l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti semble en
effet avoirbien plutôt entendu formulerune précision destinée àclarifier la
description de la limite en cause et à en faciliter l'identification sur le
terrain. La Chambre estime dèslors que la détermination de l'emplace-
ment de la mare de Kébanairen'est pas nécessaireaux fins de l'interpré-
tation de lalettre 191CM2 de 1935.Mais ilen va tout autrement àsesyeux
pour ce qui est de l'interprétation de l'arrêté 2728 AP, car la mare de
Kétiouaireconstituedans cet arrêté un élémenitmportant de lalimitequ'il
définit.Le Burkina Faso n'apas eu àtenir compte de cette constatation en
construisant sonargumentation, puisqu'ilsoutient quel'arrêté 2728AP,en

raison de son caractère modificateur, a étéabrogé en 1947et ne pourrait
par conséquentêtrepris en considération pour le tracéde la frontière. Le
Burkina Faso n'a toutefoispas apportéla preuve que cet arrêtée ,n men-
tionnant non seulement les <quatre villages )) mais aussi la mare de
Kétiouaire,nereflétaitpas lasituation antérieure à 1935.Quoi qu'ilensoit,
la Chambre ne saurait se soustraire à son devoir, qui est d'interpréter
l'arrêté2728AP et de localiser àcette fin la mare de Kétiouaire,si faire se
peut.
136. LeMali a tentéde situerla mare de Kébanaire/Kétiouaire à l'aide
d'un faisceau d'indices. Lepremier de ces indices serait, de l'avisdu Mali,

que, selon l'arrêté 2728 AP, cette mare aurait constitué l'aboutissement
d'une ligne sensiblement nord-est passant ...au sud de la mare de
Toussougou o.Lesecond etletroisièmeseraient que lalettre du lieutenant-
gouverneur du Soudanpermettrait desituerlamare recherchée,d'unepart,
au sud-ouest du mont Tabakarach et, d'autre part, presque à la limite
des trois cercles quiy sont mentionnés. Lequatrième indice serait que la
limite du cercle de Mopti <au nord O, telle qu'elle estdécritedans l'ar-
rêté2728AP, aurait pris naissanceen un point <situé àl'estde la mare de
Kétiouaire O,si bien qu'en retournant la phrase qui définitcette limite on
pourrait utiliser lespoints de repèrequ'ellecomporte pour localiserlamare
de Kétiouaire. Lecinquièmeserait, toujours selon le Mali, qu'on nepour-

rait pas rechercher une mare ou une mare fossile sur un plateau ou une
dune. Lesixièmeindiceseraitenfin que lamare dont ils'agitnepouvait pas
êtreconnue à l'époquesous une autre appellation, sinon c'estcette appel-
lation qui aurait étéutilisée;cela exclurait, de l'avisdu Mali, toute pos-
sibilité d'identificationde la mare de Kébanaire/Kétiouaireavec celle de
Tin Taboréou celle d'Aféréré L.e Mali a soumis à la Chambre un croquis
pour indiquer la région à l'intérieurde laquelle la mare devrait nécessai-
rement, à ses yeux, se situer si l'on tenait compte de tous ces indices. Le
Mali en conclut, entre autres, que :

<la position la plus plausible de la mare de Kétiouaire estcelle de la FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 626

Mopti, and transmitted by the Lieutenant-Governor of French Sudan to
the Governor-General of French West Africa, for theincorporation in the

description of the boundary between French Sudan and Niger of a refer-
ence tothe pool of Kébanaire,wasnot apparently conceivedasan essential
factor in the definition of that boundary ;the administrator of the cercleof
Mopti seerns rather to have intended it as a useful detail to rnake the
description more precise and to facilitate its identification on the ground.
The Charnber accordingly considers that it isnot necessary to establish the
position of the pool of Kébanaire for thepurpose of interpreting the letter
191CM2 of 1935.But this cannot be said of the interpretation of Order
2728AP, sincein that text the pool of Kétiouaireis an important element
in the definition of the boundary. Burkina Faso has not had to deal with
this point in its arguments, since in its view Order 2728 AP, having a
modifying character, was rescinded in 1947and cannot thereforebe taken
into account in defining the frontier line. Nevertheless, Burkina Faso has
supplied no proof thatnot only the reference to the "four villages" but also
the reference to the pool of Kétiouaire,wasinconsistent with the situation
prior to 1935.Howeverthat rnay be,theCharnber cannot evadeits duty, to

interpret Order 2728APandfor that purpose to determine, ifpossible, the
position of the pool of Kétiouaire.

136. Mali has attempted to situate the pool of Kébanaire/Kétiouaire
with the help of aparticular set ofclues.The first of theseisthat, according
to Order 2728AP, the pool constitutes the culmination of a "line running
markedly north-east, passing to the south of thepool of Toussougou". The
second and third cluesarethat the letter from the Lieutenant-Governor of
Sudan enables the pool to be situated, first, to the south-west of rnount
Tabakarach, and secondly, alrnost on the boundary of the three cercles
there mentioned. The fourth is that the boundary described as the "north-
ern" boundary of the cercleof Mopti in Order 2728 AP begins from the
point "located to the east of the pool of Kétiouaire", so that if the indi-
cations in the sentence defining this boundary were reversed, it would be
possible to use the landrnarkscontained in it in order to locate the pool of

Kétiouaire.The fifth of Mali'scluesisthat apool or a fossilpool cannot be
looked for on aplateau or a dune. Finally, the sixth clueis Mali'sargument
that the pool cannot be a pool which was known at the time by another
name, otherwise that name would have been used ; ths rneans, according
to Mali, that Kébanaire/Kétiouairecannot be identified with the pool of
Tin Taboré or the pool of Aféréré. Malhias submitted to the Charnber a
sketch-map to show the region within which it suggeststhat the pool must
necessarilylieifits location is tocomply with al1theseclues.Arnong Mali's
conclusions is that

"the rnost plausible position for the pool of Kétiouaireis that of the mare fossile dont les coordonnées géographiques sont longitude
0" 46'09" ouest ;latitude 14"56'41" nord. Cette mare qui est en-
core en partie pérenne est celle nomméeTin Arkachen en 1977par
H. Barra de I'Orstom. C'est le site de Forage Christine. r)

137. La Chambre n'estimepas devoir chercher à établird'embléesi les
mares de Kébanaire etde Kétiouaireconstituent une seulemareou non. Il
lui faut procéderd'abord à l'interprétationde l'arrêté2728 AP puis con-
sidérer, à la lumière des conclusions auxquelles elle sera parvenue, s'il

peut êtredémontréquleesmares de Kébanaire et Kétiouaireétaient iden-
tiques. Si cela ne pouvait êtreprouvé,la Chambre devrait se borner à ne
prendre en considération que la description de la limite qui est donnée
dans la lettre 191 CM2 du gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occidentale
française, sans tenir comptede la modification proposéepar l'administra-
teur du cercle de Mopti, laquelle, ainsi qu'il a déjàétéindiqué,ne visait
qu'à précisercette description et comportait en outre une contradiction
interne.
138. Il importedoncde savoir s'ilexiste, ou plutôt s'ilexistait en 1935,
une maresetrouvant àlafois dans une direction ((sensiblement nord-est

par rapport à un point situé au sud de la mare de Toussougou r)età
proximitédu point triple des cerclesde Mopti, Gourma-Rharous et Dori,
et à l'ouestde celui-ci.En effet, selon le texte de l'arr2728AP, lepoint
de rencontre des limites nord et est du cercle de Mopti étaitsituénon pas
simplement prèsde la mare de Kétiouaire,mais ((àl'est de celle-ci.S'il
s'avéraitque Kébanaire et Kétiouaireavaient constitué uneseuleet même
mare, il y aurait lieu de conclure que le gouverneur généralavait eu à sa
disposition, au moment de prendre l'arrêté considérc ée,rtaines informa-
tions complétant celles qui avaient étéfournies par le commandant du

cercle de Mopti, aussi bien celles relativesà la mare de Kébanaire conte-
nues dans son télégramme-lettredu 19 mars 1935 (paragraphe 101 ci-
dessus) quedans sa description des limites des subdivisions de son cercle
en datedu 25mai 1935(paragraphe 100ci-dessus).Quoi qu'ilen soit, ilest
évidentque la mare de Soum, située à quelque 24 kilomètres à l'est de la
mare de Toussougou, mériteun examen particulier. Cependant il ressort
du dossier que cette mare, mentionnéepour lapremière foissouscenomen
1939,étaitcensée sesituer à proximitédu point de rencontre, non pas des
trois cercles susvisésde Mopti, Gourma-Rharous et Dori, mais des cercles
de Mopti, Ouahigouya et Dori. Une communication adresséele 18dé-

cembre 1939par lecommandant du cerclede Dori au gouverneur du Niger
mentionnait eneffet ((lamare de Sum commeétant ((situéeà lalimitede
la subdivision de Douentza (cerclede Mopti) et du cerclede Ouahigouya à
qui elle[appartenait] o.Le7juillet 1943,l'administrateur du cerclede Dori
demanda au commandant du cercle de Mopti des informations quant à la
localisation de lamare de Souhoum ))et at(l'emplacementpar rapport à
cette dernière ou par rapport au village de Kouna du point de rencontre
entre les cercles de Mopti, Ouahigouya et Dori )).Dans sa réponse, le
commandant du cercle de Mopti indiqua que, suivant les renseignements FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 627

fossil pool with the geographical CO-ordinateslongitude 0' 46'09"
West,latitude 14"56'41" north. This pool, part of which is perma-
nent, istheone named Tin Arkachen in 1977by H. BarraofOrstom. It
is the site of Forage Christine."

137. In the Chamber's opinion,theproper approach isnot to attempt to

determine at the outset whether or not the pools of Kébanaire and
Kétiouaireare one and the same. It should first interpret Order 2728AP,
and then consider whether the conclusions it has reached warrant the
identification of Kébanairewith Kétiouaire.If that were not established,
the Chamber should take account only of the description of the boundary
contained in letter 191 CM2 by the Governor-General of French West
Africa, disregardingthe modification proposed by theadministrator of the
cercleof Mopti which, as has been seen, was aimed only at making it more
precise, and moreover contained an inherent contradiction.

138. Hence the question whicharisesiswhether there is,or rather wasin
1935,apool lyingboth in a "rnarkedly north-east" direction in relation to a
point located "to the south of the pool of Toussougou", and in the vicinity
of thetripoint of the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, and to
theWestof the latter. In the text of Order 2728AP, the meeting-point of the
northern and eastern boundaries of the cercleof Mopti was situated not
merelycloseto the pool of Kétiouaire,but "to the east" of it. If one wereto
assume Kébanaire and Kétiouaireto be identical, it must be concluded
that on issuing the Order the Governor-General had information addi-
tional to that provided by the commandantde cercle of Mopti, both in

respect of the pool of Kébanaire,in his letter-telegram of 19March 1935
(paragraph 101above), and in his description of the boundaries of the
subdivisionsof his cercledated 25 May 1935(paragraph 100above). How-
ever that may be, it is obvious that the pool of Soum, situated some
24 kilometres to the east of the pool of Toussougou, requires particular
examination. However, it is clear from the file that this pool, which was
mentioned for the first time under this name in 1939, was thought to lie
close to the meeting-point, not of the three cercles mentioned above of
Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, but of the cerclesof Mopti, Ouah-
gouya and Dori. A communication addressed by the commandant de
cercleof Dori to the Governor of Niger on 18December 1939mentioned
"the pool of Sum" as being "situated on the boundary of thesubdivisionof
Douentza (cercleof Mopti) and of the cercleof Ouahigouya, to which it
belongs". On 7 July 1943, the cercle adrninistrator of Dori asked the
commandantdecercleof Mopti for information concerning the position of
the pool of "Souhoum", and "the position in relation to the latter, or in
relation to the villageof Kouna, of the meeting point between the cerclesof
Mopti, Ouahigouya and Dori". In his reply, the commandant decercleof
Mopti stated that, according to the information he had obtained during a
visit to the pool, "it was certainly on the territory of the canton of Ari-qu'il avait recueillislorsd'unevisite àla mare,celle-ci<< setrouvait bien sur
[le] territoire [du] canton [d'jAribinda o. Rien ne permet d'ailleurs de
savoir si,au moment decette visite, lecanton d'Aribinda faisait partie du
cercle de Dori (avant 1933)ou de celui de Ouahigouya (après 1932).
139. La distance entre les deux points triples, selon l'une des cartes
produites par le Burkina Faso (croquis de l'Afrique française au

1/1000000, feuille ND-30, Ouagadougou, édition de 1946,cartes dépo-
sées,no 11(C)), aurait étéde 38 kilomètres approximativement. La dis-
tance entre le point P (à supposer pour l'instant que les coordonnées
géographiquesde ce point définissent exactementle point triple Mopti/
Ouahigouya/Dori) et la mare de Soum telle qu'elle est situéesur la carte
de I'IGN au 1/200 000 de 1960est de 36 kilomètresenviron. On peut en
tirer deux conclusions :en premier lieu, le point triple Mopti/Gourma-
Rharous/Dori n'étaitpas très éloignéde la mare de Soum et il semble
s'êtresitué à l'est de cette mare. En second lieu, il paraît douteux que le

point triple Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori ait pu se situer aussi loin a l'ouest
que lalettre 191CM2 lelaissesupposer.On peut égalementpenserquecette
lettre situait ce point trop au nord. Elle se basait en effet sur les cartes de
l'époque,suivant lesquelleslalimite du cerclede Mopti <au nord (qui ne
ressort cependant pas avec une grande précisionde ces cartes) devait
couper la limiteseptentrionale du cercle de Dori aux environsdu point de
coordonnées 1 O 01'47" ouest et 14"57',nordsoit à 19,5kilomètresau nord
de Soum. En tout étatde cause la mare de Soum se trouve dans la bonne

direction au regard du tracéde la ligneindiquépar l'arrêté 2728AP, pour
cequi est du segmentcontournant levillaged'Oukoulourou à 2kilomètres
de distance pour ensuite passer <au sud de la mare de Toussougou 1)Les
conclusions susmentionnées sont par ailleurs celles qui conduisent la
Chambre à ne pas accepter l'argument malien selon lequel la mare de
Kébanaire/Kétiouaire serait la mare fossile de Tin Arkachen, qui, de
l'avis de la Chambre, se situe trop loin à l'est.
140. Aux termes de l'arrêté 2728AP, le point où se terminait la limite

orientale du cercle de Mopti et où commençait la limite septentrionale du
même cerclese situait<(à l'estde lamare de Kétiouaire o. D'après cetexte,
ladite mare se trouvait donc à l'intérieurde l'angle aigu formépar la
rencontre des deux limites considérées ; en d'autres termes, elle apparte-
nait au cercle de Mopti. En revanche la mare de Kébanaire se situait,
suivant l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti, <presque à la limite des
cercles de Mopti, Gourma-Rharous, et Dori )>c'est-à-direà proximité du
point de rencontre des limites orientale (Mopti/Dori) et septentrionale

(Mopti/Gourma-Rharous) du cercle de Mopti. La proposition faite par
l'administrateur du cercle de Mopti se lisait comme suit :
<La mare de << Kébanaire ))situéepresque à lalimite des cerclesde
Mopti - Gourma-Rharous et Dori pourrait être mentionnée à la

page 2 (7e ligne) comme suit :((le sommet des monts Tin Eoult et
Tabakarach et la mare de Kébanaire,etc. ))
Les termes <(presque à la limite des cercles utiliséspar l'administrateurbinda". There are no means of knowing whether, at the time of that visit,
the cantonof Aribinda belonged to the cercleof Dori (before 1933)or to
that of Ouahigouya (after 1932).

139. According to one of the maps produced by Burkina Faso (sketch-
map of French Africa on the scale 1 :1,000,000,ND-30 sheet, Ouagadou-
gou, 1946edition (maps filed, No. 11(C)), the distance between the two

tripoints was approximately 38 kilometres. The distance between point P
(assuming for the moment that the geographical CO-ordinatesof this point
givea correct definition of the tripoint Mopti/Oua~gouya/Dori) and the
pool of Soum as shown on the IGN 1:200,000 scale map of 1960, is
approximately 36kilometres. Two conclusions can be drawn from this. In
the first place, the tripoint Mopti/Gourma-Rharous/Dori was not far
distantfrom thepool of Soum,andit seemstohave been located to theeast
of that pool. In the second place, it seems doubtful whether the tripoint
Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori can have lain asfar Westas implied by letter 191
CM2. It may alsobe thought that that letter placed the point toofar to the
north.It wasofcoursebased on the maps of theperiod, accordingto which
the "northern" boundary of the cercleof Mopti (thecourseofwhichcannot
howeverbe veryaccurately discerned from thesemaps) wasto intersectthe
northern boundary of the cercle of Dori in the vicinity of the point of
CO-ordinates1 O01'47"Wand 14"57'N, or 19.5kilometres to thenorth of
Soum.In an event, thepool of Soumliesin theright direction asregardsthe

course of the line described in Order 2728 AP, in so far as concerns the
segment skirting the villageof Oukoulourou at a distance of 2 kilometres
and then passing "to the south of the pool of Toussougou". These con-
clusionsare infact those whichlead the Chamber to reject Mali'sargument
that the pool of Kébanaire/Kétiouaireis the fossil pool of Tin Arkachen
which, in the Chamber's opinion, lies too far to the east.

