Summary of the Judgment of 22 December 1986

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document

CASECONCERNING 'PHE FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO/REPUBLIO CF
MALI)
Judgmentof 22 December 1986

Initsjudgment, theChamberconstitutedbythe Courtin passingthroughthegointwith thegeographicalco-ordinates
the caseof the Frontier DisputebetweenBurkinaFaso and1"46'38"Wand 14 28'54"N(pointD),andthepointwith
the Republicof Mali, unsunimouadoptedthe line of the the co-ordinates40'40"Wand14"30'03"N(point E).
frontierinthearea indisputebetweentheDwoStates. 4. From pointE,the line continuesstraightasasar
(Forthisfrontierline, seeMapNo.) pointwith thegeographical co-ordina1"19'05"W and
14"43' 45" N (pointF),situated approximately2.6 kilo-
mews to thesouthofthepoolofToussougou.
5. FrompointF,thelinecontinuesstraightasfar as the
pointwiththe geographical co-ordinates' 34"W and
TheChamberwascomposedas follows: 14"4'7'04"N(pointG)situatedonthewestbankofthe pool
Resident, JudgeMohmmnedBedjaoui:;JudgesManfred ofSoum,whichitcrossesinageneralwest-eastdirectionand
Lachs and Jo& Maria H.uda, Judges tzdhoc Fran~ois dividesequallybetween the States;itlhenturnsinagen-
Luchaire and GeorgeAbi-Saab. erallynorthlnorth-easterlydirectiontorejoin theIGNlineat
thepointwiththegeographiclo-ordinates0"43'29W and
15"05'00"N(pointH) .
6. Frompoint H, the line follothe IGNlineas faras
thepointwithhegeographicalco-ordinat0"26'35"Wand
15"05'00"N(pointI);from there it ttowards thesouth-
eastmd continuestraighasfaraspointJdefinedbelow.
7. Points J and K, the geographicalco-ordinates of
Unanimously, whichwillbedeterminedbythePartieswinhthe assistanceof
theexpertsnominatedpursuantto ArticIV of the Special
Decides Agreement, fulfil three conditionsaresituatedonthe
A. That thefrontierlinebetweenBurkinaFasoand the sameparallelof latitude;pointJ liesonthewestbank ofthe
Re ublicofMaliinthediqputedarea, asdefinedintheSpe- poolofInAbaoand pointKontheeastbankofthe pool;the
ciafAgreementconcludedon 16September 1983between line&awnbetweenthemwillresult in dividing tareaof
thosetwoStates, isas follows: thepol equallybetweenthe Parties.
1. From a point with thegeographical co-ordinateslo 8. At pointK the line turnstowardsthe north-east and
59' 01"W and 14" 24'40" N (pointA), theline runs in acontinuesstraight faas the pointwith the geographical
northerlydirectionfollowthebrokenlineofsmall,crosses co-o~dinate0" 14'44"Wand 15"04'42"N (point L),and,
appearingonthemapofWestAfricaonthescale1:200,000 fromthat point,continues straightto a point with the geo-
published by the French Institutgt?ographinational grapl~iclo-ordinates0" 14'3E and 14"54'48"N(point
point withthegeogtaphicfllco-ordinates1"58'49"W and M), situated approximat3 kilomeaesto thenorthof the
14"28' 30"N(pointB). Kabiaford.
B. That theChamber will at laterdate,byOrder,nom-
2. AtpointB, thelinetumseastward;ndintersects the inate threeexpertsinaccordancewithArtiIV,paragraph
trackconnectingDionougtandDiguelat;approximatel7.5 3, ofthe SpecialAgreementof 16September 1983.
co-ordinates1"54'24"Wrrnd14"29'20"Nt(pointC).raphical

3. FrompointC, the linerun spproximately2kilome-
rrestothesouthofthevillrtgesofKouniaandOukoulourou,

Continuedon next page Judgesad hocFraqois Luchaireand GeorgesAbi-Saab cificsystemof international law. Itis a principle ofgeneral
appendedseparateOpinions totheJudgm~znt. scope, logically connectedwith the phenomenonof the
In these Opinions the Judges concerned statedand obtainingof independence,wherever itoccurs. Its obvious
explained the positionsthey adopted in regard to certain purposeis to prevent the independenceand stabilityof new
points dealtwithintheJudgment. Statesbeingendangeredbyfratricidalstrugglesprovokedby
ae challenging04:frontiersfollowingthewithdrawalof the
I. Procedure administeringpower. The fact that thenew AfricanStates
(paras. 1-15) haverespected th: territorialstatusquowhichexistedwhen
The Chamberrecapitulates the successivephasesof the thevobtainedindtmendencemustthereforebe seen notas a
procedureasfromthenotificationtotheRegistraroftheSpe- me&practicebut&the applicationin~fricaofahe of
cial Agreementconcludedon 16Septemlber1983between eralscopewhichi:sfirmlyestablishedinmattersofdecoloni-
theRepublicofUpper Volta(known as BurkinaFasosince4 zsntion; d theChamber-doesnot findit necessarytodemon-
August 1984)and theRepublicof Mali,b:ywhich thosetwo stratethisfortheplurposesofthecase.
