COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS ClONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE
DU DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL
(JAMAf-IIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNEITCHAD)
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING
THE TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAICHAD)
JUDGMENT OF 3FEBRUARY 1994 Mode officielde citation:
Dyjgrend territorial (Jurnuhiriyu arabe libyenne/Tclzad),
urrêt,C.I.J. Recueip. 694,
Official cit:tion
TerritJudgment,C.J. Reports 1996, p.uhiriyu/Chad),
Nocivente: 648 1
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number
ISBN 92-1-070707-9 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL
(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNEITCHAD)
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAICHAD)
3 FEBRUARY 1994
JUDGMENT 1NTE.RNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
1994
YEAR 1994 3 February
Genera! List
No. 83
3 February 1994
CASE CONCERNING
THE:TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAICHAD)
J~lrisclic.tinf the Court - Alternative grouncl.uf,jurisdiction.
Boundarj dispute or territorial dispute.
Boundury cluimecion rliehusis of'1955 Treuty het~veenone Purty undpredc.ces-
sor of'other Party - .Backgroundto 1955 Treaty - Pre1iou.7international insrru-
rncnts - biterpretation of Treaty - Applicahlc [email protected] oJ interpretation -
N<~turuu Ind'ordinar!'fneaning of tcwns - Sign$cance qftl~e tertn "recogni-e" Ni
rclution to froritirrs-- Intcrpretirfion uf con11elitionsdc~sigrietu e.stahlishjj.on-
tiers- Priticipluf <j"c~(.tivcne.~s Ohject und purpose of'Treutj - Conte.vt qf'
Trcutj - Convcr~tiotise,oncl~rdcd simultr~neouslj ivith Tveatj,- Rqferc~nceto
travaux préparatoires.
Bounclurj.11.hic."1es~llts",froniir~fcrncitionuilnstrun1rnt.s"en vigueur" listed in
Ar1rie.uto Tri>u~' - Interpretution uf' 1899 Anglo-Frrricli,joint dc~c.luration-
Dctcrrninatiotioj'tl~ccvurse qf [liehounclrrj~.
Subsequetit attitudes qf'Purtics - Treaties - Intcrtzarionul,fi)ra.
Durution of hounclurj c~strrhlishrdj treaty - Stubility of houndaries - Con-
[inliedc~.~i.rtc'cf'coirndarj~inclepenclentlc('?/'/fi of [lietrratjsunder ivlit ,vas
ugrred
JUDGMENT
Present: Presiu'rnt Siir ROBERT JENNINGS:Vice-President ODA; Judges AGO.
SCHWEBEB LE, DJAOCN I,I, EVENSEN T,ARASSOG VU, ILLAIJMS EH, AHARUD-
DEENA , GUII.AR MAWDSLEW Y.EERAMANTR RAYN,JEVA.AJIBOLAH , FRC-
ZEC;~ ~J~(c/gt'ad hoc S~TTE-CAMARA AB,I-SAABR ; egistrrrrVALENCIA-
OSPIKA. In the case concerning the territorial dispute,
the Great Socialist People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Abdulati Ibrahim El-Obeidi, Ambassador,
as Agent;
Mr. Kamel H. El Ntaghur, Member of the Bar of Libya,
Mr. Derek W. Boaett, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor emeritus,
University of Carnbridge,
Mr. Philippe Cahier, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of
InternationalStutlies, University of Geneva.
Mr. Luigi Condorel:li,Professor of International Law, University of Geneva,
Mr. James R. Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law, University
of Cambridge,
Mr. Rudolf Dolzer., Professor of International Law. University of Mann-
heim,
Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
Mr. Walter D. Sohier, Member of the Bar of the State of New York and of
the District of Columbia,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Timm T. Riedii~ger,Rechtsanwalt, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Mr. Richard Meese. avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Miss Loretta Malini:oppi, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Miss Azza Maghur, Member of the Bar of Libya,
as Counsel;
Mr. Scott B. Edmorids, Cartographer, Maryland Cartographics, Inc.,
Mr. Bennet A. Moe, Cartographer, Maryland Cartographics, Inc.,
Mr. Robert C. Rizzutti, Cartographer, Maryland Cartographics, Inc.,
as Experts.
and
the Republic of Chad,
represented by
Rector Abderahmari Dadi, Director of the Ecole nationale d'administration
et de magistrature de N'Djamena,
as Agent ;
H.E. Mr. Mahamat Ali-Adoum, formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Chad,
as Co-Agent;
H.E. Mr. Ahmad Allam-Mi, Ambassador of the Republic of Chad to France,
H.E. Mr. Ramadane Barma, Ambassador of the Republic of Chad to Bel-
gium and the Netherlands,
as Advisers; Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre and at the
Institut d'études politiques of Paris,
as Deputy-Agent, C'ounseland Advocate;
Mr. Antonio Cassese, Professor of International Law at the European Uni-
versity Institute. ]Florence,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, Professor at the University of Paris 1 (Panthéon-
Sorbonne).
Mr. Thomas M. Franck, Becker Professor of International Law and Direc-
tor, Center for International Studies, New York University,
Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins. Q.C., Professor of International Law, University of
London,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Ironsides Ray and Vials Professor of Law, Univer-
sity of Leicester, Member of the English Bar,
Mr. Jean-Marc Sori:l, Professor at the University of Rennes,
as Advocates;
Mr. Jean Gateaud, ingénieurgénéralgéographe honoraire.
as Counsel and Cartographer;
Mr. Jean-Pierre Mignard, Advocate at the Court of Appeal of Paris.
Mr. Marc Sassen, Advocate and Legal Adviser, The Hague,
as Counsel;
Mrs. Margo Baender, Research Assistant, Center for International Studies,
New York University,
Mr. Olivier Corten, Assistant at the Faculty of Law of the Universitélibre de
Bruxelles.
Mr. Renaud Dehouisse, Senior Assistant at the European University Insti-
tute, Florence,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thoiivenin, attachétemporaire d'enseignement et de recherche
at the University of Paris X-Nanterre.
Mr. Joseph Tjop. ai.tachétemporaire d'enseignement et de recherche at the
University of Paris X-Nanterre,
as Advisers and Research Assistants:
Mrs. Rochelle Fenchel,
Mrs. Susan Hunt,
Miss Florence Jovis,
Mrs. Mireille Jung,
Mrs. Martine Soulier-Moroni.
composed as above,
after deliberation,
1.On 31 August 1990. the Government of the Great Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriiya (hereinafter called "Libya"), referring to Article 40,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court. filed in the Registry a notification of
an agreement entitled "'Framework Agreement [Accord-Cadre] on the Peaceful 'TERRITORIALDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 9
Settlement of the Territorial Dispute between the Great Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad" (hereinafter referred to as
the "Accord-Cadre"), done in the Arabic and French languages at Algiers on
31 August 1989. A certified copy of the Accord-Cadre was annexed to that
notification.
2. The text of the Accord-Cadre, registered with the Secretariat of the
United Nations under Article 102 of the Charter, and notified to the Organi-
zation of African Unity, is as follows:
"The great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic
of Chad,
On the basis, on the one hand, of the resolutions of the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), in particular resolution AHGIRes.6 (XXV)on the
LibyaiChad territorial dispute and, on the other hand, of the fundamental
principles of the United Nations, namely:
- the peaceful settlement of international disputes;
- the sovereign equality of al1States;
- non-use of force or threat of force in relations between States;
- respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of each
State;
- non-interfererice in internal affairs;
Resolved to settle their territorial dispute peacefully,
Article 1. The two Parties undertake to settle first their territorial dis-
pute by al1 political means, including conciliation. within a period of
approximately one year, unless the Heads of State otherwise decide.
Article 2. In the absence of a political settlement of their territorial dis-
pute, the two Parties undertake:
(u) to submit the dispute to the International Court of Jusfice;
(h) to take measures concomitant with the judicial settlement by with-
drawing the forces of the two countries from the positions which they
currently occupy on 25 August 1989in the disputed region, under the
supervision of a commission of African observers, and to refrain
from establishing any new presence in any form in the said region;
(c) to proceed to the said withdrawal to distances to be agreed on;
) to observe the said concomitant measures until the International Court
of Justice hands down a finaljudgment on the territorial dispute.
Article 3. All prisoners of war shall be released.
Article 4. The great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Republic of Chacl reiterate their decisions concerning the cease-fire estab-
lished between them and undertake further to desist from any kind of hos-
tility and. in particular, to:
(u) desist from ;iny hostile media campaign;
(h) abstain from interfering directly or indirectly, in any way, on any pre-
text and in iiny circumstance, in the internal and external affairs of
their respective cquntries; (c) refrain frorri giving any political, material, financial or military sup-
port to the hostile forces of either of the two countries;
(d) proceed to the signature of a treaty of friendship, good-neighbour-
liness and economic and financial CO-operation between the two
countries.
Article 5. The ltwoParties decide to establish a Mixed Commission to be
entrusted with the task of making the necessary arrangements for the
implementation of this Agreement and ensuring that al1 necessary meas-
ures are taken to this end.
Article6. The Ad Hoc Committee of the Organization of African Unity
on the LibyaIChad dispute shall be requested to monitor the implementa-
tion of the provisions of this Agreement.
Article7. The great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Republic of Chad undertake to give notice of this Agreement to the
United Nations and the Organization of African Unity.
Article 8. This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of its signa-
ture."
3. In its notification to the Court. the Libyan Government stated, inter rrliu.
the following :
"The negotiations referred to in Article 1 of the Accord-Cadre have
failed to resolve the territorial dispute between the Parties . . . and no deci-
sion by the respective Heads of State has been reached to Vary the pro-
cedures established by the Accord.
Accordingly Libya is bound, following the expiry of the year referred to
in Article 1. to iinplement its obligation under Article 2 /a) '. . .à sou-
mettre le différendau jugement de la Cour internationale de Justice'.
For Lhepurposes of the Rules of Court, the dispute ('différend')sub-
mitted to the Court is their territorial dispute ('leur différendterritorial')
referred to in the Accord-Cadre, and the question put to the Court may be
defined in the following terms:
'In further implementation of the Accord-Cadre, and taking into
account the tel-ritorial dispute between the Parties, to decide upon the
limits of their respective territories in accordance with the rules of inter-
national law applicable in the matter.'"
4. Pursuant to Article 39, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Couri, a certified
copy of the notificatiion and its annex was communicated forthwith to the
Government of the R.epublic of Chad (hereinafter referred to as "Chad") by
the Deputy-Registrar.
5. On 3 September 1990, the Government of Chad filed in the Registry of
the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Libya, the text of
which had previousljl been communicated to the Registry by facsimile on
1September 1990and to which was attached a copy of the Accord-Cadre. In its
Application. Chad stated, intcr ulia, that the Heads of State of the two Parties
had. "during the summit meeting held in Rabat on 22-23August 1990,decided
to seise the International Court of Justice immediately" and that the Applica-
tion had been "drawn up pursuant to that decision and to Article 2 ((1)of the
Accord-Cadre of 31 P~ugust1989"; it relied, as a basis for the Court's jurisdic- TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 11
tion, principally on Article 2 la) of the Accord-Cadre and, subsidiarily, on
Article 8 of a Franco-Libyan Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness
of 10August 1955; and it requested the Court to
"determine the course of the frontier between the Republic of Chad and
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance with the principles and rules of
international law applicable in the matter as between the Parties".
6. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article 38, para-
graph 4, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar transmitted forthwith to the
Libyan Government ;i certified copy of the Application.
7. By a letter dated 28 September 1990, received in the Registry the same day
by facsimile, and the original of which was received on 5 October 1990, the
Agent of Chad infornned the Court, inrer aliu,that his Government had noted
that "its claim coincides with that contained in the notification addressed to the
Court on 31 August 1990by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" and considered that
"those two notifications relate to one single case, referred to the Court in
application of thr: Algiers Agreement, which constitutes the Special Agree-
ment, che principal basis of the Court's jurisdiction to deal with the
matter" ;
a copy of this letter was addressed to the Agent of Libya by the Deputy-
Registrar on 1October 1990.
8. At a meeting held by the President of the Court on 24 October 1990with
the Agents of the Parties, pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules of Court. it was
agreed between the Agents, first that the proceedings had in effect been insti-
tuted by two successi.venotifications of the Special Agreement constituted by
the Accord-Cadre of 3l August 1989 - that filed by Libya on 31August 1990.
and the communication from Chad filed on 3 September 1990,read in conjunc-
tion with the letter from the Agent of Chad of 28 September 1990 - and
secondly that the procedure in this case should be determined by the Court on
that basis, pursuant to Article 46. paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.
9. By an Order dated 26 October 1990, the Court decided accordingly that
each Party would file a Memorial and Counter-Memorial. within the same
time-limits, and fixed 26 August 1991 as the time-limit for the Memorials.
10. Pursuant to Ari.icle40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the
Rules of Court, copies of the notifications and of the Special Agreement were
transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Members of
the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court; a
copy of the Order dated 26 October 1990was also communicated to them.
11. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of
the Parties, each of them exercised its right under Article 31, paragraph 3, of
the Statute to choose a judge ad iioc,to sit in the case: Chad designated
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, and Libya designated Mr. JoséSette-Camara.
12. The Memorials of the Parties having been duly filed within the time-limit
fixed for that purpose, the President, by an Order dated 26 August 1991, fixed
27 March 1992 as the time-limit for the filing, by each of the Parties, of a
Counter-Memorial: the Counter-Mernorials were duly filed within the time-
limit so fixed.
13. Byan Order dated 14April 1992,the Court decided to authorize the pres- or political, secular or religious forces, whose conduct bears on the rights
and titles claime:d by the Parties, and of the conduct of the indigenous
peoples whose territories are the subject of this dispute;
In aj)plic.utionofthe principles and rules of international law of relevance
to this dispute;
MUJ it pleuse the Courr. rejecting al1contrary claims and submissions:
To crdjuclgeunrideclrirc,as follows:
1. Thac there exists no boundary, east of Toummo, between Libya and
Chad by virtue of any existing international agreement.
2. That in the circumstances, therefore, in deciding upon the attribution
of the respective territories as between Libya and Chad in accordance with
the rules of international law applicable in this matter, the following
factors are relevant :
(i) that the territory in question, at al1 relevant times, was not terra
nit1liuv
(ii) that title to the territory was. at al1 relevant times, vested in the
peoples inhabiting the territory, who were tribes, confederations of
tribes or other peoples owing allegiance to the Senoussi Order who
had accepted Senoussi leadership in their fight against the encroach-
ments of Firance and Italv on their lands:
(iii) thatthese indigenous peoples were, at al1 relevant times, religiously,
culturally, economically and politically part of the Libyan peoples;
(iv) that. on the international plane, there existed a community of title
between the title of the indigenous peoples, and the rights and titles
of the Ottoman Empire, passed on to Italy in 1912 and inherited
by Libya iri 1951 ;
(v) that any clziimof Chad rests on the claim inherited from France;
(vi) that the French claim to the area in dispute rested on 'actes interna-
tionaux' that did not create a territorial boundary east of Toummo,
and that tl-iere is no valid alternative basis to support the French
claim to the area in dispute.
3. That, in the light of the above factors, Libya has clear title to al1the
territory north of the line shown on Map 105 in Libya's Memorial, on
Map LC-M 55 in Libya's Counter-Memorial and on Map LR 32 in
Libya's Reply. that is to say the area bounded by a line that starts at the
intersection of theeastern boundary of Niger and 18" N latitude,continues
in a strict south-east direction until it reaches 15" N latitude, and then
follows this parallel eastwards to its junction with the existing boundary
between Chad and Sudan."
in the Memorial. thi: Counter-Memorial and the Reply, and at the hearing of
14July 1993(identical texts):
"The Republic of Chad respectfully requests the International Court of
Justice to adjudge and declare that its frontier with the Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriya is constituted by the following line:
- from the point of intersection of the 24" of longitude east of Greenwich with the parallel of 19"30' of latitude north, the frontier shall run as
far as the point of intersectionof the Tropic of Cancer with th16"of
longitude easl.of Greenwich;
from that latter point it shall followa linerunning towards the wellof
Toummo as far as the fifteenth degree eastof Greenwich."
18. The Court ha.s been seised of the present dispute between Libya
and Chad by the noi.ifications of the special agreement constituted by the
Accord-Cadre of 31 August 1989, the text of which is set out in para-
graph 2 above. The Accord-Cadre described the dispute between the
Parties as "their territorial dispute" but gave no further particularization
of it, and it has become apparent from the Parties' pleadings and oral
arguments that they disagree as to the nature of the dispute. Libya, in its
notification of the Accord-Cadre to the Court filed on 31 August 1990,
explained the "territorial dispute" by stating as follows:
"The determination of the limits of the respective territories of the
Parties in this region involves, inteuliu,a consideration of a series of
international agreements although, in the view of Libya, none of
these agreements finally fixed the boundary between the Parties
which, accordirigly, remains to be established in accordance with the
applicable prinlziplesof international law."
On this basis, Libya definedthe question put to the Court by requesting it:
"In further iinplementation of the Accord-Cadre, and taking into
account the territorial dispute between the Parties, to decide upon
the limits of their respective territories in accordance with the rules
of international law applicable in the matter."
Chad, on the other hand, in its initial communication to the Court filed
on 3 September 1990, indicated that in its view there was a frontier
between Chad and Libya, the course of which "was not the subject of
any dispute until the 1970s", and stated that
"The object of the present case is to arrive at a firm definition of
that frontier, in application of the principles and rules applicable in
the matter as between the Parties."
On this basis, Chacl requested the Court
"to determine the course of the frontier between the Republic of
Chad and the ILibyanArab Jamahiriya, in accordance with the prin-
ciples and rullrs of international law applicable in the matter as
between the Parties".
19. Thus Libya proceeds on the basis that there is no existing bound-
ary, and asks the Court to determine one. Chad proceeds on the basis
that there is an existing boundary, and asks the Court to declare what
that boundary is. Libya considers that the case concer-risa dispute regard-ing attribution of territory, while in Chad's view it concerns a dispute
over the location of a boundary.
20. Chad in its s~ibmissionshas indicated the position of the line which
it claims constitutes its frontiwith Libya. Libya, while maintaining in
its submissions that in thegion in question "there exists no boundary . ..
between Libya and Chad by virtue of any existing international agree-
ment", also submits that it "has clear title to al1the territory" north of a
specified line, constituted for much of its length by the 15th parallel of
north latitude. Sketch-map No. 1 on page 16 hereof shows the line
claimed by Chad anidthe line claimed by Libya. The areanow in dispute,
between those two lines, has been referred to by Libya in this case as the
Libya-Chad "Borderlands".
21. Libya bases its claim to the Borderlands on a coalescence of rights
and titles: those of the indigenous inhabitants, those of the Senoussi
Order (a religious c'onfraternity, founded some time during the early part
of the nineteenth century which wielded great influence and a certain
amount of authority in the north and north-east of Africa), and those of
a succession of sovi:reign States, namely the Ottoman Empire, Italy, and
finally Libya itself. Chad claims a boundary on the basis of a Treaty of
Friendship and Good Neighbourlinessconcluded by the French Republic
and the United Kingdom of Libya on 10 August 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1955 Treaty"). In the alternative, Chad claims that
the lines delimiting the zones of influence in earlier treaties, referred to
in the 1955 Treaty, had acquired the character of boundaries through
French eJf2ctivi t cl;ims finally that, even irrespective of treaty
provisions, Chad <:an rely on those rjjcctiv intregard to the area
claimed by it.
22. Both Parties accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of
the Accord-Cadre. However, Chad has added that, subsidiarily, the juris-
diction of the Court is also based upon Articl8of the 1955Treaty which
provides that
"Such disputes as may arise from the interpretation and applica-
tion of the present Treaty and which may prove impossible to settle
by direct negoitiations shall be referred to the International Court of
Justice at the request of either Party, unless the High Contracting
Parties agree Liponsome other method of settlement."
Since however the jurisdiction to deal with the present dispute conferred
by the Accord-Cadre has not been disputed, there is no need to consider
the question of an additional ground of jurisdiction under the Treaty. 23. Libya, which had been a colonial territory of Italy, was, after the
termination of hostilities in World War II, administered by the Four
Allied Powers (France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and became a sovereign State
on 24 December 1951 pursuant to resolution 289 (IV) of the General
Assembly of 21 November 1949.Chad had been a French colony, then a
"territoire d'outre-mc", appertaining in both cases to French Equatorial
Africa. It became a member of the French Community from 1958 to
1960. Chad acceded to independence on 11 August 1960.
24. The dispute between the Parties is set against the background of a
long and complex history of military, diplomatic and administrative activ-
ity on the part of the Ottoman Empire, France, Great Britain and Italy, as
well as the Senoussi (Order.This history is reflected in a number of conven-
tions, numerous diplomatic exchanges, certain contemporary maps and
various archiva1 records, which have been furnished to the Court. The
Court will first consider this documentation, and will enumerate those of
the conventional insi.ruments which appear to it to be relevant.
25. At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury, various agreements were entered into between France, Great Britain
and, later, Italy, by which the parties purported to divide large tracts of
Africa into mutually recognized spheres or zones of influence. The agree-
ments described the limits of the areas in question, with reference to
points on the grourid, where such points were known and identifiable,
and to lines of latitiide and longitude. With the increasing influence and
presence of these Powers in the region, they also entered into treaties
regarding the boundaries of the territories they claimed, both between
themselves and with the Ottoman Empire, already present in the region.
26. Alongside that Ottoman presence was the Senoussi Order, already
referred to. The Senhoussiestablished at many points within the region a
series of zu,c~iyuswhich, inter aliu, fostered trade, regulated caravan traf-
fic, arbitrated disputes and functioned as religious centres. These centres
comprised mosques, schools and guesthouses for travellers, and also
sometimes had in residence a qudi or judge. The sheikhs of the zawiyus
were confirmed in their positions by the Grand Senoussi, the head of the
Order.
27. French colonial expansion into the Chad area took place from the
south, the west and the north. There was an expedition from the south in
the direction of Lake Chad during the period from 1875 to 1897. From
the west, another moved towards Lake Chad in the period from 1879 to
1899; and from Algiers in the north a further expedition advanced on the
Lake from 1898 to 1900. Consequent on this expansion, large tracts of
African territory were later grouped together in what were designated as
French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa.
28. Towards the end of the nineteenth century France and Great Brit-
ain entered into two successive agreements, in the form of an Exchange
of Declarations sigried at London on 5 August 1890, and a Conventionconcluded at Paris on 14June 1898, as a result of which (inter alia) each
party recognized certain territories in Africa as falling within the "sphere"
of the other (1898 (Convention, Art. IV). By a subsequent Declaration
signed at London on 21 March 1899, it was agreed that the fourth article
of the 1898 Convention should be completed by certain provisions, and
in particular it was recorded that "it is understood, in principle, that to
the north of the 15th parallel the French zone shall be limited by" a speci-
fied line, described in the text. No map was attached to the Declaration,
but a few days after its adoption the French authorities published a Livre
juune including a map, a copy of which is attached to this Judgment (see
paragraph 58 below).
29. Exchanges of letters took place between the French and Italian
Governments, relating to their interests in Africa, on 14-16 Decem-
ber 1900, and 1-2 November 1902, in the course of which Italy was
reassured that "the limit to French expansion in North Africa . . .is to
be taken as correspc>ndingto the frontier of Tripolitania as shown on the
map annexed to the Declaration of 21 March 1899". As indicated below
(paragraph 61), the reference could only have been to the Livre jaune
map. Similar assurances were given to Italy by the British Government in
an exchange of letters of 11-12 March 1902.
30. On 19 May 1910, a Convention was concluded between the Tuni-
sian Government arid the Ottoman Empire defining the frontier between
the Regency of Turiis and the Vilayet of Tripoli. In 1912 Italian sover-
eignty was established over the Turkish provinces of Tripolitania and
Cyrenaica (Treaties of Ouchy and Lausanne, 15 and 18 October 1912).
Certain rights and privileges were however reserved to the Sultan by the
Treaty of Lausanne.
31. On 8 Septeniber 1919, France and Great Britain concluded a
Convention expres:sed to be supplementary to the Declaration of
21 March 1899 additional to the Convention of 14 June 1898 (para-
graph 28 above), recording (inter aliu) an interpretation of the 1899 Dec-
laration defining the:limits of the French zone. On 12 September 1919an
arrangement inthe form of an exchange of letters was concluded between
France and Italy for the fixing of the boundary between Tripolitania and
the French possessions in ~frica Westof Toummo.
32. The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 re-established peace
between Turkey and the other signatory parties (including France,
Great Britain and Italy); it included a provision that Turkey recognized
the definitive abolition of al1rights and privileges which it maintained in
Libya under the 1912Treaty of Lausanne. By a Protocol dated 10 Janu-
ary 1924.approved by an Exchange of Notes of 21 January 1924, France
and Great Britain defined the boundary between French Equatorial
Africa and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Similarly, an Exchange of Notes
of 20 July 1934 between Egypt, Great Britain and Italy defined the
boundary between ILibyaand the Sudan. ITERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 19
33. On 7January 1935 a Treaty was concluded between France and
Italy for the settlerrient of questions pending between them in Africa.
That Treaty includetl a definition of a boundary between Libya and the
adjacent French colonies east of Toummo. Although ratification of the
treaty was authorized by the parliaments of both parties, instruments of
ratification were never exchanged, and the treaty never came into force;
for convenience. itwill be referred to hereafter as "the non-ratified Treaty
of 1935".
34. After the conirlusion of World War II, the Treaty of Peace with
ltaly was signed on 10 February 1947. By Article 23 of this Treaty, Italy
renounced al1 right ,dnd title to its territorial possessions in Africa, Le.,
Libya, Eritrea and Ifalian Somaliland. The final disposal of these posses-
sions was to be determined jointly by the Governments of the Four
Allied Powers; if those Powers were unable to agree within one year on
the final disposal of the territories the matter was to be referred to the
General Assembly of the United Nations for a recommendation. The
four Powers undertook in advance to accept that recommendation. There
being no agreement between the four Powers, the General Assembly was
seised and, by resoliition 289 (IV) of 21 November 1949, recommended
that "Libya, comprising Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and the Fezzan, shall be
constituted an independent and sovereign State". The independence of
Libya was proclaimed on 24 December 1951, and recognized on 1 Feb-
ruary 1952by General Assembly resolution 5 15(VI). With independence,
Libya entered into treaties with the United Kingdom and the
United States, which provided inter aliufor a military presence in Libya.
35. Negotiations opened at the beginning of 1955 between Libya and
France, and led to the conclusion of the 1955 Treaty, i.e., the Treaty of
Friendship and Goo'd Neighbourliness between the French Republic and
the United Kingdoin of Libya of 10 August 1955. In the preceding
November, Libya ha.d informed France that it did not intend to renew a
provisional military arrangement of 24 December 1951 under which
French forces remairied stationed on Libyan territory, in the Fezzan. The
French Government wished to maintain its military presence there, but
the Libyan Parliament had made it clear that it had no intention of
accepting an agreement leaving French forces in the Fezzan. Among
other matters which were the subject of negotiation were military matters
(including the non-substitution of other foreign troops for the French
troops, and French access to airstrips and certain caravan routes), and
the question of boundaries. France possessed extensive territories in
Africa which bordered Libya on the West and on the south. French
authority in parts of those territories had been challenged and a settled
border was essential. This was so particularly to the West of Toummo.East of Toummo, on the other hand, there was, in France's view, an exist-
ing frontier resulting from the Anglo-French Agreements of 1898, 1899and
1919(paragraphs 28, 31 above), but there had been long-standing disagree-
ment between France and Italy in that respect. Obtaining Libyan accept-
ance of those agreements, which entailed recognition of the inapplicability
of the non-ratified Treaty of 1935,was important to the French.
36. It is recognized by both Parties that the 1955 Treaty is the logical
starting-point for consideration of the issues before the Court. Neither
Party questions the validity of the 1955 Treaty, nor does Libya question
Chad's right to invoke against Libya any such provisions thereof as relate
to the frontiers of Chad. However, although the Treaty states that it has
been entered into "oln the basis of complete equality, independence and
liberty", Libya has contended that, at the time of the Treaty's conclusion,
it lacked the experience to engage in difficult negotiations with a Power
enjoying the benefit of long international experience. On this ground,
Libya has suggested that there was an attempt by the French negotiators
to take advantage of Libya's lack of knowledge of the relevant facts, that
Libya was consequei~tly placed at a disadvantage in relation to the pro-
visions concerning tlhe boundaries, and that the Court should take this
into account when iriterpreting the Treaty; it has not however taken this
argument so far as to suggest it as a ground for invalidity of the Treaty
itself.
37. The 1955 Treaty, a complex treaty, comprised, in addition to the
Treaty itself, four appended Conventions and eight Annexes; it dealt
with a broad range csfissues concerning the future relationship between
the two parties. It w,asprovided by Article 9 of the Treaty that the Con-
ventions and Annexes appended to it formed an integral part of the
Treaty. One of the matters specifically addressed was the question of
frontiers, dealt with in Article 3 and Annex 1.The appended Conventions
were a Convention of Good Neighbourliness, a Convention on Economic
Co-operation, a Cultural Convention, and a "Particular Convention"
dealing with the withdrawal of French forces from the Fezzan.
