Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:16:10.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was There Something Missing in the Decolonization Process in Africa?: The Territorial Dimension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2015

MAMADOU HÉBIÉ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five decades after the wave of independence of the 1960s, have all African territories been decolonized in accordance with international law? On the basis of the General Assembly and state practice, this study argues that only the continuing possession of African territories by colonial powers is contrary to the obligation to decolonize under international law. Thus, colonialism is still persisting in Africa with regard to the Glorious Islands, Mayotte, the Chagos, Ceuta and Melilla, the islands Alhucemas, Chafarinas, Leïla, and Peñon de Vélez de la Gomera. These territories belong respectively to Madagascar, the Comoros Islands, Mauritius, and Morocco. However, the obligation to decolonize under international law, which is premised on the existence of a colonial possession, does not provide any legal basis to claims directed against independent African states. Besides, the maintenance of boundaries existing upon the achievement of African countries to independence is not a case of enduring colonialism.

Keywords

Africaboundariesdecolonizationself-determinationterritorial disputes
Type
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 529 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 B. Boutros-Ghali, United Nations Achievements in the Field of Decolonization and the Task Ahead (1993).

2 See, e.g., Sinclair, G. F., ‘“The Ghosts of Colonialism in Africa”: Silences and Shortcomings in the ICJ's 2005 Armed Activities Decision’, (2007) 14 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 121–43Google Scholar; Udombana, N. J., ‘The Ghost of Berlin still haunts Africa!: The ICJ Judgment on the Land and Maritime Boundary Dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria’, (2004) 10 African Yearbook of International Law 13–61Google Scholar.

3 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 403, at 436, para. 79.

4 UN Doc. A/RES/ 1541 (XV); UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXX).

5 Gilchrist, H., ‘Colonial Questions at the San Francisco Conference’, (1945) 39 American Political Science Review 982, at 987CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pellet, A., ‘Quel avenir pour le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes’, in International Law in an Evolving World: Liber Amicorum Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, (1994), Vol. I, 255, at 256Google Scholar; Amenyo, D. K. and Traoré, T., ‘Essai de réflexion sur la genèse, l’évolution et l’état actuel du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes et sa signification actuelle dans le contexte africain’, (1992) 4 ASICL Proc. 49, at 54–55Google Scholar; Mushkat, M., ‘The Process of African Decolonization’, (1966) 6 Indian Journal of International Law 483, at 490Google Scholar; Hannum, H., ‘The Right of Self-Determination in the Twenty-First Century’, (1998) 55 Washington and Lee Law Review 773, at 775Google Scholar; Virally, M., ‘Droit international et décolonisation devant les Nations Unies’, (1963) 9 AFDI 508, at 509CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, [1971] ICJ Rep. 16, at 31, para. 52.

7 Before Resolutions 1514 and 1541, Resolution 742 (VIII) was the most significant turning point in the process of decolonization. On the one hand, Resolution 742 (VIII) updates the criteria established in previous resolutions for determining whether a territory is non-self-governing and subject to Art. 73(e) of the Charter. On the other hand, it confers to the General Assembly the power to decide when a territory is no longer non-self-governing.

8 Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South West Africa, Advisory Opinion of 7 June 1955, [1955] ICJ Rep. 67, at 118–19 (Judge Lauterpacht, Separate Opinion).

9 Virally, supra note 5, at 533 and 541 (emphasizing that this opposition was based on marginal issues, and did not aim at contesting the ‘general inspiration’ of the text).

10 This is the case of the referendum organized in 1958 for the colonies of French West Africa to decide of their status under international law. Guinea, which rejected to be part of the Communauté française, became immediately independent on 2 October 1958. On the decolonization of French colonial territories, see M. M. Mbengue, ‘Decolonization: French Territories’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, (available at <http://opil.ouplaw.com/home/EPIL>).

11 UN Doc. A/RES/1654 (XVI) (The United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia were among the members of the first Committee of 17 (at that time)).