Statesagreedto submitto a chamberof theCourt adispute Theprincipleof utipossidetisjuris accordspre-eminence
relatingtothedelimitationofapartoftheircommonfrontier. to legal title over effectivepossessionas a basis of sover-
eignty.Itsprimary aimis to securerespectforthe territorial
11. ThetaskoftheChamber bsundarieswhichc:xistedat thetimewhenindependencewas
(paras. 16-18) achieved.Whenth.oseboundarieswerenomorethandelimi-
tationsbetweendifyerentadministrativedivisionorcolonies
The Chamber'stask is to indicate theiineof the frontier all subjecttothesamesovereign, theapplicatioofthisprin-
between BurkinaFasoand the RepublicalfMali inthe dis- ciple resulted inheir being transformed into international
putedareawhichisdefinedbyArticleIoftheSpecialAgree- frontiers,andthisiswhatoccurredwiththeStatesParties to
mentasconsistingof "a bandoftemtoryextendingfromthe thepresentcase,which bothtook shapewithintheterritories
sectorKoro(Mali)Djibo(Upper Volta)uptoandincluding the:statusofinterni~tionaflrontierthetimeofdecoloniza-
theregionof the BQli".BothStateshaveindicated.in their tion,theobligationtorespectpre-existinginternationalfron-
submissionstotheChamber,the frontier linewhicheachof tiersderivesfrom ageneralruleofinternationallawrelating
them considers to be well-foundedin law. These linesare to State succession.The many solemn affirmationsof the
shownonsketch-mapNo. 1intheJudgment. intangibilityof frontiers,madeby Africanstatesmenor by
organsofthe OAU,,shouldthereforebetakenasreferencesto
III. Rules applicableto the case. Source of the rights a principlealreadyin existence,notas affirmationsseeking
claimed bythefirties tocx>nsecrataenewprincipleortoextendtoAfricaarulepre-
(paras. 19-30) viouslyapplicableonlyinanothercontinent.
Thisprincipleofutipossidetisappearstoconflictoutright
1. Theprincipleof the intangibilityoffiontiers inherited viriththerightofpeoplestoself-determination.Infact,how-
fromcolonization ever,themaintenance ofthetenitarid statusquoinAfricais
(para.19) oftenseen asthe wisestcourseT. heessentialrequirementof
TheJudgmentconsidersthe questionof therules applica- stabilityinordertosurvive,todevelopandgraduallytocon-
bletothecase,andseekstoascertainthe sourceoftherights solidatetheir independencinall fields has induced African
claimedbythe Pdaies.It beginsbyn6tingthatthecharacter- Statesto consenttabthe maintenanceof colonial boundaries
isticfeatureofthe legalcontextofthefrontierdetermination or frontiers,andtorakeaccountofthiswheninterpretingthe
tobe undertakenbytheChamberisthatbotllStatesinvolved principleofself-determinationofpeoples.Iftheprincipleof
derive their existencefrom the processof decolonization utipossidetis has keptits place among themost important
whichhasbeenunfolding inAfricaduringthepast 30 years: legal principles, thisis by a deliberate choiceon thepart of
itcanbesaidthatBurkiia Fasocorrespondst;othecolonyof AfricanStates.
UpperVoltaandtheRepublicofMalitothecolonyofSudan
(formerly French Sudan). Inthe preambleto their Special 3. Theroleofequity
Agreement,the Parties stated thatthe sett1e:mtf the dis- (paras.27-28)
pute should be "basedinparticularonrespectforthe princi-
ple of the intangibilityof frontiersinheritedfromcoloniza- TheChamber thenconsiderswhether itispossible,inthis
tion", which recalls the principle expressly statedin case, to invoke equity, concerningwhich the two Parties
resolutionAGWRes.16(I) adoptedin CairoinJuly 1964at have advancedconflictingviews. Obviouslythe Chamber
the first summitconference following the creationof the cannotdecideexaequoet bono,since theWrtieshave not
Organizationof AfricanUnity,wherebyall1memberStates requestedit to doso.It will,however, have regartoequity
"solemnly ... pledge themselvesto respcxtthe frontiers in* legem,that is, that formof equitywhichconstitutesa
existingontheirachievementofnationalindependence". method ofinterpretationof the law in force, and whichis
bad on law. How.theChamberwill, inpractice, approach
2. Theprincipleofutipossidetisjuris its considerationof this formof equity will becomeclear
(paras.20-26) fromitsapplication #othe principlesandruleswhichit finds
Inthese circumstances,theChambercann~od tisregardthe tobeapplicable.
principle of uti possidetis juris, the applic!ationof which
gives rise to this respect for intangibilityof frontiers. It 4. Frenchcoloniallaw("droitd'outre-mer ")
emphasizesthe general scopeof the principlein mattersof (para s9-30)
decolonizationand its exceptional importancefor the Afri- TihePartiesagreethat the delimitationof the frontier line
can continent, includingthe two Parties to this case. alsohastobeappraisiedinthe lightofFrench"droitd'oune-
Although this principlewas invoked for the first timein mer".The lineto be determinedby the Chamberas being
SpanishAmerica,itisnotarulepertaining scdelytoonespe- thatwhichexistedin 1959-1960 wao sriginallynomore thanan administrative boundary dividing two fonner French implications in regardto the dispute. The Judgment then
overseasterritories"tern'toirs'outre-ma r)and,assuch, goeson to considerthe principlesof delimitationapproved
wasnecessarily definedatthattime not accordingto intema- by theLegalSub-commissionwhich,accordingto Burkina
tionallaw,butaccordingtotheFrenchlegislation applicable Faso, Mali agreed shouldbe taken into considerationin
to suchterritories.Here thehamberexplainsthat interna- delimiting thefrontierinthe disputedarea.Having weighed
tional law-and thereforethe principleof utipossidetis- the argumentsof the Parties,the Chamber concludesthat,
applies to thenew Stateas.from its accessionto indepen- sinceithastodeterminethefrontierlineonthe basisofinter-
dence,buthasnoretroactiveeffect.It free:zesthetemtorial national law, it is of little significance whether Mali's
title.Internationallawdoeslooteffectanyrenvoitothelawof approach may be construed to reflect a specific position
thecolonizingState.Iftheli5tterlaw hasanyparttoplay,itis towards,orindeedto signify acquiescencein, theprinciples
asonefactualelement amo~mogthers,orasevidence indica- held by the Legal Sub-Commission to be applicableto the
tiveofthe "colonial heritage"atthecriticalldate. resolutionofthedispute.Ifthoseprinciplesareapplicableas
elementsof law, they remain sowhateverMali's attitude.