140. According to Order 2728 AP, the end-point of the eastern boun-
dary of the cercleof Mopti and thestarting-point of the northernboundary
of the cerclewaslocated "to theeast of the pool of Kétiouaire".According
to this text, the pool accordingly lay within the acute angle formed by the
meeting of the twoboundaries, which means that it belonged to the cercle
of Mopti. The pool of Kébanairehowever, according to the administrator
of the cercleof Mopti, was situated "almost on theboundary of the cercles
ofMopti, Gourma-Rharous, and Dori" - that is,near the meeting-point of
the eastern (Mopti/Dori) and northern (Mopti/Gourma-Rharous) boun-

daries of the cercleof Mopti. The proposa1 made by the administrator of
the cercleof Mopti read as follows :
"The pool of Kébanaire, situated almost on the boundary of the
cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous,and Dori might bementioned on
page 2 (line 7), as follows : 'the summits of mounts Tin Eoult and
Tabakarach and the pool of Kébanaire, etc. .. .'."

The expression "almost on the boundary" used by the administrator ofde Mopti laisseraient supposer que la mare sesituait à l'intérieurdu cercle
de Mopti, mais ((presque ))à la limite de ce cercle. Or l'administrateur du
cerclede Mopti ne proposait pas d'apporter une précision àla description
de la limite du cercle placésous son autorité. Comme on l'a déjàsignalé
(paragraphe 132ci-dessus), sa modification rédactionnelle n'avait de sens
que si la mare de Kébanaire sesituait beaucoup plus au nord-est. Ce qu'il
proposait en réalité, c'étaq itue la limite entre deux autres cercles,celuide
Gourma-Rharous et celui de Dori, soitdécritecommepassant par la mare

de Kébanaire. Dèslors cette mare pouvait se situer dans le cercle de
Gourma-Rharous ou dans celui de Dori ;elle n'aurait pu appartenir au
cerclede Mopti que sielleavait été près du point terminal de la limitedont
traitait la lettre 191CM2. Quant àla mare de Soum, ellerelevait, selon les
documents administratifs cités ci-dessus, soitdu cercle de Dori, soit de
celui de Ouahigouya.
141. Compte tenu de tous les éléments d'information dont elle dispose
au sujet de la mare de Kétiouaire etde la mare de Kébanaire,la Chambre
parvient à la conclusion suivante. La mare qui figure sur les cartes pos-

térieures à 1950sousladénomination << mare de Soum )et dont mention a
été faitedans desdocuments administratifs à partir de 1939paraît êtrela
seule susceptible d'êtreidentifiée avec celle qui est viséepar l'arrêté
2728AP sous le nom de mare de Kétiouaire )>.Cet arrêté se réfèreà une
marequisesituait à l'ouestdu point tripleoù serencontraient lescerclesde
Mopti, Gourma-Rharous et Dori. Lalocalisation decepoint est elle-même
loin d'être certainemais d'aprèstoutes les informations aujourd'hui dis-
ponibles seule la mare de Soumse serait trouvéeprèsde son emplacement

probable et à l'ouestde celui-ci.Enrevanche lamare de Soumne peut dans
le mêmetemps êtreidentifiéeavec celleque la lettre 191CM2 cite sous le
nom de ((mare de Kébanaire r)Celaétant,laChambre nepeut manquer de
relever que si la mare de Kébanaire ou celle de Kétiouaire s'étaitvu
attribuerentre 1935et 1939lanouvelleappellation de (mare de Soum ))il
est vraisemblable qu'un document administratif enaurait faitétat,surtout
si l'on tient compte du fait que la mare de Kétiouaire étaitun repère
topographique suffisamment connu en 1935pour qu'un arrêté l'utilise aux

fins de définirle point terminal d'une limite de cercle. Dès lors de deux
choses l'une : ou la mare de Soum n'est autre que la mare dénommée
Kétiouaireen 1935et l'emplacement de la mare de Kébanairereste incon-
nu ;ou les informations dont la Chambre dispose ne permettent d'iden-
tifier et de localiseraucune de cesdeux dernièresmares. Tout bien pesé,la
Chambre n'estimepas pouvoir,auxfins de sadécision,conclure à l'identité
de la mare de Kétiouaireavec la mare de Soum.
142. Il n'en reste pas moins qu'elle doit examiner la relation existant
entre la mare de Soumet la limiteadministrativedes années trente dont il

s'agitde fixer letracéà la lumièredesdocuments produitspar lesParties, y
compris ceux qui datent d'une époque plusrécente, même postérieur e
l'indépendancedes deux Etats. En appliquant le droit international - en
l'occurrence leprincipe de I'uripossidetis - aux faitsde l'espècetels qu'ils
peuvent êtredégagésdes élémentsde preuve produits par les Parties, laMopti might suggest that the pool was within the cercle of Mopti, but
"almost" on the boundary of that cercle.But what the administrator of the
cercleof Mopti was proposing was not a clarification of the description of
the boundary of the cerclewhich was under his own authority. As already
pointed out (paragraph 132 above), his proposed modification of the
drafting is onlyintelligible if the pool of Kébanairelaymuch further to the
north-east. What in fact he was proposing was that the boundary between

two other cercles, Gourma-Rharous and Dori, should be described as
passing the pool of Kébanaire. Consequently,this pool might have been in
the cercleof Gourma-Rharous or that of Dori ;it could not have belonged
to the cercleof Mopti without being located close to the end-point of the
boundary described in letter 191CM2. Asfor the pool of Soum,according
to the above-quoted administrative documents it belonged either to the
cercleof Dori or to that of Ouahigouya.

141. Having regard to al1the available information on the subject of the
pool of Kétiouaireand the pool of Kébanaire, theChamber'sconclusion is
as follows.The pool which appears on the maps subsequent to 1950under
the name of "pool of Soum" and which has been mentioned in adminis-
trative documents since 1939seems to be the only one which might be
identifiable as the one referred to in Order 2728 AP under the name of
"Kétiouaire". This Order refers to a pool lying Westof the tripoint where
the cerclesof Mopti, Gourma-Rharous and Dori met. The position of this
point is itself far from certain, but according toal1the information now
available, only the pool of Soum would have lain close to the probable
position of this point and to the Westof it. On the other hand, the pool of
Soum cannot simultaneously be the one referred to in letter 191 CM2

under the name of "Kébanaire".The Chamber must therefore observe that
if the pool of Kébanaireor that of Kétiouairehad, between 1935and 1939,
acquired the newname of "pool of Soum", it islikelythat somereference to
this would have appeared in an administrative document, especially in
viewof the fact that the pool of Kétiouaire,at least, was a sufficiently well
known topographic feature in 1935tobe used in defining the end-point of
a cercle boundary. Hence there are two alternatives : either the pool of
Soum is the pool called in 1935Kétiouaire,and the position of the pool of
Kébanaire remainsunknown, or there isinsufficient information available
to the Chamber for it to identify orto locate either of these two pools. On
due reflection, the Chamber does not consider that it should base its
decision on the identification of the pool of Kétiouairewith the pool of
Soum.
142. It is nonetheless necessary for it to examine the relationship
between the pool of Soum and the administrative boundary of the 1930s
which has to be defined, in the light of the documents produced by the
Parties, including those which date from a more recent period, even those
subsequent to the independence of both States. In applying international
law,in this instance the principle ofutipossidetis,to the facts of thecase as
they emergefrom the evidenceproduced on either side, the Chamber findsChambre constate que les éléments à sa disposition ne suffisent pas tou-
jours à établirlequel des tracés possibles coïncide avec celuiqui existait
réellementen 1932.Ainsi la Chambre est-elle convaincue que la mare de
Soum est une mare frontalière ; mais ellene voit pas d'indice datant de la
période coloniale qui permettrait d'affirmer que la ligne doit passer au
nord de la mare, au sud de celle-ciou la diviser. Comme il a étéexpliqué
ci-dessus (paragraphe 94), la question n'est pas non plus de nature telle
qu'il serait possible,en l'absence d'autres bases de décision,defaire jouer

le principe de la charge de la preuve.
143. Avant d'examiner de plus près la situation dans la régionde la
mare de Soum,la Chambre estime nécessairede définirlesecteur du tracé
de lalignesituéentre levillaged'Oukoulourou et cettemare par rapportau
villagede Kobou et à la mare de Toussougou. Comme on l'a vu,la ligne,
pour êtreconforme aux termes de l'arrêté 2728AP, doitpasser <au sud de
lamare de Toussougou ))ladistance entre la ligneet la maredevant résul-
ter de la prise en compte d'autres repères, àsavoir les (quatre villages
à l'ouestet la mare de Kétiouaire àl'est. Lamare de Kétiouairen'apaspu
êtreidentifiée,maislalignedoit passerpar lamare de Soum.Tenant compte
de ce qui a été ditci-dessus à propos de la forme d'une limite de cercle
dans la pratique des administrateurs coloniaux, et pour éviterun coude

trop marquédans la régionde Toussougou, la Chambre considèreque la
ligne doit relier le point sitàé2 kilomètres au sudd'Oukoulourou, men-
tionnéauparagraphe 130ci-dessus, àun point situéà 2,6kilomètres au sud
de la mare de Toussougou, point dont lescoordonnéesgéographiquessont
1" 19'05 " ouest et 14" 43'45" nord. De là, la ligne continue vers la mare
de Soum.L'azimutdelaligneOukoulourou-Toussougouestde 57"approxi-
mativement, celui de la ligne Toussougou-Soum de 76" approximative-
ment et celui d'une ligne hypothétique reliant Oukoulourou et la mare
de Soumde 63" approximativement. La ligneque la Chambre vient d'indi-
quer lui semble donc bien cadrer avec les termes de l'arrêté 2728 AP qui
viseune ligneseprolongeant dans une direction <(sensiblement nord-est )).

144. La ligne ainsi définiene passe pas par le point de coordonnées
géographiques 1" 24' 15" ouest et 14"43'45" nord mentionné dans la
lettre 191 CM2 du gouverneur général endate du 19 février 1935.Ces
coordonnées, quidonnent une impression de précision,sont empruntées
aux cartes de l'époque,en particulier à la carte Blondel la Rougery et à
l'Atlasdes cercles; elles ne trouvent dejustification ni dans les méthodes
cartographiques utiliséesni dans la fiabilitédeslevéssur la base desquels
ces cartes ont étédressées.En effet, comme la Chambre l'a déjàobservé
(paragraphe 109ci-dessus),l'examendesdonnées topographiquespermet-
tant de définirles diverses limites de cercle qui concourent à la détermi-
nation du point triple occidental Mopti/Ouahigouya/Dori amène la

Chambre à conclure que ce point triple devait se trouver au sud-est du
point indiquépar lescoordonnéesgéographiques précitées S.ile projet du
gouverneur générad lel'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise s'étaittransforméen
texte réglementaire, il est évident que l'exactitude de ces coordonnées FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 630

that theavailableinformation isnot alwayssufficient to establish whichof
two possible lines coincides with the one which existed in 1932. The
Chamber is therefore convinced that the pool of Soum is a frontier pool ;
but it finds no indication datingfrom the colonial period from whichit can
besaid that theline runs to the north of the pool, to the south ofitor divides
it. Furthermore, as explained above (paragraph 94), the question is not
such that, in the absence of other grounds for a decision, the principle of

the onus of proof can be brought into play.

143. Before exaniining more closely the situation in the region of the
pool of Soum, the Chamber considers it necessary todefine that segmentof
the line which lies between the village of Oukoulourou and the pool, in
relation to the villageof Kobou and the pool of Toussougou. As already
seen,if theline is to comply with thewording of Order 2728AP it must run
"to the south of the pool of Toussougou", and thegap between theline and
thepool willbeaconsequence of taking other landmarks into account, viz.,
the "four villages" to theWestand the pool of Kétiouaireto theeast. It has
proved impossible to identify the pool of Kétiouaire,but the line must run
through the pool of Soum. In viewof what hasbeen said above concerning
the shape of cercleboundaries in colonial administrative practice, and in
order to avoid too sharp a bend in the region of Toussougou, the Chamber
considers that the line must connect the point located 2 kilometres to the
south of Oukoulourou, mentioned in paragraph 130above, with a point
located 2.6 kilometres to the south of the pool of Toussougou, the geo-
graphical CO-ordinates of this latter point being 1" 19'05" W and
14" 43' 45"N. From there, the line continues towards the pool of Soum.
The bearing of the line Oukoulourou-Toussougou is approximately 57",

the bearing of the line Toussougou-Soum approximately 76O,and the
bearing of the hypothetical line connecting Oukoulourou and the pool of
Soum approximately 63". Hence the line which the Chamber has just
indicated does, in its view,meet the requirements of Order 2728AP, which
refers to a line extending in a "markedly north-east" direction.
144. The line so defined does not pass through the point with the
geographical CO-ordinates1" 24' 15" W and 14" 43'45" N, mentioned in
letter 191CM2 from the Governor-General of 19 February 1935.These
CO-ordinates,which give an impression of precision, are taken from the
maps of the period, especially the Blondel la Rougery map and the Atlas
des cercles ;that precision is nowhere warranted by the cartographical
resources used or the reliability of the surveys taken as a basis. In fact, as
the Chamber has already observed (paragraph 109above), from an exam-
ination of the topographical sources permitting a definition of the varioüs
cercleboundaries which together determine the western tripoint of Mopti/
Ouahigouya/Dori, the Chamber concludes that this tripoint must have
lain south-east of the point indicated by the geographical CO-ordinates
quoted. If theproject of the Governor-General of French West Africa had
become aregulation,it isobvious thatthe correctness of theseCO-ordinates
would have amounted to an irrebuttable presumption ;but this is not theaurait constitué une présomptionirréfragable.Mais tel n'estpas le cas. La
lettre-191 CM2 ne vaut en elle-mêmeque comme preuve de la limite qui
avait <valeur de fait ))à l'époque.Il apparaît à présent que les cartes
disponibles à I'époque n'étaienp tas d'une fidélitéjustifiant la définition
d'après ces cartes d'un point par des coordonnées géographiques aussi
précises : par conséquent,que ces coordonnées sesoient révéléem s oins
exactes que prévun'apas pour effet de remettre en cause les intentions du
gouverneur général oud'ôter toute valeur probante à la lettre.

145. La Chambre en vient maintenant à la détermination du tracé
frontalier dans la régionde la mare de Soum. Selon un rapport d'hydrau-
lique pastorale en date du 7janvier 1957produit par le Burkina Faso, la
mare de Soum appartient à la catégoriedes << mares temporaires impor-
tantes qui tarissent en saison sèche )).Un rapport de tournée daté du
31décembrede la mêmeannéementionne par ailleurs une <(grande mare
de Soumqui tarit ..au moisde mars o.Ilest ajoutéque :<<Vul'importance

du cheptel, les éleveursde Soum demandent la construction de deux puits
pastoraux )),ouvrage recommandé en <première urgence car <(Soum
est le meilleur centre d'élevagede la subdivision de Djibo du cercle de
Ouahigouya, en Haute-Volta. Dans une lettre transmettant le procès-
verbal d'une réuniondu 15janvier 1965,dont il sera question au para-
graphe suivant, le commandant du cercle de Djibo indique qu'<<il faut
entendre par mare de Soum la cuvette mesurant 5 kilomètres de lon-
gueur o.

146. Pourcequi estde lapériodepostérieure à l'indépendance,ilya lieu
de citer, parmi les divers documents que les deux Parties ont soumis à la
Chambre, le procès-verbal d'une réunion tenue<< a Soum, mare fronta-
lièreO, le 15janvier 1965 entre une délégation voltaïqueet une délé-
gation malienne - composéestoutes deux de commandants de cercle et
autres administrateurs. D'a~rèsce ~rocès-verbal. le but de la réunion
était <(de poursuivre à la rectification du tracédu reste de la frontière
partant du milieu de la mare de Toussougou au point de jonction des
cercles de Rharous et de Dori ))Le texte continue ainsi :

Aprèsun large échangede points de vuedes deux délégationsil a
étéconvenu ce qui suit :

Une ligne perpendiculaire divisant la mare de Soum en deux et
passant par lemilieulaissant au territoire de la Haute-Volta levillage
de Soumpour rejoindrela limite sur carte ND-30 XVII éditionjuillet
1961.
La portion nord comprise dans cette zone revient à la République
du Mali ; le resteà la Républiquede Haute-Volta. ))

Dans la lettre du 18janvier 1965 par laquelle il transmettait le procès-
verbal dont il s'agit au ministre de l'intérieurde la Haute-Volta, le com-
mandant du cercle de Djibo expliquait comme suit la teneur de l'accord
intervenu :case. In itself, the letter 191CM2 only ranks as evidence of a boundary
having "de facto value" at the time. It now transpires that the maps

available at the time werenot accurate enough to warrant definingapoint
from these maps by geographical CO-ordinatesof such precision. Thus the
fact that theseCO-ordinateshave been found to have been defined with an
over-optimistic degree of precision does not contradict the Governor-
General's intentions or deprive the letter of probative force.