12 East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, [1995] ICJ Rep. 90, at 102, para. 29. In the same decision, the Court considered that it was uncontroversial that the principle of self-determination had an erga omnes character.

13 Case concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Boundary between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau/Senegal), 20 UNRIAA 119, at 135–6, paras 40–43 (1989); See also ‘Conférence pour la paix en Yougoslavie, avis no. 1 de la Commission d’arbitrage’, 29 novembre 1991, (1992) 96 Revue générale de droit international public 264, at 265.

14 S. K. N. Blay, Self-Determination: Its Evolution in International Law and Prescriptions for its Application in the Post-Colonial Context, (1985), at 43; See also M. Pomerance, Self-Determination in Law and Practice: The New Doctrine of the United Nations, (1982), at 28; F. Constantin, L’Organisation des Nations-Unies et les territoires non-autonomes: Contribution à l’histoire de la décolonisation et à l’étude du processus décisionnel dans les organisations internationales, (1970), Vol. 1, at 223; ibid., 243–4; Dobelle, J. F., ‘Article 1 paragraphe 20’, in Cot, J. P. and Pellet, A. (eds.), La Charte des Nations Unies: Commentaire article par article (2005), 337, at 353Google Scholar; J. Charpentier, ‘Autodétermination et décolonisation’, in Mélanges offerts à Charles Chaumont. Le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes: Méthodes d’analyse du droit international (1984), 117, at 124; See also, Gorelick, R. E., ‘Self-Determination and the Absurd: the Case of the Pitcairn’, (1983) 23 Indian Journal of International Law 17Google Scholar, 17–37.

15 For the most recent example, see UNGA Resolution A/RES/67/134 (LXVII).

16 Thus, Togoland (under British administration) united with the Gold Coast (Colony and Protectorate) in 1957 to form Ghana; Somaliland (under Italian administration) united with British Somaliland Protectorate in 1960 to form Somalia; Northern and Southern Cameroons (under British administration) joined respectively Nigeria and Cameroon in 1961.

17 UN Doc. A/RES/742 (VIII).

18 UN Doc. A/RES/ 45/21 (XLV); UN Doc. A/RES/ 67/129 (LVIII) (emphasis added).

19 See Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 136, at 184, para. 122; R. Congo v. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 227/99 (2003), para. 77.

20 See UN Doc. A/RES/3485 (XXX) and UN Doc. A/RES/27 (XXXV).

21 East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), application instituting proceedings, 22 February 1991, at 9, para. 14.

22 East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) case, supra note 12, at 97, para. 15.

23 Y. El-Ayouty, The United Nations and Decolonization: The Role of Afro-Asia (1971), 191.

24 UN Doc. A/RES/2356 (XXII).

25 UN Doc. A/RES/2023 (XX).

26 See in this regard UN Doc. A/RES/2973 (XX).

27 See Blay, supra note 14, at 43.

28 See H. Gros Espiell, The Right of Self-Determination – Implementation of UN Resolution, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1, 1980, 6 ff. notes 18, 19, 20, and 21.

29 A. Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, (1995), 93. For Ermacora, ‘[n]eo-colonialism is a political concept; the colony, however, involves a status under international law’. F. Ermacora, ‘Colonies and Colonial Regime’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of International Law, (1992), 662, at 662. Strangely enough, Mushkat considers that Resolution 1514 aimed at fighting against neo-colonialism. See Mushkat, supra note 5, at 495.

30 Instead of considering this and other principles as autonomous, Umozorike considers them as being part of a general concept of self-determination. See Umozorike, U. O., ‘International Law and Neo-Colonialism in Africa’, (1978) 18 Indian Journal of International Law 353, at 358Google Scholar.

31 In this regard, see Klabbers, J. and Lefeber, R., ‘Africa: Lost between Uti Possidetis and Self-Determination’, in Brölmann, C., Lefeber, R., and Zieck, M. (eds.), Peoples and Minorities in International Law, (1982), 37, at 41Google Scholar.