IV. Thedevelopmeno tfadministrativorganization The situationwouldonlybeotherwiseifthe two Partieshad
(paras.31-33) askedtheChambertotakeaccountofthemorhadgiventhem
a special placeinthe Special Agreemets "rulesexpressly
The Judgment briefly reviewshowterritorialadministra- mognized bythe contestingStates" (Art.38,para.1(a)of
tion was organizedin FrenchWestAfrica.-to which both theStatute),neitherofwhichwasthecase.
Parties previouslybelongedl-with itserarchyof admiinis-
trative units (colonies,cercles,subdivisions,cantons,vil- VI. Preliminaryquestion:thej'ixiofthetripoint
concernedsince 1919.in orderto determinewhat. foreachs (paras.44-50)
of the two~des, w& thecolonialheritagc~to whkh theuti The Chamberdisposesof a furtherpreliminaryquestion,
possidetiswas to apply. Mali gained its independencein concerningits powers in the matter of fixing thetripoint
1960under thenameof theFederationof :Mali,,ucceeding whichformsthe easternmostpoint of the frontierbetween
the SudaneseRepublic whichhademerged,in 1!359f ,roman theParties.Theirviews onthisquestionconflict.Maliclaims
overseastemtory called th.FrenchSudan. me historyof that the determinationof the tripoint Niger-Mali-Burkina
UpperVoltaismorecompliicatedI .tcameintobeingin 1919 Fasocannotbe effectedby the two Parties without Niger's
butwasthenabolishedin 1932,and again mothstitutedbya agreement,andcannot bedeterminedbytheChambereither;
lawof4September1947, whichstatedthattheboundariesof andBurkinaFasoconsidersthatthe Chambermust, pursuant
"the reestablished temtory of Upper Volta" were tobe totheSpecialAgreement, reachadecisiononthepositionof
"those ofthe formercolorryof Upper Voltaon 5 September thetripoint.Asforitsjurisdictioninthismatter, theChamber
1932". It was thismnstituted UpperVolta whichsubse- findsittobeclearfromthe wordingoftheSpecialAgreement
quently obtained independencein 196andltookthenameof that thecommonintentionof the Parties,wasthat it should
BurkinaFaso in 1984.In the presentcase, therefore, the indicatethefrontierlinethroughoutthewholeofthedisputed
problemis to ascertainwhatfrontierwasinherited from the area.In addition, it considers thatits jurisdiction is not
French administrationmoreprecisely,to r~certainwhat,in restricted simplybecausetheend-pointofthefrontierlieson
the disputed area, was the frontier which existed in thefrontierofthudStatenotapartytotheproceedings.The
1959-1%0betweenthe territoiresd'outre-mofSudanand rightsoftheneighbouringState,Niger,areinanyevent safe-
UpperVolta.ThePartiesbothagreethatwhentheybecame guatdledby the operationof Article59of the Statuteof the
independenttherewasadelilnitefrontier,andtheyacceptthat Court.Regardingthe questionwhetherconsiderationsrelat-
nomodificationtook place in the disputed abetweenJan- ing to the needosafeguard theinterestsof the thirdState
uary 1959andAugust1960,orhas takenplacesince. concernedwouldrequire the Chamberto refrain from exer-
cisingitsjurisdictionto determinethe wholecourseof the
V. The disputebetweentheItvti end thepreliminarques- line, this presupposes, accordingto the Chamber,that the
tionofpossibleacquit!scenceyMali legalinterestsof thatStatewould notonlybe affectbyits
(paras.34-43) decision, but wouldform the very subject-matterof that
decision. This is not so in this case, and the Chamberis
solutiontothe disputeouCinedbytheOAIJMediationCom- the acco~dinglrequiredtodeterminehowfarthefrontierinher-
mission,whichsat in 197.5.If this argument from acquies- itedfromthecolonizingStateextends.Thisis,fortheCham-
cencewere well-founded,it would makeit urmecessaryto ber,nota matter somuchofdefininga triyointasof indicat-
endeavourtoestablishthefrontierinheritedfromthecolonial ingwheretheeastemmostpointofthefrontierlies,thepoint
period. wherethefrontierceasesto dividethetenritoriesof Burkina
Fasoandthe RepublicofMali.
TheChamberthereforeconsiderswhetherMalidid acqui-
esce,asBurkinaFasoclaims,in the solution outlinebythe W. Evidencereliedon by theRarties
Commission, althoughthelatternever infactcompletedits (para 51-65)
work.It beginsby considering the elementof acquiescence ThePartieshavereliedupondifferenttypesofevidenceto
which, accordingtoBurkinaFaso,isfoundinthedeclaration givesupportto theirarguments.
Malialiegedlydeclareditselfboundinadlancebytherepoheby 1. They havereferredto legislativeandregulative texts
tobedrawnup bytheMediationCommission onthe basisof or administrativedocumento sf,whichthebasicdocumentis
the specific proposalsemanating from its Legal Sub- the French law of 4 September 1947 "for the re-
Commission. Thatreportwasneverissuexl,bat it is known establishmentof the territoryof Upper Volra", providing
what the proposalofthe!Sub-Commissian were.Uponcon- thatthe boundariesof the re-establishedtemtory wereto be
sideration,and taking accountof the jurisprudenceof the "thoseof theformercolonyof UpperVolraon 5September
Court,theChamber finds that therearenlopun& to inter- 1932". At the timeof independence in1%0, thosebound-
pret the declaration inquestionas a unilalkralact withlegalieswere thesameasthosewhichhadexistedon5Septem-ber 1932.However,the textsand documents producedin of anyparticularargumentforlack ofproofis notsufficient
evidencecontainnocompletedescriptionfthecourseofthe towarrantupholdingthe contrary argument.