145. The Chamber now comes to the determination of the frontier line
in the region of the pool of Soum. According to a report on rural water
resources dated 7 January 1957,produced by Burkina Faso, the pool of
Soum belongs to the category of "major temporary pools which dry out in
the dry season" and on 31December of the sameyear, the report of a tour
ofinspectionmentionsa "large pool of Soumwhichdriesup ...in March".
The report notesthat "in viewof the sizeof their herds, the Soumherdsmen
are reauesting the construction of two field wells". and this work was
recommended as a "measure of highest priority", on the ground that
"Soum is the best stockbreeding centre in the Djibo subdivision"of the
cercleof Ouahigouya, in Upper Volta. In a letter transmitting the minutes
of a meeting of 15January 1965,to be examined in the next paragraph, the

commandant decercleof Djibo Statesthat "by the pool of Soum is meant
the basin measuring 5 kilometres in length".

146. Mention shomuld be made, in respect of the period subsequent to
independence, of the record, among the diplomatic and other documen-
tation submitted by both Parties to the Chamber, of an agreement con-
cluded on 15January 1965betweena Voltan and a Malian delegation,com-
prising commandantsdecercleand other administrators on each side,which
met "at Soum, a frontier pool". According to this record, the purpose
of the meeting was "to pursue the adjustment of the line of the remainder
of the frontierfrom .themiddle of the pool of Toussougou to the meeting-
point of the cerclesad Rharous and Dori". The text continues as follows :

"After abroad exchange ofviewsbyboth delegations,the following
was agreed :
A perpendicular line dividing the pool of Soum in two and running
through the centre, leaving the village of Soum to the territory of
Upper Volta anidrejoining the boundary on map ND-30 XVII, July
1961 edition.
The northern part of thisarea falls tothe Republic of Mali :the rest
to the Republic:of Upper Volta."

In his covering 1ette:rof 18 January 1965 transmitting the report of the
meeting to the Miniisterof the Interior, the Djibo commandantexplained
this agreement as fclllows : La délégationmaliennea fini par accepter ..que la grande partie
de lazone de Soum appartient à la Haute-Volta sauf lepoint crucial :
la retenue d'eau mesurant environ 500 mètresde diamètre. Comme
rien ne permet à l'unou àl'autre Etat de revendiqueren totalité cette
retenue d'eau, un partage a été opéré suivant les données durapport

Goutal [c'est-a-dire un rapport de tournéedu 26 février1951,dont
copie n'a pas étéverséeau dossier de l'affaire]. ))

Un croquis était joint au procès-verbal et le commandant de cercle pré-
cisait que la partie de la mare qui, d'après ce croquis, revenaitau Mali,
formait une poche de 250 mètres environ permettant uniquement au
bétaildu Mali d'avoir accès à la retenue d'eau i).
147. Dans son mémoire, leMali a soulignéque la seule autoritécom-
pétente à l'époque pour régler définitivement les problèmesde fron-
tière i)étaitla commission paritaire permanente, au sein de laquelle sié-
geaient les ministres de l'intérieur desdeux pays. Il en déduitque tous les

accords conclus au niveau des commandants de cercle qui n'auraient pas
étéultérieuremenctonfirméspar cette commission doivent êtretenuspour
non réalisésL . aChambre admet quede telsaccords,non approuvéspar les
autoritéscompétentesdesdeuxParties, n'ontpas laforceobligatoired'une
convention. A cet égardelle n'entend par ailleurs pas s'écarterde la règle
bien établieselon laquelle :

((La Cour ne saurait faire état des déclarations, admissions ou
propositions qu'ont pu faire les Parties au cours des négociations
directesqui ont eu lieu entre elles,lorsque ces négociations n'ontpas
abouti à un accord complet. i)(UsinedeChorzow,fond, C.P.J. 1.sérieA
no 17, p. 51.)

Toutefoisla Chambre secroit autorisée à noter certainsfaitsqui ressortent
d'un document que lesParties luiont soumisen tant qu'annexe à unepièce

de procédureécrite, c'est-a-direen tant que l'un des <(documents perti-
nents produits àl'appui desthèsesformuléesdans cette pièce ))(Règlement
de la Cour, art. 50,par. 1).Elleconstate que les commandants des cercles
limitrophes de Douentza et de Djibo ont pu partager une certaine manière
de voir et, surtout, qu'ils sesont accordéspour reconnaître que la mare de
Soumétait une <(mare frontalière qui devait êtrepartagéeentre lesdeux
cercles.
148. Il convient de rappeler encore que la tâche de la Chambre consiste
en l'espèce àindiquer le tracéde la frontièredont lesdeux Etats ont hérité

du colonisateur lors de leur accession à l'indépendance.Pour les raisons
exposées ci-dessus,cette tâche revient en l'occurrence à rechercher et à
établirles lignes qui constituaient les limites administratives de la colonie
de la Haute-Volta i.,auzau 31 décembre1932.Certes les Parties auraient
pu modifier lafrontièreexistant à ladate critique par un accord postérieur.
Si donc les autorités compétentes avaient entériné l'accord du 15janvier
1965,ilauraitétéinutile, auxfins de laprésenteaffaire,de rechercher sicet
accord avait un caractèredéclaratoireoumodificatif au regard de la limite "The Maliaii delegation ultimately accepted ... that the greater
part of the Soum area belongs to Upper Volta except for the crucial
point :the water reservoir measuring approximately 500 metres in
diameter. As rieither State isjustified in clairning the whole of this
water resemoii:, it was divided according to the data in the Goutal
report [that is, an inspection report of 26 February 1951,no copy of
which is inclutled in the file of the case]."

A sketch-map was iannexedto the record of the agreement, and the com-
mandant explained that the portion of the pool shown on the sketch as
being attributed to Mali "formed a pocket of approximately 250 metres,
solely to enable cattle from Mali to have access to the water supply".
147. In its Mem.oria1Mali emphasized that the only authority with

jurisdiction at the timeto makea definitivesettlement of frontier problems
was the Standing Joint Commission, on which sat the Ministers of the
Interior of both countries. From this it argues that al1 the agreements
concluded at the levelof commandantsdecerclewhich werenot confirmed
subsequently by thiat Commission must be treated as ineffectual. The
Chamber agrees that such agreements, not approved by the competent
authorities of each Party, do not have the binding force of a convention.
Moreover, the Chamber has no intention of departing from the firmly
established rule thait

"The Court cannot take into account declarations, admissions or
proposals whichtheParties mayhavemade during directnegotiations
between themselves, when such negotiations have not led to a com-
plete agreement." (Factory ut Chorzbw, Merits, P.C. 1.J., Series A,
No. 17, p. 51 .)

The Chamber howe:verconsiders that it is entitled to take note of certain
facts which emerge from a document submitted to the Chamber by each
Party as an annex ,toa written pleading, that is, as one of the "relevant
documents adduceclin support of the contentions contained in the plead-
ing" (Art. 50,para. 1,of the Rules of Court). Thus the Chamber observes
that the commandatltsof the adjacent cerclesof Douentza and Djibo each
took a certain view ;above all, they agreed that the pool of Soum was a
"frontier pool", which had to be divided between the two cercles.

148. It should again be pointed out that the Chamber's task in this case
is to indicate the line of the frontier inherited by both States from the
colonizers on their accession to independence. For the reasons explained
above, this task arnounts to ascertaining and defining the lines which
formed the administrative boundaries of the colony of Upper Volta on
31December 1932.Adrnittedly, the Parties could have modified the fron-
tier existing on the critical date by a subsequent agreement. If the com-
petent authorities lhad endorsed the agreement of 15 January 1965, it
would have been unnecessary for the purpose of the present case to as-
certain whether that agreement was of a declaratory or modifying charac-de 1932.Mais il n'en a pas été ainsi et la Chambre n'a reçu aucun mandat
des Partiespour sesubstituer à elleset choisiren toutelibertéunefrontière

appropriée. Cela étant, la Chambre ne peut perdre de vue ni la mission
confiée à la Cour - le règlement pacifique, conformémentau droit inter-
national, des différends qui lui sont soumis - ni le fait que dans leur
compromis les Parties lui ont demandé non pas de donner desindications
susceptibles de les éclairerquant à la détermination de leur frontière
commune mais bien de tracer une ligne, et une ligne précise.
149. Comme ellel'aindiqué,laChambre peutfaireappel à l'équitéinfra
legemdont les Parties ont d'ailleurs toutes deux reconnu l'applicabilité en
l'espèce(voir paragraphe 27 ci-dessus).A cet égardl'idéequi la guide est
simplement celle-ci : <L'équité entant que notion juridique procède
directement de l'idéedejustice (Plateaucontinental(Tunisie/Jamahiriya
arabe libyenne),C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 60, par. 71). La Chambre tient

néanmoins à souligner que rien n'autorise un recoursà la notion d'équité
pour modifier une frontière établie.Dans le contexte africain en particu-
lier, on ne saurait invoquer les insuffisances manifestes, du point de vue
ethnique, géographiqueou administratif, de maintes frontièreshéritées de
la colonisation pour affirmer que leur modification s'impose ou sejustifie
par des considérations d'équité. Ces frontières, aussi peu satisfaisantes
soient-elles, jouissent de l'autorité de l'uti possidetis et sonà ce titre
entièrementconformes au droit internationalcontemporain.Hormislecas
d'une décision rendue, avecl'assentimentdes Parties, ex aequoet bono, (<il
ne s'agitpas simplement d'arriver àune solution équitable, maisd'arriverà
une solutionéquitablequi repose sur le droit applicable ))(Compétenceen
matière depêcheries,C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 33, par. 78). C'est en vue de
parvenir à une solution de cegenreque laChambre doitprendre en compte

non pas l'accorddu 15janvier 1965,mais lescirconstances dans lesquelles
cet accord est intervenu.
150. La Chambre conclutdès lors qu'il luifaut reconnaître lecaractère
frontalier de la mare de Soum et qu'en l'absence d'indications précises
dans les textes quant à l'emplacement de la ligne frontière celle-ci doit
diviser la mare de Soum en deux, de façon équitable. Bien que <<l'équité
n'implique pas nécessairement l'égalité (Plateaucontinentalde lamer du
Nord, C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 49, par. 91), il reste qu'en l'absencede cir-
constances spécialesc'est en généralcelle-ci qui traduit le mieux celle-là.
La ligne devrait doncpartir du point situéau sud de la mare de Toussou-
gou,définiauparagraphe 143ci-dessus,et continuer enlignedroitejusqu'à
un point situé sur le rivage ouest de la mare de Soum, de coordonnées
géographiques 1 O 05'34" ouest et 14"47'04" nord. Ensuite elledevrait la

traverser de façon àdiviser en parts égales,entre les deux Etats, l'étendue
maximale de cette mare telle qu'elle figure sur la carte IGN de 1960.

151. Ayantconstatél'impossibilitéde localiserla mare de Kétiouaire, la
Chambre ne trouve plus d'indication dans l'arrêté 2728 AP de 1935qui FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 633

ter in relation to the 1932boundaries. But this did not happen, and the
Chamber has received no mandate from the Parties to substitute its own
free choice of an appropriate frontier for theirs. The Chamber must not
lose sight either of the Court's function, which is to decide in accordance
with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, nor of the fact
that the Chamber was requested by the Parties in their SpecialAgreement
not to give indications to guide them in determining their common fron-
tier, but to draw a li.ne,and a precise line.
149. As it has explained, the Chamber can resort to that equity infra
legem, which both Parties have recognized as being applicable in this case
(seeparagraph 27 above). In this respect the guidingconcept issimply that
"Equity as a legal concept is a direct emanation of the idea of justice"
(ContinentalShelf(Tunisia/LibyanArabJamahiriya),I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 60,para. 71).The Chamber would howeverstress moregenerally that to
resort to the concept.of equity in order to modify an established frontier
would be quite unjustified. Especially in the African context, the obvious

deficienciesof many Frontiersinheritedfrom colonization, fromthe ethnic,
geographical or administrative standpoint, cannot support an assertion
that the modification of these frontiers is necessary or justifiable on the
ground of consideraitions of equity. These frontiers, however unsatisfac-
tory they may be, possess the authority of the utipossidetis and are thus
fully in conformity with contemporary international law. Apart from the
caseof adecision exaequoet bonoreachedwith the assent of the Parties, "it
is not a matter of firiding simply an equitable solution, but an equitable
solution derived froin the applicable law" (FisheriesJurisdiction, I.C.J.
Reports1974,p. 33,para. 78).It iswith a viewto achievingasolution of this
kind that the Chamber has to take account, not of the agreement of
15January 1965,buitof the circumstances in which that agreement was
concluded.
150. The Chambeirthus concludes that it must recognize that Soumis a
frontier pool ;and that, in theabsence of anyprecise indication in the texts

of theposition of the frontier line, the line should divide the pool of Soum
in two, in an equitable manner. Although "Equity does not necessarily
imply equality" (North Sea ContinentalShelf,I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 49,
para. 91), where there are no special circumstances the latter is generally
the best expression of the former. The line should therefore begin from the
point lying south of ithepool of Toussougou as defined in paragraph 143
above, and continue ;asa straight line as far as a point situated on the West
bank of thepool of Soum,with the geographicalCO-ordinates1 O05'34"W
and 14"47'04" N. It should then cross the pool in such a way asto divide
the maximum area of the pool as shown on the 1960IGN map in equal
proportions between the two States.

151. In viewof the impossibility of locating the pool of Kétiouaire, the

Chamber can find 110 further indications in Order 2728 AP of 1935lui permettrait de déterminerle tracéde la frontière à I'estde la mare de
Soum. Illui faut donc désormais,pour cefaire, sereporter aux termes de la
lettre 191CM2 du 19février1935(paragraphe 75 ci-dessus). Le Burkina
Faso, ainsi qu'ila étésignalé,soutient que lalettre 191CM2 constitue l'ex-
pression authentique, par l'autorité compétente à l'époque,de la convic-

tion qu'elle avaitquant au tracédelalimite(paragraphe 77ci-dessus) ;ilen
infèreque cette lettre est applicable aux fins de la déterminationdu tracé
de lafrontière.LaChambre,pour sa part, areconnu quecetargumentétait
fondé(paragraphe 85 ci-dessus). Elle relève toutefois que, dans ses con-
clusions, le Burkina Faso opère une distinction quant aux élémentsde
référence servant à définirlalignequ'ilpropose, selonqu'ils'agitdelazone
située àl'ouestdu point de coordonnéesgéographiques0" 40'47" ouest et
15" 00'03" nord ou de la zone située à I'estde ce point. Ces conclusions
précisenten effet qu'à l'ouestde ce point :

<(la ligne est celle qui résultede la carte de l'Institut géographique
national français au 1/200 000(éditionde 1960)lesvillagesde Diou-
louna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou et Koubo étant situésen territoire
burkinabé )),

tandis qu'à l'estdudit point :
((la lignesuit lesindications de lalettre 191CM2 du 15février1935et
de la carte au 1/500 000, édition 1925,jusqu'à la pointe nord de la

mare d'In Abao o.
Une carte déposée enmêmetemps que le mémoireburkinabé, consistant
en un assemblage de cinq feuilles de la carte de I'IGN au 1/200 000,
indique le tracéde la <(frontière actuelle)>selon le Burkina Faso. Ce tracé
est figurépar une bandejaune qui suit la ligneen croisillonsdiscontinus de
cettecartepour ne s'enséparerque loin à l'est,la ligne IGN aboutissant à

Fitili, soià 12kilomètresau nord du guéde Kabia, et la bandejaune se
terminant en un point situé à quelque 2,5 kilomètres au nord de ce
gué.
152. Ce n'estqu'en audience que le Burkina Faso a expliqué lechoixdu
point de coordonnées 0" 40'47" ouest et 15' 00' 03"nord comme point à
partir duquel ily aurait lieu, aux fins de la définitionde sa ligne versl'est,
de substituer lacarte auA1/500 000de 1925 à celleau 1/200000de 1960en
tant quecarte de référenceD . 'une part cepoint serait situéàpeu près àla
latitude de Raf Naman, et c'est là où l'on a coutume d'admettre que
commence larégiondu Béli :d'autre partcette façon de diviserlafrontière

en litigea étéempruntéeau rapport de la sous-commissionjuridique de la
Commission de médiationde l'organisation de l'unitéafricaine. Dans ce
rapport, en datedu 14juin 1975,la sous-commission indique qu'à l'ouest
de ce point :
(<la frontière est figuréepar des croisillons continusindiquant de la

part des auteurs de la carte [de I'IGN] au 1/200 000 l'existence de
textes clairementinterprétésou latraduction de situationsdefait non
ambiguës ...whereby the frontier can be determined east of the pool of Soum. It is
therefore nownecessary to refer to the letter 191CM2 of 19February 1935
(paragraph 75 abovt:). As already noted, Burkina Faso claims that the
letter 191 CM2 is th.eauthentic expression, by the authority possessing
jurisdiction at the time, of its conviction as to the course of the boundary
(paragraph 77above), and the letter istherefore applicable forthe purpose
of determining the line of the frontier. For its part, the Chamber has
reached the conclusion that this argument iscorrect (paragraph 85above).
It notes however that in its submissions Burkina Faso, when defining the
reference factors to define the line which it proposes, makes a distinction
between the area West of the point with the geographical CO-ordinates
0" 40' 47"W and 15"00'03" N, and the area east of that point. To the
West,the submissions are that

"the line isasshown on the 1 :200,000scalemap of theFrench Institut
géographique national (1960 edition), the villages of Dioulouna,
Oukoulou, Agoiilourou and Koubo being located in Burkinabe ter-
ritory",
whereas east of that point,

"the line corresponds to the information given in letter 191CM2 of
15February 1935and on the 1 :500,000scalemap, 1925edition, as far
as the northern point of the pool of In Abao".
A map filed with the Burkinabe Memorial, consisting of a compilation of
five sheets from the IGN 1 :200,000scale map, shows what Burkina Faso
claimstobe the "exist.ingfrontier" by means of ayellowband followingthe
broken line of small crosses on that map, diverging only as regards the
eastern part of the li:ne,where the IGN line terminates at Fitili, 12kilo-
metres north of the Kabia ford, and the yellow band at a point some

2.5 kilometres to the north of the ford.