32 See, e.g., P. Johnson, ‘The Case for a Return of Colonialism’, Sacramento Bee, 25 April 1993, Forums 1 and 2; Pfaff, W., ‘A New Colonialism?: Europe must go back to Africa’, (1995) 74 Foreign Affairs 2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Mazrui has advocated for an Inter-African colonization. See A. Mazrui, ‘Decaying Parts of Africa need Benign Colonialism’, (1995) Codestria Bulletin 2, at 22. See also Dakas, C. J. D, ‘The Role of International Law in the Colonization of Africa: A Review in Light of Recent Calls for Re-colonization’, (1999) 7 African Yearbook of International Law 85, at 87Google Scholar and 118 (doubting about the sincerity of these ‘apostles of re-colonization’).

33 UN Doc. RES/A/2625 (XXV).

34 Palmas Island (Netherlands/United States), arbitral award, [1928] UNRIAA, vol. 2, 829, at 845.

35 Bedjaoui, M., ‘Article 73’, in Cot, J.-P., Pellet, A. and Forteau, M. (ed.), La Charte des Nations Unies: Commentaire article par article (2005), Vol. 2, 1760Google Scholar.

36 See on this issue, Blay, supra note 14, at 50; See also UN Doc. A/RES/3061 (XXVIII).

37 UN Doc. S/RES/180 (XVIII) (1963).

38 See Arts. 79, 83, and 85 UN Charter.

39 See Constantin, supra note 14, vol. 1, at 224.

40 See Mushkat, supra note 5, at 498–9.

41 UN Doc. A/RES/66 (I).

42 See Constantin, supra note 14, at 179; Sureda, A. Rigo, The Evolution of the Right of Self-Determination: A Study of the United Nations Practice (1973), 102Google Scholar; See also R. Aldrich and J. Connell, The Last Colonies (1998), 6.

43 However, Spain invoked these as legal arguments to oppose to Morocco's request to list Ceuta and Melilla as non-self-governing. See Lettre du 12 février 1975, adressée au Président du Comité spécial par le représentant permanent de l’Espagne auprès de l’Organisation des Nations Unies, UN Doc. A/AC. 109/477.

44 UN Doc. A/RES/1541 (XV).

45 See UN. Doc. A/C.4/SR. 1043, para. 43 (M. Nogueira, Portugal); A. C.4/SR.1042, para. 31 (M. Zuloaga, Venezuela).

46 See A/C.4/SR./SR. 1041, para. 3 (M. Nogueira, Portugal).

47 See A/C.4/SR./SR. 1038, paras. 23–24 (M. Aznar, Spain).

48 M. Kohen, ‘Sur quelques vicissitudes du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes’, in Droit du pouvoir: Pouvoir du droit. Mélanges offerts à Jean Salmon, (2007), 961, at 968 note 12. See also ibid., at 970.

49 See, e.g., UN Doc. A/RES/2353 (XXII); UN Doc. A/RES/2065 (XX).

50 O’Reilly, G., ‘Ceuta and the Spanish Sovereign Territories: Spanish and Moroccan Claims’, (1994) 1 (2)Boundary & Territory Briefing 1, at 25Google Scholar.

51 P. Isoart, ‘Les Nations Unies et la décolonisation’, in R. J. Dupuy, Manuel sur les organisations internationales (1998), 604, at 632; See also D. W. Wainhouse, Remnants of Empire: The United Nations and the End of Colonialism (1964), 44 (emphasizing that Spain was contemplating ceding Ifni and Western Sahara to Morocco in exchange of this country's renunciation to its claims to Ceuta/Sebta and Melilla); Aldrich and Connell, supra note 42, at 3 (considering that these islands exhibit ‘indelible imprint of a colonial past’ from a non-legal perspective).