38. The Court will first consider Article 3 of the 1955Treaty, together
with the Annex to wlhichthat Article refers, in order to decide whether or
not that Treaty resulted in a conventional boundary between the territo-
ries of the Parties. Ii'the 1955 Treaty did result in a boundary, this fur-
nishes the answer to the issues raised by the Parties: it would be a
response at one and the same time to the Libyan request to determine
the limits of the respective territories of the Parties and to the request
of Chad to determine the course of the frontier. The Court's initial
task must therefore be to interpret the relevant provisions of the 1955
Treaty, on which the Parties have taken divergent positions.
39. Article 3 of th~eTreaty reads as follows:
[ Translution hy the Registty]
"The two High Contracting Parties recognize that the frontiers
between the territories of Tunisia, Algeria, French West Africa and TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 21
French Equatorial Africa on the one hand, and the territory of
Libya on the other, are those that result from the international
instruments in force on the date of the constitution of the United
Kingdom of Li,bya as listed in the attached Exchange of Letters
(Ann. I)."
The Treaty was cancluded in French and Arabic, both texts being
authentic; the Parties in this case have not suggested that there is any
divergence between the French and Arabic texts, save that the words in
Arabic corresponding to "sont celles qui résultent" (are those that result)
might rather be rendlered "sont les frontières qui résultent" (are the fron-
tiers that result). The Court will base its interpretation of the Treaty on
the authoritative French text.
40. Annex 1to the Treaty comprises an exchange of letters which, after
quoting Article 3, reads as follows:
"The reference is to [Il sugit de] the following texts:
- the Franco-British Convention of 14 June 1898;
- the Declaration completing the same, of 21 March 1899;
- the Franco-Italian Agreements of 1 November 1902;
- the Convention between the French Republic and the Sublime
Porte, of 12 May 1910;
- the Franco-British Convention of 8 September 1919;
- the Franco-ltalian Arrangement of 12 September 1919.
With respect to this latter arrangement and in conformity with the
principles set forth therein, it was recognized by the two delegations
that, between Cihat and Toummo, the frontier traverses the follow-
ing three point:;, viz., the Takharkhouri Gap, the Col d'Anai and
Landmark 101 Cl(Garet Derouet el Djemel).
The Governnient of France is ready to appoint experts who might
become part of a Joint Franco-Libyan Commission entrusted with
the task of marlcing out the frontier, wherever that work has not yet
been done and where either Government may consider it to be
necessary.
In the event of a disagreement in the course of the demarcation,
the two Parties shall each designate a neutral arbitrator and, in the
event of a disagreement between the arbitrators, they shall designate
a neutral refereii to settle the dispute."
It has been recognized throughout the proceedings that the Convention
referred to as of 12 IVIay1910 is actually that of 19 May 1910mentioned
in paragraph 30 above.
41. The Court would recall that, in accordance with customary inter-
national law, reflected in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accord-
ance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 22
and in the light of its object and purpose. Interpretation must be based
above al1 upon the text of the treaty. As a supplementary measure
recourse may be hati to means of interpretation such as the preparatory
work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.
42. According to Article 3 of the 1955 Treaty, the parties "recognize
[reconnaissent] that the frontiers . . .are those that result" from certain
international instruments. The word "recognize" used in the Treaty indi-
cates that a legal obligation is undertaken. To recognize a frontier is
essentially to "accept" that frontier, that is, to draw legal consequences
from its existence, to respect it and to renounce the right to contest it in
future.
43. In the contention of Libya, the parties to the 1955Treaty intended
to recognize only tlhe frontiers that had previously been fixed by the
international instruments: where frontiers already existed (as between
Tunisia and Libya), they were confirmed by the 1955 Treaty, but where
there was no frontier (as in the south), the treaty did not create one. The
Court is unable to accept this view; it has no difficulty either in ascer-
taining the natural and ordinary meaning of the relevant terms of the
1955 Treaty, or in giving effect to them. In the view of the Court, the
terms of the Treaty signified that the parties thereby recognized complete
frontiers between their respective territories as resulting from the com-
bined effect of al1the instruments listed in Annex 1;no relevant frontier
was to be left undefiined and no instrument listed in Annex 1was super-
fluous. It would be incompatible with a recognition couched in such
terms to contend that onlv some of the s~ecifiedinstruments contributed
to the definition of the Lontier, or tha; a particular frontier remained
unsettled. So to conitend would be to de~rive Article 3of the Treatv and
Annex 1of their ordinary meaning. By entering into the Treaty, the par-
ties recognized the frontiers to which the text of the Treaty referred; the
task of the Court is thus to determine the exact content of the undertak-
in^entered into.
"
44. Libya's argument is that, of the international instruments listed in
Annex 1 to the 1955 Treaty, only the Franco-Ottoman Convention of
1910and the Franco-ltalian arrangement of 1919had produced frontiers
binding on Libya a.tthe time of independence, and that such frontiers
related to territories otherthan those in issue in this case. In the view of
Libya, the 1899 Franco-British Declaration merely defined, north of the
15th parallel, a line delimiting spheres of influence, as distinct from a
territorial frontier; neither the 1919 Franco-British Convention nor
French rffrctivitk.c~onferredon that line any other status; furthermore
the latter instrument was never opposable to Italy. The 1902 Franco-
Italian exchange of letters, in Libya's view, was no longer in force, either
because Italy renouinced al1 rights to its African territories by the 1947
Peace Treaty (paragraph 34 above), or for lack of notification under
Article 44 of that Ti-eaty. 45. The Court does not consider that it is called upon to determine
these questions. The fixing of a frontier depends on the will of the sov-
ereign States direct1:yconcerned. There is nothing to prevent the parties
from deciding by mutual agreement to consider a certain line as a fron-
tier, whatever the previous status of that line. If it was already a territo-
rial boundary, it is confirmed purely and simply. If it was not previously
a territorial boundary, the agreement of the parties to "recognize" it as
such invests it with iilegal force which it had previously lacked. Interna-
tional conventions and case-law evidence a variety of ways in which such
recognition can be expressed. In the case concerning the Temple ofPreuh
Viheur,a nlap had been invoked on which a line had been drawn pur-
porting to represent the frontier determined by a delimitation commis-
sion under a treaty which provided that the frontier should follow a
watershed; in fact the line drawn did not follow the watershed. The
Court based its decision upholding the "map line" on the fact that "both
Parties, by their conduct, recognized the line and thereby in effect agreed
to regard it as being the frontier line"(Temple of Preulz Vihear, Merits.
I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 33).
46. In support of its interpretation of the Treaty, Libya has drawn
attention to the fact that Article3 of the Treaty mentions "the frontiers"
in the plural. It arguiesfrom this that the parties had in view delimitation
of some of their frontiers, not that of the whole of the frontier. The use
of the plural is, in the view of the Court, to be explained by the fact that
there were differencirs of legal status between the various territories bor-
dering on Libya for whose international relations France was at the time
responsible, and their respective frontiers had been delimited by different
agreements. Tunisia was a protectorate at the time; Algeria was a groupe
de dkpartetnents; and French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa
were both groupes de fterrifoir~'outre-mer. In this context the use of the
plural is clearly appropriate, and does not have the significance attributed
to it by Libya. Moreover, it is to be noted that the parties referred to a
frontier between French Equatorial Africa and Libya.
47. The fact that Article 3 of the Treaty specifies that the frontiers
recognized are "those that result from the international instruments"
defined in Annex 1means that al1of the frontiers result from those instru-
ments. Any other construction would be contrary to the actual terms of
Article 3 and would render completely ineffective the reference to one or
other of those instruments in Annex 1.As the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice observed, in its Advisory Opinion of 21 November 1925,
dealing with a provision of the Treaty of Lausanne "intended to lay dol.ïn
the frontier of Turkey" (emphasis in original),
"the very nature of a frontier and of any convention designed to
establish frontiers between two countries imports that a frontier
must constitute a definite boundary line throughoutits Iength" (Inter- pretution qf'Artic~l1,Paragruph 2, of'tlie Treut?;qf'Luusunne, Aclvi.~ory
Opiniori,1925. I'C.I.J.. Series B. No. 12, p. 20. emphasis added).
It went on to Say th;it
"It is . . . nat~iral that any article designed to fix a frontier should,
if possible, be so interpreted that the result of the application of its
provisions in th~iirentirety should be the establishment of a precise,
complete and dr:finitive frontier." (Ihid)
Similarly. in 1959 in the case concerning Sovrrc~igntyover Certc~irF i rontier
Ltnltl, the Court took note of the Preamble to a Boundary Convention as
recording the common intention of the parties to "fix and regulate al1
that relates to the demarcation of the frontier" and held that
"Anv interur'etation under which the Boundarv Convention is
regarded as leaving in suspense and abandoning for a subsequent
appreciation of the stutus quo the determination of the right of one
State or the other to the disputed plots would be incompatible with
that common intention." (I.C.J. Rc~ports1959, pp. 221-222.)
48. The Court corisiders that Article 3 of the 1955Treatv was aimed at
settling al1the frontier questions, and not just some of them. The mani-
fest intention of the parties was that the instruments referred to in
Annex 1would indicate, cumulatively, al1the frontiers between the par-
ties, and that no frontier taken in isolation would be left out of that
arrangement. ln the iixpression "the frontiers between the territories . . .",
the use of the definite article is to be explained by the intention to refer to
al1 the frontiers between Libya and those neighbouring territories for
whose international relations France was then responsible. Article 3 does
not itself define the frontiers, but refers to the instruments mentioned in
Annex 1. The list in Annex 1 was taken by the parties as exhaustive as
regards delimitation of their frontiers.
49. Article 3 of the 1955Treaty refers to the international instruments
"crivigueur" (in force) on the date of the constitution of the United King-
dom of Libya. "tels qu'il.~soritcl<finis(as listed) in the attached exchange
of letters. These terins have been interpreted differently by the Parties.
Libya stresses that only the international instruments in force on the date
of the independence of Libya can be taken into account for the determi-
nation of the frontiei-s; and that, as the agreements mentioned in Annex 1
and relied on by Chad were, according to Libya, no longer in force on
24 December 195 1,they could not be taken into consideration. It argues
also that account could be taken of other instruments, relevant and in
force, which were not listed in Annex 1.
50. The Court is unable to accept these contentions. Article 3 does not
refer merely to the international instruments "cnvigueur"(in force) on the
date of the constitutionof the United Kingdom of Libya, but to the inter-
national instrument!; "en vigucur" on that date "tels qu'ils sont dkfitzis" rERRlTORlA LISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 25
(as listed) in Annex 1. To draw up a list of governing instruments whilc
leaving to subsequeint scrutiny the question whether they were in force
would have been poiintless. It is clear to the Court that the parties agreed
to consider the instruments listed as being in force for the purposes of
Article 3, since otherwise they would not have referred to them in the
Annex. The contracting parties took the precaution to determine by
mutual agreement which were the instruments in force for their pur-
poses. According to the restrictive formulation employed in Annex 1, "il
sugit (/es te.uies" enumerated in that Annex. This drafting of Article 3
and Annex 1excludes any other international instrument en vigueur, not
included in the Annex, which might have concerned the territory of Libya.
A fortiori is this the case of the non-ratified Treaty of 1935, which was
never en vigueur anld is not mentioned in the Annex. The Court may
confine itself totakiing account of the instruments listed in the Annex,
without having to enquire whether those instruments, listed by agree-
ment between France and Libya. were in force at the date of Libya's
independence, or opposable to it.
51. The parties could have indicated the frontiers by specifying in
words the course of the boundary, or by indicating it on a map, by way
of illustration or otherwise; or they could have done both. They chose to
proceed in a differerit manner and to establish, by agreement, the list of
international instrumentsfrom which the frontiers resulted, but the course
for which they elected presents no difficulties of interpretation. That
being so, the Court':j task is clear:
"Having befolre it a clause which leaves little to be desired in the
nature of clearness, it is bound to apply this clause as it stands, with-
out considering whether other provisions might with advantage have
been added to or substituted for it."(Acquisition of'Polish Nutionul-
ity, Advisor-vOpinion, 1923,P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 7, p. 20.)
The text of Article 3 clearly conveys the intention of the parties to reach
a definitive settlement of the question of their common frontiers. Article
and Annex 1 are intended to define frontiers by reference to legal
instruments which v~ould yield the course of such frontiers. Any other
construction would be contrary to one of the fundamental principles of
interpretation of treaties, consistently upheld by international jurispru-
dence, namely that of effectiveness(see, for example, the Lighthouses Case
betbrwn France and cfreece, Judgment, 1934, P.C.I.J., Series A/B. No. 62,
p. 27; Legul Conseq,uencesfor Stutes of the Continued Presence of'South
Africa in Namibia (,South West Africa) notit'ithstanding Security Council
Resolution 276 (1970), I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 35, para. 66; and Aegean
Seu Continental Shelf; I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 22, para. 52).
52. Reading the 1955Treaty in the light of its object and purpose one
observes that it is a treaty of friendship and good neighbourliness con-
cluded, according tol its Preamble, "in a spirit of mutual understanding
and on the basis of complete equality, independence and liberty". The
parties stated in thai. Preamble their conviction that the signature of thetreaty would "serve to facilitate the settlement of al1 such questions as
arise for the two countries from their geographical location and inter-
ests in Africa and the Mediterranean", and that they were "Prompted
by a will to strengthen economic,cultural and good-neighbourly relations
between the two countries". The object and purpose of the Treaty thus
recalled confirm the interpretation of the Treaty given above, inasmuch
as that object and purpose led naturally to the definition of the territory
of Libya, and thus the definition of its boundaries. Furthermore the pre-
supposition that the Treaty did define the frontier underlies Article 4 of
the Treaty, in which the parties undertake to take "al1 such measures as
may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and security in the areas
bordering on the frontiers". It also underlies Article 5 relating to consul-
tations between the parties concerning "the defence of their respective
territories". More particularly Article 5 adds that "With regard to
Libya, this shall apply to the Libyan territory as defined in Article 3 of
the present Treaty". To "define" a territory is to define its frontiers.
Thus, in Article 5 ofthe Treaty, the parties stated their own understand-
ing of Article 3 as being a provision which itself defines the territory of
Libya.
53. The conclusic~nswhich the Court has reached are reinforced by an
examination of the context of the Treaty, and, in particular, of the Con-
vention of Good N~:ighbourliness between France and Libya, concluded
between the parties at the same time as the Treaty. The Convention
refers, in Article 1, to the "frontiers, as defined in Articlef the Treaty
of Friendship and (3ood Neighbourliness". Title IIIof the Convention
concerns "Caravan traffic and trans-frontier movements", and it begins
with Article 9, which reads as follows:
"The Government of France and the Government of Libya under-
take to grant freedom of movement to nomads from tribes that tra-
ditionally trade on either side of the frontier between Algeria, French
West Africa anid French Equatorial Africa, on the one hand, and
Libya, on the other, so as to maintain the traditional caravan links
between the regions of Tibesti, Ennedi, Borkou, Bilma and the
Ajjers, on the one hand, and those of Koufra, Mourzouk, Oubari,
Ghat, Edri and Ghadamès, on the other."
This provision refers specifically to (inte dria) the frontier between
French Equatorial Africa and Libya; and it is clear from its terms that,
according to the parties to the Treaty, that frontier separates the French-
ruled regions of Tibesti, Ennedi and Borkou (indicated on sketch-map
No. 1 at p. 16above), which are sometimes referred to as "the BET", on
the one hand, and the Libyan regions of Koufra, Mourzouk, etc. on the
other.
54. Article 10 of the Convention of Good Neighbourliness establishes
a zone open to caravan traffic "on both sides of the frontier". This zone
is bounded as follo\vs: TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 27
"On French territory: by a line which, leaving the frontier to the
Westof Ghadamès, runs through Tinfouchaye, Timellouline, Ohanet,
Fort-Polignac, Fort-Gardel, Bilma, Zouar, Largeau, Fada and con-
tinues in a straight line as far as the Franco-Sudanese frontier.
On Libyan lerritory: by a line which, leaving Sinaouen, runs
through Derj, Edri, El Abiod, Ghoddoua, Zouila, Ouaou En
Namous, Koufra, and continues in a straight line as far as the
Libyo-Egyptian frontier."
Libya has therefore expressly recognized that Zouar, Largeau and Fada
lie in French territory. The position of those places is indicated on
sketch-map No. 1,on page 16above. Article 11 of the Convention stipu-
lates that "caravan traffic permits shall be issued . . . [in] French territory
[by the] administrative authoritiesof. . . Zouar, Largeau, Fada"; and in
"Libyan territory [by the] administrative authorities of. . . Mourzouk,
Koufra and the Oraghen Touareg". According to Article 13, nomads
bearing a caravan ti-afficpermit may "move freely across the frontier".
The following expressions are also found in the Convention: "on either
side of the frontier", "frontier zone" (Art. 15); "cross the frontier"
(Art. 16); "the French and Libyan frontier authorities" (Arts. 17and 20);
"cross-border transit" (Art. 18).The use of these expressions is consistent
with the existence of a frontier. In the view of the Court, it is difficult to
deny that the 1955 Treaty provided for a frontier between Libya and
French Equatorial Africa, when one of the appended Conventions con-
tained such provisions governing the details of the trans-frontier move-
ments of the-inhabitants of the region
55. The Court corisiders that it is not necessary to refer to the truvuux
prkpmatoir~~sto elucidate the content of the 1955 Treaty; but, as in pre-
vious cases, it finds it possible by reference to the travaux to confirm its
reading of the text, namely, that the Treaty constitutes an agreement
between the parties qwhich,inter aliu, defines the frontiers. It is true that
the Libyan negotiators wished at the outset to leave aside the question of
frontiers, but Ambassador Dejean, Head of the French Delegation at the
negotiations held in 'Tripoli inJuly-August 1955,insisted "that it was not
possible to conclude the treaty without an agreement on the frontiers".
On 28 July 1955,according to the Libyan minutes of the negotiations, the
Libyan Prime Minisi.er stated :
"that the question [of the frontiers] was not free from difficulty
since the Italians had occupied many centres behind the existing
frontier".
Ambassador Dejean stated "that ltaly had exploited France's weakness
during the last war" and "that it [Italy] had crossed oves the borders
which had been agreed upon under the Agreement of 1919 which were
still valid ..".The Libyan Prime Minister then proposed "that the question of the frontiers be deferred at the present time
until the Libyan side had had time to study the subject, and then
experts could be despatched to work with French experts to reach
an agreement on demarcation and he asked that it be considered
sufficient to sa:y that the Agreement of 1919 was acceptable and
that the implementation of it be left to the near future".
56. It is clear from these minutes that the Libyan Prime Minister
expressly accepted the agreement of 1919, the "implementation" of the
agreement to be left "to the near future"; and in this context, the term
"implementation" can only mean operations to demarcate the frontier on
the ground. The Priine Minister spoke also of an agreement on "demar-
cation", which presu.pposes the prior delimitation - in other words defi-
nition - of the frontier. Use of the term "demarcation" creates a
presumption that the parties considered the definition of the frontiers
as already effected, to be followed if necessary by a demarcation, the
ways and means of -whichwere defined in Annex 1.
57. Having concluded that the contracting parties wished, by the
1955 Treaty, and particularly by its Article 3, to define their common
frontier, the Court niust now examine what is the frontier between Libya
and Chad (in 1955, between Libya and French Equatorial Africa) which
results from the inte:rnational instruments listed in Annex 1.the text of
which is set out in paragraph 40 above. It should however first be noted
that, as already indicated (paragraph 50 above), the list in Annex 1does
not include the nori-ratified Treaty of 1935. That Treaty provided in
detail for a frontier made up of nine sectors (straight linesicrest lines,
etc.) from Toummo to the intersection of the line of longitude 24" east
of Greenwich with the line of latitude 18"45' north; this line is shown
on sketch-map No. 2 on page 29 hereof, together with the 1919 Anglo-
French Convention line (paragraph 59 below). Of the treaties prior to
1955bearing upon a boundary line in this region, the non-ratified Treaty
of 1935was thus the most detailed. Yet it was not mentioned in Annex 1.
The omission is al1the more significant inasmuch as, in February 1955,a
few months before the execution of the 1955Treaty in August, a Franco-
Libyan incident which occurred at Aouzou had focused attention on the
area lying to the south of the line of the 1919Anglo-French Convention
and to the north of the line of the non-ratified Treaty of 1935.TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUI)GMENT) 29 TERRITORIAL. DISPU 1.t (JLJI)<;MENT) 30
58. The first instrument mentioned in Annex 1, the Franco-British
Convention of 14 June 1898, bears no direct relation to the present dis-
pute: it is inentioned in Annex I on account of the Additional Declara-
tion of 21 March 18'99.This Declaration of 1899,which complements the
Conventiori of 1898.defiiies a line limiting the French zone (or sphere of
influence) to the north-east in the direction of Egypt and the Nile Valley,
already under British control, and is therefore relevant. The 1899 Decla-
ratioii recites that "The IVth Article of the Convention of 14 June 1898
shall be cornpleted by the following provisions, which shall be cvnsidered
as forming an integral part of it". Among these provisions is para-
graph 3:
"lt is uiiderstood, in principle. ~hat to the north of the 15th par-
allel the French zone shall be limited to the north-east and east by a
line which shall start from the point of intersection of the Tropic of
Cancer with the: 16th degree of longitude east of Greenwich (13"40'
east of Paris), :;hall run thence to the south-east uiitil it meets the
34th degree of longitude east of Greenwich (31" 40' east of Paris),
and shall then follow the 34th degree until it meets, to the north
of the 15th pal-allel of latitude, the frontier of Darfur as it shall
cventually be fi:ued."
The text of this provision is not fsee from ambiguities, since the use of the
words "in principle"' raises some question whether the line was to be
strictly south-east or whether some leeway was possible in establishing
the course of the lirie. Different interpretations were possible. since the
point of intersection of the line with the 34th degree of loiigitude east was
not specified, and the original text of the Declaration was not accompa-
nied by a rnap shobving the course of the line agreed. As noted above
(paragraph 28), a few days after the adoption of that Declasation, the
French authorities published its text in a Livvrju~rticlincluding a map; a
copy of that map is attached to this Judgment. On that map, a red line,
solid or interrupted. coupled with red shading, indicated, according to
the map legend. the "lit~iitcc~/c>os.scs.siori, uti~~ui.el,pris lu <,otlvcitn
hr 21 rliuv.v1899". The red line was continuous where it reflected bound-
aries defined in that Conventioii. and a pecked line where it indicated the
limit of the "French zone" defined in paragraph 3 of the Convention. The
pecked line was show as running. not directly south-east, but rather in
an east-south-east clirection. so as to terminate at approximately the
intersection of the 74" meridian east with the parallel 19" of latitude
north. The direct south-east line and the Lii.~rc~,jinrmncap line are shown
for purposes of conlparison on sketch-map No. 3 on page 33 hereof
(together with the line defined in the Convention of 8 September 1919.
dealt with below).
59. For the purposes of the present Judgment, the question of the
position of the liinit of the French zone may be regarded as resolved bythe Convention of E;September 1919 signed at Paris between Great Brit-
ain and France. As stated in the Convention itself, this Convention was
"Supplementary to the Declaration signed at London on
March 21, 1899,as an addition to the Convention of June 14, 1898,
which regulated the Boundaries between the British and French
Colonial Posse:;sions and Spheres of Influence to the West and East
of the Niger."
It specified the boun.dary between Darfour and French Equatorial Africa,
and contained various provisions relating to the possible extension
eastwards of the Firench sphere, beyond the 24th degree of longitude.
However, its concluding paragraph provided :
"It is understood that nothing in this Convention prejudices the
interpretation of the Declaration of the 21st March, 1899,according
to which the words in Article 3 '.. . shall run thence to the south-east
until it meets thLe24th degree of longitude east of Greenwich (21" 40'
east of Paris)' are accepted as meaning '. . . shall run thence in a
south-easterly direction until it meets the 24th degree of longitude
east of Greenwich at the intersection of that degree of longitude with
parallel 19"30' degrees of latitude'."
This provision meant that the south-easterly line specified by the 1899
Declaration was not to run directly south-east but in an east-south-east
direction so as to iritersect with the 24th degree of longitude at a point
more to the north tlhan would a direct south-easterly line. This Conven-
tion, in thus accepting an east-south-east line rather than a strict south-
east line, was in effi:ct confirming the earlier French view that the 1899
Declaration did not provide for a strict south-east line, and was in fact,
as to the eastern end-point, stipulatinga line even further north than the
line shown on the 1,ivjrucunr map. Sketch-inap No. 3, attached below,
shows, for ease of comparison, the relative positions of the three lines-
the strict south-east line. thLivrj euutr lne and the 1919 line.
60. There is thus little point in considering what was the pre-1919
situation, in view of the fact that the Anglo-French Convention of 8 Sep-
tember 1919 determined the precise end-point of the line in question, by
adopting the point of intersection of the 24th degree of longitude east
with the parallel 19"30' of latitude north. The text of the 1919 Conven-
tion presents this linieas an interpretation of the Declaration of 1899; in
the view of the Court, for the purposes of the present Judgiiient, there is
no reason to categorize it either as a confirmation or as a modification of
the Declaration. Inasmuch as the two States parties to the Convention
are those that concluded the Declaration of 1899, there can be no doubt
that the "interpretation" in question constituted, from 1919 onwards,TERRITORIAL.DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 32and as between thenn, the correct and binding interpretation of the Dec-
laration of 1899. It is opposable to Libya by virtue of the 1955 Treaty.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the line described in the 1919
Convention represerits the frontier between Chad and Libya to the east
of the meridian 16"east.
61. The Court now turns to the frontier West of that meridian. The
Franco-ltalian exchange of letters of 1November 1902refers both to the
Anglo-French Declaration of 1899 and to the Franco-Italian exchange
of letters of 1900 (paragraph 29 above). It States that
"the limit to French expansion in North Africa, as referred to in the
above mentioned letter . . . dated 14 December 1900, is to be taken
as corresponding to the frontier of Tripolitania as shown on the map
annexed to the Declaration of 21 March 1899".
The map referred t,o could only be the map in the Livre juune which
showed a pecked line indicating the frontier of Tripolitania. That line
must therefore be examined by the Court in determining the course of the
frontier be~ween Libya and Chad. to the extent that it does not result
from the Anglo-French agreements of 1898, 1899 and 1919.
62. The Convention between the Tunisian Government and the Otto-
man Government OIT19 May 1910 (paragraph 30 above) concerns only
the frontier between the Vilayet of Tripoli (which is now a part of Libya)
and the Regency of Tunis (i.e., present-day Tunisia); and consequently.
while appropriate for inclusion in Annex 1 to the 1955 Treaty, it has no
bearing on the dispute between Libya and Cliad. Similarly, since the
Franco-Italian Arrangement of 12 September 19 19 governs only the sec-
tor between Ghadaniès and Toummo, and thus does not directly concern
the frontier between Chad and Libya, the Court finds it unnecessary to
take it further into consideration here.
63. The Court will now indicate how the line which results from the
combined effect of the instruments listed in Annex 1to the 1955Treaty is
made up, as far as the territories of Chad and Libya are concerned. It is
clear that the eastern end-point of the frontier will lie on the meridian
24" east, which is hei-ethe boundary of the Sudan. To the West,the Court
is not askcd to deterinine the tripoint Libya-Niger-Chad; Chad in its sub-
missions merely askij the Court to declare the course of the frontier "as
far as the tifteenth clegree east of Greenwich". In any event the Court's
decision in this respect, as in the Fronticr Dispute case, "will . . . not be
opposable to Niger as regards the course of that country's frontiers"
(I.C.J. R~porr.v1986, p. 580, para. 50). Between 24" and 16" east of
Greenwich, the line is determined by the Anglo-French Convention of
8 September 1919: i.e., the boundary is a straight line from the point of
intersection of the meridian 24" east with the parallel 19"30'north to thepoint of intersection of the meridian 16" east with the Tropic of Cancer.
From the latter point, the line is determined by the Franco-Italian
exchange of letters of 1 November 1902, by reference to the Livre jaune
map: Le., this line, as shown on that map, runs towards a point immedi-
ately to the south of Toummo; before it reaches that point, however. it
crosses the meridian 15"east, at somepoint on which, from 1930onward,
was situated the conimencement of the boundary between French West
Africa and French Equatorial Africa.
64. Confirmation of the line just described may be found in the Par-
ticular Convention a.nnexed to the 1955 Treaty, which makes provision
for the withdrawal of the French forces stationed in the Fezzan. Among
the matters dealt with are the routes to be followed by the military con-
voys of French forces proceeding to or from Chad. Article 3 of the Par-
ticular Convention cleals with the passage along Piste No. 5 of military
convoys, and Annex III to the Treaty defines Piste No. 5 as the itinerary
which, coming frorni the region of Ramada in Tunisia, passes certain
specified points "and penetrates into territory of Chad in the area of
Muri Idie". The available maps of the area reveal at least four differ-
ent places with names which, while varying from one map to another,
resemble Muri Idie, but two of these are situated well within un-
disputed Libyan territory, nowhere near what might in 1955 have been
regarded as "territory of Chad". The other two are located to the south
of the relevant part of the line on the Livre jaune map, West of the
16"meridian east. One, the Mouri Idiéwater-hole (guelta), is immediately
to the south of thai: line; the other, the Mouri Idié area (deriving its
name from the water-hole), is around 30 kilometres to the south. What is
called Muri Idie in Pinnex III must therefore be identified as being either
of these two places, thus confirming that the parties to the 1955 Treaty
regarded the Livrejaune map line as being, Westof the 16"meridian east,
the boundary of "territory of Chad".