152. Only during the oral proceedings did Burkina Faso explain its
reasons for selectingt.hepoint 0" 40'47" W and 15"00'03" N as thepoint
where, for the definition of the line to the east, the 1:500,000scalemap of
1925is to be substituted for the 19601:200,000scale map as a base map.
On the one hand, this point is supposedly located approximately at the
latitude of Raf Naman, where the Béliregion iscustomarily held to begin ;
on the other hand, this method of dividing thedisputed frontier was taken
from the report of the Legal Sub-Commission of the Organization of
African Unity Mediation Commission. In this report, dated 14June 1975,
the Sub-Commission States that Westof this point,

"the frontier is represented by a continuous line of small crosses
indicating, on the part of the authors of the 1:200,000map [of the
IGN] the existeniceof clearly interpreted texts or a representation of

unambiguous actual situations ...".Cependant, sil'on sereporte à lacarte de l'IGN au 1/200 000,on s'aperçoit

qu'une petite erreur de chiffres s'estglisséedans le texte du rapport de la
sous-commission juridique, erreur qui s'est répétée tout au long de la
procédure,dans lesconclusions successivesdu Burkina Faso : la première
coordonnéeaurait dû être O050'47" ouest.
153. En ce qui concerne la détermination de la frontière dans la zone
comprise entre le point P et le mont Tabakarach, le contre-mémoirebur-
kinabé,aprèsavoir soulignéquela lettre 191CM2 seborne à mentionner
cesrepèrescomme points de départet d'arrivéede la ligne,en conclut que
cette lettre ne pouvait avoir en vue qu'une ligne droite reliant ces deux

points. Or sila carte Blondel la Rougery et l'Atlasdescerclesfigurent bien
la limite en ligne droite, d'autres cartes, dont la carte de I'IGN au
1/200 000de 1960,la représententpar une ligne brisée.Cette ligne brisée
suit, sur la carte de l'IGN, un cours rectiligne d'orientation sud-ouest
jusqu'à un point situélégèrement au nord-estde la mare de Soum ; elle
subit ensuite un infléchissement,dans une direction ouest-sud-ouest, jus-
qu'aupoint P.Le Malia quant àlui attirél'attention de la Chambre sur les
divergencesquiressortent dela comparaison entre cesdeux typesde lignes
et a déposé, pour en fournirune illustration visuelle, une carte où sont
représentésles tracés figurant àla fois sur la carte Blondel la Rougery et

sur la carte IGN de 1960.
154. PourlaChambre, ilest hors de doute que lalettre 191CM2de 1935
visait ladéfinitionpar un texte de lalimitequi figuraitsurla carte Blondel
la Rougery de 1925,ce dont les Parties conviennent. Il lui paraît en outre
probable que l'Atlasdescerclesa aussi été consulté à cettefin. Or le Mali a
souligné lecaractère provisoire et inexact de ces cartes. Dans une étude
publiéeen 1927,le commandant Edouard de Martonne, directeur du ser-
vicegéographiquede l'Afrique occidentale française, a observé, à propos
de la sériede cartes dont la carte Blondel la Rougery faisait partie :

cesfeuilles,dessinées àl'aidedesitinéraires,levésde reconnaissance
ettravauxtopographiques de tout ordre qui existent au gouvernement
général à Dakar, sont, comme l'indique le qualificatif de << carte de
reconnaissance )),essentiellement sujettes à revision : rien n'était

plus propre que l'établissement d'une pareille carte à montrer I'insuf-
fisance de la documentation existante et la nécessité de partir sur de
nouvelles bases )).

Dans la mêmeétude,il affirmait, au sujet des cartes des cercles :
<(les fréquents remaniements territoriaux amènent dans les limites
des cercles des modifications qui sont rarement représentéesde la
mêmemanièrepar les circonscriptions voisines )),

puis il ajoutait:

(<par suite des copies successives, on se trouve plus d'une fois en
présencede cartes des cercles voisins, où ceux-ci sont impossibles à
juxtaposer >).However, on referring to the IGN 1:200,000scale map, it is found that a
minor calculation error has crept into the text of the Legal Sub-Commis-
sion'sreport, andthat thiserror recurred throughout the proceedings in the
successivesubmissionsby Burkina Faso : thefirstCO-ordinateshould have
been :0" 50' 47"W.
153. With regard to the determination of the frontier between point P

and mount Tabakarach, the Counter-Memorial of Burkina Faso empha-
sizes that the letter 191CM2 indicates only that these two points are the
starting-point and the finishing-point, and what was contemplated in the
letter must have beeriastraight linebetween the two.Although the Blondel
la Rougery rnap and the Atlas descerclesshow the boundary as a straight
line,othermaps,including the IGN 1:200,000scalernap of 1960,replace it
by alinewith sections at different angles.The lineon the IGN rnapconsists
of a straight sector running southwest as far as a point situated slightly to
the northeast of the pool of Soum, and from that point a line in a west-
southwest direction asfar aspoint P.Malidrew the Chamber's attentionto
the discrepancies which emerge from a comparison between these two
lines, and to givea visual illustration of these filed a rnap which combines
the lines shown on the Blondel la Rougery rnap and the IGN 1960
map.

154. In the Chaniber's view there is no doubt that letter 191CM2 of
1935was intended to define in textual form the boundary shown on the
Blondel la Rougery rnap of 1925,and the Parties agree on this. It seems
probable alsothat the Atlas descercleswas consulted for this purpose. But
Malihas emphasizeclthat these mapswereprovisional and inaccurate. In a

study published in 1927,Commander Edouard de Martonne of the Geo-
graphical Serviceof French West Africa commented on the series of maps
to which the Blondel la Rougery rnap belonged :
"these sheets, drawn with the help of theitinerary surveys,reconnais-
sance surveys and topographical work of various kinds kept at the
headquarters of theGovernorshipGeneral at Dakar, are, asindicated
by the description 'reconnaissance rnap',basically subject to revision.

Nothing could lhavemade plainer than a rnap compiled like this how
inadequate the existing documentation is, and how necessary it is to
make a new start."
Of the cerclemaps, he States that :

"the frequentterritorial changes introduce modifications to the cercle
boundaries which are rarely depicted in the sarne way by adjacent
districts"

and adds
"as aresult of the successivecopying, itisnot uncommon to find maps
of neighbouring cercleswhich cannot be juxtaposed".636 DIFFÉREND FRONTALIER (A&T)

La frontièreentre la Haute-Volta et le Soudan français, telle qu'elle figure
surla carte Blondella Rougery, suitune lignedefaîte. LeMalisoutientque
les toponymes indiqués sur cette carte n'avaient, pour la plupart, encore
jamais étémentionnésjusque-là (Tabakarach, Tin Eoult, Ouagou, Taha-
souine) et que l'orographie que cette carte décrit apparaît aujourd'hui
((entièrement fantaisiste ))Il allègue même que la carte Blondel la Rou-
gery aurait, dans cette région, <(inventé unesériede montagnes qui n'ont
été retrouvéesni géographiquement ni au point de vue de la toponymieen
1960 )).Le Burkina Faso observe pour sa part que la carte considérée
représenteles monts Tin Eoult et Tabakarach qui constituent à l'ouest
de la mare d'In Abao le prolongement de la ligne de dunes et de falaises

dominant la partie orientale du marigot du Béli.La Chambrenote qu'il y
a trèspeu de continuitédans l'utilisation des toponymes afférents àcette
régionet que l'orographie figurée surla carte Blondel la Rougery n'est
que très schématique ;néanmoinsil existe, au nord du Béli,un relief assez
caractériséqui permet de définir une frontière en des termes orogra-
phiques.
155. La Chambrenote égalementque parmi les documents fournis par
le Mali se trouve un rapport sur les ((Patrouilles d'In Abao O, établile
28 novembre 1940par le chef de la subdivision d'Ansongo(cercle deGao,
Soudan français) et accompagné d'un croquis qui démontre que la carte
Blondel la Rougery servait toujours de base pour l'établissementde cro-
quis par lesadministrateurs. En effet,ilest évidentquelecroquis considéré

avait étécopiéde la carte Blondel la Rougery ; en particulier, le tracéde la
<<limite de colonies figurant sur lecroquis est conforme au tracéindiqué
sur lacarte. Cedétailest d'autant plusintéressantque lareprésentationsur
le croquis du parcours suivi par la patrouille &Ansongo prouve sans
ambiguïtéque cette patrouille avait suivilecours du Bélientre In Abao et
In Tangoun : elleest entréedans le territoire du cerclede Dori, qui faisait
partie a l'époquede la colonie du Niger. Si, comme le Mali le prétend,
c'était leBéliqui constituait la frontière entre les deux colonies, ou s'ily
avait eu un doute quant au tracéde cette frontière,on voit mal pourquoi le
chef de la subdivision d'Ansongo aurait pris le soin d'indiquer sur son
croquisla limite qui figure sur la carte Blondel la Rougery et qui avait été

consacréepar la lettre 191CM2 de 1935.

156. Pour les raisons déjàindiquées,la Chambre a écarté,aux fins du
tracéde la frontière, le point P dont les coordonnéesgéographiquessont
indiquéesdans lalettre 191CM2etaconstatéque lafrontièrepassait par la
mare de Soum. Dans lesecteur Soum-Tabakarach, plus aucunproblèmede
choix entre le tracéde la carte Blondel la Rougery et celui de la carte de
I'IGN ne se pose ;en l'absence d'autres indications tendant à l'infirmer,
l'interprétationde lalettre 191CM2 qui s'impose estque celle-civisait une
lignedroite reliant lemont Tabakarachaupoint tripleou convergeaient les
limites des cerclesde Mopti, Ouahigouyaet Dori. Ce point triple, identifié

dans la lettre 191CM2 par rapport au quadrillage de parallèleset méri-
diens porté sur la carte Blondel la Rougery comme correspondant auxcoordonnées géographiquesdu point P (1 24' 15" ouest et 14"43'45"
nord), s'avèrese situer en fait plus au sud-est, à proximitéde la mare de
Soum. La Chambre en conclut que la frontière continue en ligne droite,
d'abord delamare de Soumjusqu'au point mentionnédans lesconclusions

du Burkina Faso (O050'47" ouest et 15O00'03" nord), puis de ce point
jusqu'au mont Tabakarach. Quellesque soient lesinsuffisances de la carte
Blondel la Rougery en ce qui concerne l'orographie de la région, la
Chambre ne voit pas d'obstacle à assimiler le mont Tabakarach (ou
Tabakarech, voir paragraphe 76 ci-dessus) à celui qui figure sur la carte
de I'IGN au 1/200 000 sous le toponyme de Tin Tabakat et dont les

coordonnées géographiquesapproximativessont 0" 44' ouest et 15' 05'
nord.

157. A ce stade de son raisonnement, la Chambre doit se reporter à

l'arrêté ((portant réorganisationde la régionde Tombouctou ))pris par le
gouverneurgénéraldel'Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise le 31décembre1922.
Aux termes de cet arrêtél,alimite occidentale du cerclede Gao passait par
(<les mares de Oussodia Mersi [et] Inabao et, à partir de ce point 1)(la
mare d'In Abao), suivait ((la limite septentrionale de la Haute-Volta )).
Aucune des Parties n'ayant démontré quela ((limite septentrionale de la

Haute-Volta ))ait étémodifiéeentre 1922et 1932,la ligneque la Chambre
doit établir passe par la mare d'In Abao. Il s'agit dèslors d'identifier la
mare d'In Abao et de déterminer le tracéde la frontière par rapport à
celle-ci.Pour le Mali, quecettemare est un point frontière est incontesté ;
en revanche, il lui paraît tout à faitcontestableque,suivant les indications
fournies par certaines cartes, la frontière passe par la pointe nord de la

mare. On se rappellera que le Mali rejette la lettre 191CM2,formelle à cet
égard : d'est en ouest, la limite qui y est décrite passe par les monts
Trontikato, (<par la pointe nord du mont Ouagou, la pointe nord de la
mare d'In Abao ...s

158. La sous-commission technique de la commission technique mixte,

au cours des recherches qu'elle a menées en1972,a constaté que l'appel-
lation ((In Abao ))ne figurait pas sur la carte de I'IGN au 1/200 000,
utiliséecomme document de base. Elle a considéréque, ((selon les indi-
cations [relevées]sur le terrain, cette mare [était] situéesur le cours du
Béli )),marigot quisuit un coursd'ouest en est et sur lequelsetrouveaussi,
plus à l'est, leguédeKabia que le Mali estime constituer lepoint terminal

de la frontière. La sous-commission a également conclu, toujours sur la
base des ((indications [relevées]sur le terrain ))que la mare d'In Abao se
situait <(entre la mare d'In Kacham àl'est, la mared'In Amanam à l'ouest
et la mare de Tin Abao au nord 1).Elle a enfin établi des coordonnées
géographiquessituant la mare ((par déterminationde sa direction et de sa
distance à partir d'un gros arbre repère sur la carte )) de I'IGN au
1/200 000. Ces coordonnées sont les suivantes : 0" 20'40" ouest et FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 637

ing to the geographical CO-ordinates of point P (1" 24' 15" W and
14"43'45" N), has i.nfact been found to lie further to the southeast, in
the vicinity of the pool of Soum. From this the Chamber concludes that
the frontier continues in a straight line, first from the pool of Soum to
the point mentioned in Burkina Faso's submissions (O050'47" W and
15"00' 03"N), and from that point to mount Tabakarach. Notwithstand-
ing the deficiencies ctfthe Blondel la Rougery map as regards the orogra-

phy of the region, the Chamber seesno reason why mount Tabakarach (or
Tabakarech, see paragraph 76 above) should not be identified with the
elevation which appears on the IGN 1:200,000map under the name ofTin
Tabakat, with the geographical CO-ordinates 0" 44' W and 15" 05'N.