52 See A/C.4/SR.1048, para. 1 (M. De Lequerica, Spain); see also, A/C.4/SR.1038, para. 27 (M. Aznar, Spain).

53 See the discussions in A/C.4/SR.1046, A/C.4/SR.1047; A/C.4/SR.1048.

54 See UN Doc. A/C.4/SR. 1046, para. 39 (M. Skalli, Maroc); UN Doc. A/C.4/SR. 1184, para. 14 (M. Skalli, Maroc).

55 See Annex V, Exposé du représentant de l’Espagne sur la situation dans les territoires de Fernando Poo, du Río Muni et du Sahara espagnol, UN Doc. A/4785.

56 See on the decolonization of Ifni, Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 16 October 1975, [1975] ICJ Rep. 12, at 34–35, paras. 60–65.

57 Lettre du 27 janvier 1975 adressée au Président du Comité spécial par le représentant permanent du Maroc auprès de l’Organisation des Nations Unies, UN Doc. A/AC. 109–475.

58 See Report of The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples, Vol. 1, UN Doc. 30th Session, Supp. No. 23 (A/10023/Rev.1), New York, 1977, at 28, paras. 66–68.

59 UN Doc. A/RES/68/93 (LXVII).

60 M. Barbier, Le Comité de décolonisation des Nations Unies, (1974), 170 (translation: ‘The list of non-self-governing territories is not once and for all closed. The Committee can extend its field of action by including new territories in the list. In fact, the requests for listing certain territories came not from the Committee itself, but from external sources: from Arabic countries for Oman; from Somalia for the French Coast of the Somalis, from Cuba for Porto Rico, and from the OAU for the Comoros. So far, the Committee has accepted the first two requests and was satisfied with postponing regularly the two others, without however rejecting them’).

61 Georges Abi-Saab identifies three elements which influence compliance with the terms of a resolution of the General Assembly: (i) the level of consensus on the resolution (ii) the degree of specificity of its normative content and (iii) its mechanism of implementation. Abi-Saab, G., ‘Cours Général de Droit International’, (1987) 207 Recueil des cours à l’Académie de droit international 15Google Scholar, at 160–1.

62 Case concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Boundary between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau/Senegal), supra note 13, at 103, para. 19; ibid., at 156–7, paras. 5–6 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge M. Bedjaoui); Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep. 554, at 663 (Separate Opinion Judge Luchaire).

63 See, A/C.4/SR.826, par. 27 (M. Bendrychev, USSR). China praised the organization of the referendum. See (A/C.4/SR.826, para. 40 (M. Yang, Chine).

64 East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) case, supra note 12, at 103, para. 31.

65 Without ruling out the possibility that procedural rules and institutions established by treaty may upgrade to the status of rules of customary international law, this is not to be presumed lightly. As the ICJ emphasizes in the North Sea Continental Shelf case, recourse to these mechanisms and procedures should ‘be of a fundamentally norm-creating character such as could be regarded as forming the basis of a general rule of law’. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, [1969] ICJ Rep. 3, at 41–42, para. 72.

66 In the East Timor case, the Court noted in 1995 that the General Assembly had not taken any resolution on East Timor since 1982, despite the continued occupation of this territory by Indonesia (East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) case, supra note 12, at 97, para. 16). Yet, the Court held that East Timor remained a non-self-governing territory (at 103, para. 31), using as evidence to support this conclusion the fact that subsidiary organs of the General Assembly continued to treat East Timor as a non-self-governing territory.

67 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, supra note 56, at 36, para. 71 (emphasis added).

68 International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep. 128, at 133.

69 On recognition of the claims of Morocco to Ceuta/Sebta and Melilla, see O’Reilly, supra note 50, at 14–18; R. Rezette, Les enclaves espagnoles au Maroc (1976), 160.

70 Blay, S. K. N., ‘Self-Determination versus Territorial Integrity in Decolonization’, (1985–1986) 18 NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 441, at 457Google Scholar; Rigo Sureda, supra note 42, at 177; M. Shaw, Title to Territory in Africa: International Legal Issues (1978), at 134–5.