65. Chad, which in its submissions asks the Court to define the frontier
as far Westas the 15'"meridian east, has not defined the point at which,
in its contention, the frontier intersects that meridian. Nor have the Parties
indicated to the Court the exact CO-ordinatesof Toummo in Libya. How-
ever, on the basis of the information available, and in particular the maps
produced by the Parties, the Court has come to the conclusion that the
line of the Livrejaime map crossesthe 15"meridian east at the point of inter-
section ofthat meridi.anwith the parallel 23"of north latitude. In this sector,
the frontier is thus constituted by a straight line from the latter point to the
point of intersection of the meridian 16" east with the Tropic of Cancer.
66. Having concli~ded that a frontier resulted from the 1955 Treaty,
and having established where that frontier lay, the Court is in a position
to consider the subsequent attitudes of the Parties to the question of fron-tiers. No subsequent agreement, either between France and Libya, or
between Chad and Libya, has called in question the frontier in this region
deriving from the 1955 Treaty. On the contrary, if one considers treaties
subsequent to the entry into force of the 1955Treaty, there is support for
the proposition that after 1955,the existence of a determined frontier was
accepted and acted upon by the Parties. The Treaty between Libya and
Chad of 2 March 1966, like the Treaty of 1955, refers to friendship and
neighbourly relations between the Parties, and deals with frontier ques-
tions. Articles1and 2 mention "the frontier" between the two countries,
with no suggestion of there being any uncertainty about it. Articl1 deals
with order and security "along the frontier" and Article 2 with the move-
ment of people living "on each side of the frontier". Article4 deals with
frontier permits and Article 7 with frontier authorities.If a serious dis-
pute had indeed existed regarding frontiers, eleven years after the conclu-
sion of the 1955Treaty, one would expect it to have been reflected in the
1966 Treaty.
67. The Agreement on Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assist-
ance concluded between Chad and Libya on 23 December 1972 again
speaks in terms of good relations and neighbourliness, and stresses
adherence to the priiiciples and objectives of the Organization of African
Unity, and in Article 6 the parties undertake to make every effort to
avoid disputes that rnay arise between them. They also pledge themselves
to work towards the peaceful resolution of any problems that may arise
between them, so as to accord with the spirit of the Charters of the
Organization of Afriican Unity and the United Nations. A further agree-
ment was concluded between the two States on 12August 1974,at a time
when the present dispute had reached the international arena, with com-
plaints having been made by Chad to the United Nations. While friend-
ship and neighbourliness are again mentioned, Article 2 States that the
"frontiers betwiren the two countries are a colonial conception in
which the two peoples and nations had no hand, and this matter
should not obstruct their co-operation and fraternal relations".
The Treaty of Friei~dship and Alliance that the Parties concluded on
15 June 1980 is one of mutual assistance in the event of external aggres-
sion: Libya agrees to make its economic potential available for the eco-
nomic and military rehabilitation of Chad. The Accord between Libya
and Chad of 6 January 1981 also implies the existence of a frontier
between those States, since it provides in Article11 that:
"The two Parties have decided that the frontiers between the
Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of
Chad shall be opened to permit the unhindered and unimpeded free-
dom of movement of Libyan and Chadian nationals, and to weld
together the two fraternal peoples." TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 36
68. The Court now turns to the attitudes of the Parties, subsequent to
the 1955 Treaty, on1occasions when matters pertinent to the frontiers
came up before international fora. Libya achieved its independence nearly
nine years before ChLad;during that period, France submitted reports on
this territory to the United Nations General Assembly. The report for
1955 (United Nations doc. STITRIISER.AI12, p. 66) shows the area of
Chad's territory as 1,284,000 square kilometres, which expressly includes
538,000 square kilornetres for the BET. Moreover United Nations pub-
lications from 1960 onward continued to state the area of Chad as
1,284,000 square kilometres (see for example Yearbook 1960, p. 693,
App. 1). As will be clear from the indications above as to the frontier
resulting from the 1955 Treaty (paragraph 63), the BET is part of the
territory of Chad on the basis of that frontier, but would not be soon the
basis of Libya'sclairn. Libya did not challenge the territorial dimensions
of Chad as set out tiy France.
69. As for Chad, it has consistently adopted the position that it does
have a boundary wi1.hLibya, and that the territory of Chad includes the
"Aouzou strip", Le., the area between the 1919 and 1935 lines shown on
sketch-map No. 2 on page 29 hereof. In 1977 Chad submitted a com-
plaint to the Organiication of African Unity regarding the occupation by
Libya of the Aouzo~istrip. The OAU established an ad hoc committee to
resolve the dispute (AHGIDec. 108 (XIV)). Chad's complaint was kept
before it for 12 yeairs prior to the referral of the matter to this Court.
Before the OAU, Libya's position was, inter alia, that the frontier defined
by the Treaty of 1935 was valid.
70. In 1971, Chatl complained in a statement to the United Nations
General Assembly that Libya was interfering in its interna1 and external
affairs. In 1977 it c:omplained that the Aouzou strip had been under
Libyan occupation siince1973.At the General Assembly's thirty-third ses-
sion, in 1978, Chad complained to the Assembly of "the occupation by
Libya of Aouzou, an integral part of our territory". In 1977 and 1978,
and in each year from 1982 to 1987, Chad protested to the General
Assembly about the encroachment which it alleged that Libya had
made into its territory.
71. By a communication of 9 February 1978, the Head of State of
Chad inforrned the SlecurityCouncil that Libya had "to this day supplied
no documentation to the OAU to justify its claims to Aouzou" and had
in January 1978 failed to participate at the Committee of Experts (the
Ad Hoc.Committee) set up by the OAU. The Permanent Representative
of Chad requested the President of the Security Council to convene a
meeting as a matter of urgency to consider the extremely serious situation
then prevailing. Chad repeated its complaints to the Security Council in
1983, 1985and 1980. Libya has explained that, since it considered that
the Security Council, being a political forum, was not in a position to
judge the merits of the legal problems surroundingthe territorial dispute,it did not attempt to plead its case before the Council. Al1 of these
instances indicate thlc consistency of Chad's conduct in relation to the
location of its boundary.
72. Article Il of the 1955 Treaty provides that:
"The present 'Treaty is concluded for a period of 20 years.
The High Contracting Parties shall be able at al1 times to enter
into consultatioris with a view to its revision.
Such consulta1tionsshall be compulsory at the end of the ten-year
period following its entry into force.
The present Treaty can be terminated by either Party 20 years
after its entry irito force, or at any later time, provided that one
year's notice is given to the other Party."
These provisions notwithstanding, the Treaty must, in the view of the
Court, be taken to have determined a permanent frontier. There is
nothing in the 1955 1Treatyto indicate that the boundary agreed was to
be provisional or teniporary; on the contrary it bears al1 the hallmarks
of finality. The establishment of this boundary is a fact which, from the
outset, has had a legal life of its own, independently of the fate of the
1955 Treaty. Once ag,reed, the boundary stands, for any other approach
would vitiate the fundamental principle of the stability of boundaries, the
importance of which has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court
(Temple of' Preuh Viheur, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 34; Aegean Scu Conti-
nental Shelf: I.C.J. Reports 1978,p. 36).
73. A boundary established by treaty thus achieves a permanence
which the treaty itself'does not necessarily enjoy. The treaty can cease to
be in force without in any way affecting the continuance of the boundary.
In this instance the Parties have not exercised their option to terminate
the Treaty, but whether or not the option be exercised, the boundary
remains. This is not to say that two States may not by mutual agreement
Varythe border between them; such a result can of course be achieved by
mutual consent, but when a boundary has been the subject of agreement,
the continued existence of that boundary is not dependent upon the con-
tinuing life of the treaty under which the boundary is agreed.
74. The C:ourt conicludes that the 15" line claimed by Libya as the
boundary is unsupported by the 1955 Treaty or any of its associated
instruments. The effeiit of the instruments listed in Annex 1to the 1955
Treaty may be summlcd up as follows:
A composite boui~dary results from these instruments; it comprises
two sectors whichi are separately dealt with in instruments listed in Annex 1: a sector to the east of the point of intersection of the Tropic
of Cancer with the 16th degree of longitude east of Greenwich, and a
sector to the Westof that point. This point is hereinafter referred to
for convenience as point X, and indicated as such on sketch-map
No. 4 on page 39 hereof.
- The eastern sector of the boundary is provided by the Anglo-French
Convention of 8 !September 1919: a straight line between point X and
the point of intersection of the 34th degree of longitude east of
Greenwich with parallel 19"30' of latitude north; this latter point is
indicated on sketch-map No. 4 on page 39 hereof as point Y.
The western sector of the boundary, from point X in the direction of
Toummo. is provided by the Franco-ltalian Accord of 1 Novem-
ber 1903. This sector is a straight line following the frontier of
Tripolitania as indicated on the Liiw juurîr map, from point X to the
point of intersection of the 15" meridian east and the paral-
le133" north; this latter point is indicated on sketch-map No. 4 on
page 39 hereof as point Z.
- Four instruments listed in Annex 1 --the Convention of 14 June
1898coupled wit h the Declaration of 21 March 1899, the Accord of
1 November 190:!and the Convention of 8 September 1919 - thus
provide a complete frontier between Libya and Chad.
75. It will be evident from the preceding discussion that the dispute
before the Court. whether described as a territorial dispute or a boundary
dispute, is conclusively determined by a Treaty to which Libya is an
original party and C'had a party in succession to France. The Court's
conclusion that the Treaty contains an agreed boundary renders it un-
necessary to consider the history of the "Borderlands" claimed by Libya
on the basis of title.inherited from the indigenous people, the Senoussi
Order. the Ottoman Empire and Italy. Moreover, in this case, it is Libya,
an original party to i.he Treaty. rather than a successor State, that con-
tests its resolution of the territorial or boundary question. Hence there is
no need for the Cou.rt to explore matters which have been discussed at
length before it such ;is the principle utipo.s.sidetand the applicability
of the Declaration aidopted by the Organization of African Unity at
Cairo in 1964.
76. Likewise. the effectiveness of occupation of the relevant areas in
the past.anci the question whether it was constant, peaceful and acknow-
ledged. are not matters for determination in this case. So, also, the ques-
tion whether the 1955Treaty was declaratory or constitutive does not cal1
for consideration. Th'cconcept of tcrrri t~ulliand the nature of Senoussi,
Ottoman or French administration are likewise not germane to the issue.
For the same reason, the concepts of spheres of influence and of the hin-
terland doctrine do not corne within the ambit of the Court's enquiry in7'ERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 39
SKETCH-MAP NO.4
BoundaryLine
Determined bythe
Court's Judgment
N.B.International boundaries indicated
by peckednesare shown for
illustrativesesonly. TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 40
this case.Similarly, the Court does not need to consider the rules of inter-
temporal law. This J~idgment also does not need to deal with the history
of the dispute as argued before the United Nations and the Organization
of African Unity. The 1955 Treaty completely determined the boundary
between Libya and Chad.
77. For these reasons,
By 16 votes to 1,
(1) Fincts that the boundary between the Great Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad is defined by the
Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness concluded on 10 August
1955 between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Libya;
(2) Finrlsthat the course of that boundary is as follows:
From the point of intersection of the 24th meridian east with the
parallel 19"30' of latitude north, a straight line to the point of inter-
section of the Tropic of Cancer with the 16th meridian east; and from
that point a straight line to the point of intersection of the 15th merid-
ian east and the parallel 23" of latitude north;
these lines are indicai-ed, for the purpose of illustration. on sketch-map
No. 4 on page 39 of i.his Judgment.
IN FAVOIJK: Pr(>sidcwS~itr Robert Jennings; Vice-PlesidentOda; Judgs go,
Schwebel, Bedjao~ii.Ni. Evensen. Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,
Aguilar Mawdsley, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Ajibola. Herczegh; Judgl~r
ad hoc Abi-Saab.
AGAINST: Jlldg~ad hoc Sette-Camara.
Done in French ancdin English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this third day of February, one thousand
nine hundretl and nini:ty-four, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Govern-
ment of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Government of the Republic of Chad. respectively.
(Signedl R. Y. JENNINGS,
President.
(Signeri) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar. 1-ERRITORIALDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 41
Judge Acioappends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court.
Judges SHAHABUDID anENAJIBOL ppend separate opinions to the
Judgment of the Court.
Judge adhot. SETTIKAMARaA ppends adissenting opinion to the Judg-
ment of the Court.
(InitialleR.Y.J.
(Initiullcd) E.V.O.
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS ClONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE
DU DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL
(JAMAf-IIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNEITCHAD)
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING
THE TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAICHAD)
JUDGMENT OF 3FEBRUARY 1994 Mode officielde citation:
Dyjgrend territorial (Jurnuhiriyu arabe libyenne/Tclzad),
urrêt,C.I.J. Recueip. 694,
Official cit:tion
TerritJudgment,C.J. Reports 1996, p.uhiriyu/Chad),
Nocivente: 648 1
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number
ISBN 92-1-070707-9 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL
(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNEITCHAD)
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAICHAD)
3 FEBRUARY 1994
JUDGMENT COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
1994
3 février ANNÉE 1994
Ràle général
no 83
3 février 1994
AFFAIRE
DU DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL
(JAMAHIRIYAARABE LIBYENNEITCHAD)
Cornpétenccde lu Cour - Buses ulternutii1e.sde conipétenc,c.
Dij$érend,fiontulierou difli~rcndtrrritoriul.
Frontièrerevendiqukc)sur Itrhu.~edu fruit&dc 1955 c~)n(./~erntre1irnclPartie et
I'Etut ~~~~I~~ccsdsecIlIutre Prirric~- C(ruiicliistoviqur de1n.sleqlrel.s'in.f6,ri
trait; (le 195- 1n.strurnn~t.isnternertionurrntc;rieu-s Interprétationdr truité
-- Prirzcipe~/'interprc;teitnrpp/iccibls Sens nuturel et ordinuirrdes terrney-
Sens du niot« reconnui.tsunc»e~(igissuntdefion fière- Interprétutionde coriirn-
tiorisrle>stincir tublirtles,frontiè-c.sPrincipeile I'efiEtuti-e Objet et but LI
truitc; Contr.utedu trcritk- Conilentionsconc~luee.n mCmeterilpsquc /ctraité
- Recours aux trui~uu.p~rL;l)(rr(rtoir(~.s.
Fronti6r.cqui« rc;.su»e(/'ucte.sirztern~itior(et?iY,gucur»(lefiniÙ1 unnc.ueuu
trerit- Interprétutionde lu c/i<~lurcrtiocorliointe,frunco-britrinniquedc] 1899
- Diterrnincrtiondu trucc; /usfronti(;re.
A ttit!ir/rsu/téric~urcdP.srtic~- Trciitis- Iti.stun(~eisnternutiotiu/es.
Duréed'une,fiontiéreétublicp ~ur trcri-c;Stabilitéci'c~ssfionti-e.s Pc,rsistance
dirrie,/ionti~;i~d;l,cntlummentdu sort clutraitc;par lc~qullle cr[;téconvenue.
Prc;.tents: Sir Robert JENNINGP Sr.isiderzt; M. ODA,Vice-Président;MM. AGO.
SCHWEBE B~,DJA~IJ NIi,. EVENSET NA, RASSOG VU. ILLALM S~,AHABCD-
DEEN, AGUILA M RAWDSLW EYE.ERAMANR TARNYJ, EVAJ.IBOLH A,ERCZEGH,
juges; MM. S~TTE-CAMAR AB.I-SAAB ,,I~CSad hoc; M. VALENC'IA-
OSPINA G,reffier. 1NTE.RNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
1994
YEAR 1994 3 February
Genera! List
No. 83
3 February 1994
CASE CONCERNING
THE:TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAICHAD)
J~lrisclic.tinf the Court - Alternative grouncl.uf,jurisdiction.
Boundarj dispute or territorial dispute.
Boundury cluimecion rliehusis of'1955 Treuty het~veenone Purty undpredc.ces-
sor of'other Party - .Backgroundto 1955 Treaty - Pre1iou.7international insrru-
rncnts - biterpretation of Treaty - Applicahlc [email protected] oJ interpretation -
N<~turuu Ind'ordinar!'fneaning of tcwns - Sign$cance qftl~e tertn "recogni-e" Ni
rclution to froritirrs-- Intcrpretirfion uf con11elitionsdc~sigrietu e.stahlishjj.on-
tiers- Priticipluf <j"c~(.tivcne.~s Ohject und purpose of'Treutj - Conte.vt qf'
Trcutj - Convcr~tiotise,oncl~rdcd simultr~neouslj ivith Tveatj,- Rqferc~nceto
travaux préparatoires.
Bounclurj.11.hic."1es~llts",froniir~fcrncitionuilnstrun1rnt.s"en vigueur" listed in
Ar1rie.uto Tri>u~' - Interpretution uf' 1899 Anglo-Frrricli,joint dc~c.luration-
Dctcrrninatiotioj'tl~ccvurse qf [liehounclrrj~.
Subsequetit attitudes qf'Purtics - Treaties - Intcrtzarionul,fi)ra.
Durution of hounclurj c~strrhlishrdj treaty - Stubility of houndaries - Con-
[inliedc~.~i.rtc'cf'coirndarj~inclepenclentlc('?/'/fi of [lietrratjsunder ivlit ,vas
ugrred
JUDGMENT
Present: Presiu'rnt Siir ROBERT JENNINGS:Vice-President ODA; Judges AGO.
SCHWEBEB LE, DJAOCN I,I, EVENSEN T,ARASSOG VU, ILLAIJMS EH, AHARUD-
DEENA , GUII.AR MAWDSLEW Y.EERAMANTR RAYN,JEVA.AJIBOLAH , FRC-
ZEC;~ ~J~(c/gt'ad hoc S~TTE-CAMARA AB,I-SAABR ; egistrrrrVALENCIA-
OSPIKA.7 DIFFÉKEND TERRITORIAL(ARRET)
En l'affaire du différend territorial,
entre
la Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste,
représentéepar
S. Exc. M. Abdulati Ibrahim El-Obeidi, ambassadeur,
comme agent;
M. Kamel H. El Maghur. membre du barreau de Libye,
M. Derek W. Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C.. F.B.A.. professcur émérite, ancien titu-
laire de la chaire Whewelà l'universitéde Cambridge,
M. Philippe Cahier, professeur de droit internationall'Institut universitaire
de hautes études internationales de l'université de Genève,
M. Luigi Condorelli, professeur de droit international à l'université de
Genève,
M. James R. Crawford, titulaire de la chaire Whewell de droit international
àl'universitéde Cambridge,
M. Rudolf Dolzer, professeur de droit internationalàl'universitéde Mann-
heim,
sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
M. Walter D. Sohier, membre des barreaux de I'Etat de New York et du
district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Timm T. Riedinger, Rechtsanii~alt,Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
M. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
M. Richard Meese, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
M'leLoretta Malintoppi, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
MlleAzza Maghur, membre du barreau de Libye,
comme conseils;
M. Scott B. Edmonds, cartographe, Maryland Cartographics Inc.,
M. Bennet A. Moe, cartographe, Maryland Cartographics Inc.,
M. Robert C. Rizzutti, cartographe, Maryland Cartographics Inc.,
comme experts,
la République du Tchad,
représentéepar
M. Abderahman Dadi, directeur de 1'Ecolenationale d'administration et de
magistrature de N'Djamena,
comme agent;
S. Exc. M. Mahamat Ali-Adoum, ancien ministre des affaires étrangèresde
la Républiquedu Tchad,
comme coagent ;
S. Exc. M. Ahmad Allam-Mi, ambassadeur de la Républiquedu Tchad en
France,
S. Exc. M. Ramadane Barma, ambassadeur de la République du Tchad en
Belgique et aux Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers : In the case concerning the territorial dispute,
the Great Socialist People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Abdulati Ibrahim El-Obeidi, Ambassador,
as Agent;
Mr. Kamel H. El Ntaghur, Member of the Bar of Libya,
Mr. Derek W. Boaett, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor emeritus,
University of Carnbridge,
Mr. Philippe Cahier, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of
InternationalStutlies, University of Geneva.
Mr. Luigi Condorel:li,Professor of International Law, University of Geneva,
Mr. James R. Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law, University
of Cambridge,
Mr. Rudolf Dolzer., Professor of International Law. University of Mann-
heim,
Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
Mr. Walter D. Sohier, Member of the Bar of the State of New York and of
the District of Columbia,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Timm T. Riedii~ger,Rechtsanwalt, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Mr. Richard Meese. avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Miss Loretta Malini:oppi, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Miss Azza Maghur, Member of the Bar of Libya,
as Counsel;
Mr. Scott B. Edmorids, Cartographer, Maryland Cartographics, Inc.,
Mr. Bennet A. Moe, Cartographer, Maryland Cartographics, Inc.,
Mr. Robert C. Rizzutti, Cartographer, Maryland Cartographics, Inc.,
as Experts.
and
the Republic of Chad,
represented by
Rector Abderahmari Dadi, Director of the Ecole nationale d'administration
et de magistrature de N'Djamena,
as Agent ;
H.E. Mr. Mahamat Ali-Adoum, formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Chad,
as Co-Agent;
H.E. Mr. Ahmad Allam-Mi, Ambassador of the Republic of Chad to France,
H.E. Mr. Ramadane Barma, Ambassador of the Republic of Chad to Bel-
gium and the Netherlands,
as Advisers; M. Alain Pellet. professeur Al'université de Paris X-Nanterre età l'Institut
d'étudespolitiques de Paris.
comme agent adjoint, conseil et avocat;
M. Antonio Cassese, professeur de droit internationalà l'Institut universi-
taire européen de Florence,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot, professeur à l'université de Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sor-
bonne),
M. Thomas M. Franck, titulaire de la chaire Becker de droit international et
directeur du centre d'études internationales de l'université de New York.
Mn" Rosalyn Higgins, Q.C., professeur de droit international à l'université
de Londres,
comme conseils et avocats:
M. Malcolm N. Shaw. titulaire de la chaire Ironsides Ray and Vials de droit
à l'université de Leicester, membre du barreau d'Angleterre,
M. Jean-Marc Sorel. professeur à l'université de Rennes,
comme avocats;
M. Jean Gateaud, ingénieur généralgéographe honoraire,
comme conseil et cartographe;
M. Jean-Pierre Mignard, avocat àla cour d'appel de Paris,
M. Marc Sassen, avocat et conseiller juridique, La Haye,
comme conseils;
Mm' Margo Baender. assistante de recherche au centre d'étudesinternatio-
nales de l'université de New York,
M. Olivier Corten, assistant à la faculté de droit de l'université libre de
Bruxelles.
M. Renaud Dehousse. maître-assistant A l'Institut universitaire européen de
Florence,
M. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, attaché temporaire d'enseignement etde recherche
àl'universitéde Paris X-Nanterre,
M. Joseph Tjop, attaché temporaire d'enseignement et de recherche à l'Uni-
versitéde Paris X-Nanterre.
comme conseillers et assistants de recherche;
MlneRochelle Fenchel.
MlneSusan Hunt,
Mlle Florence Jovis,
MlneMireille Jung,
MrlleMartine Soulier-Moroni,
ainsi composée,
après délibéré en chambre du conseil.
rend 1arrPtsuii9ant:
1. Le 31août 1990,leGouvernement de la Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
populaire et socialiste (dénomméeci-après la «Libye))), se référantau para-
graphe 1 de l'article 40 du Statut de la Cour, a procédéà la notification au
Greffe de la Cour d'un accord intitul« Accord-cadre sur le règlement pacifique Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre and at the
Institut d'études politiques of Paris,
as Deputy-Agent, C'ounseland Advocate;
Mr. Antonio Cassese, Professor of International Law at the European Uni-
versity Institute. ]Florence,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, Professor at the University of Paris 1 (Panthéon-
Sorbonne).
Mr. Thomas M. Franck, Becker Professor of International Law and Direc-
tor, Center for International Studies, New York University,
Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins. Q.C., Professor of International Law, University of
London,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Ironsides Ray and Vials Professor of Law, Univer-
sity of Leicester, Member of the English Bar,
Mr. Jean-Marc Sori:l, Professor at the University of Rennes,
as Advocates;
Mr. Jean Gateaud, ingénieurgénéralgéographe honoraire.
as Counsel and Cartographer;
Mr. Jean-Pierre Mignard, Advocate at the Court of Appeal of Paris.
Mr. Marc Sassen, Advocate and Legal Adviser, The Hague,
as Counsel;
Mrs. Margo Baender, Research Assistant, Center for International Studies,
New York University,
Mr. Olivier Corten, Assistant at the Faculty of Law of the Universitélibre de
Bruxelles.
Mr. Renaud Dehouisse, Senior Assistant at the European University Insti-
tute, Florence,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thoiivenin, attachétemporaire d'enseignement et de recherche
at the University of Paris X-Nanterre.
Mr. Joseph Tjop. ai.tachétemporaire d'enseignement et de recherche at the
University of Paris X-Nanterre,
as Advisers and Research Assistants:
Mrs. Rochelle Fenchel,
Mrs. Susan Hunt,
Miss Florence Jovis,
Mrs. Mireille Jung,
Mrs. Martine Soulier-Moroni.
composed as above,
after deliberation,
1.On 31 August 1990. the Government of the Great Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriiya (hereinafter called "Libya"), referring to Article 40,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court. filed in the Registry a notification of
an agreement entitled "'Framework Agreement [Accord-Cadre] on the Peaceful9 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL(ARRET)
du différendterritorial entre la Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et
socialiste et la République du Tchad)) (dénomméci-après l'«accord-cadre))),
faità Alger le 31 août 1989 en langues arabe et française; une copie certifiée
conforme de l'accord-cadre était jointe à cette notification.
2. Le texte de l'accord-cadre enregistré au Secrétariat de l'organisation des
Nations Unies en vertu de l'article 102 de la Charte et notifié à l'organisation
de l'unité africaineest le suivant:
«La Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste d'une part,
et la Républiquedu Tchad d'autre part,
se fondant, d'une part, sur les résolutionsde l'organisation de l'unité afri-
caine (OUA), en particulier la résolution AHGIRés.6 (XXV) sur le diffé-
rend territorial Libye-Tchad, et d'autre part, sur les principes fondamen-
taux de l'organisation des Nations Unies (ONU), à savoir notamment:
- le règlement des différends internationaux par des moyens pacifiques;
- l'égalitésouveraine de tous les Etats;
- le non-recours à la menace ou à l'emploi de la force dans les rapports
entre les Etats;
- le respect de la souveraineté nationale et de l'intégritéterritoriale de
chaque Etat ;
- la non-ingérence dans les affaires intérieures;
déterminées à réglerpacifiquement leur différend territorial,
DECIDENT DE CONCLURE LE PRÉSENT ACCORD:
Article premier. Les deux parties s'engagent à réglerd'abord leur diffé-
rend territorial par tous les moyens politiques, y compris la conciliation,
dans un délaid'un an, citécomme référence, a moins que les chefs d'Etat
en décident autrement.
Article 2. A défaut d'un règlement politique à leur différend territorial,
les deux parties s'engagent :
a) à soumettre le différendau jugement de la Cour internationale de Jus-
tice;
h) à prendre des mesures d'accompagnement au règlementjuridictionnel,
à savoir sur le retrait des forces des deux pays des positions qu'elles
occupent actuellement en date du 25 août 1989dans la région litigieuse
sous la supervision d'une commission d'observateurs africains, et à
s'interdire toute implantation nouvelle sous quelque forme que ce soit
dans ladite région ;
c) à procéder audit retrait à des distances à convenir;
dj à observer lesdites mesures d'accompagnement jusqu'à ce que la Cour
internationale de Justice rende un arrêtdéfinitifsur le litige territorial.
Article 3. Tous les prisonniers de guerre seront libérés.
Article 4. La Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste
et la République du Tchad réitèrent leursdécisionssur le cessez-le-feu ins-
tauré entre elles et s'engagent en outre à cesser toute forme d'hostilité,
notamment a:
a) cesser toute campagne médiatique hostile;
h) s'abstenir de s'immiscer directement ou indirectement, sous aucune
forme, sous aucun prétexteet en aucune circonstance, dans les affaires
intérieures et extérieuresde leurs pays respectifs; 'TERRITORIALDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 9
Settlement of the Territorial Dispute between the Great Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad" (hereinafter referred to as
the "Accord-Cadre"), done in the Arabic and French languages at Algiers on
31 August 1989. A certified copy of the Accord-Cadre was annexed to that
notification.
2. The text of the Accord-Cadre, registered with the Secretariat of the
United Nations under Article 102 of the Charter, and notified to the Organi-
zation of African Unity, is as follows:
"The great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic
of Chad,
On the basis, on the one hand, of the resolutions of the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), in particular resolution AHGIRes.6 (XXV)on the
LibyaiChad territorial dispute and, on the other hand, of the fundamental
principles of the United Nations, namely:
- the peaceful settlement of international disputes;
- the sovereign equality of al1States;
- non-use of force or threat of force in relations between States;
- respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of each
State;
- non-interfererice in internal affairs;
Resolved to settle their territorial dispute peacefully,
Article 1. The two Parties undertake to settle first their territorial dis-
pute by al1 political means, including conciliation. within a period of
approximately one year, unless the Heads of State otherwise decide.