boundary between FrencShudanand Upper Voltaduringthe
two periodswhenthese coloniescoexisted (1919-1932and VIII. Legi~lativ~and regulativetitlesandadminisnative
1947-1960). They arelimitedinscope,andtheir legalforce documenti.^vokedbytheIrtrrtiest:heirapplicability
or the correctinterpretationof tare mattersof dispute tothedeterminatioofthefrontierline
betweentheParties. (paras.66-105)
2. The two Stateshave alsoproducedan abundantand and thequestionoftheirimplemntation
variedcollection ofcartographicmaterials,and havedis- (paras. 10111)
cussed in considerabledetailthe questiolnof the probativeme Chamberdds firstwiththebgislativeandregulative
forceofthe mapsandtherespectivelegalforceofthevarious ti,:lesand theadministrativedocumentsinvokedby tPar-
kindsofevidence.TheChambernotesthat,infrontierdelim- ties,andconsidea;what weighttoattachtoeachofthem,for
itations,maps merelyconstituteinformation,andnevercon- th,pufposeofindicatingthecourse lineinthesectorto
stitUtetemtorialtitlesinthemselvesalone.Tharemerely w~chtheyrelate.*b Judgmentpresentsthestextsin
extrinsicevidencewhichmay beused,alongwithotherevi- ologicalorder:
dence, to establishthe realfacts. Their.valuedependson -Order of 31 December 1922 for the reorganizationof
theirtechnicalreliabilityandtheirneutralityinrelation the ambuktu region.The Rrries agnc in mognizing the
disputeandtheMes to that dispute; they canntffectany validityanpehn,snCe Ofthistext.
reversalofthe onusofproof. -Order dated31August1927,issuedby theGovemor-
When consideringthe maps producedin this case, the Generalad interimof FrenchWestAfrica, relatingto the
Chamber notesthat not one of the mapss~vailatoit can boundariesof the colonieof~i~~~and uppe rolts; this
provideadirectofficial illustrofthewordscontainedin mer wasmen&d by an dated5 octokr 1927.
four essentialtex(6. Section VIIIbeloiu)even though it memes bothtn:atthistextas insofar asit
was clear from theirwordingthat two of those texts were the point di~ussed above (cf. SectionVI). They dis-
intendedtobeaccompaniedbymaps.Althoughthechamber ap, however,mgardingits validity;Maliclaims thatthe
has been presented with a body Orderandtheerratum areinvalidatedbyafactualemr relat-
sketches and drawingsfor a region that is nevertheless ing to the locationof the heights ofN'Gouma,sothatBur-
describedas partly unknown,no indisputablefrontier linekinaF~~ maynot rely uponthem. The chambet
istherefore requiredinexaminingthefileofmaps.igihce emphasizesthat, i, the presentproceedings,the Orderand
erratumhaveonly evidentiaryvalueinrespectofthelocation
Twoof themaps producedappeartobe of specialsignifi- of the end-pointof theboundary between FreSudan and
cance. Thesearethe 1:500,000scalemapof thecoloniesof Upper Volta. The Chamber considers it unnecessaryto
FrenchWestAfrica, 1925edition,known as theBlonde1la endeavourtodeterminethelegal validityofthetext,itsvalue
Rougerymap, andthe 1:200,000scalemaj)of WestAfrica, as evidence- whichis acceptedby Mali--being a sepamte
issuedby the FrenchZnstitut dographiqunational(IGN) question.
and originally published between 1958.and 1960. With --Decree of5 St?ptembe1r932,abolishingthe colonyof
regardtothefirstofthesemaps,theChamberconsidersthat Upper Voltaand annexingits componentcercleseither to
selvespossessany partic~larauthority.Withregardto the FrenchSudanortoNiger(cf. sketchmapNo. 2 in Judg-
second map, the Chamber findtshat, sinceit wasdrawnup ment).
--Exchangeofletterswhichtookplacein1935:thiscorre-
doesnotpossessthe statusof a legd title, it is a visualpar-denceconsis& of 191CM2 of 19Febrw 1935
trayaboth oftheavailabletextsandofinfoimationobtained ddrrsscd to thLieutenantGovemorsofNigerand FreIW:h
ontheground. Whereotherevidenceislackingorisnotsuf- by theGovenor~Generao lfFrench West
ficientoshowanexactline, theprobative!Forcof theIGN thereply LieutenanttGovernorfthe Sudan
map mustbeviewedascompelling. dated June 193:i. The Governor-General suggesteda
descriptionof the boundarybetween Niger andthennch
theMies invokethe "colonialeffectivitds"i,notherwords, Sudan, to which the Lieutenant-Governorof the Sudan
the conductof the administrativeauthoriaspf of the repliedbyproposingonlyoneamendment.This&scription
effectiveexerciseof temtd jurisdiction illtheregiondur-apv to cornspond to the line shownon the Blondela
ingthecolonialperiod. Throleplayedbysuchedectivitdsis dtagfrtscriptionwm;notfollowedup, butitsinterpretationis
complex,andthe Chamberhastomakeacarefulevaluation
oftheirlegalforceineachparticularinstance. whether the proposeddescriptiondid no more thansdes-eing
cribean existing boundary (the "declaratory" theory of
BurlcinaFaso) or whether theletter reflectedan intention
* to define the legal boundary & novo (the "modifying"
4 4 theory arguedbyMali). TheChamberconcludesthatthedef-
inition of the boundary givenin letter 191 CM2 corre-
sponded,in themindsbothoftheGove~r-Generaf andof
dly unusualom asconcern thefactstobeplmvenortheevi-de alltheadministratorswhowen consulted,tothe& fact0sit-
dencetobeproduced. Althoughthe E4lrtihave providedas uation.