71 Thus, Belize and East Timor cannot be deemed to undermine the consistency of the practice of the General Assembly regarding the decolonization of colonial enclaves. See however, Trinidad, J., ‘An Evaluation of Morocco's claims to Spain's remaining Territories in Africa’, (2012) 61 ICLQ 961, at 967CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 See in this regard, see Wainhouse, supra note 51, 19.

73 On this, see Mathy, D., ‘L’autodétermination des petits territoires revendiqués par des États tiers’, (1974) 10 Revue belge de droit international 167, at 177–80Google Scholar.

74 On this case, see ‘Dahomey et Portugal: Occupation de l’enclave portugaise de São-João-Batista de Ajuda par le Dahomey. Chronique des faits internationaux’, (1962) 56 Revue générale de droit international public 152, at 152–5.

75 See Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, supra note 56, at 34–35, paras 60–63.

76 See UN Doc. A/AC-109–475, 31 January 1975.

77 See Blay, supra note 14, at 96. Ibid., at 98.

78 Case concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Boundary between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau/Senegal), supra note 13, at 139, para. 152 (not from the moment of the beginning of the war of liberation).

79 Corten, O., ‘Droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes et uti possidetis: Deux faces d’une même médaille’, (1998) 1 Revue belge de droit international 161, at 172Google Scholar; In the same vein, Shaw, supra note 70, at 141 and 150; Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples, supra note 29, at 186–7; J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2007), at 615.

80 See also Starke, J. G., ‘The Acquisition of Title to Territory by Newly Emerged States’, (1965–1966) 41 British Yearbook of International Law 411, at 415Google Scholar.

81 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at 566, para. 23.

82 Emphasizing these elements, Corten, supra note 79, at 172.

83 See Shaw, supra note 70, at 141.

84 UN Doc. A/RES/1514 (XV).

85 Amenyo and Traoré, supra note 5, at 61.

86 See, e.g., Richardson III, H. J., ‘Self-Determination, International Law and the South African Bantustan Policy’, (1978) 17 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 185, at 199Google Scholar.

87 See Kohen, M., ‘L’autodétermination et l’avis consultatif sur le “mur”’, in Dupuy, P.-M. (ed.), Common Values in International Law: Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (2006), 961, at 970Google Scholar.

88 See UN Doc. A/RES/3485 (XXX); UN Doc S/RES/384 (XXX) (regarding East Timor).

89 UN Doc. A/RES/58/292 (2004) (regarding Palestine).

90 See also M. Kohen, Possession contestée et souveraineté territoriale (1997), at 374.

91 See UN Doc. A/RES/3109 (XXVIII).

92 Compare this practice with the view of the Court on this issue in the Kosovo advisory opinion, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra note 3, at 437, para. 80.

93 UN Doc. A/RES/2023 (XX); UN Doc. A/RES/2183 (XXI).

94 UN Doc. A/RES/1514 (XV); Kohen, supra note 90, at 421.

95 UN Doc. A/RES/3061 (XXVIII).

96 UN Doc. A/RES/2066 (XX).

97 UN Doc. A/RES/2430 (XXIII); UN Doc. A/RES/43 (XXXV); UN Doc. A/RES/34/91 (XXXIV). The resolutions of the African Union supporting the claim of Mauritius over the Chagos Islands include, Decision Assembly/AU/Res.1 (XVI) 2011; Decision Assembly/AU/Dec.331(XV) of July 2010; Decision AHG/Dec.159 (XXXVI) of July 2000; Resolution AHG/Res.99 (XVII) of July 1980.

98 UN Doc. A/RES/35/43 (XXXV).

99 See among others, UN Doc. A/RES/49/18 (XLIV).

100 See among others, Point 11, Doc. Assembly/AU/5 (XXI).

101 See for instance, Resolution No.8/39-POL on the Question of the Comoros island of Mayotte adopted by the thirty-nine session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Republic of Djibouti 15–17 November 2012.