Article 2. In the absence of a political settlement of their territorial dis-
pute, the two Parties undertake:
(u) to submit the dispute to the International Court of Jusfice;
(h) to take measures concomitant with the judicial settlement by with-
drawing the forces of the two countries from the positions which they
currently occupy on 25 August 1989in the disputed region, under the
supervision of a commission of African observers, and to refrain
from establishing any new presence in any form in the said region;
(c) to proceed to the said withdrawal to distances to be agreed on;
) to observe the said concomitant measures until the International Court
of Justice hands down a finaljudgment on the territorial dispute.
Article 3. All prisoners of war shall be released.
Article 4. The great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Republic of Chacl reiterate their decisions concerning the cease-fire estab-
lished between them and undertake further to desist from any kind of hos-
tility and. in particular, to:
(u) desist from ;iny hostile media campaign;
(h) abstain from interfering directly or indirectly, in any way, on any pre-
text and in iiny circumstance, in the internal and external affairs of
their respective cquntries; c) s'interdire tout appui politique, matériel, financier et militàitoutes
les forces hostileà l'un ou l'autre des deux pays;
4 procéder à la signature d'un traité d'amitié, de bon voisinage et de
coopération économique et financière entre les deux pays.
Article 5. Les deux parties décident de la mise sur pied d'une commis-
sion mixte qui sera chargée d'arrêterles dispositions en vue de I'applica-
tion du présentaccord et de veilleà prendre toute mesure nécessaire à cet
effet.
Article 6. Le comitéud hoc de l'organisation de l'unité africaine (OUA)
sur le différend Libye-Tchad sera appelé à assurer le suivi de la mise en
Œuvre des dispositions du présent accord.
Article7. La Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste
et la République du Tchad s'engagent à notifier le présent accorà l'Or-
ganisation des Nations Unies (ONU) et à l'organisation de l'unité afri-
caine (OUA).
Article 8. Le présentaccord entre en vigueur à la date de sa signature.))
3. Dans sa notification à la Cour, le Gouvernement libyen indiquait notam-
ment ce qui suit:
«Les négociations visées à l'article premier de l'accord-cadre n'ont pas
abouti à la solution du différend territorial entre les Parties ...et les chefs
d'Etat respectifs ne sont pas parvenuà une décisionpour modifier les pro-
cédures établiespar ledit accord.
En conséquence, la Libye est tenue, à la suite de l'expiration du délai
d'un an viséà l'article premier. de s'acquitter de l'engagement qu'elle a pris
à l'article 2. alinLI)de ((soumettre le différendau jugement de la Cour
internationale de Justice)).
Aux fins du Règlement de la Cour, le différendsoumis à la Cour est leur
différendterr-itorial visédans l'accord-cadre, et la question poàla Cour
peut êtredéfiniedans les termes suivants:
«En vue de la poursuite de l'application de l'accord-cadre, et compte
tenu du différend territorial entre les Parties, statuer sur les limites de
leurs territoires respectifs conformément aux règlesdu droit internatio-
nal applicables en la matière»
4. Conformément au paragraphe 1de l'article 39 du Règlement de la Cour.
une copie certifiéeconforme de la notification et de son annexe a immédiate-
ment ététransmise par le Greffier adjoint au Gouvernement de la République
du Tchad (dénomméeci-après le ((Tchad n).
5. Le 3 septembre 1990, le Gouvernement du Tchad a déposéau Greffe de la
Cour une requêteintroductive d'instance contre la Libye. dont le texte avait été
préalablement transmis au Greffe par télécopiele lcr septembre 1990 et à
laquelle étaitjointe une copie de l'accord-cadre. Dans sa requête,le Tchad indi-
quait notamment que les chefs d'Etat des deux Parties, «lors du sommet de
Rabat, les 33 et 23 août 1990,[avaient]décidéde saisir immédiatement la Cour
internationale de Justice)) et que cette même requête étai«tformée en applica-
tion de cette décision etde l'article 2 u) de l'accord-cadre du 31 août 1989));
pour fonder la compétence de la Cour, il invoquait, à titre principal, I'ar- (c) refrain frorri giving any political, material, financial or military sup-
port to the hostile forces of either of the two countries;
(d) proceed to the signature of a treaty of friendship, good-neighbour-
liness and economic and financial CO-operation between the two
countries.
Article 5. The ltwoParties decide to establish a Mixed Commission to be
entrusted with the task of making the necessary arrangements for the
implementation of this Agreement and ensuring that al1 necessary meas-
ures are taken to this end.
Article6. The Ad Hoc Committee of the Organization of African Unity
on the LibyaIChad dispute shall be requested to monitor the implementa-
tion of the provisions of this Agreement.
Article7. The great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Republic of Chad undertake to give notice of this Agreement to the
United Nations and the Organization of African Unity.
Article 8. This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of its signa-
ture."
3. In its notification to the Court. the Libyan Government stated, inter rrliu.
the following :
"The negotiations referred to in Article 1 of the Accord-Cadre have
failed to resolve the territorial dispute between the Parties . . . and no deci-
sion by the respective Heads of State has been reached to Vary the pro-
cedures established by the Accord.
Accordingly Libya is bound, following the expiry of the year referred to
in Article 1. to iinplement its obligation under Article 2 /a) '. . .à sou-
mettre le différendau jugement de la Cour internationale de Justice'.
For Lhepurposes of the Rules of Court, the dispute ('différend')sub-
mitted to the Court is their territorial dispute ('leur différendterritorial')
referred to in the Accord-Cadre, and the question put to the Court may be
defined in the following terms:
'In further implementation of the Accord-Cadre, and taking into
account the tel-ritorial dispute between the Parties, to decide upon the
limits of their respective territories in accordance with the rules of inter-
national law applicable in the matter.'"
4. Pursuant to Article 39, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Couri, a certified
copy of the notificatiion and its annex was communicated forthwith to the
Government of the R.epublic of Chad (hereinafter referred to as "Chad") by
the Deputy-Registrar.
5. On 3 September 1990, the Government of Chad filed in the Registry of
the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Libya, the text of
which had previousljl been communicated to the Registry by facsimile on
1September 1990and to which was attached a copy of the Accord-Cadre. In its
Application. Chad stated, intcr ulia, that the Heads of State of the two Parties
had. "during the summit meeting held in Rabat on 22-23August 1990,decided
to seise the International Court of Justice immediately" and that the Applica-
tion had been "drawn up pursuant to that decision and to Article 2 ((1)of the
Accord-Cadre of 31 P~ugust1989"; it relied, as a basis for the Court's jurisdic-11 DIFFEREND TERRITORIAL (ARRÉT)
ticle 2a) de l'accord-cadre et,à titre subsidiaire, l'article 8 d'un traitéfranco-
libyen d'amitiéet de bon voisinage du 10 août 1955; et il priait la Cour de
((déterminer le tracé de la frontière entre la République du Tchad et la
Jamahiriya arabe libyenne, conformément aux principes et règlesde droit
international applicables en la matière entre les Parties)).
6. Conformément au paragraphe 2 de l'article 40 du Statut et au para-
graphe 4 de I'article 38 du Règlement. le Greffier a immédiatement transmis
au Gouvernement libyen une copie certifiéeconforme de la requête.
7. Par une lettre en date du 28 septembre 1990,reçue au Greffe le mêmejour
par télécopie, etdont l'original a étéreçu le 5 octobre 1990,l'agent du Tchad a
notamment fait savoir à la Cour que son gouvernement constatait que «sa
demande coïncide avec celle contenue dans la notification que la Jamahiriya
arabe libyenne lui a adresséele 31 août 1990))et considérait que
«ces deux notifications concernent une affaire unique, dont la Cour est sai-
sie en application de l'accord d'Alger, qui constitue le compromis, fonde-
ment principal de sa compétenceen l'espèce »;
copie de cette lettre a été adressàel'agent de la Libye par le Greffier adjoint le
Icr octobre 1990.
8. Au cours d'une réunion que le Président de la Cour a tenue le 24 oc-
tobre 1990 avec les agents des Parties, en application de l'article 31 du Règle-
ment. ceux-ci sont convenus d'une part que l'instance avait en fait étéintroduite
par deux notifications successives du compromis que constitue l'accord-cadre
du 31 août 1989 - la notification déposéepar la Libye le 31 août 1990et la com-
munication faite par le Tchad le 3 septembre 1990,lue à la lumièrede la lettre de
l'agent du Tchad du 28 septembre 1990 - et d'autre part que la procédureen
l'espècedevait êtredéterminéepar la Cour sur cette base. conformémentau para-
graphe 2 de I'article 46du Règlement.
9. Par ordonnancedu 26 octobre 1990, la Cour a en conséquence décidé que
chacune des Parties déposerait un mémoire et un contre-mémoire dans les
mêmes délais,et a fixéau 26 août 1991 la date d'expiration du délaipour le
dépôt des mémoires.
10. Conformément au paragraphe 3 de I'article 40 du Statut et à l'article 42
du Règlement, des copies des notifications et du compromis ont été transmises
au Secrétaire généralde l'organisation des Nations Unies, aux Membres des
Nations Unies et aux autres Etats admis àester devant la Cour; un exemplaire
de l'ordonnance du 26 octobre 1990 leur a également été communiqué.
11. La Cour ne comptant sur le siègeaucun juge de la nationalité des Parties,
chacune d'elles s'estprévaluedu droit que lui confère le paragraphe 3 de l'ar-
ticle 31 du Statut de procéder à la désignation d'un juge rrrhoc pour siégeren
l'affaire: le Tchad a désignéM. Georges Abi-Saab, et la Libye M. JoséSette-
Camara.
12. Les mémoires des Parties ayant été dûmentdéposésdans le délaifixé à
cet effet, le Président,par ordonnance du 26 août 1991,a fixéau 27 mars 1992
la date d'expiration du délaipour le dépôt, par chacune d'elles, d'un contre-
mémoire; les contre-mémoires ont étédûment déposésdans le délai ainsifixé.
13. Par ordonnance du 14avril 1992.la Cour a décidéd'autoriser la présenta- TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 11
tion, principally on Article 2 la) of the Accord-Cadre and, subsidiarily, on
Article 8 of a Franco-Libyan Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness
of 10August 1955; and it requested the Court to
"determine the course of the frontier between the Republic of Chad and
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in accordance with the principles and rules of
international law applicable in the matter as between the Parties".
6. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article 38, para-
graph 4, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar transmitted forthwith to the
Libyan Government ;i certified copy of the Application.
7. By a letter dated 28 September 1990, received in the Registry the same day
by facsimile, and the original of which was received on 5 October 1990, the
Agent of Chad infornned the Court, inrer aliu,that his Government had noted
that "its claim coincides with that contained in the notification addressed to the
Court on 31 August 1990by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" and considered that
"those two notifications relate to one single case, referred to the Court in
application of thr: Algiers Agreement, which constitutes the Special Agree-
ment, che principal basis of the Court's jurisdiction to deal with the
matter" ;
a copy of this letter was addressed to the Agent of Libya by the Deputy-
Registrar on 1October 1990.
8. At a meeting held by the President of the Court on 24 October 1990with
the Agents of the Parties, pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules of Court. it was
agreed between the Agents, first that the proceedings had in effect been insti-
tuted by two successi.venotifications of the Special Agreement constituted by
the Accord-Cadre of 3l August 1989 - that filed by Libya on 31August 1990.
and the communication from Chad filed on 3 September 1990,read in conjunc-
tion with the letter from the Agent of Chad of 28 September 1990 - and
secondly that the procedure in this case should be determined by the Court on
that basis, pursuant to Article 46. paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.
9. By an Order dated 26 October 1990, the Court decided accordingly that
each Party would file a Memorial and Counter-Memorial. within the same
time-limits, and fixed 26 August 1991 as the time-limit for the Memorials.
10. Pursuant to Ari.icle40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the
Rules of Court, copies of the notifications and of the Special Agreement were
transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Members of
the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court; a
copy of the Order dated 26 October 1990was also communicated to them.
11. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of
the Parties, each of them exercised its right under Article 31, paragraph 3, of
the Statute to choose a judge ad iioc,to sit in the case: Chad designated
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, and Libya designated Mr. JoséSette-Camara.
12. The Memorials of the Parties having been duly filed within the time-limit
fixed for that purpose, the President, by an Order dated 26 August 1991, fixed
27 March 1992 as the time-limit for the filing, by each of the Parties, of a
Counter-Memorial: the Counter-Mernorials were duly filed within the time-
limit so fixed.
13. Byan Order dated 14April 1992,the Court decided to authorize the pres-12 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRET)
tion par chacune des Parties d'une répliquedans le même délaeixpirant le 14sep-
tembre 1992; les répliquesont étédûment déposéesdans le délaiainsi fixé.
14. Le 9 février1993. après la cloture de la procédure écrite,l'agent adjoint
du Tchad a communiqué au Greffe des documents nouveaux sous le couvert
d'une lettre dans laquelle il priait la Cour, si la Partie libyenne ne donnait pas
son assentiment à la présentation de ces documents, d'autoriser cette présenta-
tion au titre du paragraphe 2 de I'article 56du Règlement: la Libye ne s'est pas
opposée à la production desdits documents.
15. Conformément au paragraphe 2 de l'article 53 du Règlement, la Cour a
décidéde rendre accessibles au public. à l'ouverture de la procédure orale, les
piècesde procédure et documents annexés.
16. Les Parties ayant étédûment consultées conformément à l'article 31 et
au paragraphe 2 de I'article 58 du Règlement, des audiences publiques ont été
tenues entre le 14juin et le 14juillet 1993,au cours desquelles ont étéentendus
en leurs plaidoiries et réponses:
Pour ltr Libyc~: S. Exc. M. Abdulati Ibrahim El-Obeidi,
M. Derek W. Bowett. C.B.E.. Q.C., F.B.A.,
M. Kamel H. El Maghur,
sir lan Sinclair. K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
M. Walter D. Sohier,
M. Luigi CondoreIli,
M. Philippe Cahier,
M. James R. Crawford.
M. Rudolf Dolzer.
Pour lc~Tcliud: M. Abderahman Dadi.
M. Alain Pellet,
MnlcRosalyn Higgins. Q.C.,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot,
M. Thomas M. Franck.
M. Antonio Cassese.
M. Malcolm N. Shaw.
M. Jean-Marc Sorel.
A l'audience, un membre de la Cour a posé à l'une des Parties une questionà
laquelle il a été répondupar écrit; cette réponseétant parvenue au Greffe au
terme de la procédure orale. l'autre Partie a présenté desobservations écritàs
son sujet conformément àI'article 72 du Règlement.
17. Dans l'instance, les conclusions ci-après ont étéprésentéespar les Par-
ties:
Airnon1tle lu Libyc,
dans le mémoire, le contre-mémoire et la réplique, ainsi qu'à l'audience du
8juillet 1993 (textes identiques nz~~tu.7utrrntli.v):
((Eukgurdaux divers traités, accords, conventions et arrangements inter-
nationaux età leur effet ou absence d'effet sur le présentdifférend,selon ce
qui est exposédans le mémoire,le contre-mémoire, la répliqueet les plai-
doiries de la Libye,
Conipte tenu des autres faits et circonstances ayant une incidence sur
cette affaire, comme indiquéci-dessus, ainsi que dans les écritureset plai-
doiries de la Libye,
A Itr IuniiGrc.de la conduite des Parties, de celle d'autres Etats ou de forces politiques, séculièresou religieuses dont la conduite a une incidence
sur les droits et titres revendiqués par les Parties, ainsi que de la conduite
des peuples autochtones dont les territoires sont l'objet du présentdifférend,
En application des principes et règlesde droit international pertinents en
l'espèce,
Plaire à /i Cour, rejetant toutes prétentions et conclusions contraires:
Dire et jugcr
1. Qu'il n'existe,à l'est de Toummo, aucune frontière entre la Libye et
le Tchad en vertu d'aucun accord international existant:
2. Que, dans ces conditions, pour déciderde l'attribution des territoires
respectifs entre la Libye et le Tchad conformément aux règles de droit
international applicables en l'espèce,les facteurs suivants sont pertinents:
i) le territoire en question, à toutes les époques pertinentes, n'était pas
terra nullius;
ii) à toutes les époques pertinentes, le titre sur le territoire appartenait
aux peuples habitant ledit territoire. qui étaient des tribus, des confé-
dérations de tribus ou d'autres peuples devant allégeance à l'Ordre
senoussi et qui avaient accepté l'autorité senoussi dans leur lutte
contre les empiétements de la France et de l'Italie sur leurs terres;
iii) à toutes les époques pertinentes.ces peuples autochtones faisaient partie
des peuples libyens des points de vue religieux,culturel, économiqueet
politique;
iv) au niveau international, il existait une communauté de titre entre le
titre des peuples autochtones et les droits et titres de l'Empire otto-
man, transmis à l'Italie en 1912et héritéspar la Libye en 1951 ;
v) toute revendication du Tchad repose sur la revendication héritéede la
France ;
vi) la revendication française sur la zone en litige reposait sur des ((actes
internationaux)) qui n'ont pas crééde frontière territoriale à l'est de
Toummo, et il n'existe aucun autre fondement valable pour étayerla
revendication française sur la zone en litige;
3. Qu'à la lumière des facteurs ci-dessus la Libye a un titre incontestable
sur tout le territoire situé au nord de la ligne tracée sur la carte 105 du
mémoirede la Libye, sur la carte LC-M 55 du contre-mémoire de la Libye
et sur la carte LR 32 de la répliquede la Libye, c'est-à-dire la zone déli-
mitéepar une ligne qui part de l'intersection de la frontière orientale du
Niger et du 18' parallèle nord. continue dans une direction exactement
sud-estjusqu'à ce qu'elle rencontre le parallèle nord, puis suit ce paral-
lèlevers I'estjusqu'à sa jonction avec la frontière existante entre le Tchad
et le Soudan. »
Au nom du Tchad
dans le mémoire, le contre-mémoire et la réplique, ainsi qu'à l'audience du
14juillet 1993(textes identiques):
«La République du Tchad prie respectueusement la Cour internationale
de Justice de dire et juger que sa frontière avec la Jamahiriya arabe
libyenne est constituée par la ligne suivante:
- du point d'intersection du 24e degré de longitude est de Greenwich or political, secular or religious forces, whose conduct bears on the rights
and titles claime:d by the Parties, and of the conduct of the indigenous
peoples whose territories are the subject of this dispute;
In aj)plic.utionofthe principles and rules of international law of relevance
to this dispute;
MUJ it pleuse the Courr. rejecting al1contrary claims and submissions:
To crdjuclgeunrideclrirc,as follows:
1. Thac there exists no boundary, east of Toummo, between Libya and
Chad by virtue of any existing international agreement.
2. That in the circumstances, therefore, in deciding upon the attribution
of the respective territories as between Libya and Chad in accordance with
the rules of international law applicable in this matter, the following
factors are relevant :
(i) that the territory in question, at al1 relevant times, was not terra
nit1liuv
(ii) that title to the territory was. at al1 relevant times, vested in the
peoples inhabiting the territory, who were tribes, confederations of
tribes or other peoples owing allegiance to the Senoussi Order who
had accepted Senoussi leadership in their fight against the encroach-
ments of Firance and Italv on their lands:
(iii) thatthese indigenous peoples were, at al1 relevant times, religiously,
culturally, economically and politically part of the Libyan peoples;
(iv) that. on the international plane, there existed a community of title
between the title of the indigenous peoples, and the rights and titles
of the Ottoman Empire, passed on to Italy in 1912 and inherited
by Libya iri 1951 ;
(v) that any clziimof Chad rests on the claim inherited from France;
(vi) that the French claim to the area in dispute rested on 'actes interna-
tionaux' that did not create a territorial boundary east of Toummo,
and that tl-iere is no valid alternative basis to support the French
claim to the area in dispute.
3. That, in the light of the above factors, Libya has clear title to al1the
territory north of the line shown on Map 105 in Libya's Memorial, on
Map LC-M 55 in Libya's Counter-Memorial and on Map LR 32 in
Libya's Reply. that is to say the area bounded by a line that starts at the
intersection of theeastern boundary of Niger and 18" N latitude,continues
in a strict south-east direction until it reaches 15" N latitude, and then
follows this parallel eastwards to its junction with the existing boundary
between Chad and Sudan."
in the Memorial. thi: Counter-Memorial and the Reply, and at the hearing of
14July 1993(identical texts):
"The Republic of Chad respectfully requests the International Court of
Justice to adjudge and declare that its frontier with the Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriya is constituted by the following line:
- from the point of intersection of the 24" of longitude east of Greenwich avecle parallèle19"30'de latitude nord, la frontièresedirigejusqu'au
point de rencontre dutropique du Cancer avecle 16' degré de longi-
tude est de Greenwich;
- de ce dernier point elle suit une ligne se dirigeant vers le puits de
Toummo jusqu'au 15'degréest de Greenwich. ))
18. La Cour a étésaisie du présentdifférendentre la Libye et le Tchad
par les notifications qui lui ont étéfaites du compromis constitué par I'ac-
cord-cadre du 31 août 1989 dont le texte est reproduit au paragraphe 2
ci-dessus. L'accord-cadre présentait le différend entre les Parties comme
«leur différend territorial)), mais ne le qualifiait pas davantage; or il res-
sort des écritures et des plaidoiries des Parties que celles-ci sont en désac-
cord sur la nature du différend. Dans sa notification de l'accord-cadre A
la Cour, faite le 31 août 1990, la Libye a exposéle ((différendterritorial))
en ces termes:
«Pour déterminer les limites des territoires respectifs des Parties
dans la région,il faut notamment prendre en considération une série
d'accords internationaux, encore que, de l'avis de la Libye, aucun
d'eux n'ait fixé définitivement de frontière entre les Parties et que
celle-ci reste par conséquent iiétablir conformément aux principes
applicables du droit international. >)
Sur cette base, la Libye définissait laquestion poséeà la Cour en la priant:
<<Envue de la poursuite de l'application de l'accord-cadre, et
compte tenu du différendterritorial entre les Parties, [de] statuer sur
les limites de leurs territoires respectifs conformément aux règlesde
droit international applicables en la matière. ))
Le Tchad, pour sa part, dans sa communication initiale A la Cour,
déposéele 3 septembre 1990,a indiquéqu'à son avis ily avait entre lui et
la Libye une frontière dont le tracé«n'a fait l'objet d'aucun différend jus-
qu'aux années soixante-dix)),et ila déclaréque:
«L'objet du présent litige est de définircelle-ci de façon définitive,
en application des principes et règlesapplicables en la matière entre
les Parties.))
Sur cette base, le Tchad priait la Cour
«de déterminer le tracéde la frontière entre la République du Tchad
et la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne, conformément aux principes et
règlesde droit international applicables en la matière entre les Par-
ties».
19. La Libye considère ainsi qu'il n'existe pas de frontière et demande
à la Cour d'en déterminer une. Quant au Tchad, il considère qu'il existe
une frontière et demande à la Courde dire quelle est cette frontière. Pour
la Libye. l'affaire a trait à un différendconcernant l'attribution d'un ter- with the parallel of 19"30' of latitude north, the frontier shall run as
far as the point of intersectionof the Tropic of Cancer with th16"of
longitude easl.of Greenwich;
from that latter point it shall followa linerunning towards the wellof
Toummo as far as the fifteenth degree eastof Greenwich."
18. The Court ha.s been seised of the present dispute between Libya
and Chad by the noi.ifications of the special agreement constituted by the
Accord-Cadre of 31 August 1989, the text of which is set out in para-
graph 2 above. The Accord-Cadre described the dispute between the
Parties as "their territorial dispute" but gave no further particularization
of it, and it has become apparent from the Parties' pleadings and oral
arguments that they disagree as to the nature of the dispute. Libya, in its
notification of the Accord-Cadre to the Court filed on 31 August 1990,
explained the "territorial dispute" by stating as follows:
"The determination of the limits of the respective territories of the
Parties in this region involves, inteuliu,a consideration of a series of
international agreements although, in the view of Libya, none of
these agreements finally fixed the boundary between the Parties
which, accordirigly, remains to be established in accordance with the
applicable prinlziplesof international law."
On this basis, Libya definedthe question put to the Court by requesting it:
"In further iinplementation of the Accord-Cadre, and taking into
account the territorial dispute between the Parties, to decide upon
the limits of their respective territories in accordance with the rules
of international law applicable in the matter."
Chad, on the other hand, in its initial communication to the Court filed
on 3 September 1990, indicated that in its view there was a frontier
between Chad and Libya, the course of which "was not the subject of
any dispute until the 1970s", and stated that
"The object of the present case is to arrive at a firm definition of
that frontier, in application of the principles and rules applicable in
the matter as between the Parties."
On this basis, Chacl requested the Court
"to determine the course of the frontier between the Republic of
Chad and the ILibyanArab Jamahiriya, in accordance with the prin-
ciples and rullrs of international law applicable in the matter as
between the Parties".
19. Thus Libya proceeds on the basis that there is no existing bound-
ary, and asks the Court to determine one. Chad proceeds on the basis
that there is an existing boundary, and asks the Court to declare what
that boundary is. Libya considers that the case concer-risa dispute regard-ritoire tandis que, pour le Tchad, elle a trait i un différendsur le tracé
d'une frontière.
20. Dans ses conclusions, le Tchad a indiquéle tracéde la ligne qui,
selon lui, constitue sa frontière avec la Libye. Cette dernière, dans ses
conclusions, maintient pour sa part que. dans la régionen question, «il
n'existe ..aucune frontière entre la Libye et le Tchad en vertu d'aucun
accord international existant)), et allègue qu'elle(a un titre incontestable
sur tout le territoire)) situéau nord d'une ligne spécifiéeui suit, sur une
grande partie de sa longueur, le 1.5'parallèlenord. Le croquis no 1,repro-
duit à la page 16 du présent arrêt,indique la ligne que revendique le
Tchad et la ligne revendiquéepar la Libye. La Libye, dans la présente
affaire, a dénommé ((confins))Libye-Tchad la zone actuellement en litige,
situéeentre ces deux lignes.
21. La Libye fonde sa revendication relative aux confins sur une imbri-
cation de droits et de titres: ceux des populations autochtones, ceux de
l'Ordre senoussi (confrériereligieuse fondéevers le débutdu XIXesiècle,
qui a exercé unegrande influence et une certaine autoritédans le nord et
le nord-est de l'Afrique), ainsi que ceux d'une succession d'Etats souve-
rains, A savoir l'Empire ottoman, l'Italie et, finalement, la Libye elle-
même.Le Tchad revendique une frontièresur la base du traitéd'amitié et
de bon voisinage entre la République française et le Royaume-Uni de
Libye signéle 10août 1955(dénomméci-aprèsle ((traitéde 195.5))).Sub-
sidiairement, le Tchad soutient que les lignes délimitant des zones d'in-
fluence dans les traités antérieurs, mentionnésdans le traité de 1955,
avaient acquis le caractère de frontières grâce aux effectivitésfrançaises;
ilsoutient enfinque,indépendamment mêmede toute disposition conven-
tionnelle, le Tchad peut se prévaloir deces effectivitésen ce qui concerne
la zone qu'il revendique.
22. Les deux Parties ont acceptéla compétencede la Cour sur la base
de l'accord-cadre. Toutefois, le Tchad a ajouté qu'i titre subsidiaire la
compétencede la Cour trouve égalementun fondement dans l'article 8 du
traitéde 1955,qui stipule:
«Les différends auxquelspourraient donner lieu l'interprétation et
l'application du présent traité et qui n'auraient pu êtrerégléspar
voie de négociationsdirectes seront portés devant la Cour interna-
tionale de Justice i la demande de l'une des deux parties, à moins
que les Hautes Parties contractantes ne conviennent d'un autre
mode de règlement. ))
La compétence conférée par l'accord-cadre i la Cour pour connaître du
présentdifférendn'ayant cependant pas été contestée, pointn'est besoin
d'examiner la question d'une base additionnelle de compétenceen vertu
du traitéde 1955.ing attribution of territory, while in Chad's view it concerns a dispute
over the location of a boundary.
20. Chad in its s~ibmissionshas indicated the position of the line which
it claims constitutes its frontiwith Libya. Libya, while maintaining in
its submissions that in thegion in question "there exists no boundary . ..
between Libya and Chad by virtue of any existing international agree-
ment", also submits that it "has clear title to al1the territory" north of a
specified line, constituted for much of its length by the 15th parallel of
north latitude. Sketch-map No. 1 on page 16 hereof shows the line
claimed by Chad anidthe line claimed by Libya. The areanow in dispute,
between those two lines, has been referred to by Libya in this case as the
Libya-Chad "Borderlands".
21. Libya bases its claim to the Borderlands on a coalescence of rights
and titles: those of the indigenous inhabitants, those of the Senoussi
Order (a religious c'onfraternity, founded some time during the early part
of the nineteenth century which wielded great influence and a certain
amount of authority in the north and north-east of Africa), and those of
a succession of sovi:reign States, namely the Ottoman Empire, Italy, and
finally Libya itself. Chad claims a boundary on the basis of a Treaty of
Friendship and Good Neighbourlinessconcluded by the French Republic
and the United Kingdom of Libya on 10 August 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1955 Treaty"). In the alternative, Chad claims that
the lines delimiting the zones of influence in earlier treaties, referred to
in the 1955 Treaty, had acquired the character of boundaries through
French eJf2ctivi t cl;ims finally that, even irrespective of treaty
provisions, Chad <:an rely on those rjjcctiv intregard to the area
claimed by it.