completea casefileaspossible,the Chambercannotbecer- -.OrderNo.2728APissuedon27November 1935 by the
tainofdecidingthecaseonihebasisoffullknowledgeofthe Govemor-General ud interimof FrenchWestAfricafor the
facts. Thecasefile showsinconsistenciesandshortcomings.delimitationoftheerclesofBafoulaM,Bamako andMopti
Thesystematic applicatiofthe rule concerningtheburden (French Sudan).Thelast-namedcercleborderedon thecer-
of proofcannot always providea solution,andthe rejectionleof Ouahigouya,whichwasthena part of FrenchSudan

174and which reverted to Upper Voltaas from 1947. This pointthat the Parties are requestit to indicate the lineof
boundary wasagainto formtheboundarybetweenthetem- theircommonfrontierinaneasterlydirection.
toriesofUpperVolta andSudanuntilindependence-hence
its significance. The textdescribesthe easternboundaryof 2. Wllagesandfarminghamlets
theSudanesecercleofMoptiasbeing"a line:ru~<ig mark- (paras. 114-117)
edly north-east, leavingtoe:cercleofMoptithevillagesof
Yoro, Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou,Koutm .. .". TheChamberconsidersit necessary to examinethemean-
The Parties do not agree on the legal significanceto be ingtobeascribed totheword"village", sincetheregulative
ascribedto this provision.They disagree asto whetherthe textswhichfixthe districtboundariesgenerally refermerely
line indicatedin the text,hich "leaves" the villagesin cal clarification.It frequehappensthat the inhabitantsof
questionto thecercleof Mold, hadtheeffectof attributing a village cultivateland somedistanceaway,takingupresi-
to that cercle villages which had previouslybeen part of dence in "farming hamlets" forming dependenciesof the
anothercercle(BurkinaFaso'scontention)or wlhetherthis village.TheChamberhastodecidewhether,forthe purpose
definitionofthelineratherimpliedthatthesevillagesalready of the delimitationwhichit is askedto effect, the farming
belongedtothe cercleofMopti(Mali'scontentio~~). hamlets form partofthevillagesonwhich theydepend. Itis
The Chamberconsiderswhetherthe a~tuidtext of Order not persuadedthat, when a village was a feature used to
2728 AP, and the administrative contextin which it was definet!hecompositionofawideradministrativeentity,these
issued, provide any indication of the scope which the farming hamletswere always takeninto considerationin
Governor-Generalad interimintendedit to have. It con- drawingtheboundaryofsuchanentity.Itisonlywhenit has
cludesthatthereisatleastapiesumptionthatOrder2728 AP examinedall the available informationrelatitothe extent
had neither theaim northe resultof modifiringthe bound- ofaparticular villagethatitwillbeabletoascertainwhether
arieswhichexistedin 1935betweentheSudanesec :erclesof aparticularpieceoflandistobetreatedaspartofthatvillage
between 1932 and 1935). The Chamberhavingtheii enquires despiteitslackofaconnectionwithit,orasasatellitehamlet
whetherthe contentofOrder2728 AP operatestoreverseor whichtloesnotfallwithintheboundariesofthevillage.
to confirmthis presumption.It.concludes:horna detailed
study of the documentaryamdcartographicevidencefrom 3. Thesectorofthefourvillages
whichthesevillagescanbelocatedthatthismaterialdoesnot (paras. 118-126)
overturn thepresumptionthi~tOrder 2728&LP wasdeclara-
tory in nature. SinceOrder2728 AP definesthe boundary betweenthe
In thecourseof its demonstration,theChamberexplains cerclesof Mopti and Ouahigouyain terms of the villages
that thepartofthe frontierwhosedeterminationcallsfor the lages in questionand ascertains their territorial extent.It
scopeofOrder2728 AP to beascertainedhasbeencalledin findsthatBurkinaFasodoesnotcontesttheMaliancharacter
the Judgment"the sectorof'the four villages". Thewords of the villageof Yoro, andtlnt there is no disagreement
"four villages"refertothevillagesofDioulouna (whichcan regardingthefirst partofthe frontier,whichrunsina north-
beidentifiedast!hevillagewhichnowgoesunderthenameof erly diiectionfrom pointA as far as the point withthe co-
Dionouga), Oukoulou,Agol~lourou and Koubo(thevillage .ordinates1"58'49"Wand 14"28'30"N(pointB).
ofYoro,alsomentionedin theJudgment,wtlsdeiinitelypart
ofthecercleofMopti,andisnotinissue). As for Dionouga, the Parties agreein identifyingit with
berconsidersthatitcanconcludefromtheinformationavail-
abletoit,especiallyinrelationtothetrack-layingoperations
undertakenon the ordersof the administrators concerned,
theseking a significantelementof the "efectivitks",that
the administrativeboundaryat therelevanttimeduringthe
The Chamberconsiderswhat relationshipcan be estab- colonialperiodintersectedthe trackconnectingthis village
lishedamongthepiecesofinformationprovidedbythe vari- tothenearbyvillageofDiguel atadistanceofapproximately
oustextsof whichit hasto makeuse, andreachesa number 7.5 kilometresto the southof Dionouga.'rhe frontier line
of conclusions.It notes that on certain points the sourcethereforedoeslikewise,atthepoint withtheco-ordinateslo
agreeand bearone another out, butthatinsomerespects,in 54'24"Wand 14"29'20"N(point C).
viewoftheshortcomingsof lthemapsattherime,theytendto As for the villagesof ~ukoulou and Agoulourou,men-
conflic(see sketchmap No.4 intheJudgmcsnt). tionedinOrder2728 AP.theChamberem~hasizesthatit is
quiteirrelevantwhetherthese villages arehow in existence
IX. Determinationofthefrontierin thediirputarea or not. The fact thatthey may have disappearedhas no
(paras. 112-174) impactontheboundarywhichwasdefinedatthetime.Itmay
however be notedthatthe positionsofthe villagesofKounia
1. Theend-pointintheidlest and Ovkoulouroucorrespond to thoseof the twovillages
@ara~.112-113) referredtointheOrder.