102 On this point, see Kohen, supra note 48, at 977; Oraison, A., ‘À propos du différend franco-malgache sur les Îles Éparses du Canal du Mozambique (La succession d’États sur les Îles Glorieuses, Juan de Nova et Bassa da India)’, (1981) 85 Revue générale de droit international public 465, at 502Google Scholar.

103 UN Doc. A/RES/34/91 (XXXIV).

104 Ibid.

105 See, among others, the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, Resolution 732 (XXXIII) of July 1979; the Organization of African Unity Council of Ministers ‘Resolution on the Glorious, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassa da India Islands’ [18–28 June 1980], CM/Res 784 [XXXV]).

106 Accord-cadre entre le Gouvernement de la République française et le Gouvernement de la République de Maurice sur la cogestion économique, scientifique et environnementale relative à l’île de Tromelin et à ses espaces maritimes environnants (ensemble deux annexes et trois conventions d’application), signé à Port-Louis le 7 juin 2010 (available at <www.senat.fr/leg/pjl11–299-conv.pdf> (accessed 21 December 2014)).

107 See, in this respect, ‘Îles Eparses: Madagascar, vers une cogestion avec la France?’, Radio France International, 23 September 2014, (<http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20140923-madagascar-france-iles-eparses-cogestion-communique-hery-rajaonarimampianina-franco/> (accessed 4 May 2015)).

108 At best, one can infer from Resolution 1542 that all the territories considered at that time as Spanish ‘overseas territories’ were covered. As we already explained, it is because of this commitment that the General Assembly did not list authoritatively the colonial territories of Spain, as it did with respect to Portuguese territories. The General Assembly simply noted with satisfaction the commitment of Spain to transmit information under Article 73(e) UN Charter and called the Secretary-General to act upon the unilateral commitment of Spain and take measures for its implementation.

109 Morocco claimed these islands in 1975 when it requested the inscription of Ceuta/Sebta and Melilla as non-self-governing territories on the list of the Committee 24. See Lettre du 27 janvier 1975 adressée au Président du Comité spécial par le représentant permanent du Maroc auprès de l’Organisation des Nations Unies, UN Doc. A/AC. 109–475.

110 Strategic Plan of the African Union Commission, vol. 1 (Vision and Mission of the African Union), May 2004, Ann. 3, at 43.

111 See <http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml> (accessed 20 December 2014).

112 Loi n° 46–451 du 19 mars 1946 tendant au classement comme départements français de la Guadeloupe, de la Martinique, de la Réunion et de la Guyane française (available at <http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000868445>, accessed 20 December 2014). See also A/C.4/SR.1191, para 50 (M. Koscziusko-Morizet, France) (arguing that the General Assembly did not protest against the decision of France not to provide information in 1947).

113 Houbert reports that Muammar Khadafi, the president of Libya, raised the question of the status of La Réunion in 1973, calling for supporting any liberation movement that would be created in this territory. The OAU Liberation Committee endorsed a project of declaration declaring that La Réunion was part of the African continent. However, the Council of Ministers of the OAU refused to adopt it. See Houbert, J., ‘Décolonisation en pays créole: l’île Maurice et la Réunion’, (1983) 10 Politique Africaine 78, at 93Google Scholar.

114 See Oraison, A., ‘Réflexions générales sur la présence de la France dans l’océan Indien et le canal de Mozambique’, (2000) 78 Revue de droit international de sciences diplomatiques et politiques 73, at 80–81Google Scholar.

115 Decision on the Vision and Mission of the African Union and Strategic Plan, Programme and Budget of the Commission, EX.CL/Dec.93 (V).