157. At this stage,ofits reasoning, the Chamber must refer to the Order
made by the Governor-General of French West Africa on 31 December
1922,for the "reorganization of the region of Timbuktu", which specified
that the western boundary of the cercleof Gao ran through the "pools of
Oussodia Mersi, [arid] Inabao", and that the delimitation "from that
point" (the pool of In Abao) followed "the northern boundary of Upper
Volta". Since neither Party has shown that the "northern boundary of
Upper Volta" was niodified between 1922and 1932,it follows that the
boundary to be established by the Chamber must pass the pool of In Abao.
That pool must, therefore, be identified and the frontier line must be
determined in relation to it. For Mali, it is indisputable that this pool is a
frontier point, although the indication given on certain maps that the
frontier runs through the northern point of the pool seems,in its view, to

be very much open to question. It will be recalled that Mali rejects the
letter 191 CM2 which is quite definite in that regard ; the boundary is
described as passing.,from east to West,through mountsTrontikato "the
northern peak of mount Ouagou, the northern point of the pool of In
Abao ...".
158. The technicallsubcommission of the MixedTechnical Commission
found, during researcrhundertaken in 1972,that the name "In Abao" did
not feature on the IGrN1:200,000map which had been used as a reference
document. It reported that "according to information obtained locally,
this pool [lay]along the Béliwatercourse", a marigot running from Westto
east on which is also found, further to the east, the Kabia ford taken by
Mali to mark the end-point of the frontier. The subcommission likewise
concluded - stillon the basis of "information obtained locally"- that the
pool of In Abao was located "between the pool of In Kacham to the east,
the pool of In Amanam to the Westandthe pool of Tin Abao to the north".
Lastly,it established geographical CO-ordinatesfor the site of the pool "by
determiningitsdirection and distance from a large tree shown as a datum
point on the map" OFthe IGN on the scale 1:200,000,those CO-ordinates
being : 0" 20' 40"W and 14" 59' 27"N. This is again a tripoint, marking 14"59'27" nord. Ils'agit iciencored'unpoint triple ou serencontraient en

1925les limites de trois circonscriptions administratives: les cercles sou-
danais de Gao et de Hombori, et le cercle voltaïque de Dori. Le croquis
no 5 ci-après fait ressortir la contradiction qui existe entre les diverses
cartes quant à la situation et à l'extension de la mare considérée, ainsi
qu'à l'emplacement précisdes limites susmentionnées par rapport à
celle-ci.
159. Selon un document datant de 1954 et émanant du service de
l'hydraulique de l'Afrique occidentale française, qui constitue un inven-
taire despointsd'eau dans leNord-Dori (Haute-Volta), lamare d'InAbao,
situéesurle Béli,avait une largeur maximale d'environ200 à250mètreset
une longueur d'environ 2kilomètres ;iln'yavaitpasde puisards etlamare

s'asséchaiten décembre-janvier.On notera à cet égardque lors de la visite
sur les lieuxqu'effectuait la commission technique mixteen avril 1972,il a
été constaté que la mare était à sec. L'inventaire des points d'eau susvisé
n'indiquepas l'orientation de la mare, mais une carte au 1/200 000établie
en 1953par la direction fédérale des minesed te la géologiemontre qu'elle
fait partie du marigot du Bélidont le cours va d'ouest en est. Sur lacarte
Blondella Rougeryde 1925,la mare revêtait laforme d'untriangle debase
est-ouest et la lignefrontiérefiguréesur cette carte semblait effleurer son
sommet, situé au nord. 11a étéavancéque la carte de 1925 aurait été
confirmée en celapar le croquis annexéau rapport établipar le chef de
la subdivision d'Ansongoen 1940sur les ((Patrouilles d'In Abao )(para-
graphe 155 ci-dessus) ; or, comme le croquis est une copie de la carte,

ainsi qu'il adéjàétéindiqué,il ne peut constituer une preuve indépen-
dante.
160. Les coordonnées de la mare localiséepar la sous-commission
technique de la commission technique mixte en avril 1972 étaient, on
s'ensouviendra, 0" 20'40" ouest et 14"59'27" nord. La ligne en croisil-
lons discontinus qui est indiquéesurla carte IGN de 1960épouseplus ou
moins la forme d'unangle droit pour effleurer lecours du Bélien un point
dont les coordonnéesapproximatives sont 0" 24' ouest et 15" 00' nord.
Sur cette carte, la mare de Tin Kacham, que la sous-commission tech-
nique avait située à l'est de la mare d'In Abao, est représentée comme
s'étendant surplus de 2 kilomètres, entre approximativement 0" 17'et

0" 19'ouest. La carte au 1/200 000 de la direction fédérale desmines
et de la géologie(1953) figure In Abao au point de coordonnées 0" 28'
ouest et 15"02'nord et Tin Kacham au point de coordonnées0" 23'ouest
et 15"00' nord ;sur cette carte, trois lignes en pointillé,qui paraissent
représenter des limites administratives,se rencontrentjuste au nord d'In
Abao. Enfin une carte intitulée (Hydrologie du Nord-Dori (Haute-
Volta), servicede l'hydrologiede I'AOF )>et datéede 1954figure In Abao
au point de coordonnées 0" 25' ouest et 15"02' nord, et In Kacham au
point de coordonnées 0" 18'ouest et 15"00' nord ; cette carte indique
une ligne de <<frontière de territoire)> qui coupe le marigot du Béli à
In Kacham.
161. Il est évidentque la Chambre ne dispose pas des moyens néces-the conjunction in 1925of the boundaries of three administrativedistricts,
i.e., the Sudanese cerclesof Gao and Hombon and the Voltan cercleof
Dori. The sketch-map No. 5 below shows the contradiction between the

various maps in regard to the position and area of the pool and the precise
location of the above-mentioned boundaries in relation to the pool.

159. According to a document dating from 1954,originating from the
Hydrological Serviceof French West Africa, which gives a list of water-
points in northern Dori (Upper Volta), the pool of In Abao, located on the
Béli,had a maximum width of about 200 to 250 metres and a length of
approximately 2 kilometres. There were no draining wells and the pool
dried up in Decernber-January. During a visit to the area by the members
of the Mixed Technical Commission in April 1972,the pool was found to
have dried up. The list of waterpoints does not give the orientation of the
pool, but a 1:200,000rnap compiled in 1953by the Direction fédéraledes
mines et de la géologieshowsthat it forms part of the Bélimarigot, which
runs from Westto ea:st.On the 1925Blondella Rougery map, the pool took
the form of a triangle with its base running from east to West,and the
frontier line shown on that rnap seems to touch the northern apex of that
triangle. It has beenisuggested that this data on the 1925rnap might be
confirmed by the sketch-map annexed to the report compiled by the head
of the Ansongo subdivisi ino1940on the "Patrols of In Abao" (para-
graph 155 above). However, since the sketch-map was copied from the
1925 map, as alrea~dyexplained, it cannot constitute independent evi-
dence.

160. The CO-ordinates of the pool located by the Technical Sub-
Commission in April 1972 were, as already seen : 0" 20'40" W and
14" 59' 27"N.Thebroken lineof smallcrossesappearing on the IGN 1960
rnap forms approxiinately a right angle, touching the watercourse of the
Béliat a point with the approximate CO-ordinates0" 24'W and 15"00'N.
On this map the pool of Tin Kacham, which theTechnical Subcommission
found to lie to the t:ast of the pool of In Abao, is shown extending over
more than 2 kilomei:res,between approximately 0' 17'and 0" 19'W.The
1:200,000rnap of the Direction fédérale des mines et de la géologie(1953)
shows In Abaoat the point with the CO-ordinates 0" 28'W and 15"02'N
and Tin Kacham at the point with the CO-ordinates 0" 23' W and
15"00'N ; three dotted lines apparently depicting administrative boun-
daries meetjust north of In Abao. Lastly, a rnap entitled "Hydrology of
northern Dori (Upper Volta), Hydrological Service of French West
Africa", dated 1954 gives the following details :In Abao 0"25' W and
15" 02' N, In Kacham 0" 18'W and 15"00' N, and a "territorial boun-
dary" line intersecting the marigot of the Béliat In Kacham.

161. It is clear that the Chamber does not possess the necessary infor-LOCALISATI OELA MARED'INABAO POSITIOONF THE POOL INABAO
SELON LES DIVERSES CARTES ACCORDING TO THE VARIOUS MAPS FRONTIER DISPUT(JUDGMENT)

Carte BLONDELA ROUGERY

BLONDEL LAROUGERY Map 119251

@) Carte de la direction fédérale desmines et de la géologie

Map of the Federal Department of Mines and Geology

Carte du service hydrologique de l'Afrique (occidentale) française
O
Hydrological Service of French Wes1-1frica

@ Carte géologiquede reconnaissance de la Haute-Volta
Feuilles ND-30-SE et ND-30-NE Ouagadougou

Geological Reconnaissance Map of Upper Volta
Sheets ND-30-SE and ND-30-NE Ouagadougou

Carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 1/200 000
O Feuilles ND-30-XVIIIri et ND-30-XXIV In TiIlit 1
Emplacement IN ABAOfigurécomme (Sable humide et allu))ons

Map of West Africa on a scale of 1:200000
Sheets ND-30-XVIII Dori ND-30-XXIV in T-1lit
Site of INABAOindicated as 'Wet sand and alluvial deposits'

@ Carte de l'Afrique de l'Ouest au 11500O00
Feuille ND-30-NE Hombori
KACHAM >apparaît ici au lieu #IN ABAOet est fi<(Sables humides

Map of French West Africa on a scale of 119611
Sheet ND-30-NE Hombori
Note 'KACHAMap'pears at the site of INABAOindicated as 'Wet sands' saires pour déterminerles coordonnéesgéographiques précisesde l'em-

placement de la mare d'In Abao. Mais dans la mesure où le problème
résidedansla confusion qui pourrait exister entre la mare d'In Abao et la
mare d'In Kacham, la Chambre peut et doit contribuer à le résoudre.La
forme triangulaire que revêtla mare d'In Abao sur la carte Blondel la
Rougery de 1925paraît résulterdu fait que cettemare sesitue au confluent
de deux marigots, celuidu Béli,dont lecours va d'ouesten est, et un autre
marigot, dont lecoursvadu nord au sudetqui,sur lacarte de 1925,porte le
toponyme (((Djodel) )>Surla carte de la direction fédéraldes mineset de
la géologie,plusieurscours d'eau ou marigots (In Avaroua, In Titoumane
et In Koliba) convergent versla mare qui yporte lenom d'In Abao. Surla

carte de I'IGN au 1/200 000 de 1960,la ligne en croisillons discontinus
touche leBéliau confluent decelui-cietdesmarigots de coursnord-sud (In
Abalou et In Habakar). En conséquence, quelsque soient les toponymes
actuels, il semble à la Chambre qu'aux fins de la détermination de la
frontière la mare d'In Abao est celle qui se situe au confluent des deux
marigots.
162. La Chambre ne pense pas pouvoir conclure de la seule utilisation,
dans la lettre 191CM2, de l'expression <(la pointe nord de la mare d'In
Abao que le tracéde la frontière devrait laisser la mare tout entière au

Burkina Faso. Le texte de l'arrêté du 31décembre1922prouve bien que la
mare d'In Abao se situait sur la limite septentrionale de la Haute-Volta,
mais il ne fait aucune allusion à la((pointe ))de cette mare. Que ce texte,
après s'être référé à la mare, se poursuive par les mots ((à partir de ce
point ))n'implique par ailleurs nullement que la ligne qui y est décritene
touchait laditemare qu'en un seulpoint. La limitedu cerclede Gao passait
par lamared'In Abao etysubissaitun infléchissement assezmarqué enun
<<point ; ce point se situait donc quelque part sur la mare mais rien
n'indique quelétait sonemplacementprécis.La lettre 191CM2 sebornait

en réalitéà interpréterl'arrêté de 1922 à la lumièrede la carte Blondel la
Rougery selon laquelle la mare était de forme triangulaire, ce qui paraît
êtreinexact ou du moins neparaît plus êtrelecas. En dépit desindications
fournies par cette lettre, il semble qu'il y avait une certaine incertitude
quant à l'emplacement du point triple des cercles de Dori, Hombori et
Tombouctou. La carte Blondel la Rougery situe ce point au sommet du
triangle représentant lamared'In ~baor~ais sur une-carteadministrative
et économiquede la colonie du Soudan au 1/4 000 000,datéede1927,les
limites de cercle indiquéesdans la région n'atteignentpas la mare d'In
Abao. En outre, en 1939, le commandant du cercle de Dori a laissé

entendre que ce point triple se trouvait à Dodbango, à quelque 20 kilo-
mètresau nord de la mare d'In Abao.Tenant comptesurtout de la forme
attribuée à la mare sur les cartes techniques de 1953-1954et de son lien
avec la confluence des marigots, la Chambre considère que, en l'absence
d'indications plus préciseset plus fiables sur la relation entre la ligne
frontièreetlamared'In Abao, elledoit conclure que lafrontièretraverse la
mare de façon à la diviser entre les deux Parties.
163. Cette incertitude quant àla forme et à l'emplacement de la mare FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 640

mation to determine the exact geographcal CO-ordinatesof the pool of In
Abao. But in so far as the problem is caused by the possible confusion
between the pool of In Abao and the pool of In Kacham, the Chamber can
and must assistin resolvingit. The triangular shape of the pool of In Abao
on the 1925Blondel la Rougery rnap seemsto derive from the fact that it
liesat thejunction of twomarigots ; the Bélimarigot, runningfrom Westto
east, and another running from north to south which, on the 1925map,
bears thename "(Djodel)". On the rnapof theDirection fédéraledesmines
et de la géologie,several watercourses or marigots (In Avaroua, In Titou-
mane and In Koliba) converge at the pool whch bears the name In Abao
on this map. On the IGN 1:200,000rnap of 1960,the broken line of small
crosses touches the Béliwhere the latter joins the north-south marigots
(In Abalou, In Habakar). Consequently, whatever the current names may
be, it appears to the Chamber that for the purpose of determining the
frontier, the pool of In Abao is the one lying at thejunction of the two
marigots.

162. The Chamber does not think that the conclusion can be drawn
from the use of the expression "the northern point of the pool of In Abao"
in the letter 191CM2 of 1935that thefrontier should leave the wholepool
to Burkina Faso. While the text of the Order of 31December 1922makes
clear that the pool of In Abao was located on the northern boundary of
Upper Volta, itmade no reference to the "point" of the pool. That Order,
after referring to the pool, continues with thewords "from that point", but
this does not mean that the line only touched the pool at one point. The
boundary of the cercleof Gao passed the pool of In Abao, and there bent
sharply to forin a "point" ;consequently, that point was located some-
where on the pool, although there is no indication of its precise location.
The letter 191CM2 did no more than interpret the 1922Order in the light
of the Blondella Rougery map, which showsthe pool asbeing triangular -
which seemsto be incorrect, orat least to be no longer the case. In spite of
the letter 191CM2,there seems to havebeen some uncertainty with regard
to the tripoint of the cerclesof Dori, Hombori and Timbuktu. The Blondel

la Rougery rnap places this point at the apex of the triangle representing
the pool of In Abao. However, on an administrative and economic rnap of
the colony of Sudan drawn to a scale of 1:4,000,000and dating from 1927
the cercleboundaries shown in the region in question do not run as far as
thepool of In Abao ;and in 1939thecommandand t ecercleof Dori assumed
that this tripoint lay at Dodbango, about 20 kilometres to the north of the
pool of In Abao. Taking account especially of the shape of the pool as it
appears on the technical maps of 1953-1954,and its connection with the
junction of the marigots, the Chamber isof theopinion that,in the absence
of more precise and reliable information concerning the relationship
between the frontier lineand the pool of In Abao, it must conclude that the
boundary runs through the pool in such a way as to divide it between the
two Parties.
163. This uncertainty regarding theshape and position of the pool of Ind'In Abao a égalementdes incidences sur le tracéde la ligne frontière. La
ligne en croisillonsdiscontinusfiguréesur la carte de I'IGN dans la région
d'In Abao effleurele Bélisimplement en un point, dont il n'estpas certain
d'ailleurs qu'il corresponde à l'emplacement de la mare qui marque la

confluence des deux marigots. La Chambre conclut que la frontière doit
suivrela ligneIGN jusqu'au point (point 1,de coordonnéesgéographiques
0" 26' 35"ouest et 15"05' 00"nord) où elles'infléchitversle sud-est pour
atteindrele Béli,et que,plusàl'est, elledoitrejoindrela ligneIGN aupoint
(point L, de coordonnéesgéographiques 0" 14'44''ouest et 15 04' 46"
nord) où celle-ci,aprèsavoir quittéle Bélien directionnord-est,repart en
direction sud-est en tant que limite orographique. Il appartiendra aux
Parties, avec l'aide des experts désignés conformément à l'article IV du
compromis, defixerl'emplacement dela mare d'InAbao et dedéfinirdeux
points(point J et point K) situéssurle mêmeparallèlede latitude, de telle
manièrequ'une ligne droite tracéeentre ces deux points ait pour effet de
diviser l'étenduede la mare en parts égalesentre les Parties. La ligne
frontière dans cette région sera ainsi composéede trois lignes droites
reliant successivementlespoints 1-J,J-K et K-L. La ligneentre lespoints 1
et L, indiquée sur la carte annexée au présentarrêt à titre purement
illustratif (voir paragraphe 175 ci-après), se fonde sur l'hypothèse que

le centre de la mare d'In Abao se situe au point de coordonnéesgéogra-
phiques 0" 23'35" ouest et 15"00' 15" nord et que la ligne de division
s'étendsur 1 kilomètre de chaque côté, à l'ouest età l'est de ce point.