AsregardsKoubo,aboutwhichthereissomeconfusionof
TheChamberbeginsbyfiningtheend-poiino tfthefrontier nomenclature,the information availableto the Chamberis
already establishedbetwee11the Partiesby agreement, in notsufficienttoestablishwithcertaintywhether itisthevil-
otherwordsthewesternextrrsmity ofthedis!putearea.They lageoffKobouor the hamletof Kobo whichcorrespondsto
havenotclearlyindicatedtltxipoint, but the Chamber con- the villageof Koubomentionedin the Order. Butsince the
thefrontier lineshown ontltie1:200,000scalemapof Westcepthamlet.liesonly4 kilometresfrom thevillage,the Chamber
AfricapublishedbytheIGNtothe southofthepint withthe considersit reasonabletotreatthemasawt~ole,drawingthe
geographical co-ordinates.'59'01"W and 14* 24' 40" N frontierin sucha wayastoleaveboth of themto Mali.
(pointAonthemapannexedtothe Judgment).Itisfromthat TheChamberthereforeconsidersthatalinedrawnatadis-tance of appmximately2 kilometres to the south of the in Upper Volta, recognized in a 1965 agreement, not
present-day villagesofKouniaandOkoulouroucorresponds endorsedby thecompetentauthorities,that thepoolshould
to theboundarydescribed in Order 272AP.This lineruns beshared.ItconcludesthatthepoolofSoummust bedivided
through the pointwiththeco-ordinates46' 38"Wand 14" in two in anequitable manner.The line should therefore
28' 54''N (point D) and through the pint with the co- crossthe poolin sucha wayas to divide its maximumarea
ordinateslo40'40"Wand 14"30'03"N point E). duringthe rainscsasoequallybetweenthetwoStates.
TheChambernotes that thilsinedoesnot passthroughthe
4. Thepool of Toussougou, thpeool of Kdtiouaireand co-ordinatesmentionedin letter 191 CM2, andconcludes
the poolofSoum from an investigationof the topographical data thatthe tri-
(paras.127-150) pointmust havelaintothe southeast of thepoint indicated
bytheseco-ordinates. Sinctehisletterdidnotbecomearegu-
ThelinedescribedinOrder 2728APol:1935extendsina lativetext,it ranks onlyasevidenceof theboundary which
"markedly north-east"direction, "passing to the southof had "defacto value" at thetime. Itnowtranspiresthat the
theeastof the poolof Kbtiouaire".Thereisa problemas to mapsthenavailablewerenot sufficientlyaccuratowarrant
the whereaboutsof thesepools, sinceneof themapscon- such a precise aefinition. Thus the fact that theco-
temporarywith theOrderwhichtheParties; avepresentedto ordinatesarefoundto havebeendefinedwithless accuracy
theChambershow anypoolsbearingthesenames.However, than hadbeen thought doesnot contradictthe Governor-
both Parties admitthatthereis atleastonepoolinthe regionGeneral's intentiordeprive theletterofprobativeforce.
ofthevillageofToussougou,whileofferingasevidenceonly The boundary in this region takesthe following course:
maps whichcontradict one another. The questiotnherefore frompointE, thelinecontinuesstraightasfarasapointwith
ariseswhetherthe poolofFbtoMaraboulb,whichlies tothe the co-ordinates"19'05" W and 14"43' 45"N, situated
south-westof the villageandhas only recentlybeen shown approximately2.6 kilometressouthof thepoolof Toussou-
on themaps,is anintegralpartof thispool.TheChamber's withtheco-ordinateslo05'34"W and 14"47'04"N (point
opinionisthatthetwopoolsremainseparate,evenduringthe G);itcrossesthepoolfromwesttoeast,dividing it equally.
rainyseason,andthatthepoolofFdtoMariabould isnottobe
idcitified with the poolbf Toussougounferred to in the 5, ~h~ sectorp,, ,he ,ool of tomountmba-
Order,whichis smallerandliesclose tothe villagewiththe karech
same name. Moreover,an identificationof the two pools (paras. 151--156)
wouldhavean impactonthe courseof theline. TheCham-
ber, whichhasto interpretthereferencetothe poolofus- Inordertodeterminethelineofthefrontiereastofthepool
sougouinOrder2728AP,considers thattheinterpretationto of Soum, theCharnber has torefer to the wordingof letter
be made must be suchas to minimize themarginof error 191CM2of 1935,whichit has foundto possess probative
involvedindefiningthetripointatwhich, accordingto lettervalue. Accordingo BurkinaFaso,the line followsthe indi-
191CM2, the cercles.ofMopti,Ouahigouyaand Dorimeet, cationsin this letterand on theBlonde1la Rougerymap of
Beforedefiningthecourseofthe lineinrela~tnothepoolof 1925,from thepointwiththeco-ordinates0"50'47"Wand
Toussougou,theChamberattemptstolocatethepoolof Kbt- 15"00'03"N, asfarasthe poolofInAbao.There seemsto
iouaire,near which the boundayescribedInOrder2728AP be nodoubt thatthe:purposeofletter 191CM2wastodefine
alsoran. intextualfom a boundary shown onthatmap,andherethe
In Order2728 AP,the pool of Kdtiouaireconstitutesan wies are in agreement. has the inaccu-
importantelementof boundarytherein,defined.Ithere- ancBorogra~h~.The Chamberconsidersthat in the sector
forehastobeascertainedwhether,in 1935,therewasa pool fromthepoolofSotuntoTabakth noproblemarisesinthe
lying ina north-east,,directiorrin relatianto selectionof a map.Intheabsenceofotherindicationstothe
point situated the southof the poold Toussougou~~~ COnm the lettemust be as a
closetothetripointofthecerclesofMopti,(io-a-Rh~~)us ~@&~tline c0m=ting IllountTabakarechto the tripoint
and Dori,andtothewestofit. Afterdueappraisalof allthe wherethe boundaries the cercles Ouahigouya
informationavailableto it, theChamberis unableto locate and 'Onverge.