116 African Union Commission, Strategic Plan 2009–2012, 19 May 2009.

117 UN Doc. A/RES/1542 (XXV). Resolution 1542 listed as non-self-governing: ‘(a) The Cape Verde Archipelago; (b) Guinea, called Portuguese Guinea; (c) Sao Tome and Principe, and their dependencies; (d) Sao Joao Batista de Ajuda; (e) Angola, including the enclave of Cabinda; (f) Mozambique’.

118 K. E. Wiegand, Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy (2011), 184.

119 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra note 3, at 436, para. 79.

120 Se AG (VII) A/C-4/SR 253 and 259. See also, Constantin, supra note 14, Vol. 1, at 109–13.

121 Arguing for this approach, Yusuf, A., ‘The Anglo-Abyssinian Treaty of 1897 and the Somali-Ethiopian Dispute’, (1980) 3 The Horn of Africa 38, at 42Google Scholar.

122 R. Gorelick, The Right of Self-Determination in Practice of the Universal and Regional Organizations (1982), 99.

123 See Rigo Sureda, supra note 42, at 237; Pomerance, supra note 14, at 15; Franck, T., ‘Post-Modern Tribalism and the Right to Secession’, in Bröhlmann, C., Lefeber, R., and Zieck, M. (eds.), Peoples and Minorities in International Law (1993), 3, at 16Google Scholar; Gorelick, The Right of Self-Determination in Practice of the Universal and Regional Organizations, supra note 122, at 85.

124 See Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, supra note 3, at 436, para. 79.

125 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, supra note 56, at 33, para. 59 (explaining that cases when the General Assembly did not organize a referendum of self-determination were based either on the fact that ‘that a certain population did not constitute a “people” entitled to self-determination or on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances’).

126 See Treaty between Great Britain and Ethiopia, May 14, 1897, in Command Papers [C-8715], Treaty Series. No. 2. 1898, at 1–12.

127 Somalia claims that ‘the situation in the Somali territory under Ethiopian domination represents a typical colonial case. Today, the Somali people under Ethiopian control are subject to constant tyranny and oppression. There is therefore justification on grounds of justice and fundamental human rights to permit these people to determine their political future and shape their own destiny.’ See Government Publications, Somali Democratic Republic, The Portion of Somali Territory Under Ethiopian Colonization (1974) at 11.

128 UN Doc. A/RES/3109 (XXVIII).

129 See Petkovic, R., ‘Integrité territoriale et droit d’autodétermination en Afrique’, (1969) 20-IIRevue de la Politique Internationale 19, at 20 (deploring this fact)Google Scholar. Yakemtchouk, R., ‘Les frontières africaines’, (1970) 74 Revue générale de droit international public 27, at 61Google Scholar.

130 Cukwurah, A. O., ‘The Organization of African Unity and African Territorial and Boundary Problems: 1963–1973’, (1973) 13 Indian Journal of International Law 176, at 178Google Scholar.

131 On secession in Africa, see Ouguergouz, F. and Tehindrazanarivelo, D., ‘The Question of Secession in Africa’, in Kohen, M. (eds.), Secession: International Law Perspectives (2006), 257–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132 Hébié, M., ‘Article 20 alinéa 1’, in Kamto, M. (ed.), La Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples: Commentaire article par article (2011), at 480–3Google Scholar.

133 See Corten, supra note 79, at 173–4.

134 Separate Opinion Judge Thomas Franck in Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan und Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment of 23 October 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep., at 657, para. 15; Blay, Self-Determination, supra note 14, at 76.

135 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, supra note 56, at 36, para. 70.

136 A. Benmessaoud Tredano, Intangibilité des frontières coloniales et espaces étatique en Afrique (1989), at 90. See also, I. Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia (1979), at 11.

137 Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. Great Britain), Preliminary Objections, 2 December 1963, [1963] ICJ Rep. 15, at 34, para. 38.

138 ‘Resolution 2: Frontiers, Boundaries and Federations adopted by the All-African Peoples Conference, Accra 5–13–1958,’ in G. C. M. Mutiso and S. W. Rohio (eds.), Readings in African Political Thought (1975) 361, at 364–5.