164. Pour toute la région duBéli,qui constitue le secteur oriental de la
zone contestée,le Mali, rejetant la lettre 191CM2 de 1935,a plaidéen
faveur d'une frontière suivant le cours du marigot. Les deux Parties ont
longuement discutédu choixqui s'offrait à lapuissance coloniale entre une
frontiére hydrographique (suivant le Béli)et une frontière orographique
(suivantla lignede faîte desélévationqui sedressent au nord du marigot).
Quelle qu'ait pu êtrela politique généralede l'administration coloniale
dans ce domaine, la lettre 191CM2 constitue, de i'avisde la Chambre, la
preuve que c'est la limite orographique qui a été adoptée enl'espèce.Il

s'agit maintenant de fixer,à la lumièrede toutes les cartes et documents
disponibles, le tracéprécisde la ligne décritedans la lettre de 1935,tracé
dont la carte Blondel la Rougery de 1925,vu sesinsuffisancestechniques,
ne pouvait donner qu'une indication approximative. La mare d'In Abao,
dont la situation par rapport à la frontière vient d'êtreindiquée par la
Chambre, est figurée à la fois sur la ligne quecomporte la carte Blondel la
Rougery et sur celle qui est indiquéepar des croisillons discontinussur la
carte IGN de 1960.Commela Chambre l'adéjànoté,cettedernièrecartea
reçu l'approbation des deux Partiespour cequi est de la représentationde
la topographie, maisleMalin'accepte pas lavaliditéde lalimite frontalière
indiquéesur cettecarte par une ligne en croisillons. Or,pour cequi est du FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 641

Abao also affects the course of the frontier line. The broken line of small
crossesshownon the IGN rnapin the region of In Abao touches the Béliat
only one point, and it is not certain that this point corresponds to the
position of the pool indicating the junction of the two marigots. The
Chamber concludes that thefrontiermust followthe IGN line asfaras the
point (point 1, with the geographical CO-ordinates0" 26'35" W and

15" 05'00" N) where it turns south-east tojoin the Béli;and that further
east it must rejoin the IGN line at point L (with the geographical co-
ordinates 0" 14'44" Wand 15"04'46" N) where the line,after leavingthe
Bélito head north-eastward, again turns south-east to form an orographic
boundary. It will be for the Parties, with the assistance of the experts
appointed pursuant to Article IV of the Special Agreement, to fix the
position of the pool of In Abao and todefine twopoints (point J and point
K) lying on the same parallel of latitude, such that a straight line drawn
between these two points will divide the expanse of the pool in equal
proportions between the Parties. The frontier line in this region will
thereforeconsist of three straightineslinking,intum, points 1and J,J and
K, and K and L. The line between points 1 and L shown on the rnap
annexed, purely for illustrative purposes, to this Judgment (see para-
graph 175below) is based on the assumption that the centre of the pool
of In Abao is situated at the point with the geographical CO-ordinates
0" 23' 35"W and 15"00' 15" N, and that the dividing line extends for
1kilometre on either side, to the Westand east of this point.

164. For the whole region of the Béli,which formsthe eastem sector of
the disputed area, Mali, which has rejected the letter 191CM2 of 1935,

argues in favour of a frontierrunning along the marigot. The two Parties
havedebated at length the choicewhich wasopen to thecolonial power, as
between a hydrographic frontier (along the Béli)and an orographic fron-
tier (along the crest line of the elevations to the north of the marigot).
Whatever may have been the general policyof the colonial administration
in such matters, the Chamber considers that the letter 191CM2 servesto
provethat theorographicboundary wasadopted in thisinstance.What has
now to be defined, in the light ofl1the available maps and documents, is
the exact course of the line described in the 1935letter, and of whch the
1925Blondel la Rougery rnap could give no more than an approximate
indication, in viewof its technical deficiencies.The pool of In Abao, the
location of which the Chamber has now indicated in relation to the fron-
tier, is shownboth on the boundary givenon the Blondella Rougery rnap
and on the boundary indicated by a broken series of crosses on the
1960IGN map. As the Chamber has observed, the topographical repre-
sentation afforded by that rnap enjoys the approval of both Parties, but
Mali doesnot accept the validity of thefrontier line shownon that rnapby
a line of crosses.As for the eastern sector of the disputed area, the brokensecteur oriental de la zone contestée,la ligne en croisillons discontinus
tracéesur la carte de I'IGN semble êtreune adaptation topographique,
établieavec plus de précisionen 1958-1959,de la limite indiquée surla
carte Blondella Rougery de 1925,et reprise par la lettre 191CM2 de 1935.
LeMali reconnaît que la ligneIGN ((apparaît assezsemblable à cellede la

carte de 1925avec la différencequ'à la ligne courbe se substitue la ligne
brisée )).La Chambre ne voit pas de raison de s'écarterde la ligne en
croisillons discontinus qui lui semble représenter fidèlement la limite
décritepar la lettre 191 CM2, sauf en ce qui concerne la partie la plus
orientale de laligne, àpropos delaquellesepose leproblèmede lasituation
du mont N'Gouma.

165. Pource qui est du dernier segmentdelaligne,leproblèmeessentiel
que la Chambre doit résoudreest donc celui de l'emplacement des ((hau-
teurs deN'Gouma 1)mentionnéesdans l'erratum àl'arrêtéde 1927 <fixant
les limites des colonies de la Haute-Volta et du Niger 1).La Chambre a

exposé ci-dessus(paragraphe 72) les critiques dont ce texte a fait l'objet
de lapart du Mali. Elle a conclu qu'ilne convenaitpas d'écarterd'emblée
ledit texte au motif que l'arrêté aurait étéviciépar une erreur de fait,
précisantqu'ilfallait en apprécier lavaleur probante aux fins de la déter-
mination de I'emplacement du point terminal de la frontière. Pour le
Mali, le gué de Kabia étaiten 1927un point frontière entre le Niger et
laHaute-Volta, maislafrontièreentre leSoudanfrançaisetlaHaute-Volta

passait aussi au guéde Kabia, de sorte que c'est Kabia, et non le mont
N'Gouma, qui serait le véritablepoint triple entre le Niger, le Burkina
Faso et le Mali.
166. En 1927, la carte à laquelle on se référaitsurtout était la carte
Blondel la Rougery de 1925,qui, selon toute probabilité, avaitété dressée
surlabasedesindicationsfournies parla cartede la missiondeGironcourt

de 1908-1909.Ces deux cartes situent de façon trèsclaire le guéde Kabia
surle Béliet indiquent, aunord de celui-ci,des élévations portant le topo-
nyme <(Mont Ngouma )).L'expression <(hauteurs de Ngouma ))qu'allait
utiliser l'erratumà l'arrêtéde 1927figuresurune cartede 1908,la carte du
territoire militaire du Niger établiepar le lieutenant Petitperrin, laquelle
ne mentionne pas le gué de Kabia. Sur cette carte, à l'ouest des Hau-
teurs de N'Gouma O, lemot <N'Gouma ))estplacé à côtéde cequi semble

êtreune mare ; entre ces deux toponymes figure celui de ((Mont Kabir o.
Ce n'est que sur un croquiscartographique établi par des administrateurs
en 1954et sur la carte IGN de 1960(voir paragraphe 172ci-après)que le
toponyme <Ngouma ))indique une élévationau sud-est du guéde Kabia.
Selon le Mali, cette dernière carte constitue la seule représentationexacte
de la réalité.
167. L'objetdel'arrêté de 1927étaitdefixerleslimitesentre lescolonies

de la Haute-Volta et du Niger. Dans la région considéréa eux fins de la
présente affaire,les circonscriptionsadministratives concernéesétaientle FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 642

line of small crosses whch is drawn on the IGN rnap seems to be a
topographical adaptation of the boundary shown on the 1925Blondel la
Rougery map, and repeated in the letter 191CM2 of 1935,defined with
increasedprecision in 1958-1959.Mali recognizesthat the IGN line"seems
to be fairly similar to that on the 1925 map, with the difference that a
broken line is substituted for an unbroken one". The Chamber sees no
reason to depart from thebroken lineof smallcrosses, which appears to be

a faithful representation of theboundary descnbed by the letter 191CM2,
except with regard to the eastemmost part of the line where the problem
arises of the position of mount N'Gouma.

165. With regard to the final segment of the line, the essential question
for the Chamber is therefore the position of the "heights of N'Gouma"
mentioned in the erratum to the 1927 Order "fixing the boundaries of the
colonies of Upper Volta and Niger". The Chamber has explained above
(paragraph 72) Mali's criticisms of this text. It concluded that that text
could not be set aside in limine, on the ground that the Order was inva-
lidated by a factual erro;its valueasevidence had to be weighedin order
to determine the position of the end-point of the frontier. Mali considers
that theKabiaford was,in 1927,afrontierpoint betweenNiger and Upper
Volta, but that theboundary between French Sudan and Upper Volta also
ran through the Kabia ford, so that Kabia rather than mount N'Gouma
would be the real tnpoint between Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali.

166. In 1927,the rnap chiefly available for reference purposes was the

1925 Blondel la Rougery rnap which, in al1probability, was based on
information given in the rnap of the 1908-1909Gironcourt expedition.
These two maps distinctly located the Kabia ford on the Béliand showed
high ground to the north of the Bélibearing the name "Mount Ngouma".
The expression 'hauteursde Ngouma"which was to be employed in the
erratum to the 1927 Order, appears on a rnap of 1908, the rnap of the
military territory of Niger compiled by Lieutenant Petitperrin, whch does
not indicate the Kabia ford. On that map, to the Westof the "hauteursde
N'Gouma", the word "N'Gouma" appears beside what seems tobe a pool,
and a "mount Kabir" is shown between the two names. Only on a sketch-
rnap compiled by administrators in 1954,and on the 1960IGN rnap (cf.
paragraph 172below) does the name "Ngouma" indicate an elevation to
the southeast of the Kabia ford. This latter map, according to Mali,
presents the only accurate picture of the situation.

167. The purpose of the 1927Order was to fix the boundaries between
the colonies of Upper Volta and Niger. In the region in question in the
present case,theadministrativedistricts concerned were the cercleof Don,cerclede Dori, du côtévoltaïque, et lecerclede Tillabéry,du côténigérien.
Le point de départde la limite entre ces deux cercles se situait en même
tempssurlalimite lesséparantl'un etl'autredu cerclesoudanais de Gao au

nord. Le 27 août 1927,le commandant du cercle de Dori a adresséau
gouverneur de la Haute-Volta un rapport de tournéeainsi qu'un projet de
délimitation élaboré de concert et d'accord avec le commandant du
cerclede Tillabéryo.L'arrêté fixanlteslimitesentre lesdeuxcolonies a été
adopté à Dakar quatrejours plus tard, le 31août 1927,et les deux Parties
conviennent que, vu les moyens de communication de l'époque,il est
impossible que le rapport et le projet du commandant du cercle de Dori
aient pu êtrepris enconsidération lorsde la rédactionde l'arrêtéD . ans ces
conditions, la symétrieentre letexte proposépar lecommandantde cercle
etceluiadoptépar legouverneur général laisse supposer quelesdeux textes
avaient pour origine un avant-projet unique qui n'a pas étéretrouvé.

168. Leprojet de délimitationentre lesdeux cerclesconcernés,contenu
dans la lettre du 27 août 1927.commence en ces termes :

((Le[s]cercle[s]de Dori et Tillabéryserontdorénavantlimités ainsi
que suit :
Au rd par la limite actuelle avec le Soudan (cercle de Gao)

.iw cila hauteur de la montagne N'Gouma, puis à l'ouest par une
ligne partant du guéde Kabia et sedirigeant au sud vers la route de
Yatakala-Falagountou ...))

L'arrêté pris le 31août 1927par le gouverneur généralde l'Afrique occi-
dentale française débute par les mots suivants :

(<Les limites des colonies du Niger et de la Haute-Volta sont
déterminées désormais comme suit :

1. Limites entre le cercle de Tillabéry et la Haute-Volta ;
Cette limite est déterminéeau nord par la limite actuelle avec le
Soudan (cerclede Gao)jusqu'à la hauteur de N'Gourma à l'ouestpar
une ligne passant au guéde Kabia, mont de Darouskoy ...

Le 5 octobre 1927,un erratum à l'arrêtéa été adoptéL . e Mali pense que
c'estl'arrivéeà Dakar de la lettre du commandant du cerclede Dori qui l'a
suscité,mais letexte de l'erratum s'écartantdavantage de celui de la lettre
du 27 août 1927que de celui de l'arrêté lui-même,cette éventualiténe
paraît guère vraisemblable. L'erratum se lit comme suit :

<Les limites des colonies du Niger et de la Haute-Volta sont
déterminées comme suit :

Une ligne partant des hauteurs de N'Gourma, passant au guéde
Kabia (point astronomique) au mont d'Arounskaye ...on the Voltan side, and the cercleof Tillabéryin Niger. The starting-point
of the boundary between these two cercles also lay on the boundary
between the SudanesecercleofGao tothe north and the twocerclesalready
mentioned. On 27 August 1927,the commandantde cercleof Dori sent the
Governor of Upper Volta an inspection tour report together with a draft

delimitation prepared "in consultation and in agreement with the com-
mandantde cercle of Tillabéry".The Order fixing theboundaries between
the two colonies was issued in Dakar four days later, on 31 August 1927,
and the two Parties agree that, in view of the means of communication
available at the time, the report and the draft from the commandant de
cercle of Dori cannot possibly have been taken into account when the
Order was issued. This being so, the similaritiesbetween the text proposed
by the commandantdecercleand theone adopted by the Governor-General
suggest that both texts were derived from a single original preliminary
draft which has not been brought to light.
168. The projected delimitation between cerclesproposed in theletter of
27 August 1927,begins as follows :

"The cerclesof Dori and Tillabérywillhencefonvard bebounded as
follows :

To the north by the existingboundary with Sudan (cercleof Gao)as
far as the elevation [à la hauteur]of the mountain of N'Gouma, and
then to the Westby a line starting at the Kabia ford and heading
southwards towards the Yatakala-Falagountou road ..."

The Order issued on 31August 1927by the Governor-General of French
West Africa begins with the following words :

"The boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are
henceforth determined as follows :
1. Boundaries between the cercleof Tillabéryand Upper Volta ;

Thisboundary is determined to the north by the existing boundary
with Sudan (cercle of Gao) as far as the height of N'Gourma, and
to the Westby a line passing through theKabia ford, mount Darous-
koy ..."

On 5 October 1927an erratum to the Order was adopted. Mali considers
that this was prompted by the arriva1 in Dakar of the letter from the
commandantde cercleof Dori, but, since the text of the erratum departs
further fromthat of theletter of 27August 1927than does that of the Order
itself, this seems improbable. The erratum reads as follows :

"The boundaries of the colonies of Niger and Upper Volta are
determined as follows :

A line starting at the heights of N'Gourma, passing through the
Kabia ford (astronomic point), mount Arounskaye .. ." 169. Comme le montrent les cartes, la colonie du Soudan français
s'étendaitplus àl'estquelaHaute-Volta, colonievoisineau sud, sibien que
lalimite entre le Soudan et leNiger suivait dans cette régionun tracéd'est
en ouest avant d'atteindre le point triple Niger/Soudan/Haute-Volta.
De là, la limite entre la Haute-Volta et le Niger se dirigeait vers le sud.

Comme on l'a VU, les cartes de l'époquesituaient le mont N'Gouma au
nord du gué deKabia. Les deux seuls élémentsqui, dans les trois textes
précitésp , ourraient donner à penser que lepoint triple se situait au guéde
Kabia sont d'une part les mots <(une ligne partant du guéde Kabia O,
figurant dans la lettre du 27 août 1927, et d'autre part le texte, pris
isolément,de cette lettre, qui implique que leguése trouvait <tàla hauteur
de la montagne N'Gouma. Mais ce texte n'a aucune valeur juridique

intrinsèque :ilnepeut servirqu'à élucider,lecaséchéant,lesensdel'arrêté
et de son erratum. L'arrêtéutilise quant à lui l'expression <(une ligne
passant au guéde Kabia )>,ce qui laisse supposer que la ligne avait son
origine plus au nord, (<à la hauteur de N'Gourma >).L'erratum, enfin,
indique clairement que la ligne partait <des hauteurs de N'Gourma et
passait au guéde Kabia.