thepoolofKbtiouaire.Nordoesitconsideranyidentification ?'heChamberconcludesthatfrompointGthefrontierruns
possible between the pool of Kdtiouaire;andthe pool of ina north-northeskrl~ directioas far as the point men-
Soum, whichis situatedsomekilometres to the easthorth- tioned by Burkina Faso, and from that pointto Mount
point, not of the threecerclesmentionedAbove,but of the Tabakarech.This hill is to be identifiedwith the elevation
cerclesofMopti,OuahigouyaandDon. whichappem ontheIGN 1:200,000map under thename of
TinTabakat,withthegeographicalco-ordinates"43'29"W
The Chamber remains persuaded by thecasefilethatthe and 15~05~oO'' (pointH).
poolof Soumisa frontierpool,butfindsnoindicationsdat-
ingfromthecolonialperiodfrom whichtheliinecouldbesaid 6, ThepooloflnAbao
to run either to the north or to the southof'the pool, orto @aras.157-1.63)
divideit. Thisbeingso, the Chamber notes that althoith
hasreceivednomandatefromthe Partiestoniakeitsownfree Indeterminingthe next sectionof the line, the Chamber
choiceof anappropriatefrontier,ithas nevertheless thetasmust refer to the Order made by the Governor-General of
of drawingapreciseline, andforthaturpoisecanappealto FrenchWestAfrica on 31 December 1922. In thatOrder,
the equity infralegem which the Parties have themselves from thepoolofIn Abaothe western boundaryof thecercle
acknowledgedtobeapplicableinthepresentcase.Inorderto of Gao follows "the northern boundaryof Upper Volta.
oftheapplicablelaw,theChamberfindsthaticcountmust besis that pool;the pool mustthereforebe identifiedin order to
taken, inparticular,of thecitcumstancesin whichthecorn- determinethefrontie:rlineinrelationto it. The information
manaizntsoftwo adjacentcercles,oneinMalliandthe other on thevariousmapsconcerning the location ansizeof the

176pooliscontradictory(seesketchmapNo.5intheJudgment). body whichapproveditis unknown. Although the 1:200,000
From the informationavailabllethe Chamber corlsi&rs it IGNmapof 1960attachesthe nameN'Goumato an eleva-
likely thatthe poolis theone'locatedat thejunctionof two tionsituatedsouth-eastoftheford,italsocontainsaltimetric
marigots, onebeingthe BBli,r~~nninfrom west toeast,and informationfrom which it may be inferredthat elevations
theotherrunning from north tsouth.Intheabsenceofmore rangedinaquarter-circlebetweenaposition northoftheford
preciseandreliableinformatio:than hasbeensubmittedtoit andanothereast-southeasot fittogetherconstituteanensem-
concerningthe relationshibetweenthefronti~alrineandthe ble towihichthe name "N'Gouma" could begiven. The
poolofIn Abao, the Chambem r ustconcludethatthebound- existenceof elevationsto the north of the ford has, more-
ary crossesthe pol in such a.way as to divide it equally over,beenconfirmedbyobservationsmade onthegroundin
betweenthetwoParties. 1975.
Thefrontiermustfollowthe:IGNlinefrom pointH as far SincetheChamber isnot aware ofanyoraltraditiongoing
as thepoint withthe co-ordinates0"26'35" \Y and 15'05' backatleastto 1927which mightservetocontradicttheindi-
00"N (pointI) where itturns south-easttojoin the Bdli.It cationsgivenby the mapsa<d documentsof the period, it
continues straight as faras point J, whichlies on the westconcludesthat the Governor-Generali,nthe 1927Orderand
bankof thepoolof In Abao, andpointK, whichliesonthe theerratumandinhisletter 191CM2 of1935,describedan
eastbankofthesamepool. Fro~mpointK,thelineoncemore existingImundarywhich passedthroughelevationsrisingto
runs in a north-easterly direction,andrejoins theIGN line thenorthof theKabiaford, and thatthe administratorscon-
at the pointwhere thatline, after leavingthe B8i to head sidered,lightlyrwrongly,thatthoseelevationswereknown
north-eastward, again turns south-eastto form an oro- tothelocalpeople asthe "heightsof'Gouma" .TheCham-
graphicboundary(pointL-0" 14'44"Wand 1.5"W'42"N). ber hasthereforeonly to ascertain the location,withinthe
hints J and K will be determinedwith the assistanceof areaofhigh groundsurroundingtheford,of theend-pointof
experts appointed pursuantto Article IV of thr: Special theboundary definedbythe above-mentionedtexts. It con-
Agreement. cludesthatthispoint shouldbefixed threekilometresto the
north of the ford, at the spot definedby the co-ordinates
7. Theregionofthe Bdli 0"14'39"Eand 14"54'48'N (pointM).
(para'64) "
X. Thelineofthefrontier
Forthewholeofthisregion]Mali,rejectingletter191CM2 @am. 175)
of 1935, argues in favour of a frontiernning dong the The0er fixesthelineofthefrontierbetweenthe*-
marigot.The two Partieshaw:debated atlengththe choice tiesinthedisputedarea.Thislineisreproduced, fori1lu~tri-I-
hydrographicfrontier alontheB61iandanoflographicefron- tivepurposes,ona map whichisacompilationoffivesheets
tieralongthecrestlineofthee:levationrisingtothenorthof ofthe 1:??,000 IGNmapandisannexedtotheJudgment.