139 N. N’Krumah, ‘Continental Government for Africa’, ibid. 344, at 346.

140 Klabbers and Lefeber, supra note 31, at 57.

141 AHG/Res. 16 (I): Border Disputes among African States. The fear that it may be said that ‘the Addis Ababa Charter was an explicit ratification of the Treaty of Berlin’ may have justified the absence of an express reference to the principle of uti possidetis. Boutros-Ghali, B., ‘The Addis Ababa Charter’, (1964) 3 International Conciliation 5, at 29Google Scholar.

142 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at 567, para. 25; Umozorike clarifies that this would have opened the ‘Pandora box’. O. Umozorike, International Law and Colonialism in Africa (1979), 105 (contrarily to the terminology used by OAU resolutions, Umozorike qualifies African boundaries as ‘colonial legacies’).

143 See, e.g., Mutua, M. Wa, ‘Why Redraw the Map of Africa: A Moral and Legal Inquiry’, (1994–1995) 16 Michigan Journal of International Law 1113Google Scholar.

144 Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment of 3 February 1994 [1994] ICJ Rep. 6, at 52–54, paras. 7–12 (Separate Opinion of Judge Ajibola); Jimenez, H., ‘International Boundaries in Africa’, (1985) 14 Thesaurus Acroasium 757Google Scholar, at 757; See, e.g., Yakemtchouk, supra note 129, at 27 (arguing that 8/10 of African boundaries are unrelated to traditional and ethnic boundaries).

145 J.-F. Bayart, Paradoxes africains, Le Temps – Genève, 1 October 2013.

146 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at 568, para. 30; Abi-Saab, G., ‘Le principe de l’uti possidetis: son rôle et ses limites dans le contentieux territorial international’, in Kohen, M. (ed.), Promoting Human Rights and Conflict Resolution through International Law: Liber Amicorum Lucius Caflish (2006), 657, at 660Google Scholar.

147 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at 109, para. 4 (Separate Opinion Judge Abi-Saab). See also Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002 [2002] ICJ Rep., at 471 (Separate Opinion Judge Ranjeva). However, in his separate opinion appended to the Burkina Faso/Niger judgment, Judge Yusuf seems to consider that applying uti possidetis means necessarily ‘an acceptance of colonial law as a title to territory’. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment of 16 April 2013, [2013] ICJ Rep. 9, at para. 32 (Separate Opinion Judge Yusuf).

148 See the Northern Cameroons case mentioned above.

149 However, Udombana considers that the maintenance of these boundaries means that ‘the ghost of Berlin has refused to rest; it still haunts Africa forty years after independence.’ Udombana, supra note 2, at 56 (italics in the original).

150 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at para. 22.

151 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at 567, para. 6; See also A. C. McEwen, International Boundaries of East Africa (1971), at 23–24.

152 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), supra note 62, at 566, para. 24 and 568, para. 30: ‘By becoming independent, a new State acquires sovereignty with the territorial base and boundaries left to it by the colonial power. This is part of the ordinary operation of the machinery of State succession’. See also Touval, S., ‘The Sources of Status Quo and Irredentist Policies’, in Widstrand, C. G. (ed.), African Boundary Problems (1969), 101, at 103Google Scholar.

153 See Cukwurah, ‘The Organization of African Unity and African Territorial and Boundary Problems: 1963–1973’, supra note 130, at 182; A. A. Gromyko, ‘Colonialism and Territorial Conflicts in Africa: Some Comments’, in Widstrand (ed.), supra note 152, 168, at 168.

154 Declaration on the African Union Border Programme and its Implementation Modalities, Addis-Ababa, 7 June 2007, BP/MIN/Decl. (II).

155 S. Chime, ‘The Organization of African Unity and African Boundaries’, in Widstrand (ed.), supra note 152, 65, at 65.

156 See Shaw, supra note 70, at 142.