22. Both Parties accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of
the Accord-Cadre. However, Chad has added that, subsidiarily, the juris-
diction of the Court is also based upon Articl8of the 1955Treaty which
provides that
"Such disputes as may arise from the interpretation and applica-
tion of the present Treaty and which may prove impossible to settle
by direct negoitiations shall be referred to the International Court of
Justice at the request of either Party, unless the High Contracting
Parties agree Liponsome other method of settlement."
Since however the jurisdiction to deal with the present dispute conferred
by the Accord-Cadre has not been disputed, there is no need to consider
the question of an additional ground of jurisdiction under the Treaty. 23. La Libye avait été territoire colonialitalien; lorsque les hostilités
eurent cessé à la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale, elle fut administrée
par les quatre puissances alliées (lesEtats-Unis d'Amérique,la France, le
Royaume-Uni et l'Union des Républiquessocialistes soviétiques);elle est
devenue un Etat souverain le 24 décembre1951,conformément à la réso-
lution 289 (IV) adoptée par l'Assembléegénéralele 21 novembre 1949.
Pour sa part, le Tchad avaitétécolonie française, puis ((territoired'outre-
mer», relevant dans les deux cas de l'Afrique équatoriale française; il
était devenude 1958 à 1960 membre de la communauté française; il a
accédé à l'indépendancele I laoût 1960.
24. Le différendentre lesParties a pour toile de fond unelongueet com-
plexe histoire d'activitésmilitaires, diplomatiques et administratives à
laquelle ont étémêléls'Empire ottoman, la France, la Grande-Bretagne et
l'Italie,ainsi que l'Ordre senoussi.Cette histoire est refeans un certain
nombre de conventions, de nombreux échangesdiplomatiques, certaines
cartes d'époqueet divers documents d'archives, qui ont étéfournis à la
Cour. La cour se penchera d'abord sur cette documentation en énumérant
les instruments conventionnels qui lui paraissent pertinents.
25. Divers accords furent conclus à la fin du XIXe et au début du
XXe siècleentre la France, la Grande-Bretagne et, plus tard, l'Italie, par
lesquels les parties entendaient partager de vastes territoires de l'Afrique
en sphèresou zones d'influence qu'ellesse reconnaissaient mutuellement.
Ces accords décrivaientles limitesde ces zones en se référantà des points
sur le terrain lorsque ces points étaientconnus et identifiables, ainsi qu'à
des parallèles et des méridiens. Leur influence et leur présencedans la
régionne cessant de s'étendre,ces puissances conclurent égalementdes
traités concernant les frontières des territoires qu'elles revendiquaient,
tant entre elles qu'avec l'Empire ottoman, déjàprésentdans la région.
26. Outre l'Empire ottoman était aussi présent dans cette région
l'Ordre senoussi, dont il a déjàétéquestion. Les Senoussi avaient, en de
nombreux endroits, établides aaouïus qui, entre autres, encourageaient le
commerce, réglementaientle trafic des caravanes,arbitraient les litigeset
jouaient le rôle de centres religieux. Ces centres comprenaient des mos-
quées, desécoleset des hôtelleries pour les voyageurs, et il s'y trouvait
parfois un cadi ou juge. Les cheikhs des zaouïus étaientconfirmésdans
leur fonction par le Grand Senoussi, chef de l'Ordre.
27. L'expansion coloniale française dans la régiondu Tchad se fit en
provenance du sud, de l'ouest et du nord. Une expédition futmenéedu
sud en direction du lac Tchad entre 1875et 1897; une autre expéditionse
dirigea vers le lac Tchad à partir de l'ouest entre 1879et 1899; enfin,à
partir d'Alger, au nord, une troisième expéditionavança vers le lac entre
1898et 1900.A la suite de cette expansion, de vastes territoires africains
setrouvèrent ultérieurement regroupésau seind'entitésqui furent dénom-
méesAfrique occidentale française et Afrique équatoriale française.
28. A la fin du XIXe siècle,la France et la Grande-Bretagne conclu-
rent deux accords successifs, qui revêtirentla forme d'un échangede
déclarationssignées à Londres le 5août 1890et d'une convention conclue 23. Libya, which had been a colonial territory of Italy, was, after the
termination of hostilities in World War II, administered by the Four
Allied Powers (France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and became a sovereign State
on 24 December 1951 pursuant to resolution 289 (IV) of the General
Assembly of 21 November 1949.Chad had been a French colony, then a
"territoire d'outre-mc", appertaining in both cases to French Equatorial
Africa. It became a member of the French Community from 1958 to
1960. Chad acceded to independence on 11 August 1960.
24. The dispute between the Parties is set against the background of a
long and complex history of military, diplomatic and administrative activ-
ity on the part of the Ottoman Empire, France, Great Britain and Italy, as
well as the Senoussi (Order.This history is reflected in a number of conven-
tions, numerous diplomatic exchanges, certain contemporary maps and
various archiva1 records, which have been furnished to the Court. The
Court will first consider this documentation, and will enumerate those of
the conventional insi.ruments which appear to it to be relevant.
25. At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury, various agreements were entered into between France, Great Britain
and, later, Italy, by which the parties purported to divide large tracts of
Africa into mutually recognized spheres or zones of influence. The agree-
ments described the limits of the areas in question, with reference to
points on the grourid, where such points were known and identifiable,
and to lines of latitiide and longitude. With the increasing influence and
presence of these Powers in the region, they also entered into treaties
regarding the boundaries of the territories they claimed, both between
themselves and with the Ottoman Empire, already present in the region.
26. Alongside that Ottoman presence was the Senoussi Order, already
referred to. The Senhoussiestablished at many points within the region a
series of zu,c~iyuswhich, inter aliu, fostered trade, regulated caravan traf-
fic, arbitrated disputes and functioned as religious centres. These centres
comprised mosques, schools and guesthouses for travellers, and also
sometimes had in residence a qudi or judge. The sheikhs of the zawiyus
were confirmed in their positions by the Grand Senoussi, the head of the
Order.
27. French colonial expansion into the Chad area took place from the
south, the west and the north. There was an expedition from the south in
the direction of Lake Chad during the period from 1875 to 1897. From
the west, another moved towards Lake Chad in the period from 1879 to
1899; and from Algiers in the north a further expedition advanced on the
Lake from 1898 to 1900. Consequent on this expansion, large tracts of
African territory were later grouped together in what were designated as
French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa.
28. Towards the end of the nineteenth century France and Great Brit-
ain entered into two successive agreements, in the form of an Exchange
of Declarations sigried at London on 5 August 1890, and a Conventionà Paris le 14juin 1898, par lesquels chaque partie reconnaissait notam-
ment que certains territoires en Afrique tombaient dans la «sphère» de
l'autre (convention de 1898, art. IV). Par une déclaration ultérieure,
signéeà Londres le 21 mars 1899, ilfut convenu que l'article IV de la
convention de 1898 devait êtrecomplétépar certaines dispositions, et il
fut en particulier consigné qu'<<ilest entendu en principe qu'au nord du
15' parallèle la zone française sera limitée ... par)) une ligne spécifiée,
décrite dans le texte. Aucune carte ne fut annexée à cette déclaration,
mais, quelques jours après son adoption, les autorités françaises en
publièrent le texte dans un Livrejuune qui comprenait une carte, dont
copie est jointe au présent arrêt (voir paragraphe 58 ci-après).
29. Des échanges de lettres eurent lieu entre les Gouvernements
français et italien, concernant leurs intérêtsen Afrique, les 14-16 dé-
cembre 1900 et lm-2 novembre 1902, et, iicette occasion, des assu-
rances furent données à l'Italie dans les termes suivants: «par la limite de
l'expansion française en Afrique septentrionale ... on entend bien la fron-
tière de la Tripolitaine indiquée par la carte annexée à la déclaration
du 21 mars 1899)). Comme la Cour l'indiquera ultérieurement (para-
graphe 61), la carte ainsi visée nepouvait êtreque la carte du Livrcjaune.
Des assurances analogues ont étédonnées A l'Italie par le Gouver-
nement britannique dans un échange de lettres des 11-12mars 1902.
30. Le 19 mai 1910, une convention définissant la frontière entre la
régencede Tunis et le vilayet de Tripoli fut conclue entre le Gouverne-
ment tunisien et l'Empire ottoman. En 1912, l'Italie établit sa souverai-
neté sur les provinces turques de Tripolitaine et de Cyrénaïque (traités
d'Ouchy et de Lausanne des 15 et 18 octobre 1912). Certains droits et
privilèges étaient cependant réservésau sultan par le traité de Lausanne.
31. Le 8 septembre 1919, la France et la Grande-Bretagne conclurent
une convention dite supplémentaire à la déclaration du 21 mars 1899
- elle-même additionnelle à la convention du 14 juin 1898 (para-
graphe 28 ci-dessus) - dans laquelle les parties s'accordaient notamment
sur une inter~rétation de la déclaration de 1899fixant les limites de la zone
française. Le 12 septembre 1919, un arrangement sous la forme d'un
échangede lettres fut conclu entre la France et l'Italie pour la fixation de
la frontière entre la Tripolitaine et les possessions françaises en Afrique à
l'ouest de Toummo.
32. Le traité de Lausanne du 24 juillet 1923 rétablit la paix entre la
Turquie et les autres parties signataires (dont la France, la Grande-Bre-
tagne et l'Italie); aux termes de l'une de ses dispositions, la Turquie
reconnaissait l'abolition définitivede tous les droits et privilègesdont elle
jouissait encore en Libye en vertu du traité de Lausanne de 1912. Puis, la
France et la Grande-Bretagne déterminèrent la frontière entre l'Afrique
équatoriale française et le Soudan anglo-égyptien dans un protocole du
10janvier 1924, approuvé par un échange de notes du 21 janvier 1924.
Un échange de notes du 20 juillet 1934 entre I'Egypte. la Grande-Bre-
tagne et l'Italie définitde mêmela frontière entre la Libye et le Soudan.concluded at Paris on 14June 1898, as a result of which (inter alia) each
party recognized certain territories in Africa as falling within the "sphere"
of the other (1898 (Convention, Art. IV). By a subsequent Declaration
signed at London on 21 March 1899, it was agreed that the fourth article
of the 1898 Convention should be completed by certain provisions, and
in particular it was recorded that "it is understood, in principle, that to
the north of the 15th parallel the French zone shall be limited by" a speci-
fied line, described in the text. No map was attached to the Declaration,
but a few days after its adoption the French authorities published a Livre
juune including a map, a copy of which is attached to this Judgment (see
paragraph 58 below).
29. Exchanges of letters took place between the French and Italian
Governments, relating to their interests in Africa, on 14-16 Decem-
ber 1900, and 1-2 November 1902, in the course of which Italy was
reassured that "the limit to French expansion in North Africa . . .is to
be taken as correspc>ndingto the frontier of Tripolitania as shown on the
map annexed to the Declaration of 21 March 1899". As indicated below
(paragraph 61), the reference could only have been to the Livre jaune
map. Similar assurances were given to Italy by the British Government in
an exchange of letters of 11-12 March 1902.
30. On 19 May 1910, a Convention was concluded between the Tuni-
sian Government arid the Ottoman Empire defining the frontier between
the Regency of Turiis and the Vilayet of Tripoli. In 1912 Italian sover-
eignty was established over the Turkish provinces of Tripolitania and
Cyrenaica (Treaties of Ouchy and Lausanne, 15 and 18 October 1912).
Certain rights and privileges were however reserved to the Sultan by the
Treaty of Lausanne.
31. On 8 Septeniber 1919, France and Great Britain concluded a
Convention expres:sed to be supplementary to the Declaration of
21 March 1899 additional to the Convention of 14 June 1898 (para-
graph 28 above), recording (inter aliu) an interpretation of the 1899 Dec-
laration defining the:limits of the French zone. On 12 September 1919an
arrangement inthe form of an exchange of letters was concluded between
France and Italy for the fixing of the boundary between Tripolitania and
the French possessions in ~frica Westof Toummo.
32. The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 re-established peace
between Turkey and the other signatory parties (including France,
Great Britain and Italy); it included a provision that Turkey recognized
the definitive abolition of al1rights and privileges which it maintained in
Libya under the 1912Treaty of Lausanne. By a Protocol dated 10 Janu-
ary 1924.approved by an Exchange of Notes of 21 January 1924, France
and Great Britain defined the boundary between French Equatorial
Africa and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Similarly, an Exchange of Notes
of 20 July 1934 between Egypt, Great Britain and Italy defined the
boundary between ILibyaand the Sudan.19 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRÊT)
33. Le 7 janvier 1935,la France et l'Italie conclurent un traité aux fins
du règlement des questions pendantes entre elles en Afrique; ce traité
comprenait la définition d'une frontière entre la Libye et les colonies
françaises limitrophes à l'est de Toummo. Les parlements des deux par-
ties autorisèrent la ratification du traité. mais les instruments de ratifica-
tion ne furent jamais échangés, et le traité n'entra jamais en vigueur;
pour plus de commodité, ilsera dénomméci-après le ((traiténon ratifié
de 1935)).
34. Après la seconde guerre mondiale fut signé,le 10 février 1947,le
traité de paix avec l'Italie. Aux termes de l'article 23 de ce traité, l'Italie
renonçait à tous ses droits et titres sur ses possessions territoriales en
Afrique, c'est-à-dire la Libye, I'Erythrée et la Somalie italienne, le sort
définitif de ces possessions devant être déterminé d'uncommun accord
par les gouvernements des quatre puissances alliées; si ces puissances ne
pouvaient s'entendre dans un délaid'un an sur le sort définitifdes terri-
toires, la question devait êtresoumise à l'Assembléegénérale desNa-
tions Unies pour que celle-ci formule une recommandation. Les quatre
puissances s'engageaient à l'avance a accepter cette recommandation.
Faute d'accord entre les quatre, l'Assemblée générale fut saisie et, par
résolution 289 (IV) du 21 novembre 1949, elle recommanda que ((la
Libye, composéede la Cyrénaïque, de la Tripolitaine et du Fezzan, [fût]
constituée en un Etat indépendant et souverain)). L'indépendance de la
Libye fut proclamée le 24 décembre 1951 et reconnue le ler février 1952
par l'Assemblée généraled ,ans sa résolution 515 (VI). Après son acces-
sion à l'indépendance, la Libye conclut avec le Royaume-Uni et les Etats-
Unis des traités qui prévoyaient notamment une présence militaire en
Libye.
35. Des négociations entre la Libye et la France, ouvertes au débutde
l'année1955,ont abouti à la conclusion du traitéde 1955(le traitéd'ami-
tiéet de bon voisinage entre la République française et le Royaume-Uni
de Libye, du 10août 1955); en novembre de l'annéeprécédente,la Libye
avait informé la France qu'elle n'avait pas l'intention de renouveler l'ar-
rangement militaire provisoire du 24 décembre 1951 en vertu duquel des
troupes françaises demeuraient stationnées en territoire libyen, au Fez-
zan. Le Gouvernement français souhaitait y maintenir sa présencemili-
taire, mais le Parlement libyen avait clairement indiqué qu'il n'avait pas
l'intention d'accepter un accord prévoyant le maintien de forces fran-
çaises au Fezzan. Les négociationsportèrent notamment sur les questions
militaires (y compris le non-remplacement des troupes françaises par
d'autres troupes étrangères et l'accèsde la France aux aérodromes et A
certaines pistes caravanières) et sur la question des frontières. La France
possédait en Afrique de vastes territoires jouxtant la Libyeal'ouest et au
sud. L'autorité française dans certaines parties de ces territoires avait été
contestée et une frontière bien établie était indispensable. Cela étaitpar- ITERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 19
33. On 7January 1935 a Treaty was concluded between France and
Italy for the settlerrient of questions pending between them in Africa.
That Treaty includetl a definition of a boundary between Libya and the
adjacent French colonies east of Toummo. Although ratification of the
treaty was authorized by the parliaments of both parties, instruments of
ratification were never exchanged, and the treaty never came into force;
for convenience. itwill be referred to hereafter as "the non-ratified Treaty
of 1935".
34. After the conirlusion of World War II, the Treaty of Peace with
ltaly was signed on 10 February 1947. By Article 23 of this Treaty, Italy
renounced al1 right ,dnd title to its territorial possessions in Africa, Le.,
Libya, Eritrea and Ifalian Somaliland. The final disposal of these posses-
sions was to be determined jointly by the Governments of the Four
Allied Powers; if those Powers were unable to agree within one year on
the final disposal of the territories the matter was to be referred to the
General Assembly of the United Nations for a recommendation. The
four Powers undertook in advance to accept that recommendation. There
being no agreement between the four Powers, the General Assembly was
seised and, by resoliition 289 (IV) of 21 November 1949, recommended
that "Libya, comprising Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and the Fezzan, shall be
constituted an independent and sovereign State". The independence of
Libya was proclaimed on 24 December 1951, and recognized on 1 Feb-
ruary 1952by General Assembly resolution 5 15(VI). With independence,
Libya entered into treaties with the United Kingdom and the
United States, which provided inter aliufor a military presence in Libya.
35. Negotiations opened at the beginning of 1955 between Libya and
France, and led to the conclusion of the 1955 Treaty, i.e., the Treaty of
Friendship and Goo'd Neighbourliness between the French Republic and
the United Kingdoin of Libya of 10 August 1955. In the preceding
November, Libya ha.d informed France that it did not intend to renew a
provisional military arrangement of 24 December 1951 under which
French forces remairied stationed on Libyan territory, in the Fezzan. The
French Government wished to maintain its military presence there, but
the Libyan Parliament had made it clear that it had no intention of
accepting an agreement leaving French forces in the Fezzan. Among
other matters which were the subject of negotiation were military matters
(including the non-substitution of other foreign troops for the French
troops, and French access to airstrips and certain caravan routes), and
the question of boundaries. France possessed extensive territories in
Africa which bordered Libya on the West and on the south. French
authority in parts of those territories had been challenged and a settled
border was essential. This was so particularly to the West of Toummo.20 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRÉT)
ticulièrement vrai à l'ouest deToummo. En revanche, à l'est de Toummo,
il existait, selon la France, une frontièrerésultantdes accords franco-britan-
niques de 1898,1899et 1919(paragraphes 28 et 3 1 ci-dessus),mais il y avait
eu pendant longtemps dissentiment entre la France et l'Italie à ce propos. 11
étaitimportant pour la France d'obtenir que la Libyeaccepte ces accords et
reconnaisse ainsi I'inapplicabilitédu traité nonratifiéde 1935.
36. Les deux Parties reconnaissent aue le traité de 1955 constitue le
point de départ logique de l'examen des questions portées devant la
Cour. Aucune des Parties ne met en question la validitédu traitéde 1955,
et la Libye ne conteste pas davantage le droit du Tchad d'invoquer contre
elle toute disposition du traité concernant les frontières du Tchad. Tou-
tefois, bien que le traité indique qu'il a étéconclu <sur la base d'une éga-
lité,d'une indépendance et d'une libertécomplètes)),la Libye a fait valoir
qu'à l'époquede la conclusion du traité elle manquait d'expériencepour
mener des négociations difficiles avec une puissance qui bénéficiaitd'une
longue expérienceinternationale. La Libye s'est fondéesur cette alléga-
tion pour donner à entendre que les négociateurs françaisavaient cherché
à profiter de sa méconnaissance des faitspertinents, qu'elle avait par suite
étémise en situation désavantageuse s'agissant des dispositions relatives
aux frontières, et que la Cour devrait prendre cette circonstance en consi-
dération pour interpréter le traité; elle n'a cependant pas étéjusqu'à
prétendre que la validitédu traité lui-mêmes'en serait trouvée affectée.
37. Le traité de 1955 est complexe; il comprend, outre le traité lui-
même,quatre conventions jointes et huit annexes, et porte sur une large
gamme de questions concernant les relations futures entre les deux par-
ties. Aux termes de l'article 9 du traité. les conventions et annexes aui A,
sont jointes en font partie intégrante. L'une des questions spécifiquement
viséesest celle des frontières. aui font l'obiet de l'article 3 et de l'annexe 1.
Les conventions jointes sont une convention de bon voisinage, une con-
vention de coopération économique, une convention culturelle et une
((convention particulière» relative au retrait des forces françaises du Fez-
zan.
38. La Cour examinera tout d'abord l'article 3 du traité de 1955 et
l'annexe à laquelle cet article renvoie afin de décider si une frontière
conventionnelle entre les territoires des Parties résulteou non du traité. Si
une frontière en résulte,il est de ce fait répondu aux questions soulevées
par les Parties; et une réponse serait ainsi donnée tout à la fois à la de-
mande de la Libye tendant à ce que soient déterminéesles limites des ter-
ritoires respectifs des Parties et à la demande du Tchad tendant à ce que
soit fixé letracéde la frontière. La première tâche de la Cour consistera
donc à interpréter les dispositions pertinentes du traité de 1955, sur la
portée desquelles les positions des Parties divergent.
39. L'article 3 du traité se lit comme suit:
«Les deux Hautes Parties contractantes reconnaissent que les fron-
tières séparant les territoires de la Tunisie, de l'Algérie,de l'AfriqueEast of Toummo, on the other hand, there was, in France's view, an exist-
ing frontier resulting from the Anglo-French Agreements of 1898, 1899and
1919(paragraphs 28, 31 above), but there had been long-standing disagree-
ment between France and Italy in that respect. Obtaining Libyan accept-
ance of those agreements, which entailed recognition of the inapplicability
of the non-ratified Treaty of 1935,was important to the French.
36. It is recognized by both Parties that the 1955 Treaty is the logical
starting-point for consideration of the issues before the Court. Neither
Party questions the validity of the 1955 Treaty, nor does Libya question
Chad's right to invoke against Libya any such provisions thereof as relate
to the frontiers of Chad. However, although the Treaty states that it has
been entered into "oln the basis of complete equality, independence and
liberty", Libya has contended that, at the time of the Treaty's conclusion,
it lacked the experience to engage in difficult negotiations with a Power
enjoying the benefit of long international experience. On this ground,
Libya has suggested that there was an attempt by the French negotiators
to take advantage of Libya's lack of knowledge of the relevant facts, that
Libya was consequei~tly placed at a disadvantage in relation to the pro-
visions concerning tlhe boundaries, and that the Court should take this
into account when iriterpreting the Treaty; it has not however taken this
argument so far as to suggest it as a ground for invalidity of the Treaty
itself.
37. The 1955 Treaty, a complex treaty, comprised, in addition to the
Treaty itself, four appended Conventions and eight Annexes; it dealt
with a broad range csfissues concerning the future relationship between
the two parties. It w,asprovided by Article 9 of the Treaty that the Con-
ventions and Annexes appended to it formed an integral part of the
Treaty. One of the matters specifically addressed was the question of
frontiers, dealt with in Article 3 and Annex 1.The appended Conventions
were a Convention of Good Neighbourliness, a Convention on Economic
Co-operation, a Cultural Convention, and a "Particular Convention"
dealing with the withdrawal of French forces from the Fezzan.
38. The Court will first consider Article 3 of the 1955Treaty, together
with the Annex to wlhichthat Article refers, in order to decide whether or
not that Treaty resulted in a conventional boundary between the territo-
ries of the Parties. Ii'the 1955 Treaty did result in a boundary, this fur-
nishes the answer to the issues raised by the Parties: it would be a
response at one and the same time to the Libyan request to determine
the limits of the respective territories of the Parties and to the request
of Chad to determine the course of the frontier. The Court's initial
task must therefore be to interpret the relevant provisions of the 1955
Treaty, on which the Parties have taken divergent positions.
39. Article 3 of th~eTreaty reads as follows:
[ Translution hy the Registty]
"The two High Contracting Parties recognize that the frontiers
between the territories of Tunisia, Algeria, French West Africa and occidentale française et de l'Afrique équatoriale française d'une
part, du territoire de la Libye d'autre part, sont celles qui résultent
des actes internationaux en vigueur à la date de la constitution du
Royaume Uni de Libye, tels qu'ils sont définisdans l'échangede
lettres ci-jointes (annexe 1). ))
Le traité a été concluen arabe et en français, les deux textes faisant éga-
lement foi; les Parties à la présenteaffaire n'ont pas laisséentendre qu'il
y eût une divergence quelconque entre les textes arabe et français, si ce
n'est qu'en arabe les mots «sont celles qui résultent)) correspondraient
plutôt à «sont les frontières qui résultent». La Cour fondera son inter-
prétation du traité sur le texte français qui fait foi.
40. L'annexe 1 au traité comprend un échange de lettres qui, après
avoir cité l'article3, se lit comme suit:
«II s'agit des textes suivants:
- la convention franco-britannique du 14juin 1898;
- la déclaration additionnelle, du 21 mars 1899, à la convention
précédente ;
- les accords franco-italiens du 1" novembre 1902;
- la convention entre la République française et la Sublime Porte
du 12 mai 1910;
- la convention franco-britannique du 8 septembre 1919;
- l'arrangement franco-italien du 12 septembre 1919.
En ce qui concerne ce dernier arrangement et conformément aux
principes qui y sont énoncés,il a été reconnupar les deux déléga-
tions qu'entre Ghat et Toummo la frontière passe par les trois points
suivants, à savoir: la trouéede Takharkhouri, le col d'Anaï, le point
coté IO10(Garet Derouet el Djemel).
Le Gouvernement français est prêtà désigner des experts qui
pourraient faire partie d'une commission mixte franco-libyenne
chargéede procéderà I'abornement de la frontière partout où ce tra-
vail n'a pas encore étéeffectuéet où l'un des deux gouvernements
l'estimerait nécessaire.
En cas de désaccord au cours des opérations d'abornement, les
deux parties désigneront chacune un arbitre neutre et, en cas de
désaccord entre les arbitres, ces derniers désigneront un surarbitre
neutre qui tranchera le différend. ))
II a étéadmis tout au long de l'instance que la convention dite du
12 mai 1910 est en fait la convention du 19 mai 1910 viséeau para-
graphe 30 ci-dessus.
41. La Cour rappellera que, selon le droit international coutumier qui
a trouvé son expression dans l'article 31 de la convention de Vienne
de 1969 sur le droit des traités, un traitédoit être interprété de bonne foi
suivant le sens ordinaire à attribuer à ses termes dans leur contexte et à la TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 21
French Equatorial Africa on the one hand, and the territory of
Libya on the other, are those that result from the international
instruments in force on the date of the constitution of the United
Kingdom of Li,bya as listed in the attached Exchange of Letters
(Ann. I)."
The Treaty was cancluded in French and Arabic, both texts being
authentic; the Parties in this case have not suggested that there is any
divergence between the French and Arabic texts, save that the words in
Arabic corresponding to "sont celles qui résultent" (are those that result)
might rather be rendlered "sont les frontières qui résultent" (are the fron-
tiers that result). The Court will base its interpretation of the Treaty on
the authoritative French text.
40. Annex 1to the Treaty comprises an exchange of letters which, after
quoting Article 3, reads as follows:
"The reference is to [Il sugit de] the following texts:
- the Franco-British Convention of 14 June 1898;
- the Declaration completing the same, of 21 March 1899;
- the Franco-Italian Agreements of 1 November 1902;
- the Convention between the French Republic and the Sublime
Porte, of 12 May 1910;
- the Franco-British Convention of 8 September 1919;
- the Franco-ltalian Arrangement of 12 September 1919.
With respect to this latter arrangement and in conformity with the
principles set forth therein, it was recognized by the two delegations
that, between Cihat and Toummo, the frontier traverses the follow-
ing three point:;, viz., the Takharkhouri Gap, the Col d'Anai and
Landmark 101 Cl(Garet Derouet el Djemel).
The Governnient of France is ready to appoint experts who might
become part of a Joint Franco-Libyan Commission entrusted with
the task of marlcing out the frontier, wherever that work has not yet
been done and where either Government may consider it to be
necessary.
In the event of a disagreement in the course of the demarcation,
the two Parties shall each designate a neutral arbitrator and, in the
event of a disagreement between the arbitrators, they shall designate
a neutral refereii to settle the dispute."
It has been recognized throughout the proceedings that the Convention
referred to as of 12 IVIay1910 is actually that of 19 May 1910mentioned
in paragraph 30 above.
41. The Court would recall that, in accordance with customary inter-
national law, reflected in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accord-
ance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context22 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRET)
lumièrede son objet et de son but. L'interprétationdoit être fondéeavant
tout sur le texte du traitélui-même.11peut êtrefait appel a titre complé-
mentaire a des moyens d'interprétation tels les travaux préparatoires et
les circonstances dans lesquelles letraitéa été conclu.
42. A I'article 3 du traité de 1955, les parties «reconnaissent que les
frontières...sont cellesqui résultent))de certains actes internationaux. Le
verbe «reconnaître», que le traitéutilise, indique qu'une obligation juri-
dique est contractée. Reconnaître une frontière, c'est avant tout(accep-
ter» cette frontière, c'est-à-dire tirer les conséquences juridiques de son
existence, la respecter et renoncer la contester pour l'avenir.