the marigot. In the Chamber's opinion, letter 191 CM2
provesthattheorographicboundarywasadopted.Asforthe
boundarylinedescribedinthatletter,theChannbernotesthat XI. Demarcation
theIGNmapenjoysthe apprclvalof bothParties,at leastin (pm. 176)
regardto itsrepresentationorhetopography.It seesnorea- TheChamber is readyto acceptthetaskwhichtheParties
sonto departfromthebrokenlineof smallcrosseswhichis have entrustedto it, and to nominate thexpertsto assist
shownon that map and appear tobeafaithfulrepresentation them in the demarcationoperation,which is to take place
of the boundarydescribedin letter 191CM:!, exceptwith withinoneyearofthe deliveryofthe Judgment.Inits opin-
regardtothe easternmostpartdthe line,wheretheproblem ion,however, itisinappropriatetomakeinitsJudgmentthe
arisesofMount N'Gouma. nomination requestedby the Parties,which will be made
laterbyrneansofanOrder.
8. Theheights ofN'Gouma
(paras.165-174) XU. Provisional measures
(paras. 177-178)
Withregardto the final segmentof the frontierline, the
essential questionfor the Cktmber is the location of the The Judgmentstates that the Qder of 10January 1986
"heightsofN'Gouma"mentionedintheerratumtothe 1927 ceasesto be operativeupon the deliveryof the Judgment.
Orderrelatingto the boundariesbetweenUpper~olta and TheChambernoteswithsatisfactionthattheHeadsof State
Niger(see sketchmap No.6 intheJudgment).Thaterratum of BurkinaFaso andthe Republicof Malihave agreed"to
definedthe boundaryas "a ]linestarting at the heightsof withdrawall theirarmedforcesfromeithersideof the dis-
N'Gouma,passingthroughth,~Kabiaford . . ". Malih= putedm:a andtoeffecttheirreturntotheirrespectiveOrrit0-
argued thatthistextwasinvalidatedbyafactualerror,inthat ries".
it referredto MountN'Goumaas beingto tlienorthof the
ford, whereas itwas actudl]~located south-westof it, as BindingforceoftheJudgment
shown onthe 1960IGNmap,,which,accordingto Mali, is (para. 178)
theonlyaccuratepictureof thesituation.TheChamberhas
already statedthatthe text of the Orderand of the erratum TheChamberalsonotes thattheParties,alreadyboundby
shouldnotbe setaside inlimke; their probative value hatso Article94,paragraph1,oftheCharteroftheUnitedNations,
beappraisedinorderto deternlinetheend-pointof thefron- expresslydeclaredinArticleIV,paragraph1.,of theSpecial
tier. It emphasizesthat themaps ofthe period,uchas the Agreement thatthey "accept the Judgmentof the Cham-
Blonde1la Rougerymapof 1925,locateMountN'Goumato ber. .. as finaland bindinguponthem". The Chamberis
borneoutbya l:1,000,000map, evidencewhichtheCham-s also happytorecordtheattachmentofbothPartiestothe interna-
ber considers cannotbe ove!rlooked,althoughthe official putes.judicial processandto the peaceful settlementof dis-

177XN. Operativeclause Separate OpinionofJudgeadhocGeorgesAbi-Saab
(para. 179)
Although he voted for the operative provisionsof the
SUMMARY OFTHE OPINIO ANPPIWDEDTO Judgment,Judge Abi-Saabcannotendorsecertain aspecof
THEJUDGMEN OTFTHECHAMBER eithertheChamber'sreasoningoritsconclusions.
In particular,dissociateshimselffrom the Judgment's
SeparateOpinionofJudgeadhoc matment ofFrenchcoloniallaw, which,inhisopinion, has
Fran~oisLuchaire been analysedin excessivedetail. He alsodissociateshim-
JudgeLuchaire votedfor the operative provisionsof thself fromthe role attributedto letter 191CM2of 1935,the
Judgment because they were foundedupon reasoning of declaratorynatureof which inrespectofexisting territo-
which the logic is unquestionable,but he does not fullriaboundariesheregardsasamerepossibility,not hardened
endorsesomeofitsaspectsorconclusions.Hehas therefore tocertaintybyanyevidence.
found it necessarytocommentonthefollcbwipoints: JudgeAbi-Saabconsidersthatthedecisiontobasetheline
I. The principle of the right of peoples to self- in the BBliregion on that letter,which is simplya verbal
determination;freechoiceofstatusdconsequencesforthe reflectionofthelondellaRougerymap, amountstogiving
Frenchterritoiresd'outre-merofthereferendum held on28 thismapthestatus;ofa legaltitle, althoughaccordingto the
September 1958. Judgmentitself maps in themselvesare never sufficientto
II. Acquiescence-estoppel- interpre:tatof theCon- constitutesuchatitle.
akrycommuniqub.
III. Reference to the 1932 boundaries drawnby the Having emphasizedthe difficultieswhichsometimesarise
Frenchadministrationonthemapsoftheperiod.Laterdocu- in applying the principle ofutipossidetis, the author notes
mentsirrelevant. thatthe Chamberhas adopteapossiblelegalsolutionwithin
N. AcquiescencearisingfromtheparticipatofDiou- theboundsofthedegreesof freedomwhichexistinthecase.
lounainthedemocraticprocessin Sudan. He:considersthis legally acceptable,but would havepre-
ferredanotherapproach,relyingtoagreaterextentuponcon-
V. Possibility of a line passing rhough Kobo- siderationsof equitynfa legem in the interpretation and
Fayando-Toussougou. Difficultieinrelationto Dourum- one afflictedby drought, so that accessto water is vital.
garaand InAbao-Tin Kacham. Map No.2

Sketea-maUIostrat&gtli adoptebytheChamber(para.1dthe Judgmmt)