170. Lorsque lecomitétechnique de cartographesconstituépar la sous-

commissionjuridique de laCommission de médiationdel'organisation de
l'unité africaines'est penchésur le problème, en avril 1975,l'argument
ci-aprèsa retenu en particulier son attention : si l'on prend pour point de
départ, comme le Mali le suggère, l'hypothèsed'après laquelle le mont
N'Gouma se situait à l'est du guéde Kabia, toute limite qui partirait du
mont N'Gouma et passerait par leguépour sedirigerensuite vers lemont
Darouskoy (Arounskaye) subirait un infléchissementmarqué(de l'ordre

de 90 degrés) à l'endroit du gué,étantdonné que le mont Darouskoy se
situe au sud du gué.Or le texte de l'arrêté du 31 août 1927constate que la
limite, aux environs de Tong-Tong, <(s'infléchitensuite vers le sud-est )),
infléchissementqui s'avèrebeaucoup moins brusque (155degrésapproxi-
mativement) que l'infléchissementhypothétique au guéde Kabia (voir
ci-aprèscroquisno6).On ne peut dèslorsguère concevoirque lerédacteur
de l'arrêté ait passésous silence le fait que le guéde Kabia marquait un
point d'infléchissement aussiimportant, si telavait bien été lecas.On peut

ajouter que, siN'Gouma s'étaitsitué à l'estde Kabia, la lignedécritepar la
lettre 191CM2 serait passéepar Kabia, entre lemont N'Gouma etlemont
Trontikato. Il n'ya rien d'étonnant àceque la lettre n'aitpas mentionnéle
gué,vuque son texteétait basé surlacarte Blondella Rougery. Mais on se
rappellera que le projet de description de la limite entre les colonies du
Niger et du Soudan français contenu dans la lettre 191CM2 de 1935avait
étésoumis aux commandants des cercles intéressés,y compris celui du
cercle de Gao, cercle dont la limite méridionaledevait passer par le mont

N'Gourna ou le guéde Kabia. Or le commandant de ce cercle a répondu
par un télégramme-lettredu 14 avril 1935,dans lequel il fait état d'une
différenceentre un texte et <la carte au 1/500 000 dresséepar le service
géographiquede l'arméede l'Afrique occidentale française )),dans une 169. Asthemaps show,the colony of French Sudan extended further to
theeast than Upper Volta, theneighbouring colony to the south, sothat the
boundary between Sudan and Niger in that region followed an east-west
course before reaching the tripoint between Niger, Sudan and Upper
Volta. From that point, the boundary between Upper Volta and Niger ran

in asoutherly direction. As has been seen,on the maps of the period mount
N'Gourna was shownto thenorth of theKabiaford.The only twofactors,
in the three definitions quoted above, which might give cause to believe
that the tripoint was situated at the Kabia ford are, first,the expression "a
line starting at the Kabia ford" which appears in the letter of 27 August
1927,and secondly, the text of this letter read in isolation, which implies
that the ford was located "à la hauteur de" mount N'Gourna [Le.,"at the
elevation of" or "at the geographical level of"].However, this letter has no
intrinsic legalvalue ;itcan serveonlyto elucidatethemeaning of the Order
and its erratum. As for the Order, it uses the expression "a line passing
through the Kabia ford" which infers that the lineoriginated further to the
north, at "lahauteurde N'Gourma".Finally, the erratum clearly indicates
that the line beganat "the heights of N'Gourma" and passed through the
Kabia ford.
170. When the technical committee of cartographersappointed by the

Legal Sub-Commission of the Organization of African Unity Mediation
Commission examined the problem in April 1975,it found the following
argument particularly important : if, as Mali suggests,one startsfrom the
hypothesis that mount N'Gourna was to the east of the Kabia ford, any
boundary which started from mount N'Gouma, passed through the ford,
and then ran in the direction of mount Darouskoy (Arounskaye) would
turn sharply - through something like 90 degrees - at the ford, since
mount Darouskoy lies south of the ford.The text of the Order of 31 Au-
gust 1927states that the boundary "then tums to the south-east" in the
neighbourhood of Tong-Tong, a turn which is much less sharp (approxi-
mately 155degrees) than the supposed turn at the Kabiaford (see sketch-
map No. 6 below). It is therefore difficult to see how the draftsman of the
Order could have failed to mention that the Kabiaford was the position of
such amarked turn, ifthat had reallybeen thecase. It maybe addedthat, if
N'Gouma lay to the east of Kabia, the line described in the letter 191CM2

would have passed through Kabia, between mount N'Gourna and mount
Trontikato. It is hardly surprising that the letter did not mention the ford,
given that its text was based on the Blondel la Rougery map. But it willbe
recalled that the draft description of theboundary between the colonies of
Niger and French Sudan set out in letter 191 CM2 of 1935 had been
submitted to the commandants of the cercles concerned, including the
commandantof the cercleof Gao, the southem boundary of which was to
run through mount N'Gourna or the Kabia ford. This commandantde
cercle replied in a letter-telegram of 14 April 1935, commenting on a
disparity between a text and "the 1:500,000map compiled by the Army
Geographical Service of French West Africa" in a region not relevant to
the present case. The commandantdid not remark upon the reference to TINKACHIN

TINAKOF L

. TANCOUN

CERCLE DE

DORl FRONTIERDISPUTE (JUDGMENT)

+-+-+-+-+-+-
TIN KACHAN
8
TINAKOF C-
. TANGOUN "

/

I \

i
i
i

irégionqui n'intéressepas la présente affaire. Le commandant n'a pas
formuléd'observations sur la référencefaite par la lettre 191 CM2 au
mont N'Gouma, et il n'a à aucun moment suggéré qu'une référence soit
faite au guéde Kabia, qui était pourtant un élémenttopographique im-
portant.
171. Le Mali a soumis a la Chambreune carte au 1 / 1000000intitulée
Afriqueoccidentalefrançaise, nouvelle frontièrede la Haute-Volta et du

Niger (Suivant erratum du 5 octobre 1927a l'arrêté en date du 31 août
1927) ))Cette carte, dont ila déjàétéquestion,indiquetrèsclairementune
ligne frontière entre les deux colonies de direction générale ouest-est,qui
passe au nord du guéde Kabia ; le toponyme ((Hauteur de Ngouma est
inscrit sur cette ligne, également au norddu gué.La carte figure une autre
lignefrontière,de directionsud-nord, qui passe par leguépour rencontrer
la première ligneau nord de celui-ci, au point marqué par le toponyme
((Hauteur de Ngouma )).La carte considérée estdonc formelle ; si elle
s'avéraitreprésenter,de façon autorisée, l'intentionde l'auteur de I'erra-

tum, la conclusion qu'ily aurait lieu de tirer quant al'interprétationde ce
texte nepourrait faire de doute.Or le Mali relèveque cette carte ne donne
aucun renseignement sur l'organisme officiel quil'aurait établie ouI'au-
torité administrative qui en aurait approuvé le tracé ; il attire en outre
l'attention sur le fait qu'en 1975 le bureau des frontières de l'Institut
géographiquenational français a déclaréque : ((A [sa] connaissance, il
n'exist[ait] pas de carte spécifiqueayant interprété l'arrêtg éénéraldu
31 août 1927et son erratum du 5 octobre 1927. La Chambre n'attribue
pas à la carte soumise par le Mali l'autoritéd'un document explicatif de
l'arrêté edte son erratum - document qui aurait étéémis avec levisa des

autoritéscoloniales - mais elleconsidèrequecette carte n'enconstitue pas
moins un élémentde preuve non négligeable.En effet, mêmes'ilne peut
êtreétabliqueladitecarte avait été éditée par l'administration coloniale, il
reste que l'auteur de cette carte avait acquis - après avoir lu les textes
réglementaireset éventuellementconsultéles cartes qui lui étaientacces-
sibles - une compréhension très claire de l'intention sous-jacente aux
textes, ce qui lui avait permis de traduire ensuite lui-mêmecette intention
sur une carte. Cela ne signifie pas forcémentque l'interprétationde I'er-
ratum donnée par cette carte était la bonne mais cela peut au moins
confirmer que les difficultésd'interprétation que le Mali croit apercevoir

dans le texte de l'arrêté n'existaient pas a l'époqueet seraient néesde
l'examen de certaines cartes publiéesultérieurement.

172. Jusqu'ici tout concourt à conforter l'impression, tiréedes cartes,
quelamontagneN'Gouma ou leshauteursde N'Gouma sesituent aunord
du guéde Kabia. Cependant un croquis cartographique du cercle de
Tillabéry,datant de 1954,figure la limite du territoire du Niger par une
ligneencroisillons est-ouest qui coupe leBéliau guédeKabia et s'infléchit
verslesud ;quiplus est,letoponyme ((Mts.N'Gouma estattribué, surce

croquis, à des élévations situéeà s l'est et légèrement au suddu gué. Le FRONTIER DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 646

mount N'Gouma in letter 191 CM2 ;and nowhere did he suggest the
inclusion of a reference to the Kabia ford,despite this being a significant
topographical feature.

171. Mali has submitted to the Chamber a rnap on the scale 1:1,000,000
entitled 'iifrique occidentalefrançaise,nouvellefrontièrede la Haute-Volta
et duNiger (Suivanterratumdu 5 octobre1927 à I'arrêteéndate du31 août
1927)"["French WestAfrica, newfrontier between Upper Volta and Niger
(according to the erratum of 5October 1927to the Order dated 31August
1927)"l.This map, already mentioned above, distinctly shows a frontier
line between the two colonies running in a general west-east direction and
passing to the north of the Kabia ford. The name "Hauteur de Ngouma"
["Height of Ngouma"] is marked on this line, also to the north of the
ford. The rnap shows another frontier line, mnning from south to north,
which passes through the ford tojoin the firstline to the north of it, at the
point marked with the name "Hauteur de Ngouma". This rnap is thus
absolutely positive and, if it were found to constitute an authoritative
representation of theintention of the author of theerratum, therecould be
no doubt what conclusion should be drawn as to theinterpretation of this
text. However, Mali points out that this rnap contains no information
as to which officia1body compiled it or which administrative authority
approved the line shown on it, and moreover draws attention to the fact
that in 1975the Bureau des frontièresof theFrench Institut géographique
national stated :"To the best of our knowledge there is no specific rnap

which interpreted the General Order of 31August 1927and its erratum of
5October 1927."The Chamber, whilenot ascribing to this rnap submitted
by Mali the authoritative status of a document explaining the Order and
erratum, i.e., one issued with the colonial administration's stamp of
approval, holds nevertheless that it cannot be overlooked as a piece of
evidence ; for even if it cannot be shown to have been drawn up 'oythat
administration, it remainscertain that the map'scompiler,having perused
the governing texts, and possibly the accessiblemaps, had acquired a very
clear understanding of the intention behind the texts, which enabled him
afterwards to lend that intention cartographic expression. That does not
mean that the rnap necessarily conveys the correct interpretation of the
erratum, but it does at least tend to confirm that the difficulties of inter-
pretation which Mali perceives in the text of the Order did not exist at the
time, having arisen from the perusal of certain maps published subse-
quently.
172. Thus far the sources considered al1 combine to bear out the
impression given by the maps, that mount N'Gouma or the heights of
N'Gouma lienorth of theKabia ford. However, asketch-map of the cercle
of Tillabéry,dating from 1954, shows the boundary of the territory of
Niger as a line of crosses running east-west, intersecting the Béliat the

Kabia ford and then turning south. What is more, on this sketch-map, the
name "Mts. N'Gouma" is assigned to some elevations found to the eastBurkina Faso avance que l'auteur du croquis aurait interverti les monts
N'Gouma etlesmontsGorotondi.Quant àlacarte del'IGN au 1/200 000,
éditéeen 1960,elleattribue letoponyme (Ngouma ))àune élévation qusie
situe au sud-est du guéde Kabia ;la Chambre a déjàindiquédans quelle
mesure les Parties s'accordentà reconnaître le sérieuxdu travail de 1'IGN
(paragraphe 61 ci-dessus). Le Mali s'est pour sa part surtout attaché à
mettre enlumièrelesimperfections delacarte BlondellaRougeryencequi
concerne l'altimétri;ila aussi soulignélecontrastequecettecarte offre à
cetégardaveclacarte IGN de 1960.Maisilressort desconstatations faites

sur le terrain en 1975par le comitétechnique de cartographes qu'ilexiste
bel et bien, au nord du guéde Kabia, des élémentstopographiques sus-
ceptibles d'être dénommés (hauteurs )) de N'Gouma. Les indications
altimétriques figurantsur la carte de I'IGN permettent d'ailleurs de sup-
poser quedeshauteurs enquart decercle,commençant aunord du guéetse
terminant à l'est-sud-est,entourent le guéde Kabia, et que ces hauteurs
constituent un seul ensemble auquel il serait permis d'attribuer le topo-
nyme (<Ngouma ))Il s'agitnon pas d'unproblèmedetopographie maisde
toponymie.

173. De l'avisdelaChambre, ladiscussionqui aopposélesPartiessurla
valeur desindicationsfournies par la carte IGNde 1960est sans intérêatu
regard du problèmeessentiel en l'espèce. Elledoit en effet interpréterun
textequi date de 1927et, àcette finoucefaisant, rechercher quellesétaient
les élévations dénommées <hauteurs de N'Gouma >)à l'époque.Or quel
quesoitledegrédefiabilitédesméthodescartographiquesutiliséesen 1960
et quelle qu'ait puêtrel'étenduedesrecherches menéessur le terrain pour
établir,à ce moment-là, une toponymie exacte, le travail ainsi accompli
n'offrirait un intérêt aux fise l'interprétationde l'arrêté edte l'erratum
de 1927que si l'on avait àcette occasion constatél'existenced'une tradi-

tion orale remontant au moins à 1927,qui aurait contredit lesindications
fournies par lescartes et lesdocuments decetteépoque.Aucunepreuvede
l'existence d'une telle tradition n'a étéapportée. Dès lors laChambre
parvient à la double conclusion que legouverneur générald ,ans l'arrêtde
1927, telque modifiépar l'erratum, et dans la lettre 191CM2 de 1935,a
décritune limite existante qui passait par des hauteurs situéesau nord du
guéde Kabia, et que les administrateurs considéraient, àtort ou àraison,
que ceshauteurs étaientappeléespar lespopulations locales ((hauteursde
N'Gouma >>L.a Chambre n'a donc plus qu'à rechercher,dans l'ensemble

des hauteurs ci-dessus décritesqui entourent le gué, lepoint où la limite
définiepar les textes citésse termine.Au terme d'unexamen minutieuxde
latopographie indiquéepar lacarte de I'IGN, laChambre conclut qu'ilya
lieudefixercepoint à 3kilomètresaunord du gué, à l'endroit défini ar les
coordonnées 0" 14' 39"est et 14"54'48" nord.

174. La Chambre a déjànoté quela ligne en croisillons figurant sur la
carte de I'IGN au 1/200 000 se termine à l'esten un point situétrop haut
vers le nord pour que cette dernière partie de ligne puisse êtrejugée
conformeaux termesde la lettre 19 1 CM2. Il lui reste donà déterminerleand slightly south of theford. Burkina Faso argues that the compiler of the

sketch-map must have reversed the positions of mount N'Gouma and
mounts Gorotondi. As for the 1:200,000IGN rnap published in 1960,it
attaches the name "Ngouma" to an elevation situated southeast of the
Kabia ford - and, as the Chamber has already had occasion to note, the
Parties are in broad agreement on the reliability of the IGN's work (para-
graph 61 above). Mali has particularly sought to expose the shortcomings
of the Blondel la Rougery rnap in altimetry, and has also pointed up
the contrast in that respect between it and the 1960IGN map. But from
observations made on the ground in 1975by the technical committee of
cartographers, it is apparent that there are in fact features to the north of
the Kabia ford which could qualify for the appellation "heights" of
N'Gouma. From the altimetric information appearing on the IGN rnap
around the Kabia ford, it may also be inferred that there are certain
elevations ranged in a quarter-circle between a position north of the ford
and another east-southeast of it, and that they constitute an ensemble
which the name "Ngouma" could reasonably be said to cover. This is a
problem of toponymy rather than topography.
173. In the Chamber's opinion, the controversy between the Parties
over the validity of the indications given by the 1960IGN rnap has little
relevance to the basic point at issue here. TheChamber has to construe a

text dating from 1927and for that purpose, or in the process of doing so,
must seekto ascertain whichelevations werecalled "heights of N'Gouma"
at that time. It follows that, however reliable theartographic techniques
used in 1960,and however thorough the investigations carried out on the
ground with a view to establishing an accurate toponymy for that precise
time, these efforts would only be of value for the purpose of interpreting
the 1927 Order and erratum if they had uncovered an oral tradition dating
back at least to 1927which was at variance with the indications given by
the maps and documents of that earlier period. No evidence has been
furnished of the existenceof any such tradition. The Chamber accordingly
reaches the twofold conclusion that the Governor-General, in the 1927
Order, as modified by the erratum, and hence in letter 191CM2 of 1935,
described an existing boundary which passed through elevations situated
north of the Kabia ford, and that the administrators, rightly or wrongly,
considered that these elevations were called by the local people the
"heights of N'Gouma". The Chamber has simply to ascertain, therefore,
the point where the boundary defined by the texts in question termin-
ates within the above-described ensemble of elevations environing the
ford. After minutely examining the topography shown on the IGN

map, the Chamber finds that this point should be fixed 3 kilometres
north of the ford, at the spot defined by the CO-ordinates0" 14' 39"E and
14" 54'48" N.
174. The Chamber has already noted that the line of crosses shown on
the 1:200,000IGN rnap terminates in the east at a point which is too far
north for this latter section of line tobe deemed compatible with the terms
of letter 191CM2. It therefore remains to determinethepoint at which thepoint où la ligne IGN se séparede celle décritepar cette lettre. Selon le
Burkina Faso, la << frontière actuelle se séparede la ligne IGN au point,
situéau nord d'In Tangoum, où la ligne IGN s'infléchit légèrement versle
nord. La Chambrenote qu'une lignedroite reliant lepoint de la ligne IGN
situéau nord-est d'In Abao (point L, paragraphe 163ci-dessus) au point
terminal de la ligne frontière, identifiéau paragraphe précédent,coïncide
presque exactement avec la ligne en croisillons figurant sur la carte de
I'IGN entre lepoint Let lepoint situéau nord d'In Tangoum. Elleconclut
que cette ligne droite doit constituer lesegment final de la ligne qu'elle est

appelée à tracer.