43. La Libye prétend que les parties au traitéde 1955n'ont entendu
reconnaître que les frontières qui avaient été antérieurementfixéespar
des actes internationaux. Là où il existait déjà desfrontières (comme
entre la Tunisie et la Libye), le traitéde 1955 lesaurait confirmées,mais
là où il n'en existaitpas (comme dans le sud), le traitén'enaurait pas créé
une. La Cour ne saurait accepter cette thèse; elle n'éprouveaucune dif-
ficultéà établirle sens naturel et ordinaire des termes pertinents du traité
de 1955,ni à leur donner effet. De l'avisde la Cour, il ressort des termes
du traité que les parties reconnaissaient que l'ensemble des frontières
entre leurs territoires respectifs résultait de l'effet conjuguéde tous les
actes définis à I'annexe 1. Aucune frontière pertinente ne devait être
laisséeindéterminéeet aucun acte définia I'annexe 1 n'était superflu.Sou-
tenir que seuls certains des actes spécifisnt concouru à la définitionde
la frontière,ou qu'une frontière particulièren'a pas été déterminée, serait
incompatible avec une reconnaissance expriméedans de tels termes; cela
équivaudrait à vider l'article 3du traité et I'annexe1de leur sens ordi-
naire. En concluant le traité, les parties ont reconnu les frontières aux-
quelles le texte de cetraité se référait;la tâche de la Cour est donc de
déterminerle contenu exact de l'engagement ainsi pris.
44. La Libye soutient que, parmi les actes internationaux définisa
I'annexe 1du traitéde 1955,seuls la convention franco-ottomane de 1910
et l'arrangement franco-italien de 1919avaient établi des frontières qui
liaient la Libye lors de son accession a l'indépendance,et souligne que
ces frontières concernaient des territoires autres que ceux en litige dans
la présente affaire. Selon la Libye, la déclaration franco-britannique
de 1899avait seulement défini,au nord du 15e parallèle, uneligne déli-
mitant des sphères d'influence, et non une frontière; ni la convention
franco-britannique de 1919 ni les effectivités françaisesn'avaient conféré
à cette ligne un quelconque autre statut; en outre, le dernier de ces actes
n'avait jamais étéopposable i l'Italie. Par ailleurs, de l'avisde la Libye,
l'échangede lettres franco-italien de 1902 n'était plusen vigueur, soit
parce que l'Italie avait renoncéà tous ses droits sur ses territoires afri-
cains en vertu du traité de paix de 1947(paragraphe 34 ci-dessus), soit
parce que ledit échangede lettres n'avait pas fait l'objet de la notification
prévue iI'article 44 de ce traité. TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 22
and in the light of its object and purpose. Interpretation must be based
above al1 upon the text of the treaty. As a supplementary measure
recourse may be hati to means of interpretation such as the preparatory
work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.
42. According to Article 3 of the 1955 Treaty, the parties "recognize
[reconnaissent] that the frontiers . . .are those that result" from certain
international instruments. The word "recognize" used in the Treaty indi-
cates that a legal obligation is undertaken. To recognize a frontier is
essentially to "accept" that frontier, that is, to draw legal consequences
from its existence, to respect it and to renounce the right to contest it in
future.
43. In the contention of Libya, the parties to the 1955Treaty intended
to recognize only tlhe frontiers that had previously been fixed by the
international instruments: where frontiers already existed (as between
Tunisia and Libya), they were confirmed by the 1955 Treaty, but where
there was no frontier (as in the south), the treaty did not create one. The
Court is unable to accept this view; it has no difficulty either in ascer-
taining the natural and ordinary meaning of the relevant terms of the
1955 Treaty, or in giving effect to them. In the view of the Court, the
terms of the Treaty signified that the parties thereby recognized complete
frontiers between their respective territories as resulting from the com-
bined effect of al1the instruments listed in Annex 1;no relevant frontier
was to be left undefiined and no instrument listed in Annex 1was super-
fluous. It would be incompatible with a recognition couched in such
terms to contend that onlv some of the s~ecifiedinstruments contributed
to the definition of the Lontier, or tha; a particular frontier remained
unsettled. So to conitend would be to de~rive Article 3of the Treatv and
Annex 1of their ordinary meaning. By entering into the Treaty, the par-
ties recognized the frontiers to which the text of the Treaty referred; the
task of the Court is thus to determine the exact content of the undertak-
in^entered into.
"
44. Libya's argument is that, of the international instruments listed in
Annex 1 to the 1955 Treaty, only the Franco-Ottoman Convention of
1910and the Franco-ltalian arrangement of 1919had produced frontiers
binding on Libya a.tthe time of independence, and that such frontiers
related to territories otherthan those in issue in this case. In the view of
Libya, the 1899 Franco-British Declaration merely defined, north of the
15th parallel, a line delimiting spheres of influence, as distinct from a
territorial frontier; neither the 1919 Franco-British Convention nor
French rffrctivitk.c~onferredon that line any other status; furthermore
the latter instrument was never opposable to Italy. The 1902 Franco-
Italian exchange of letters, in Libya's view, was no longer in force, either
because Italy renouinced al1 rights to its African territories by the 1947
Peace Treaty (paragraph 34 above), or for lack of notification under
Article 44 of that Ti-eaty. 45. La Cour ne pense pas qu'il yait lieu de statuer sur ces questions.
La fixation d'une frontière dépendde la volonté des Etats souverains
directement intéressés. Rien n'empêch les parties de déciderd'un com-
mun accord de considérerune certaine ligne comme une frontière, quel
qu'ait étéson statut antérieur. S'ils'agissait déjàd'une frontière, celle-ci
est purement et simplement confirmée.S'il ne s'agissait pas d'une fron-
tière,le consentement des parties a la ((reconnaître)) comme telle confère
à la ligne une forcejuridique qui lui faisait auparavant défaut. Unetelle
reconnaissance peut revêtir diversesformes, ainsi que l'attestent les
conventions et la jurisprudence internationales. Dans l'affaire du Temple
de Préah Vihéarétait invoquéeune carte sur laquelle avait été tracée
une ligne censéereprésenterla frontière déterminéepar une commission
de délimitation en vertu d'un traité qui stipulait que la frontière devait
suivre la ligne de partage des eaux; en réalité,la ligneainsi tracée nesui-
vait pas la ligne de partage des eaux. La Cour a fondé sadécisionde re-
connaître la validitéde la «ligne tracéesur la carte)) sur le fait que «les
deux Parties ont par leur conduite reconnu la ligne et, par là même,elles
sont effectivement convenues de la considérercomme étant la frontière))
(Temple de PréahVihéar,fond,C.I.J. Recueil 1962,p. 33).
46. A l'appui de son interprétation du traité, la Libye a souligné
cependant que le texte de l'article3 mentionne «les frontières))au pluriel.
Elle en déduit que les parties auraient eu en vue la délimitation decer-
taines de leurs frontières et non de l'ensemblede la frontière. De l'avisde
la Cour, l'utilisation du pluriel s'explique par le fait que les divers terri-
toires limitrophes de la Libyedont la France assumait à l'époquelesrela-
tions internationales avaient des statuts juridiques différents et que leurs
frontières respectives avaient étédélimitéespar des accords distincts. La
Tunisie était alors un protectorat, l'Algérieétait un groupe de dépar-
tements, et l'Afrique occidentale française et l'Afrique équatoriale fran-
çaise étaienttoutes deux des groupes de territoires d'outre-mer. Dans ce
contexte, l'emploi du pluriel est manifestement approprié, et n'a pas le
sens que la Libyelui attribue. En outre, il y a lieu de noter que les parties
ont fait mention d'une frontière séparant l'Afrique équatoriale française
et la Libye.
47. En précisantque les frontières reconnues sont «celles qui résultent
des actes internationaux)) définis à l'annexe 1, l'article3 du traité im-
plique que toutes les frontières résultentde ces actes. Toute autre inter-
prétation serait contraire aux termes mêmesde l'article 3 et priverait
totalement d'effet la mention de l'un ou l'autre de ces actes à l'annexe 1.
Comme l'adéclaré laCour permanente de Justice internationale dans son
avis consultatif du 21 novembre 1925, a propos d'une disposition du
traité de Lausanne qui avait «pour but de Jlxer la frontière de la Tur-
quie» (les italiques sont dans l'original), il résulte
«de la nature mêmed'une frontièreet de toute convention destinée à
établirles frontières entre deux pays, qu'une frontière doit êtreune
délimitation précise duns toute son &tendue»(Interprétationde Iar- 45. The Court does not consider that it is called upon to determine
these questions. The fixing of a frontier depends on the will of the sov-
ereign States direct1:yconcerned. There is nothing to prevent the parties
from deciding by mutual agreement to consider a certain line as a fron-
tier, whatever the previous status of that line. If it was already a territo-
rial boundary, it is confirmed purely and simply. If it was not previously
a territorial boundary, the agreement of the parties to "recognize" it as
such invests it with iilegal force which it had previously lacked. Interna-
tional conventions and case-law evidence a variety of ways in which such
recognition can be expressed. In the case concerning the Temple ofPreuh
Viheur,a nlap had been invoked on which a line had been drawn pur-
porting to represent the frontier determined by a delimitation commis-
sion under a treaty which provided that the frontier should follow a
watershed; in fact the line drawn did not follow the watershed. The
Court based its decision upholding the "map line" on the fact that "both
Parties, by their conduct, recognized the line and thereby in effect agreed
to regard it as being the frontier line"(Temple of Preulz Vihear, Merits.
I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 33).
46. In support of its interpretation of the Treaty, Libya has drawn
attention to the fact that Article3 of the Treaty mentions "the frontiers"
in the plural. It arguiesfrom this that the parties had in view delimitation
of some of their frontiers, not that of the whole of the frontier. The use
of the plural is, in the view of the Court, to be explained by the fact that
there were differencirs of legal status between the various territories bor-
dering on Libya for whose international relations France was at the time
responsible, and their respective frontiers had been delimited by different
agreements. Tunisia was a protectorate at the time; Algeria was a groupe
de dkpartetnents; and French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa
were both groupes de fterrifoir~'outre-mer. In this context the use of the
plural is clearly appropriate, and does not have the significance attributed
to it by Libya. Moreover, it is to be noted that the parties referred to a
frontier between French Equatorial Africa and Libya.
47. The fact that Article 3 of the Treaty specifies that the frontiers
recognized are "those that result from the international instruments"
defined in Annex 1means that al1of the frontiers result from those instru-
ments. Any other construction would be contrary to the actual terms of
Article 3 and would render completely ineffective the reference to one or
other of those instruments in Annex 1.As the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice observed, in its Advisory Opinion of 21 November 1925,
dealing with a provision of the Treaty of Lausanne "intended to lay dol.ïn
the frontier of Turkey" (emphasis in original),
"the very nature of a frontier and of any convention designed to
establish frontiers between two countries imports that a frontier
must constitute a definite boundary line throughoutits Iength" (Inter- ticle 3, paragraphe 2, du traitéde Lausanne, avis consultatiJ 1925,
C.P.J.I. sérieB no 12, p. 20; les italiques sont de la Cour);
et la Cour permanente ajoutait:
«il est naturel que tout article destinéà fixer une frontière soit, si
possible, interprétéde telle sorte que, par son application intégrale,
une frontière précise,complète et définitivesoit obtenue)) (ihid.).
De même,en 1959, dans l'affaire relative a la Souverainetésur certaines
parcellesfrontalières,la Cour a relevéque le préambule d'une conven-
tion de délimitation avait consigné l'intentioncommune des parties de
((régleret arrêtertout ce qui a rapport a la délimitation))et a considéré
que
«Toute interprétation qui ferait tenir la convention de délimita-
tion comme laissant en suspens et abandonnant a une appréciation
ultérieuredu statu quo la détermination de l'appartenance à l'un ou
l'autre Etat des parcelles litigieuses, serait incompatible avec cette
intention commune.)) (C.Z.J. Recueil 1959,p. 221-222.)
48. La Cour estime que l'article 3 du traitéde 1955avait pour but de
réglertoutes les questions de frontière, et pas seulement certaines d'entre
elles. L'intention manifeste des parties était que les actes mentionnés a
l'annexe 1 indiqueraient, de manière cumulative, la totalitédes frontières
entre leurs territoires respectifs, et qu'aucune frontière prise isolémentne
serait laisséeen dehors de cet arrangement. Dans l'expression «les fron-
tières séparant les territoires», l'usage de l'article définis'explique par
la volonté deviser toutes les frontières séparant la Libye des territoires
voisins dont la France assumait les relations internationales. L'article3
ne définitpas lui-mêmeles frontières, mais renvoie aux actes figurant à
l'annexe 1. La liste de l'annexe1 étaittenue pour exhaustive par les par-
ties en ce qui concerne la délimitationde leurs frontières.
49. L'article3 du traitéde 1955se réfèreaux actes internationaux «en
vigueur» a la date de la constitution du Royaume-Uni de Libye, «tels
qu'ils sont définisdans l'échangede lettres ci-jointes)).Ces termes ont été
différemment interprétés par les Parties. La Libye souligne qu'il ne peut
être tenucompte, aux fins de la détermination des frontières, que des
actes internationaux en vigueur à la datede son indépendance; elleajoute
que, puisque les accords mentionnés à l'annexe 1 sur lesquels le Tchad
s'appuie n'étaientplus. selon elle, en vigueur au 24 décembre1951,ils ne
peuvent êtrepris en considération. Elle fait valoir aussi que d'autres
actes, pertinents et en vigueur, mais non énumérés à l'annexe 1, pour-
raient êtrepris en compte.
50. La Cour ne saurait partager ces thèses car l'article 3 ne vise pas
simplement les actes internationaux en vigueur a la date de la constitu-
tion du Royaume-Uni de Libye, mais les actes internationaux «en
vigueur)) à cette date «tels qu'ils sont définisà)l'annexe 1.Dresser une pretution qf'Artic~l1,Paragruph 2, of'tlie Treut?;qf'Luusunne, Aclvi.~ory
Opiniori,1925. I'C.I.J.. Series B. No. 12, p. 20. emphasis added).
It went on to Say th;it
"It is . . . nat~iral that any article designed to fix a frontier should,
if possible, be so interpreted that the result of the application of its
provisions in th~iirentirety should be the establishment of a precise,
complete and dr:finitive frontier." (Ihid)
Similarly. in 1959 in the case concerning Sovrrc~igntyover Certc~irF i rontier
Ltnltl, the Court took note of the Preamble to a Boundary Convention as
recording the common intention of the parties to "fix and regulate al1
that relates to the demarcation of the frontier" and held that
"Anv interur'etation under which the Boundarv Convention is
regarded as leaving in suspense and abandoning for a subsequent
appreciation of the stutus quo the determination of the right of one
State or the other to the disputed plots would be incompatible with
that common intention." (I.C.J. Rc~ports1959, pp. 221-222.)
48. The Court corisiders that Article 3 of the 1955Treatv was aimed at
settling al1the frontier questions, and not just some of them. The mani-
fest intention of the parties was that the instruments referred to in
Annex 1would indicate, cumulatively, al1the frontiers between the par-
ties, and that no frontier taken in isolation would be left out of that
arrangement. ln the iixpression "the frontiers between the territories . . .",
the use of the definite article is to be explained by the intention to refer to
al1 the frontiers between Libya and those neighbouring territories for
whose international relations France was then responsible. Article 3 does
not itself define the frontiers, but refers to the instruments mentioned in
Annex 1. The list in Annex 1 was taken by the parties as exhaustive as
regards delimitation of their frontiers.
49. Article 3 of the 1955Treaty refers to the international instruments
"crivigueur" (in force) on the date of the constitution of the United King-
dom of Libya. "tels qu'il.~soritcl<finis(as listed) in the attached exchange
of letters. These terins have been interpreted differently by the Parties.
Libya stresses that only the international instruments in force on the date
of the independence of Libya can be taken into account for the determi-
nation of the frontiei-s; and that, as the agreements mentioned in Annex 1
and relied on by Chad were, according to Libya, no longer in force on
24 December 195 1,they could not be taken into consideration. It argues
also that account could be taken of other instruments, relevant and in
force, which were not listed in Annex 1.
50. The Court is unable to accept these contentions. Article 3 does not
refer merely to the international instruments "cnvigueur"(in force) on the
date of the constitutionof the United Kingdom of Libya, but to the inter-
national instrument!; "en vigucur" on that date "tels qu'ils sont dkfitzis"liste d'actes applicables tout en remettant à un examen ultérieurla ques-
tion de savoir s'ilsétaienten vigueur eût étédépourvu de sens. Il est clair
que les parties étaient d'accord pour considérerces actes comme étant en
vigueur aux fins de l'article 3 car, dans le cas contraire, elles ne les
auraient pas fait figurer à I'annexe. Les parties contractantes ont pris la
précaution de déterminer d'un commun accord quels étaient les actes en
vigueur aux fins qu'elles poursuivaient. Selon la formule limitative uti-
liséeà l'annexe 1, «il s'agit des textes)) énumérés à ladite annexe. Cette
rédaction de l'article3 et de I'annexe 1exclut tout autre acte international
en vigueur, non repris dans cette annexe, qui aurait pu concerner le ter-
ritoire de la Libye. C'est à fortiori le cas du traiténon ratifiéde 1935,qui
n'est jamais entréen vigueur et ne figure pas à l'annexe. La Cour doit se
borner à prendre en considération les actes définisà I'annexe sans avoir à
rechercher si ces actes, dont la liste a été établd'un commun accord par
la France et la Libye, étaienten vigueur à la date de l'indépendancede la
Libye ou opposables à celle-ci.
51. Les parties auraient pu indiquer les frontières en en précisant lit-
téralement le tracéou en portant celui-ci sur une carte, à titre d'illustra-
tion ou à tout autre titre; elles auraient pu faire I'un et l'autre. Elles ont
décidéde procéder différemment,et de dresser d'un commun accord la
liste des actes internationaux dont résultaient les frontières, mais la
méthode qu'elles ont choisie ne suscite aucune difficultéd'interprétation.
Dans ces conditions, la tâche de la Cour est claire:
((Placéeen présenced'un texte dont la clarténe laisse rien à dési-
rer, elle est tenue de l'appliquer tel qu'il est, sans qu'elle ait à se
demander si d'autres dispositions auraient pu lui êtreajoutées ou
substituées avec avantage)) (Acquisition de lu nationulitc;polonui.se,
uvis c~ns~ltutiJ;1923, C.P.J.I. sciriB no 7, p. 20).
Le texte de l'article 3 traduit clairement l'intention des parties d'assurer
un règlement définitifde la question de leurs frontières communes. L'ar-
ticle 3 et l'annexe 1visent à définirdes frontières par référenceà des actes
propres à en établir le tracé. Toute autre lecture de ces textes serait
contraire à I'un des principes fondamentaux d'interprétation des traités,
constamment admis dans la jurisprudence internationale, celui de l'effet
utile (voir par exemple A,fluirefrunco-hellénique des phares.arrêt,1934,
C.P.J.I. sérieAiB no62, p. 27 ;Conséquences juridiquespour les Etats de la
présence continue de1'Ajrique du Sud en Numihie (Sud-Ouest africain)
nonobstantla résolution276 (1970) du ConseildesécuritéC , .I.J. Recueil1971,
p. 35, par.66 ;Pluteaucontinentalde latner Egée, C.1.J. Recueil 1978,p. 22,
par. 52).
52. Si on lit le traitéde 1955à la lumièrede son objet et de son but, on
constate qu'il s'agit d'un traité d'amitiéet de bon voisinage conclu, selon
son préambule, «dans un esprit de compréhension réciproque et sur la
base d'une égalité, d'une indépendanceetd'une libertécomplètes». Lespar-
ties, dans ce préambule, se sont déclaréesconvaincues que la signature rERRlTORlA LISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 25
(as listed) in Annex 1. To draw up a list of governing instruments whilc
leaving to subsequeint scrutiny the question whether they were in force
would have been poiintless. It is clear to the Court that the parties agreed
to consider the instruments listed as being in force for the purposes of
Article 3, since otherwise they would not have referred to them in the
Annex. The contracting parties took the precaution to determine by
mutual agreement which were the instruments in force for their pur-
poses. According to the restrictive formulation employed in Annex 1, "il
sugit (/es te.uies" enumerated in that Annex. This drafting of Article 3
and Annex 1excludes any other international instrument en vigueur, not
included in the Annex, which might have concerned the territory of Libya.
A fortiori is this the case of the non-ratified Treaty of 1935, which was
never en vigueur anld is not mentioned in the Annex. The Court may
confine itself totakiing account of the instruments listed in the Annex,
without having to enquire whether those instruments, listed by agree-
ment between France and Libya. were in force at the date of Libya's
independence, or opposable to it.
51. The parties could have indicated the frontiers by specifying in
words the course of the boundary, or by indicating it on a map, by way
of illustration or otherwise; or they could have done both. They chose to
proceed in a differerit manner and to establish, by agreement, the list of
international instrumentsfrom which the frontiers resulted, but the course
for which they elected presents no difficulties of interpretation. That
being so, the Court':j task is clear:
"Having befolre it a clause which leaves little to be desired in the
nature of clearness, it is bound to apply this clause as it stands, with-
out considering whether other provisions might with advantage have
been added to or substituted for it."(Acquisition of'Polish Nutionul-
ity, Advisor-vOpinion, 1923,P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 7, p. 20.)
The text of Article 3 clearly conveys the intention of the parties to reach
a definitive settlement of the question of their common frontiers. Article
and Annex 1 are intended to define frontiers by reference to legal
instruments which v~ould yield the course of such frontiers. Any other
construction would be contrary to one of the fundamental principles of
interpretation of treaties, consistently upheld by international jurispru-
dence, namely that of effectiveness(see, for example, the Lighthouses Case
betbrwn France and cfreece, Judgment, 1934, P.C.I.J., Series A/B. No. 62,
p. 27; Legul Conseq,uencesfor Stutes of the Continued Presence of'South
Africa in Namibia (,South West Africa) notit'ithstanding Security Council
Resolution 276 (1970), I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 35, para. 66; and Aegean
Seu Continental Shelf; I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 22, para. 52).
52. Reading the 1955Treaty in the light of its object and purpose one
observes that it is a treaty of friendship and good neighbourliness con-
cluded, according tol its Preamble, "in a spirit of mutual understanding
and on the basis of complete equality, independence and liberty". The
parties stated in thai. Preamble their conviction that the signature of thedu traitéfaciliterait «le règlement de toutes les questions que posent pour
les deux pays leur situation géographique et leurs intérêtsen Afrique et
en Méditerranée));elles s'y sont égalementdit animées<<dela volontéde
resserrer les relations économiques, culturelles et de bon voisinage entre
les deux pays)). L'objet et le but du traité ainsi rappelés confirment I'in-
terprétation du traité qui a étédonnée ci-dessus dans la mesure où cet
objet et ce but conduisaient naturellement à la définitiondu territoire de
la Libye, et donc de ses frontières. Au surplus, I'article 4 du traité, aux
termes duquel les parties s'engagent à prendre ((toutes les mesures néces-
saires au maintien de la paix et de la sécuritédans les régionsavoisinant
les frontières)), permet de supposer que le traité a bien définila frontière.
Son article 5, relatif aux consultations entre les parties <<envue d'assurer
la défense de leurs territoires respectifs)). appelle la mêmeconclusion.
L'article 5ajoute plus particulièrement que, «en ce qui concerne la Libye.
il s'agit du territoire libyen tel qu'il est défini à I'article 3 du présent
traité)).((Définir))un territoire signifie définirses frontières. Ainsi, à l'ar-
ticle 5 du traité, les parties ont indiqué qu'elles interprétaient l'article 3
comme définissant par lui-mêmele territoire de la Libye.
53. Les conclusions auxquelles est ainsi parvenue la Cour sont renfor-
céespar l'examen du contexte du traité. et notamment de la convention
de bon voisinage conclue entre la France et la Libye en mêmetemps que
le traité. L'article premier de la convention se réfèreaux ((frontières.telles
que définies à I'article 3 du traité d'amitiéet de bon voisinage)). Son
titre III,sous la rubrique ((Trafic caravanier et circulation frontalière».
débute par I'article 9, qui se lit comme suit:
<Le Gouvernement français et le Gouvernement libyen s'engagent
à accorder des facilités de circulation aux nomades des tribus com-
merçant traditionnellement de part et d'autre de la frontière sépa-
rant d'une part l'Algérie,l'Afrique occidentale française et l'Afrique
équatoriale française, d'autre part la Libye afin de maintenir les cou-
rants caravaniers traditionnels qui existent entre les régions du
Tibesti, de I'Ennedi, du Borkou. de Bilma et des Ajjers d'une part. et
celles de Koufra, Mourzouk. Oubari, Chat, Edri et Ghadamès
d'autre part. >)
Cette disposition se réfèreexpressément. entre autres, à la frontière
entre l'Afrique équatoriale française et la Libye; et il ressort clairement
de ses termes que, selon les parties au traité, cette frontière sépare d'une
part les régions du Tibesti. de 1'Ennedi et du Borkou sous administra-
tion française (indiquéessur le croquis no I reproduit à la page 16ci-des-
SUS). qui sont parfois dénomméesle «BET», et d'autre part les régions
libyennes de Koufra. Mourzouk. etc.
54. L'article 10 de la convention de bon voisinage établit une zone
ouverte au tratic caravanier «de part et d'autre de la frontière)). Cette
zone est limitéede la manière suivante:treaty would "serve to facilitate the settlement of al1 such questions as
arise for the two countries from their geographical location and inter-
ests in Africa and the Mediterranean", and that they were "Prompted
by a will to strengthen economic,cultural and good-neighbourly relations
between the two countries". The object and purpose of the Treaty thus
recalled confirm the interpretation of the Treaty given above, inasmuch
as that object and purpose led naturally to the definition of the territory
of Libya, and thus the definition of its boundaries. Furthermore the pre-
supposition that the Treaty did define the frontier underlies Article 4 of
the Treaty, in which the parties undertake to take "al1 such measures as
may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and security in the areas
bordering on the frontiers". It also underlies Article 5 relating to consul-
tations between the parties concerning "the defence of their respective
territories". More particularly Article 5 adds that "With regard to
Libya, this shall apply to the Libyan territory as defined in Article 3 of
the present Treaty". To "define" a territory is to define its frontiers.
Thus, in Article 5 ofthe Treaty, the parties stated their own understand-
ing of Article 3 as being a provision which itself defines the territory of
Libya.
53. The conclusic~nswhich the Court has reached are reinforced by an
examination of the context of the Treaty, and, in particular, of the Con-
vention of Good N~:ighbourliness between France and Libya, concluded
between the parties at the same time as the Treaty. The Convention
refers, in Article 1, to the "frontiers, as defined in Articlef the Treaty
of Friendship and (3ood Neighbourliness". Title IIIof the Convention
concerns "Caravan traffic and trans-frontier movements", and it begins
with Article 9, which reads as follows:
"The Government of France and the Government of Libya under-
take to grant freedom of movement to nomads from tribes that tra-
ditionally trade on either side of the frontier between Algeria, French
West Africa anid French Equatorial Africa, on the one hand, and
Libya, on the other, so as to maintain the traditional caravan links
between the regions of Tibesti, Ennedi, Borkou, Bilma and the
Ajjers, on the one hand, and those of Koufra, Mourzouk, Oubari,
Ghat, Edri and Ghadamès, on the other."
This provision refers specifically to (inte dria) the frontier between
French Equatorial Africa and Libya; and it is clear from its terms that,
according to the parties to the Treaty, that frontier separates the French-
ruled regions of Tibesti, Ennedi and Borkou (indicated on sketch-map
No. 1 at p. 16above), which are sometimes referred to as "the BET", on
the one hand, and the Libyan regions of Koufra, Mourzouk, etc. on the
other.
54. Article 10 of the Convention of Good Neighbourliness establishes
a zone open to caravan traffic "on both sides of the frontier". This zone
is bounded as follo\vs:27 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRÊT)
«En territoire français: par une ligne qui, partant de la frontière à
l'ouest de Ghadamès, passe par Tinfouchaye, Timellouline., Ohanet,
Fort Polignac, Fort Gardel, Bilma, Zouar, Largeau, Fada et se pro-
longe en ligne droite jusqu'à la frontière franco-soudanaise.
En territoire libyen: par une ligne qui, partant de Sinaouen, passe
par Derj, Edri, El Abiod, Ghoddoua, Zouila, Ouaou En Namous,
Koufra et se prolonge en ligne droite jusqu'à la frontière libyo-égyp-
tienne. »
La Libye a ainsi expressément reconnu que Zouar, Largeau et Fada se
trouvaient en territoire français. L'emplacement de ces trois localités est
indiquésur le croquis no 1reproduit à la page 16ci-dessus. L'article 11de
la convention dispose que ((des cartes de circulation pour le trafic cara-
vanier seront délivrées... [en] territoire français [par les] autorités admi-
nistratives de ...Zouar, Largeau, Fada)), et en ((territoire libyen [par les]
autorités administratives de ...Mourzouk, Koufra et des Touareg Ora-
ghen)). Aux termes de l'article 13, les nomades titulaires d'une carte de
circulation ((pourront traverser librement la frontière)). On trouve égale-
ment, dans la convention, les expressions suivantes: «de part et d'autre
de la frontière)), ((zone frontalière)) (art. 15); ((franchir la frontière»
(art. 16); «les autorités frontalières françaises et libyennes)) (art. 17
et 20); «circulation frontalière)) (art. 18). L'utilisation de ces mots
concorde avec l'existence d'une frontière. De l'avis de la Cour, il est
difficilede nier que le traitéde 1955a définiune frontière entre la Libye et
l'Afrique équatoriale française dès lors que de telles dispositions ré-
glant les détails de la circulation frontalière des habitants de la région
figurent dans l'une des conventions jointes au traité.
55. La Cour ne considère pas nécessairede recourir aux travaux pré-
paratoires pour éluciderle contenu du traité de 1955; toutefois, comme
dans d'autres affaires. elle estime ouv voir. en se référantà ces travaux.
confirmer la lecture q'u'ellefait di texte du traité, à savoir que celui-&
constitue notamment, entre les parties, un accord définissant les fron-
tières. Il est vrai que les négociateurs libyens ont essayédans un premier
temps d'éviter la question des frontières, mais l'ambassadeur Dejean,
chef de la délégation française lors des négociations tenues à Tripoli en
juillet-août 1955,a insisté((sur le fait qu'il n'est pas possible de conclure
le traité sans un accord sur les frontières)). D'après le procès-verbal
libyen des négociations, le premier ministre libyen a déclaréle 28 juil-
let 1955 :
«que la question [des frontières] n'est pas exempte de difficultés,les
Italiens ayant occupé de nombreux centres au-delà de la frontière
existante)).
L'ambassadeur Dejean a indiqué«que l'Italie a exploitéla faiblesse de la
France au cours de la dernière guerre)) et «qu'elle [l'Italie] a franchi les
frontières qui ont été déterminées aux termes de l'accord de 1919 et qui
sont toujours valables... ))Le premier ministre libyen a alors proposé TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 27
"On French territory: by a line which, leaving the frontier to the
Westof Ghadamès, runs through Tinfouchaye, Timellouline, Ohanet,
Fort-Polignac, Fort-Gardel, Bilma, Zouar, Largeau, Fada and con-
tinues in a straight line as far as the Franco-Sudanese frontier.
On Libyan lerritory: by a line which, leaving Sinaouen, runs
through Derj, Edri, El Abiod, Ghoddoua, Zouila, Ouaou En
Namous, Koufra, and continues in a straight line as far as the
Libyo-Egyptian frontier."
Libya has therefore expressly recognized that Zouar, Largeau and Fada
lie in French territory. The position of those places is indicated on
sketch-map No. 1,on page 16above. Article 11 of the Convention stipu-
lates that "caravan traffic permits shall be issued . . . [in] French territory
[by the] administrative authoritiesof. . . Zouar, Largeau, Fada"; and in
"Libyan territory [by the] administrative authorities of. . . Mourzouk,
Koufra and the Oraghen Touareg". According to Article 13, nomads
bearing a caravan ti-afficpermit may "move freely across the frontier".
The following expressions are also found in the Convention: "on either
side of the frontier", "frontier zone" (Art. 15); "cross the frontier"
(Art. 16); "the French and Libyan frontier authorities" (Arts. 17and 20);
"cross-border transit" (Art. 18).The use of these expressions is consistent
with the existence of a frontier. In the view of the Court, it is difficult to
deny that the 1955 Treaty provided for a frontier between Libya and
French Equatorial Africa, when one of the appended Conventions con-
tained such provisions governing the details of the trans-frontier move-
ments of the-inhabitants of the region
55. The Court corisiders that it is not necessary to refer to the truvuux
prkpmatoir~~sto elucidate the content of the 1955 Treaty; but, as in pre-
vious cases, it finds it possible by reference to the travaux to confirm its
reading of the text, namely, that the Treaty constitutes an agreement
between the parties qwhich,inter aliu, defines the frontiers. It is true that
the Libyan negotiators wished at the outset to leave aside the question of
frontiers, but Ambassador Dejean, Head of the French Delegation at the
negotiations held in 'Tripoli inJuly-August 1955,insisted "that it was not
possible to conclude the treaty without an agreement on the frontiers".
On 28 July 1955,according to the Libyan minutes of the negotiations, the
Libyan Prime Minisi.er stated :
"that the question [of the frontiers] was not free from difficulty
since the Italians had occupied many centres behind the existing
frontier".
Ambassador Dejean stated "that ltaly had exploited France's weakness
during the last war" and "that it [Italy] had crossed oves the borders
which had been agreed upon under the Agreement of 1919 which were
still valid ..".The Libyan Prime Minister then proposed «que la question des frontières soit ajournéejusqu'au moment où
le côtélibyen aura eu le temps d'étudier le sujet; des experts pour-
ront alors êtreenvoyéstravailler avec les experts français afin de
parvenir à un accord sur la démarcation. Le premier ministre de-
mande que l'on considère comme suffisant de dire que l'accord de
1919est acceptable et que son exécution soit renvoyée a un avenir
proche. >)
56. Il ressort clairement du procès-verbal que le premier ministre
libyen a expressémentacceptél'accord de 1919, dont l'«exécution »devait
êtrerenvoyée «à un avenir proche));dans ce contexte, le terme ((exécu-
tion» ne peut viser que des opérationsde démarcationde la frontière sur
le terrain. Le premier ministre a d'ailleurs parlé d'un accord sur la
((démarcation)),ce qui présupposela délimitation - en d'autres termes
la définition- préalablede la frontière. L'emploi du terme ((démarca-
tion» laisse présumerque les parties ont considéréque la définition des
frontières était acquise, maisqu'elle pouvait êtresuivie au besoin d'un
abornement. dont les modalités étaientfixées à I'annexe 1.
57. Etant parvenue à la conclusion que les parties contractantes ont
entendu par le traitéde 1955, et tout spécialementpar son article 3, défi-
nir leur frontière commune, la Cour doit maintenant examiner quelle est
la frontièreentre la Libye et le Tchad (en 1955,entre la Libye et l'Afrique
équatoriale française) qui résultedes actes internationaux définis à l'an-
nexe 1,dont le texte est reproduit au paragraphe 40 ci-dessus. 11convient
de noter tout d'abord que, comme la Cour l'a déjà indiqué(,para-
graphe 50 ci-dessus), la liste de I'annexe ne comprend pas le traité non
ratifiéde 1935.Ce traité définissait endétailune frontière constituéede
neuf segments (lignes droites, lignes de crêtes,etc.)qui allait de Toummo
jusqu'au point d'intersection du 24' méridien est de Greenwich et du
parallèle 18"45'nord; cette ligne est figuréesur le croquis no 2 reproduit
a la page 29 du présentarrêt,en mêmetemps que la ligne de la conven-
tion franco-britannique de 1919 (paragraphe 59 ci-après). De tous les
traités antérieursii1955qui concernaient le tracé d'une frontièredans la
région,le traité non ratifiéde 1935étaitle plus détaillé.Iln'a néanmoins
pas été mentionné à l'annexe 1. Cette omission est d'autant plus signifi-
cative qu'en février 1955, quelques mois avant la signature, au mois
d'août, du traité de 1955, un incident franco-libyen survenu a Aouzou
avait attirél'attention sur la région situéeau sud de la ligne fixéepar la
convention franco-britannique de 1919 et au nord de la ligne définiepar
le traiténon ratifiéde 1935. "that the question of the frontiers be deferred at the present time
until the Libyan side had had time to study the subject, and then
experts could be despatched to work with French experts to reach
an agreement on demarcation and he asked that it be considered
sufficient to sa:y that the Agreement of 1919 was acceptable and
that the implementation of it be left to the near future".
56. It is clear from these minutes that the Libyan Prime Minister
expressly accepted the agreement of 1919, the "implementation" of the
agreement to be left "to the near future"; and in this context, the term
"implementation" can only mean operations to demarcate the frontier on
the ground. The Priine Minister spoke also of an agreement on "demar-
cation", which presu.pposes the prior delimitation - in other words defi-
nition - of the frontier. Use of the term "demarcation" creates a
presumption that the parties considered the definition of the frontiers
as already effected, to be followed if necessary by a demarcation, the
ways and means of -whichwere defined in Annex 1.
57. Having concluded that the contracting parties wished, by the
1955 Treaty, and particularly by its Article 3, to define their common
frontier, the Court niust now examine what is the frontier between Libya
and Chad (in 1955, between Libya and French Equatorial Africa) which
results from the inte:rnational instruments listed in Annex 1.the text of
which is set out in paragraph 40 above. It should however first be noted
that, as already indicated (paragraph 50 above), the list in Annex 1does
not include the nori-ratified Treaty of 1935. That Treaty provided in
detail for a frontier made up of nine sectors (straight linesicrest lines,
etc.) from Toummo to the intersection of the line of longitude 24" east
of Greenwich with the line of latitude 18"45' north; this line is shown
on sketch-map No. 2 on page 29 hereof, together with the 1919 Anglo-
French Convention line (paragraph 59 below). Of the treaties prior to
1955bearing upon a boundary line in this region, the non-ratified Treaty
of 1935was thus the most detailed. Yet it was not mentioned in Annex 1.
The omission is al1the more significant inasmuch as, in February 1955,a
few months before the execution of the 1955Treaty in August, a Franco-
Libyan incident which occurred at Aouzou had focused attention on the
area lying to the south of the line of the 1919Anglo-French Convention
and to the north of the line of the non-ratified Treaty of 1935.TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUI)GMENT) 2930 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRET)
58. Le premier acte mentionné à l'annexe 1, la convention franco-
britannique du 14juin 1898,est sans rapport direct avec le présent diffé-
rend; il ne figure ril'annexe que parce que la déclarationadditionnelle du
21 mars 1899 y est également mentionnée. La déclarationde 1899, qui
complète la convention de 1898, définitune ligne limitant la zone (ou
sphèred'influence)française au nord-est vers 1'Egypteet la valléedu Nil,
déjàsous contrôle britannique, et est dèslors pertinente. Cette déclara-
tion stipule que «l'articleIV de la convention du 14juin 1898est com-
plétépar les dispositions suivantes, qui seront considéréescomme en fai-
sant partie intégrante)).Parmi ces dispositions figurait le paragraphe 3,
ainsi libellé
«Il est entendu en principe qu'au nord du parallèle la zone
française sera limitéeau nord-est et à l'est par une ligne qui partira
du point de rencontre du tropique du Cancer avec le 16' degréde
longitude est de Greenwich (13"40' est de Paris), descendra dans la
direction du sud-est jusqu'à sa rencontre avec le 24' degréde longi-
tude est de Greenwich (21"40' est de Paris), et suivra ensuite le
24' degré jusqu'à sa rencontreau nord du 15eparallèle de latitude
avec la frontière du Darfour telle qu'elle sera ultérieurementfixée. ))
Ce texte n'est pas exempt d'ambiguïtés,l'utilisation des mots «en prin-
cipe» pouvant soulever la question de savoir si la ligne étaitrigoureuse-
ment orientée vers le sud-est ou si son tracé pouvait souffrir quelque
tolérance. Différentesinterprétations étaient possibles car le point d'in-
tersection de la ligne avec le4' méridien est n'étaipt as précisé elte texte
original de la déclarationn'étaitpas accompagnéd'une carte indiquant le
trace de la ligne convenue. Comme il a déjà étéobservé ci-dessus(para-
graphe 28), quelques jours après l'adoption de cette déclaration,lesauto-
ritésfrançaises en publièrent le texte dans un Livrejuune qui comprenait
une carte; copie de cette carte estjointe au présentarrêt. Surladite carte,
une ligne rouge continue ou en pointillé,assortie d'un estompage rouge,
indiquait, selon la légendede la carte, la ((limite des possessions fran-
çaises, d'aprèsla convention du 21 mars 1899)).La ligne rouge était conti-
nue lorsqu'elle marquait les frontières définiesdans cette convention, et
étaiten pointillé lorsqu'elle figuraitla limite de la «zone française)) défi-
nie au paragraphe 3 de la convention. La ligne en pointillé suivaitnon
une direction strictement sud-est, mais plutôt une direction est-sud-est,
pour aboutir approximativement au point d'intersection du 24' méridien
est et du 19eparallèlenord. La direction strictement sud-est et la lignede
la carte du Livrejuune sont présentéesaux finsde comparaison sur le cro-
quis no 3 reproduit à la page 32 de l'arrêt(en mêmetemps que la ligne
définiepar la convention du 8 septembre 1919, qui sera examinéeci-
après).
59. Aux finsdu présentarrêt,la question de l'emplacement de la limite
de la zone française peut être considéréc eomme résoluepar la conven- TERRITORIAL. DISPU 1.t (JLJI)<;MENT) 30
58. The first instrument mentioned in Annex 1, the Franco-British
Convention of 14 June 1898, bears no direct relation to the present dis-
pute: it is inentioned in Annex I on account of the Additional Declara-
tion of 21 March 18'99.This Declaration of 1899,which complements the
Conventiori of 1898.defiiies a line limiting the French zone (or sphere of
influence) to the north-east in the direction of Egypt and the Nile Valley,
already under British control, and is therefore relevant. The 1899 Decla-
ratioii recites that "The IVth Article of the Convention of 14 June 1898
shall be cornpleted by the following provisions, which shall be cvnsidered
as forming an integral part of it". Among these provisions is para-
graph 3:
"lt is uiiderstood, in principle. ~hat to the north of the 15th par-
allel the French zone shall be limited to the north-east and east by a
line which shall start from the point of intersection of the Tropic of
Cancer with the: 16th degree of longitude east of Greenwich (13"40'
east of Paris), :;hall run thence to the south-east uiitil it meets the
34th degree of longitude east of Greenwich (31" 40' east of Paris),
and shall then follow the 34th degree until it meets, to the north
of the 15th pal-allel of latitude, the frontier of Darfur as it shall
cventually be fi:ued."
The text of this provision is not fsee from ambiguities, since the use of the
words "in principle"' raises some question whether the line was to be
strictly south-east or whether some leeway was possible in establishing
the course of the lirie. Different interpretations were possible. since the
point of intersection of the line with the 34th degree of loiigitude east was
not specified, and the original text of the Declaration was not accompa-
nied by a rnap shobving the course of the line agreed. As noted above
(paragraph 28), a few days after the adoption of that Declasation, the
French authorities published its text in a Livvrju~rticlincluding a map; a
copy of that map is attached to this Judgment. On that map, a red line,
solid or interrupted. coupled with red shading, indicated, according to
the map legend. the "lit~iitcc~/c>os.scs.siori, uti~~ui.el,pris lu <,otlvcitn
hr 21 rliuv.v1899". The red line was continuous where it reflected bound-
aries defined in that Conventioii. and a pecked line where it indicated the
limit of the "French zone" defined in paragraph 3 of the Convention. The
pecked line was show as running. not directly south-east, but rather in
an east-south-east clirection. so as to terminate at approximately the
intersection of the 74" meridian east with the parallel 19" of latitude
north. The direct south-east line and the Lii.~rc~,jinrmncap line are shown
for purposes of conlparison on sketch-map No. 3 on page 33 hereof
(together with the line defined in the Convention of 8 September 1919.
dealt with below).
59. For the purposes of the present Judgment, the question of the
position of the liinit of the French zone may be regarded as resolved by3 1 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (AKRÊT)
tion entre la France et la Grande-Bretagne, signée à Paris le 8 sep-
tembre 1919. Comme il est dit dans la convention elle-même,cet instru-
ment constituait une
((convention supplémentaire à la déclaration de Londres du
21 mars 1899, elle-même additionnelle i la convention du
14juin 1898, qui fixait la frontière des possessions coloniales fran-
çaises et anglaises et les zones d'influence à l'ouest et à l'est du
Niger ».
La convention précisait la frontière entre le Darfour et l'Afrique équato-
riale française et contenait diverses dispositions concernant l'extension
possible vers l'est, au-delà du 24' méridien,de la zone française. Son der-
nier paragraphe était ainsi libellé:
«II est entendu que la présente convention ne modifiera en rien
l'interprétation donnée à la déclaration du 21 mars 1899, d'après
laquelle les termes de l'article 3 ((elle se dirigera ensuite vers le sud-
est jusqu'au 24" degré de longitude est de Greenwich (21" 40' est de
Paris))) signifient «elle prendra une direction sud-est jusqu'au
24 degré de longitude est de Greenwich au point d'intersection
dudit degréde longitude avec le parallèle 19" 30' de latitude.))
Selon cette disposition, la ligne allant vers le sud-est spécifiéedans la
déclaration de 1899ne devait pas être orientée exactementvers le sud-est,
mais suivre une direction est-sud-est de façon à couper le 24" méridienen
un point situé plus au nord que celui qu'aurait atteint une ligne orientée
rigoureusement vers le sud-est. Adoptant ainsi une ligne est-sud-est au
lieu d'une ligne strictement sud-est, cette convention confirmait en fait
que, comme la France l'avait antérieurement considéré,la déclaration
de 1899ne fixait pas une ligne orientée rigoureusement vers le sud-est ; en
réalité,la convention arrêtait, par rapport au point terminal à l'est, un
tracé qui se situait plus au nord encore que la ligne figurant sur la carte
du Livre jaune. Le croquis no 3,inclus ci-après pour faciliter la compa-
raison, fait ressortir les positions relatives des trois li-nesla ligne sui-
vant une direction strictement sud-est, la ligne du Livrejaune et la ligne
de 1919.
60. Ilparaît ainsi d'autant moins utile d'examiner quelle était la situa-
tion avant 1919 que la convention franco-britannique du 8 septembre
1919a déterminé de manièreprécisele point terminal de la ligne en cause
en retenant le point d'intersection du 24' méridien est et du parallèle
19" 30' nord. Le texte de la convention de 1919 présente cette ligne
comme une interprétation de la déclaration de 1899; de l'avis de la Cour,
il n'y a, aux fins du présent arrêt, aucune raison de la qualifier de confir-
mation ou de modification de la déclaration. Dans la mesure où les deux
Etats parties à la convention sont ceux-là mêmesqui avaient conclu la
déclaration de 1899, ilne fait aucun doute que l'«interprétation» en
question a constitué, à compter de 1919, et dans leurs relations mutuelles,the Convention of E;September 1919 signed at Paris between Great Brit-
ain and France. As stated in the Convention itself, this Convention was
"Supplementary to the Declaration signed at London on
March 21, 1899,as an addition to the Convention of June 14, 1898,
which regulated the Boundaries between the British and French
Colonial Posse:;sions and Spheres of Influence to the West and East
of the Niger."
It specified the boun.dary between Darfour and French Equatorial Africa,
and contained various provisions relating to the possible extension
eastwards of the Firench sphere, beyond the 24th degree of longitude.
However, its concluding paragraph provided :
"It is understood that nothing in this Convention prejudices the
interpretation of the Declaration of the 21st March, 1899,according
to which the words in Article 3 '.. . shall run thence to the south-east
until it meets thLe24th degree of longitude east of Greenwich (21" 40'
east of Paris)' are accepted as meaning '. . . shall run thence in a
south-easterly direction until it meets the 24th degree of longitude
east of Greenwich at the intersection of that degree of longitude with
parallel 19"30' degrees of latitude'."
This provision meant that the south-easterly line specified by the 1899
Declaration was not to run directly south-east but in an east-south-east
direction so as to iritersect with the 24th degree of longitude at a point
more to the north tlhan would a direct south-easterly line. This Conven-
tion, in thus accepting an east-south-east line rather than a strict south-
east line, was in effi:ct confirming the earlier French view that the 1899
Declaration did not provide for a strict south-east line, and was in fact,
as to the eastern end-point, stipulatinga line even further north than the
line shown on the 1,ivjrucunr map. Sketch-inap No. 3, attached below,
shows, for ease of comparison, the relative positions of the three lines-
the strict south-east line. thLivrj euutr lne and the 1919 line.
60. There is thus little point in considering what was the pre-1919
situation, in view of the fact that the Anglo-French Convention of 8 Sep-
tember 1919 determined the precise end-point of the line in question, by
adopting the point of intersection of the 24th degree of longitude east
with the parallel 19"30' of latitude north. The text of the 1919 Conven-
tion presents this linieas an interpretation of the Declaration of 1899; in
the view of the Court, for the purposes of the present Judgiiient, there is
no reason to categorize it either as a confirmation or as a modification of
the Declaration. Inasmuch as the two States parties to the Convention
are those that concluded the Declaration of 1899, there can be no doubt
that the "interpretation" in question constituted, from 1919 onwards,32 DIFFÉKENI) TERRITORIAL (AKRET)TERRITORIAL.DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 32l'interprétation correcte et contraignante de la déclaration de 1899.Cette
interprétation est opposable à la Libye en vertu du traité de 1955. La
Cour en conclut que la ligne décrite dans la convention de 1919 repré-
sente la frontière entre la Libye et le Tchad à l'est du 16eméridien est.
61. La Cour aborde maintenant la frontière à l'ouest de ce méridien.
L'échangede lettres franco-italien du lcr novembre 1902 seréfèretant à la
déclaration franco-britannique de 1899 qu'à l'échangede lettres franco-
italien de 1900 (paragraphe 29 ci-dessus). Il préciseque
«par la limite de l'expansion française en Afrique septentrionale
viséedans [la] lettre précitéedu 14décembre 1900,on entend bien la
frontière de la Tripolitaine indiquée par la carte annexéeà la décla-
ration du 21 mars 1899)).
La carte ainsi mentionnée ne pouvait êtreque celle du Livre jaune sur
laquelle figurait une ligne en pointillé indiquant la frontière de la Tripo-
litaine. Cette ligne devra donc êtreexaminéepar la Cour lorsque celle-ci
sera amenée à déterminer le tracé de la frontière entre la Libye et le
Tchad, dans la mesure où ce tracé ne résultepas des accords franco-bri-
tanniques de 1898, 1899et 1919.
62. La convention entre le Gouvernement tunisien et le Gouvernement
ottoman du 19 mai 1910 (paragraphe 30 ci-dessus) ne concerne que la
frontière entre le vilayet de Tripoli (qui fait aujourd'hui partie de la
Libye) et la régencede Tunis (c'est-à-dire la Tunisie actuelle); bien qu'elle
ait sa place dans l'annexe 1au traitéde 1955, elle n'a donc pas d'incidence
sur le différendentre la Libye et le Tchad. De même,l'arrangement fran-
co-italien du 12 septembre 1919, qui ne régitque le secteur situé entre
Ghadamès et Toummo, ne concerne pas directement la frontière entre la
Libye et le Tchad, et la Cour n'estime par suite pas nécessairede s'y arrê-
ter ici plus longuement.
63. La Cour indiquera maintenant quelle est la ligne qui résultede I'ef-
fet conjugué des actes définisà l'annexe 1au traité de 1955, pour ce qui
est des territoires de la Libye et du Tchad. Il est clair qu'à l'est le point
terminal de la frontière sera situé sur le 24' méridien est,qui constitue à
cet endroit la frontière du Soudan. A l'ouest,iln'est pas demandé à la
Cour de déterminer le point triple Libye-Niger-Tchad; dans ses conclu-
sions, le Tchad a simplement priéla Cour de dire quel est le tracéde la
frontière ((jusqu'au 15'degréest de Greenwich)). En tout étatde cause, la
décisionde la Cour à ce sujet, comme en l'affaire du Difërendjronralier,
«ne sera pas ... opposable au Niger en ce qui concerne le tracé de ses
propres frontières)) (C.I.J.Recueil 1986,p. 580, par. 50). Entre le 24' et le
16' méridienest de Greenwich, la ligne est déterminéepar la convention
franco-britannique du 8 septembre 1919: la frontière est donc constituée
par une ligne droite reliant le point d'intersection du 24' méridienest etand as between thenn, the correct and binding interpretation of the Dec-
laration of 1899. It is opposable to Libya by virtue of the 1955 Treaty.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the line described in the 1919
Convention represerits the frontier between Chad and Libya to the east
of the meridian 16"east.
61. The Court now turns to the frontier West of that meridian. The
Franco-ltalian exchange of letters of 1November 1902refers both to the
Anglo-French Declaration of 1899 and to the Franco-Italian exchange
of letters of 1900 (paragraph 29 above). It States that
"the limit to French expansion in North Africa, as referred to in the
above mentioned letter . . . dated 14 December 1900, is to be taken
as corresponding to the frontier of Tripolitania as shown on the map
annexed to the Declaration of 21 March 1899".
The map referred t,o could only be the map in the Livre juune which
showed a pecked line indicating the frontier of Tripolitania. That line
must therefore be examined by the Court in determining the course of the
frontier be~ween Libya and Chad. to the extent that it does not result
from the Anglo-French agreements of 1898, 1899 and 1919.
62. The Convention between the Tunisian Government and the Otto-
man Government OIT19 May 1910 (paragraph 30 above) concerns only
the frontier between the Vilayet of Tripoli (which is now a part of Libya)
and the Regency of Tunis (i.e., present-day Tunisia); and consequently.
while appropriate for inclusion in Annex 1 to the 1955 Treaty, it has no
bearing on the dispute between Libya and Cliad. Similarly, since the
Franco-Italian Arrangement of 12 September 19 19 governs only the sec-
tor between Ghadaniès and Toummo, and thus does not directly concern
the frontier between Chad and Libya, the Court finds it unnecessary to
take it further into consideration here.
63. The Court will now indicate how the line which results from the
combined effect of the instruments listed in Annex 1to the 1955Treaty is
made up, as far as the territories of Chad and Libya are concerned. It is
clear that the eastern end-point of the frontier will lie on the meridian
24" east, which is hei-ethe boundary of the Sudan. To the West,the Court
is not askcd to deterinine the tripoint Libya-Niger-Chad; Chad in its sub-
missions merely askij the Court to declare the course of the frontier "as
far as the tifteenth clegree east of Greenwich". In any event the Court's
decision in this respect, as in the Fronticr Dispute case, "will . . . not be
opposable to Niger as regards the course of that country's frontiers"
(I.C.J. R~porr.v1986, p. 580, para. 50). Between 24" and 16" east of
Greenwich, the line is determined by the Anglo-French Convention of
8 September 1919: i.e., the boundary is a straight line from the point of
intersection of the meridian 24" east with the parallel 19"30'north to the34 DIFFEKEND TERKITORIAL (ARRET)
du parallèle 19"30'nord au point d'intersection du 1@méridien estet du
tropique du Cancer. A partir de ce dernier point, la ligne est déterminée
par l'échangede lettres franco-italien du lcrnovembre 1902,par référence
à la carte du Livre ,juunc):cette ligne, comme le montre ladite carte, se
dirige vers un point se trouvant immédiatement au sud de Toummo; tou-
tefois, avant de l'atteindre, elle coupe le 15' méridien est, sur lequel se
situait,a partir de 1930, le point de départ de la frontière entre l'Afrique
occidentale française et l'Afrique équatoriale française.
64. Confirmation de cette dernière ligne peut êtretrouvéedans la con-
vention particulière jointe au traité de 1955, qui prévoit le retrait des
forces françaises stationnées au Fezzan. Il y est entre autres question des
itinéraires que devaient suivre les convois militaires des forces françaises
a destination ou en provenance du Tchad. L'article 3 de la convention
particulière traite du passage de convois militaires sur la pisteno 5 et l'an-
nexe III au traitédéfinit lapiste no 5 comme étant l'itinérairequi, venant
de la régionde Ramada en Tunisie, passe par certains points spécifiés «et
pénètreen territoire du Tchad dans la régionde Muri Idie)). Les cartes de
la région disponibles révèlent l'existenced'au moins quatre lieux diffé-
rents dont les noms, qui varient d'une carte à l'autre, ressemblent à Muri
Idie, mais deux d'entre eux se situent bien à l'intérieurdu territoire incon-
testéde la Libye, loin de ce qui aurait pu êtreconsidéréen 1955comme
((territoire duTchad)). Les deux autres sont situésau sud du segment per-
tinent de la ligne figuréesur la carte du Lii>re,jliunà l'ouest du 16' méri-
dien est. Le premier, le point d'eau (gueltu) de Mouri Idié,est immédia-
tement au sud de cette ligne; le second. la zone à laquelle ce point d'eau
a donné son nom, est à 30 kilomètres environ au sud. L'endroit désigné
comme Muri ldie à l'annexe III s'identifie donc nécessairementavec l'un
de ces deux derniers lieux, confirmant ainsi que les parties au traité
de 1955 considéraient bien la ligne de la carte du Livre juunr comme
constituant la frontière du ((territoire du Tchad)) à l'ouest du 16' méri-
dien est.
65. Le Tchad qui, dans ses conclusions, prie la Cour de déterminer la
frontière à l'ouest jusqu'au 15' méridien est, n'a pas définile point où,
selon lui, la frontiére coupe ce rnéridien.Les Parties n'ont pas davantage
indiqué à la Cour les coordonnées exactes du point libyen de Toummo.
Toutefois. au vu des informations disponibles et notamment des cartes
fournies par les Parties, la Cour est parvenue à la conclusion que la ligne
de la carte du Livrejuune coupe le 15'méridien estau point d'intersection
de ce méridien et du 23c warallèlenord. Dans ce secteur. la frontière est
donc constituéepar une ligne droite reliant ce dernier point au point d'in-
tersection du 16çméridien est et du tropique du Cancer.
66. Ayant conclu qu'une frontière résultait du traitéde 1955,et ayant
déterminéoù cette frontière se situait, la Cour peut à présentétudier les
attitudes que les Parties ont adoptées par la suite à l'égardde la questionpoint of intersection of the meridian 16" east with the Tropic of Cancer.