175. Etant ainsiparvenue au terme de l'examende l'affaire,la Chambre
est en mesure de fixer le tracéde la frontière entre les Parties dans la zone
contestée.Cette frontièreest définie,autant quefaire sepeut, par deslignes
droites reliant des points déterminéspar des coordonnéesgéographiques.
Son tracé estreproduit, à desfins purement illustratives, sur une carte qui

consiste en un assemblage des feuilles pertinentes de la carte de l'Institut
géographiquenational (Paris) au 1 /200 000(feuillesND-30-XVII (Djibo,
éditionde 1970) ;ND-30-XXIV (In Tillit, éditionde 1958) ;ND-31-XIX
(Ansongo, édition de 1959) ;ND-30-XVIII (Dori, édition de 1960) et
ND-3 1-XII1(Tera,éditionde 1961)).Cettecarte d'unseultenant estjointe
en annexe aux exemplaires du présent arrêt revêtusdu sceau de la
Cour '.

176. Aux termes du compromis (art. IV), les Parties se sont accordées
pour procéder, dans l'annéesuivant le prononcé du présent arrêt, à la
démarcation de leur frontière dans la zone contestée ; elles ont en outre

prié laChambrede désignerdans son arrêt troisexpertsquiles assisteront
aux fins de cette opération de démarcation. Les deux Parties, dans les
conclusions finales qu'elles ont lues en audience, ont renouvelé cette
demande. La Chambre estprête à accepterla missionque lesParties luiont
ainsi confiée. Toutefois,eu égardaux circonstances de la présenteespèce,
la Chambre est d'avis qu'il n'y a pas lieu de procéder pour l'instant à la
désignationsollicitéepar les Parties. Elle y procédera plus tard, par voie
d'ordonnance, aprèss'être informéedev suesdes Parties, notamment en ce
qui concerne les aspects pratiques de l'exercicepar les experts de leurs
fonctions.

' On trouvera unexemplaire decettecarte, en format réduit, das pochette pla-
cée a la findu présent fasciculeou du volume C.I.J. Recueil 1986 selon le cas.
[Note du Greffe./IGN line diverges from the line described in that letter. According to
Burkina Faso, the "existing frontier" diverges from the IGN line at the

point north of In Tangoum where the IGN line veers slightly northward.
The Chamber notes that a straight line connectingthe point on the IGN
line which liesnorth-east of In Abao (point L, paragraph 163above) with
the end-point of the frontier line identified in the previous paragraph,
coincides almost exactlywith the line of smallcrosses shown on the IGN
map between point L and the point situated north of In Tangoum. It
concludes that this straight line must constitute the final segment of the
line which it is required to draw.

175. The Chamber, having thus completedits examination of the case,
isnow in a position to fixtheline of thefrontier between the Partiesin the
disputed area. This frontier is defined, as far as possible, in terms of
straight linesconnecting geographic CO-ordinatesof points.Theline of the
frontier has been marked, purely forillustrativepurposes, on a map which
isa compilation of therelevant sheets of the 1:200,000map of the Institut
géographiquenational (Paris)(the sheets ND-30-XVII (Djibo, 1970 edi-
tion) ; ND-30-XXIV (In Tillit, 1958 edition) ;ND-31-XIX (Ansongo,
1959 edition) ; ND-30-XVIII (Dori, 1960 edition) ; and ND-31-XII1
(Tera, 1961edition)). This compilation of sheets intoonemap is annexed
to the sealed copies of this Judgment l.

176. Bythe terms of the SpecialAgreement (Art. IV),theParties agreed
to effect the demarcation of their frontier in the disputed area within one
year of the deliveryof thisJudgment. They also requestedthe Chamber to
nominate, in itsJudgment,threeexpertsto assist them in the demarcation
operation. Both Parties renewed this request in the respective final sub-
missionswhich they read at theend of theoral proceedings. The Chamber
isready to accept the task whch theParties have entrusted to it. However,
having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Chamber is of
theopinionthat it isinappropriate at thisjuncture to make thenomination
requested by the Parties. It will do so later by means of an Order, after
ascertaining the viewsof the Parties, particularly as regards the practical
aspects of the exercise by the experts of their functions.

' A copyof this map,reduced insize,willbe foundin a pocketat the end of this
fascicleor insidethe backcoverofI.C.J. Reports 1986. [Note by the Registv.] 177. Dans son ordonnance déjà mentionnéedu 10janvier 1986, la
Chambre aprécisé quelesmesuresconservatoires yindiquéesl'étaient <(en
attendant son arrêtdéfinitifdans l'instance introduite le 20 octobre 1983
par la notification du compromis ))conclu entre les Parties. Cette ordon-
nance cessedonc de produire seseffetsdèsleprononcédu présent arrêe tt
les mesures conservatoires qu'elle prescrit prennent simultanément fin.
Conformémenta l'article41 du Statut de la Cour, l'indication de mesures
conservatoires avaitimmédiatementété notifiéeau Conseil de sécuritédes
Nations Unies par l'intermédiairedu Secrétairegénéral ; la Chambrenote

que celui-ci recevra égalementcommunication d'une copie du présent
arrêt,conformément à l'article 95 du Règlement de la Cour.

178. La Chambre n'entient pas moins a relever avecsatisfaction que le
communiqué final de la première conférence extraordinaire des chefs
d'Etat et de gouvernement des paysmembres de l'accordde non-agression
et d'assistance en matièrede défense (ANAD), diffusé le18janvier 1986,
fait notamment état de ce que les chefs d'Etat du Burkina Faso et de la
Républiquedu Mali ont accepté de retirer toutes leursforces arméesde
part et d'autre de la zone contestéeetde leur faire regagner leur territoire

respectif ))Par ailleursla Chambreconstateque lesParties, qui ont conclu
un compromis prévoyant le règlementde leur différendpar une chambre
de la Cour,ne sesont pas contentéesde s'engagerde cefait àseconformer
aux décisionsde la Cour en application de l'article94,paragraphe 1,de la
Charte des Nations Unies, mais ont en outre expressémentdéclarédans
ledit compromis qu'elles ((acceptent, comme définitifet obligatoirepour
elles-mêmes,l'arrê dte la Chambre, rendu en application du présentcom-
promis (art.IV, par. 1).Arrivée auterme de sa mission, la Chambre se
plaîtà reconnaîtrel'attachement desdeuxParties à lajustice internationale

et au règlement pacifique des différends.

179. Par ces motifs,

à l'unanimité,

Décide
A. Que le tracéde lafrontièreentre le Burkina Faso et la Républiquedu
Mali dans la zone contestée telle qu'elle est définiedans le compromis
conclu le 16 septembre 1983entre ces deux Etats est le suivant :

1)Partant d'un point de coordonnéesgéographiques1 O 59'01" ouest et
14"24' 40"nord (point A), la ligneprend une direction nord en suivantla
ligneencroisillonsdiscontinus qui figuresurla carte de l'Afriquedel'ouest
au 1/200 000 éditéepar l'Institut géographique national (IGN) français 177. In its above-mentioned Order of 10January 1986,the Chamber
stated that the provisional measures therein set out wereindicated "pend-
ing its final decision in the proceedings instituted on 20 October 1983
by the notification of the Special Agreement" concluded between the
Parties. It follows that such Order ceases to be operative upon the deliv-

ery of the present Judgment, and that the provisional measures lapse at
the same time. In accordance with Article 41 of the Statute of the Court,
notice of the provisional measures indicated was given forthwith to the
Security Council of the United Nations through the Secretary-General ;
the Chamber notes that the Secretary-General will also receive a copy
of the present Judgment, in accordance with Article 95 of the Rules of
Court.
178. The Chamber nevertheless notes with satisfaction that the final
communiquéof the first extraordinary conference of the Heads of State
and Government of themember countries of theAccordde non-agressionet
d'assistanceen matièrede défense(ANAD), issued on 18 January 1986,
reported that theHeads of State of Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali
had agreed "to withdraw al1their armed forces from either side of the
disputed area and to effect their return to their respective territories". The
Chamber also notes that the Parties, having concluded a Special Agree-
ment forthe settlement of their dispute by aChamber of the Court, did not
merely by doing so undertake to comply with the Court's decisionspur-
suantto Article 94,paragraph 1,of theCharter of theUnited Nations, but
also declared expressly in that Special Agreement that they "accept the
Judgment of the Chamber givenpursuant to the SpecialAgreement asfinal

and binding upon them" (Art. IV,para. 1).Having completed its task, the
Chamber is happy to record the adherence of both Parties to the interna-
tional judicial process and to the peaceful settlement of disputes.

179. For these reasons,

Unanimously,
Decides

A. That the frontier line between Burkina Faso and the Republic of
Mali in the disputed area, as defined in the SpecialAgreement concluded
on 16 September 1983between those two States, is as follows :
(1) From a point with the geographical CO-ordinates1" 59'01" W and
14" 24' 40"N (point A), the lineruns in anortherlydirection followingthe
broken line of small crosses appearing on the map of West Africa on the

scale 1:200,000 published by the French Institut géographiquenational (ci-après dénommée <<la ligne IGN O) jusqu'au point de coordonnées
géographiques 1 58'49" ouest et 14" 28' 30"nord (point B).

2) Au point B, la ligne s'infléchit versl'est et coupe la piste reliant
Dionouga et Digue1 à approximativement 7,5 kilomètresde Dionouga en
un point de coordonnéesgéographiques 1" 54' 24"ouest et 14"29' 20"
nord (point C).
3) Du point C, la ligne passe à une distance approximative de 2 kilo-

mètres au sud des villages de Kounia et d'Oukoulourou par le point de
coordonnéesgéographiques 1 "46'38" ouest et 14"28'54" nord (point D)
et le point de coordonnées 1 " 40'40" ouest et 14"30'03'' nord
(point E).
4) Du point E, la ligne continue tout droit jusqu'à un point de coor-
donnéesgéographiques 1 " 19'05" ouestet 14"43'45" nord(point F) situé
à2,6 kilomètres approximativement au sud de la mare de Toussougou.

5)Du point F, lalignecontinuetoutdroit jusqu'au point de coordonnées
géographiques 1 05'34" ouest et 14"47'04" nord (point G) situé sur le
rivage ouest de la mare de Soum, qu'elle traverseen suivant une direction
généraled'ouese tn estet enladivisanten parts égalesentre lesdeux Etats;
elle remonte ensuite selon une direction généralenord-nord-est pour
rejoindre la ligne IGN au point de coordonnéesgéographiques0' 43'29"
ouest et 15' 05'00" nord (point H).
6) Du point H, la ligne suit la ligne IGN jusqu'au point de coordonnées
géographiques0' 26' 35"ouest et 15"05'00" nord (point 1) ;de là, elle
s'infléchit versle sud-est et continue tout droit jusqu'au point J défini
ci-dessous.
7) Les points J et K, dont les coordonnéesgéographiquesseront déter-
minéespar les Parties avec l'aide des experts désignésconformément à

l'article IVdu compromis, répondent à trois conditions:ils se situent sur
lemêmeparallèlede latitude ;lepoint J se trouve sur le rivage ouest de la
mare d'In Abao et lepoint K surle rivageest de cette mare ;la lignetracée
entre eux aura pour effet de diviser l'étenduede la mare en parts égales
entre les Parties.
8)Au point K, la ligne s'infléchit vers le nord-estet continue tout droit
jusqu'au point de coordonnées géographiques 0' 14'44" ouest et
15"04'42" nord (point L) et, de ce point, ellecontinuetout droit jusqu'à
un point de coordonnéesgéographiques 0" 14'39" est et 14"54'48" nord
(point M) situé approximativement à 3 kilomètres au nord du guéde
Kabia.

B. Que la Chambre désignera ultérieurement, par ordonnance, trois
experts conformément a l'article IV, alinéa3, du compromis du 16 sep-
tembre 1983.

Fait en françaiset en anglais, le texte françaisfaisant foi, au palais de la
Paix, àLa Haye, levingt-deux décembremil neuf cent quatre-vingt-six, en FRONTIER DISPUTE (NDGMENT) 650

(IGN) (hereinafter referred to as "the IGN line") as far as the point with
the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 58' 49" W and 14" 28' 30"N (point
B).
(2) At point B, the line turns eastwards and intersects the track con-
necting Dionouga and Digue1at approximately 7.5 kilometres from Dion-
ouga at a point with the geographical CO-ordinates 1" 54' 24" W and
14" 29' 20"N (point C).
(3) From point C, the line runs approximately 2 kilometres to the south
of the villagesof Kounia and Oukoulourou, passing through thepoint with
the geographical CO-ordinates1 "46'38" W and 14" 28'54" N (point D),
and thepoint with theCO-ordinates1 "40'40" W and 14" 30'03" N (point

El.(4) From point E, the line continues straight as far as a point with the
geographical CO-ordinates1 "19'05" W and 14"43'45" N (point F), situ-
ated approximately 2.6 lulometres to the south of the pool of Toussou-

gou.
(5) From point F, the line continues straight asfaras the point with the
geographical CO-ordinates1 "05'34" W and 14"47'04" N (point G) situ-
ated on the Westbank of the pool of Soum, which it crosses in a general
west-east direction and divides equally between the two States ; it
then turns in a generally north/north-easterly direction to rejoin the IGN
line at the point with the geographical CO-ordinates 0" 43' 29" W and
15"05'00" N (point H).
(6) From point H, the line follows the IGN line asfaras the point with
the geographical CO-ordinates0" 26'35" W and 15"05' 00"N (point 1) ;
from there it turns towards the south-east and continues straight as faras
point J defined below.
(7) Points J and K, the geographical CO-ordinatesof which will be
determined by the Parties with the assistance of the experts nominated
pursuant to Article IV ofthe Special Agreement, fulfil three conditions :
they are situated on the same parallel of latitude; point J lies on the West
bank of the pool of InAbaoand point K on the east bank of the pool ;the
linedrawn between them willresult in dividing the area of the pool equally
between the Parties.
(8) At point K the line turns towards the north-east and continues
straight asfar asthe point with the geographical CO-ordinates0" 14'44" W
and 15"04' 42"N (point L),and, from that point, continues straight to a
point with the geographical CO-ordinates0" 14' 39"E and 14" 54'48" N
(point M),situated approximately 3 lulometres to the north of the Kabia
ford.

B. That the Chamber will at a later date, by Order, nominate three
experts in accordance with Article IV, paragraph 3, of the Special Agree-
ment of 16 September 1983.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-second day of December, onetrois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et les
autresseront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement du Burkina Faso
et au Gouvernement de la Républiquedu Mali.

Le présidentde la Chambre,

(Signé)Mohammed BEDJAOUI.
Le Greffier,

(Signé).Santiago TORRESBERNARDEZ..

MM. LUCHAIRe Et ABI-SAAB j,ges ad hoc,joignenà l'arrêt les exposés
de leur opinion individuelle.

(Paraphé)M.B.
(Paraphé)S.T.B.thousand nine hundred and eighty-six,in three copies,one of whichwillbe
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transrnitted to the
Government of Burkina Fasoand the Government of the Republic of Mali
respectively.

(Signed) Mohammed BEDJAOUI,
President of theChamber.

(Signed) Santiago TORRESBERNARDEZ,
Registrar.

Judges adhocLUCHAIRa End ABI-SAAB append separate opinions to the
Judgment of the Chamber.

(Initialled) M.B.
(Initialled) S.T.B.

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Judgment of 22 December 1986

Links