From the latter point, the line is determined by the Franco-Italian
exchange of letters of 1 November 1902, by reference to the Livre jaune
map: Le., this line, as shown on that map, runs towards a point immedi-
ately to the south of Toummo; before it reaches that point, however. it
crosses the meridian 15"east, at somepoint on which, from 1930onward,
was situated the conimencement of the boundary between French West
Africa and French Equatorial Africa.
64. Confirmation of the line just described may be found in the Par-
ticular Convention a.nnexed to the 1955 Treaty, which makes provision
for the withdrawal of the French forces stationed in the Fezzan. Among
the matters dealt with are the routes to be followed by the military con-
voys of French forces proceeding to or from Chad. Article 3 of the Par-
ticular Convention cleals with the passage along Piste No. 5 of military
convoys, and Annex III to the Treaty defines Piste No. 5 as the itinerary
which, coming frorni the region of Ramada in Tunisia, passes certain
specified points "and penetrates into territory of Chad in the area of
Muri Idie". The available maps of the area reveal at least four differ-
ent places with names which, while varying from one map to another,
resemble Muri Idie, but two of these are situated well within un-
disputed Libyan territory, nowhere near what might in 1955 have been
regarded as "territory of Chad". The other two are located to the south
of the relevant part of the line on the Livre jaune map, West of the
16"meridian east. One, the Mouri Idiéwater-hole (guelta), is immediately
to the south of thai: line; the other, the Mouri Idié area (deriving its
name from the water-hole), is around 30 kilometres to the south. What is
called Muri Idie in Pinnex III must therefore be identified as being either
of these two places, thus confirming that the parties to the 1955 Treaty
regarded the Livrejaune map line as being, Westof the 16"meridian east,
the boundary of "territory of Chad".
65. Chad, which in its submissions asks the Court to define the frontier
as far Westas the 15'"meridian east, has not defined the point at which,
in its contention, the frontier intersects that meridian. Nor have the Parties
indicated to the Court the exact CO-ordinatesof Toummo in Libya. How-
ever, on the basis of the information available, and in particular the maps
produced by the Parties, the Court has come to the conclusion that the
line of the Livrejaime map crossesthe 15"meridian east at the point of inter-
section ofthat meridi.anwith the parallel 23"of north latitude. In this sector,
the frontier is thus constituted by a straight line from the latter point to the
point of intersection of the meridian 16" east with the Tropic of Cancer.
66. Having concli~ded that a frontier resulted from the 1955 Treaty,
and having established where that frontier lay, the Court is in a position
to consider the subsequent attitudes of the Parties to the question of fron-35 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRET)
des frontières. Aucun accord ultérieur entre la France et la Libye ou entre
la Libye et le Tchad n'a remis en cause la frontière dans cette région,
découlant du traitéde 1955.Tout au contraire, si l'on considère les traités
postérieurs à l'entrée en vigueurdu traité de 1955, ceux-ci confortent la
thèse selon laquelle, après 1955, les Parties ont reconnu l'existence d'une
frontière déterminée et ont agi en conséquence. L'accord conclu le
2 mars 1966entre la Libye et le Tchad porte, comme le traitéde 1955,sur
les relations de bon voisinage et d'amitié entre les parties et traite des
questions de frontière. Les articles 1 et2 se réfèrentà «la frontière))entre
les deux pays, sans laisser entendre qu'il existerait la moindre incertitude
à son sujet. L'article 1vise le maintien de l'ordre et de la sécurité«sur la
frontière)), et l'articl2 la circulation des populations installées«de part
et d'autre de la frontière)). L'articl4 traite des cartes de circulation fron-
talière et I'article 7 des autorités frontalières. Si un différend sérieuxavait
vraiment existéau sujet des frontières, onze ans après la conclusion du
traité de 1955, il y a tout lieu de penser qu'un tel différendaurait trouvé
son expression dans le traité de 1966.
67. Le traité d'amitié,de coopération et d'assistance mutuelle conclu
entre la Libye et le Tchad le 23 décembre 1972fait à nouveau mention de
bonnes relations et de bon voisinage et insiste sur le respect des principes
et objectifs de l'organisation de l'unitéafricaine; à l'article 6, les parties
s'engagent à déployer tous leurs efforts afin d'éviter les différends qui
pourraient surgir entre elles; elles prennent également l'engagement de
s'employer à résoudre les problèmes qui se poseraient entre elles par des
moyens pacifiques conformément à l'esprit de la Chartede l'organisation
de l'unité africaine et de la Charte des Nations Unies. Un autre accord a
étéconclu entre les deux Etats le 12 août 1974, à une époque où le dif-
férend avait étéporté sur la scène internationale, des plaintes ayant été
adresséespar le Tchad à l'organisation des Nations Unies; s'il y est fait
une fois encore mention d'amitié et de bon voisinage, l'article 2 dispose:
«les frontières entre les deux pays s'inspirent d'une conception colo-
niale à l'élaboration delaquelle les deux peuples et nations n'ont pas
participé et cette question ne doit faire obstacle ni à leur coopéra-
tion, ni à leurs relations fraternelles)).
Le traité d'amitié etd'alliance que les Parties ont conclu le 15juin 1980
porte sur l'assistance mutuelle en cas d'agression extérieure; la Libye s'y
engage en outre à mettre à contribution ses moyens économiques pour la
reconstruction du Tchad sur le plan économique et militaire. L'accord
entre la Libye et le Tchad du 6 janvier 1981 implique également l'exis-
tence d'une frontière entre les deux Etats, car son article 11 stipule:
«Les deux parties décident d'ouvrir les frontières entre la Jamahi-
riya arabe libyenne populaire socialiste et la République du Tchad,
et ce pour permettre aux citoyens libyens et tchadiens de circuler en
toute liberté et sans conditions, et pour réaliser la fusion entre les
deux peuples frères. ))tiers. No subsequent agreement, either between France and Libya, or
between Chad and Libya, has called in question the frontier in this region
deriving from the 1955 Treaty. On the contrary, if one considers treaties
subsequent to the entry into force of the 1955Treaty, there is support for
the proposition that after 1955,the existence of a determined frontier was
accepted and acted upon by the Parties. The Treaty between Libya and
Chad of 2 March 1966, like the Treaty of 1955, refers to friendship and
neighbourly relations between the Parties, and deals with frontier ques-
tions. Articles1and 2 mention "the frontier" between the two countries,
with no suggestion of there being any uncertainty about it. Articl1 deals
with order and security "along the frontier" and Article 2 with the move-
ment of people living "on each side of the frontier". Article4 deals with
frontier permits and Article 7 with frontier authorities.If a serious dis-
pute had indeed existed regarding frontiers, eleven years after the conclu-
sion of the 1955Treaty, one would expect it to have been reflected in the
1966 Treaty.
67. The Agreement on Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assist-
ance concluded between Chad and Libya on 23 December 1972 again
speaks in terms of good relations and neighbourliness, and stresses
adherence to the priiiciples and objectives of the Organization of African
Unity, and in Article 6 the parties undertake to make every effort to
avoid disputes that rnay arise between them. They also pledge themselves
to work towards the peaceful resolution of any problems that may arise
between them, so as to accord with the spirit of the Charters of the
Organization of Afriican Unity and the United Nations. A further agree-
ment was concluded between the two States on 12August 1974,at a time
when the present dispute had reached the international arena, with com-
plaints having been made by Chad to the United Nations. While friend-
ship and neighbourliness are again mentioned, Article 2 States that the
"frontiers betwiren the two countries are a colonial conception in
which the two peoples and nations had no hand, and this matter
should not obstruct their co-operation and fraternal relations".
The Treaty of Friei~dship and Alliance that the Parties concluded on
15 June 1980 is one of mutual assistance in the event of external aggres-
sion: Libya agrees to make its economic potential available for the eco-
nomic and military rehabilitation of Chad. The Accord between Libya
and Chad of 6 January 1981 also implies the existence of a frontier
between those States, since it provides in Article11 that:
"The two Parties have decided that the frontiers between the
Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of
Chad shall be opened to permit the unhindered and unimpeded free-
dom of movement of Libyan and Chadian nationals, and to weld
together the two fraternal peoples."36 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRÊT)
68. La Cour examinera maintenant l'attitude que les Parties ont
adoptée après la conclusion du traité de 1955, lorsque des problèmes en
rapport avec les frontières ont étésoulevésdevant des instances interna-
tionales. La Libye a accédéà l'indépendance prèsde neuf ans avant le
Tchad; au coursde cette période, la France a présenté desrapports sur ce
territoire à l'Assembléegénérale desNations Unies. Selon le rapport pour
l'année 1955 (Nations Unies, doc. STITRIISER.AI12, p. 51), le Tchad
avait une superficiede 1 284 000kilomètres carrés,dont 538000 kilomètres
carrés étaientexpressément attribués au BET. En outre, les publications
de l'organisation des Nations Unies ont continué à mentionner pour
le Tchad, à partir de 1960, une superficie de 1284 000 kilomètres carrés
(voir par exemple Yeurbook1960, p. 693, app. 1).Comme iressort des indi-
cations donnéesci-dessus quant à la frontière qui résultedu traitéde 1955
(paragraphe 63), le BET fait partie du territoire du Tchad si l'on retient
cette frontière, mais il n'en serait pas ainsi si l'on admettait la revendica-
tion libyenne. Or, la Libye n'a pas contesté les dimensions du territoire
tchadien telles que spécifiéespar la France.
69. Le Tchad a toujours soutenu, quant à lui, qu'il a une frontière avec
la Libye et que la «bande d'Aouzou» - la zone comprise entre les lignes
de 1919 et 1935 figuréessur le croquis no 2 reproduit à la page 29 du
présent arrêt - fait partie du territoire tchadien. En 1977, le Tchad a
adressé une plainte à l'organisation de l'unité africaineau sujet de I'oc-
cupation par la Libye de la bande d'Aouzou. L'OUA a crééun comité
ud hoc chargéde résoudre le différend(AHGIDec. 108 (XIV)). Le comité
est restésaisi douze ansde cette plainte avant que l'affaire ne soit soumise
à la Cour. Devant l'OUA, la position de la Libye a été,entre autres, que
la frontière définiepar le traité de 1935 était valide.
70. En 1971,le Tchad, dans une déclaration à l'Assembléegénérale des
Nations Unies, s'est plaint de ce que la Libye s'immisçait dans ses affaires
intérieures et extérieures. En 1977, ils'est plaint que la bande d'Aouzou
ait été occupéepar la Libye depuis 1973. A la trente-troisième session de
l'Assembléegénérale,en 1978, le Tchad s'est plaint à l'Assembléede
«l'occupation par la Libye d'Aozou, partie intégrante de notre terri-
toire)). En 1977 et 1978, puis chaque année de 1982 à 1987, le Tchad a
protesté à l'Assemblée généralc eontre ce qu'il alléguaitêtreun empiéte-
ment de la Libye sur son territoire.
71. Par une communication en date du 9 février1978. lechef de 1'Etat
tchadien a informé le Conseil de sécuritéque la Libye n'avait ((jusqu'à ce
jour fourni aucun dossier à l'OUA pour justifier ses prétentions sur
Aozou)) et s'étaitabstenue, en janvier 1978,de participer aux travaux du
comité d'experts (le comité ud hoc) établi par l'organisation de l'unité
africaine. Le représentant permanent du Tchad a demandé au Président
du Conseil de sécuritédeconvoauer d'ur~ence une réunion afin d'exami-
"
ner la situation extrêmement grave qui prévalaitalors. Le Tchad a réitéré
ses wlaintes devant le Conseil de sécuritéen 1983. 1985et 1986.La Libve.
sa part, a expliqué qu'elle n'avait pas essayéde plaider sa taise
devant le Conseil de sécuritécar elle considérait que le Conseil, comme TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 36
68. The Court now turns to the attitudes of the Parties, subsequent to
the 1955 Treaty, on1occasions when matters pertinent to the frontiers
came up before international fora. Libya achieved its independence nearly
nine years before ChLad;during that period, France submitted reports on
this territory to the United Nations General Assembly. The report for
1955 (United Nations doc. STITRIISER.AI12, p. 66) shows the area of
Chad's territory as 1,284,000 square kilometres, which expressly includes
538,000 square kilornetres for the BET. Moreover United Nations pub-
lications from 1960 onward continued to state the area of Chad as
1,284,000 square kilometres (see for example Yearbook 1960, p. 693,
App. 1). As will be clear from the indications above as to the frontier
resulting from the 1955 Treaty (paragraph 63), the BET is part of the
territory of Chad on the basis of that frontier, but would not be soon the
basis of Libya'sclairn. Libya did not challenge the territorial dimensions
of Chad as set out tiy France.
69. As for Chad, it has consistently adopted the position that it does
have a boundary wi1.hLibya, and that the territory of Chad includes the
"Aouzou strip", Le., the area between the 1919 and 1935 lines shown on
sketch-map No. 2 on page 29 hereof. In 1977 Chad submitted a com-
plaint to the Organiication of African Unity regarding the occupation by
Libya of the Aouzo~istrip. The OAU established an ad hoc committee to
resolve the dispute (AHGIDec. 108 (XIV)). Chad's complaint was kept
before it for 12 yeairs prior to the referral of the matter to this Court.
Before the OAU, Libya's position was, inter alia, that the frontier defined
by the Treaty of 1935 was valid.
70. In 1971, Chatl complained in a statement to the United Nations
General Assembly that Libya was interfering in its interna1 and external
affairs. In 1977 it c:omplained that the Aouzou strip had been under
Libyan occupation siince1973.At the General Assembly's thirty-third ses-
sion, in 1978, Chad complained to the Assembly of "the occupation by
Libya of Aouzou, an integral part of our territory". In 1977 and 1978,
and in each year from 1982 to 1987, Chad protested to the General
Assembly about the encroachment which it alleged that Libya had
made into its territory.
71. By a communication of 9 February 1978, the Head of State of
Chad inforrned the SlecurityCouncil that Libya had "to this day supplied
no documentation to the OAU to justify its claims to Aouzou" and had
in January 1978 failed to participate at the Committee of Experts (the
Ad Hoc.Committee) set up by the OAU. The Permanent Representative
of Chad requested the President of the Security Council to convene a
meeting as a matter of urgency to consider the extremely serious situation
then prevailing. Chad repeated its complaints to the Security Council in
1983, 1985and 1980. Libya has explained that, since it considered that
the Security Council, being a political forum, was not in a position to
judge the merits of the legal problems surroundingthe territorial dispute,instance politique, n'étaitpas à mêmede statuer au.fond sur les questions
juridiques liéesau différendterritorial. Tout ce qui précèdemontreque la
conduite du Tchad n'a pas varié en cequi concerne l'emplacement de sa
frontiere.
72. L'article 11 du traité de 1955 dispose:
«Le présent Traité est conclu pour une duréede vingt années.
Les Hautes Parties contractantes pourront toujours se consulter
en vue de sa revision.
Cette consultation sera obligatoire i l'expiration des dix années
qui suivront sa mise en vigueur.
II pourra êtremis fin au présent Traité par l'une ou l'autre Partie
vingt ans après son entrée en vigueur ou iitoute époque ultérieure
avec un préavisd'un an adresséà l'autre Partie.))
Nonobstant ces disvositions. le traitédoit. de l'avisde la Cour. êtreconsi-
dérécomme ayant 'établiune frontière permanente. Rien n'indique dans
le traité de 1955 aue la frontière convenue devait être vrovisoire ou tem-
poraire; la frontière porte au contraire toutes les marques du définitif.
L'établissement de cette frontière est un fait aui1 ,ès l'origi",. a eu une
existence juridique propre, indépendante du sort du traité de 1955. Une
fois convenue, la frontière demeure, car toute autre approche priverait
d'effet le principe fondamental de la stabilitédes frontières, dont la Cour
a souligné à maintes reprises l'importance (Temple (le pré al^ Vil~éar,
C. I.J. Recueil1962,p. 34 ;Plateuucontinental delumer Egke, C.1.J. Recueil
1978.,,. 36),
73. Une frontière établiepar traité acquiert ainsi une permanence que
le traité lui-même neconnaît pas nécessairement. Un traité peut cesser
d'êtreen vigueur sans que la pérennitéde la frontière en soit affectée. En
l'espèce,les Parties n'ont pas exercéleur facultéde mettre fin au traité.
Du reste, que cette faculté soit exercéeou non, la frontière demeure. Cela
ne veut pas dire que deux Etats ne peuvent pas, d'un commun accord,
modifier leur frontière. Un tel résultat peutnaturellement êtreobtenu par
consentement mutuel, mais, lorsqu'une frontière a fait l'objet d'un accord,
sa persistance ne dépend pas de la survie du traité par lequel ladite fron-
tière a été convenue.
74. La Cour conclut que la ligne du 15cparallèle revendiquéecomme
frontière par la Libye ne trouve appui ni dans le traité de 1955 ni dans
l'un quelconque des instrumentsqui y sont joints. L'effet des actes définis
à l'annexe 1du traité de 1955 peut êtrerésumécomme suit:
- Une frontiere composite résultede ces actes; celle-ci comprend deux
segments qui sont abordés séparémentdans les actes définisà l'an-it did not attempt to plead its case before the Council. Al1 of these
instances indicate thlc consistency of Chad's conduct in relation to the
location of its boundary.
72. Article Il of the 1955 Treaty provides that:
"The present 'Treaty is concluded for a period of 20 years.
The High Contracting Parties shall be able at al1 times to enter
into consultatioris with a view to its revision.
Such consulta1tionsshall be compulsory at the end of the ten-year
period following its entry into force.
The present Treaty can be terminated by either Party 20 years
after its entry irito force, or at any later time, provided that one
year's notice is given to the other Party."
These provisions notwithstanding, the Treaty must, in the view of the
Court, be taken to have determined a permanent frontier. There is
nothing in the 1955 1Treatyto indicate that the boundary agreed was to
be provisional or teniporary; on the contrary it bears al1 the hallmarks
of finality. The establishment of this boundary is a fact which, from the
outset, has had a legal life of its own, independently of the fate of the
1955 Treaty. Once ag,reed, the boundary stands, for any other approach
would vitiate the fundamental principle of the stability of boundaries, the
importance of which has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court
(Temple of' Preuh Viheur, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 34; Aegean Scu Conti-
nental Shelf: I.C.J. Reports 1978,p. 36).
73. A boundary established by treaty thus achieves a permanence
which the treaty itself'does not necessarily enjoy. The treaty can cease to
be in force without in any way affecting the continuance of the boundary.
In this instance the Parties have not exercised their option to terminate
the Treaty, but whether or not the option be exercised, the boundary
remains. This is not to say that two States may not by mutual agreement
Varythe border between them; such a result can of course be achieved by
mutual consent, but when a boundary has been the subject of agreement,
the continued existence of that boundary is not dependent upon the con-
tinuing life of the treaty under which the boundary is agreed.
74. The C:ourt conicludes that the 15" line claimed by Libya as the
boundary is unsupported by the 1955 Treaty or any of its associated
instruments. The effeiit of the instruments listed in Annex 1to the 1955
Treaty may be summlcd up as follows:
A composite boui~dary results from these instruments; it comprises
two sectors whichi are separately dealt with in instruments listed in nexe 1 :un segment à l'estdu point d'intersection du tropique du Can-
cer et du 16'méridien est de Greenwich, etun segment à l'ouest de ce
point. Pour plus de commodité, le point en question est dénomméci-
après point X; il est figurésur le croquis no 4 reproduit & la page 39
du présentarrêt.
- Le segment oriental de la frontière est fourni par la convention fran-
co-britannique du 8 septembre 1919.Ce segment est une ligne droite
reliant le point X au point d'intersection du 24" méridien est de
Greenwich et du parallèle 19"30'nord; ce dernier point est le point Y
figurésur le croquis no4 reproduit à la page 39 du présentarrêt.
- Le segment occidental de la frontière, du point X en direction de
Toummo, est fourni par l'accord franco-italien du ler novembre 1902.
Ce segment est une ligne droite suivant la frontière dela Tripolitaine
telle qu'indiquéesur la carte du Livrejaune et reliant le point X au
point d'intersection du 15' méridienest et du 23" parallèle nord; ce
dernier point est le point Z figurésur le croquis no 4 reproduit à la
page 39 du présentarrêt.
- Quatre des actes définis à l'annexe 1 - la convention du 14juin 1898
considéréeconjointement avec la déclaration du 21 mars 1899, I'ac-
cord du ler novembre 1902et la convention du 8 septembre 1919 -
fournissent donc une frontière complète entre la Libye et le Tchad.
75. Il ressort clairement des considérations ci-dessus que le différend
soumis à la Cour, qu'on le qualifie de différendterritorial ou de différend
frontalier, est régléde manière concluante par un traitéauquel la Libye
est une partie originelle et le Tchad une partie ayant succédé a la France.
La Cour, étantparvenue à la conclusion que ce traité contient une fron-
tière convenue, n'a pas à examiner l'histoire des «confins» revendiqués
par la Libye sur la base d'un titre hérité des peuplesautochtones, de
l'Ordre senoussi, de l'Empire ottoman et de l'Italie. Par ailleurs, dans la
présente affaire, c'est la Libye, partie originelle au traité, et non Etat
successeur, qui conteste la façon dont ledit traité arégléla question ter-
ritoriale ou de frontière. Dèslors, la Cour n'a pas& étudierplus avant des
sujets qui ont été longuementtraités devantellecomme le principe de l'uti
possidcti.uet l'applicabilitéde la déclarationadoptéepar l'organisation de
l'unitéafricaine au Caire en 1964.
76. De même, l'effectivité de l'occupation des zones pertinentes dans le
passé et laquestion de savoir si cette occupation a étéconstante, paci-
fiqueet reconnue ne sont pas des points que la Cour doit trancher dans la
présente affaire. Quant à la question de savoir si le traité de 1955était
déclaratoire ou constitutif, il n'y a pas non plus lieu de l'examiner. La
notion de terru nulliuset la nature de l'administration senoussi, ottomane
ou française ne sont pas plus des facteurs i prendre en considération.
Pour le mêmemotif, la notion de sphère d'influence et la doctrine de Annex 1: a sector to the east of the point of intersection of the Tropic
of Cancer with the 16th degree of longitude east of Greenwich, and a
sector to the Westof that point. This point is hereinafter referred to
for convenience as point X, and indicated as such on sketch-map
No. 4 on page 39 hereof.
- The eastern sector of the boundary is provided by the Anglo-French
Convention of 8 !September 1919: a straight line between point X and
the point of intersection of the 34th degree of longitude east of
Greenwich with parallel 19"30' of latitude north; this latter point is
indicated on sketch-map No. 4 on page 39 hereof as point Y.
The western sector of the boundary, from point X in the direction of
Toummo. is provided by the Franco-ltalian Accord of 1 Novem-
ber 1903. This sector is a straight line following the frontier of
Tripolitania as indicated on the Liiw juurîr map, from point X to the
point of intersection of the 15" meridian east and the paral-
le133" north; this latter point is indicated on sketch-map No. 4 on
page 39 hereof as point Z.
- Four instruments listed in Annex 1 --the Convention of 14 June
1898coupled wit h the Declaration of 21 March 1899, the Accord of
1 November 190:!and the Convention of 8 September 1919 - thus
provide a complete frontier between Libya and Chad.
75. It will be evident from the preceding discussion that the dispute
before the Court. whether described as a territorial dispute or a boundary
dispute, is conclusively determined by a Treaty to which Libya is an
original party and C'had a party in succession to France. The Court's
conclusion that the Treaty contains an agreed boundary renders it un-
necessary to consider the history of the "Borderlands" claimed by Libya
on the basis of title.inherited from the indigenous people, the Senoussi
Order. the Ottoman Empire and Italy. Moreover, in this case, it is Libya,
an original party to i.he Treaty. rather than a successor State, that con-
tests its resolution of the territorial or boundary question. Hence there is
no need for the Cou.rt to explore matters which have been discussed at
length before it such ;is the principle utipo.s.sidetand the applicability
of the Declaration aidopted by the Organization of African Unity at
Cairo in 1964.
76. Likewise. the effectiveness of occupation of the relevant areas in
the past.anci the question whether it was constant, peaceful and acknow-
ledged. are not matters for determination in this case. So, also, the ques-
tion whether the 1955Treaty was declaratory or constitutive does not cal1
for consideration. Th'cconcept of tcrrri t~ulliand the nature of Senoussi,
Ottoman or French administration are likewise not germane to the issue.
For the same reason, the concepts of spheres of influence and of the hin-
terland doctrine do not corne within the ambit of the Court's enquiry in39 IXFFEREND TERRITORIAL (ARRÉT)
CROQUIS No 4
Ligne frontière
déterminéepar la Cour
dans son arrêt
N.B.Le trac6 en pointilledes frontihres
internationalesest fourni seulement
ades finsd'illustration.7'ERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 39
SKETCH-MAP NO.4
BoundaryLine
Determined bythe
Court's Judgment
N.B.International boundaries indicated
by peckednesare shown for
illustrativesesonly.l'hinterland n'ont pas à entrer dans le champ d'investigation de la Cour
en l'espèce.De même,la Cour n'a pas i s'interroger sur les règlesde droit
intertemporel. Point n'est besoin davantage, dans le présentarrêt, d'ana-
lyser l'historique du différend tel qu'exposé devant l'organisation des
Nations Unies ou l'organisation de l'unité africaine.Le traité de 1955 a
déterminéde manière complète la frontière entre la Libye et le Tchad.
77. Par ces motifs,
Par seize voix contre une.
1) Dit que la frontière entre la Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
populaire et socialiste et la République du Tchad est définiepar le traité
d'amitié etde bon voisinage conclu le 10 août 1955 entre la République
française et le Royaume-Uni de Libye;
2) Ditque le tracéde cette frontière est le suivant:
Du point d'intersection du 24' méridien est et du parallèle 19"30'
nord, une ligne droite allant jusqu'au point d'intersection du tropique
du Cancer et du 16 méridienest; et de ce dernier point une ligne droite
allant jusqu'au point d'intersection dIF méridienest et du 23cparal-
lèlenord;
ces lignes sont indiquées,à titre d'illustration, sur le croquis 4orepro-
duit à la page 39 du présent arrêt.
POUR: Sir Robert Jennings, PrL;sidont;M. Oda, Vice-PrPsident:MM. Ago,
Schwebel, Bedjaoui. Ni, Evensen,Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,
Aguilar Mawdsley, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Ajibola, Herczegh,juges;
M. Abi-Saab,jugc ad hoc.
CONTRE: M. Sette-Camara,juge ad hoc.
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au Palais de
la Paix,a La Haye, le trois févriermil neuf cent quatre-vingt-quatorze, en
trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et les
autres seront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement de la Grande
Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste et au Gouvernement de
la République du Tchad.
Le Président,
(Signi.) R. Y. JENNINGS.
Le Greffier,
(Signt;) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA. TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 40
this case.Similarly, the Court does not need to consider the rules of inter-
temporal law. This J~idgment also does not need to deal with the history
of the dispute as argued before the United Nations and the Organization
of African Unity. The 1955 Treaty completely determined the boundary
between Libya and Chad.
77. For these reasons,
By 16 votes to 1,
(1) Fincts that the boundary between the Great Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad is defined by the
Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness concluded on 10 August
1955 between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Libya;
(2) Finrlsthat the course of that boundary is as follows:
From the point of intersection of the 24th meridian east with the
parallel 19"30' of latitude north, a straight line to the point of inter-
section of the Tropic of Cancer with the 16th meridian east; and from
that point a straight line to the point of intersection of the 15th merid-
ian east and the parallel 23" of latitude north;
these lines are indicai-ed, for the purpose of illustration. on sketch-map
No. 4 on page 39 of i.his Judgment.
IN FAVOIJK: Pr(>sidcwS~itr Robert Jennings; Vice-PlesidentOda; Judgs go,
Schwebel, Bedjao~ii.Ni. Evensen. Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,
Aguilar Mawdsley, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Ajibola. Herczegh; Judgl~r
ad hoc Abi-Saab.
AGAINST: Jlldg~ad hoc Sette-Camara.
Done in French ancdin English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this third day of February, one thousand
nine hundretl and nini:ty-four, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Govern-
ment of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Government of the Republic of Chad. respectively.
(Signedl R. Y. JENNINGS,
President.
(Signeri) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar.41 DIFFÉREND TERRITORIAL (ARRET)
M. AGO, juge, joint une déclaration à l'arrêt.
MM. SHAHARUDDE etAJIBOL ju,es, joignent à l'arrêtles exposés de
leur opinion individuelle.
M. SETTE-CAMAR jAge hoc,jointA I'arrêtl'exposéde son opinion
dissidente.
(Puruphé) R.Y.J.
(Puruphé) E.V.O. 1-ERRITORIALDISPUTE (JUDGMENT) 41
Judge Acioappends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court.
Judges SHAHABUDID anENAJIBOL ppend separate opinions to the
Judgment of the Court.
Judge adhot. SETTIKAMARaA ppends adissenting opinion to the Judg-
ment of the Court.
(InitialleR.Y.J.
(Initiullcd) E.V.O. DIFFEREND TERRITORIAL(ARRET)
Ci-contre: Reproduction, à l'échelleoriginale, de la carte du Livre jaune
publié par le ministère français des affaires étrangères en 1899, mentionnée
aux paragraphes 28, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65 et 74 de l'arrêt.
Opposife puge: Reproduction (original size) of the map included in the
Livre jaune published by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1899,
referred to in the Judgment, paragraphs 28.58, 59, 61, 64, 65 and 74.
Judgment of 3 February 1994