Nicaragua claims against Costa Rica rejected by ICJ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected an application filed by Nicaragua in relation to its boundary dispute with Costa Rica, declaring the four counter-claims over Isla Calero, the small border territory between the neighbours, as inadmissible. Uniquely, the ICJ has also considered it appropriate to join two separate proceedings between the neighbours, at the request of Nicaragua, as to allow a single set of hearings and the delivery of a single judgement. 

In its reasoning for the joinder, the ICJ says that both cases, 'Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area' and 'Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River', concern the same parties, a common border, activities in the San Juan River, the surrounding environmental implications and the same disputed treaty.

These counter-claims were dismissed unanimously by the ICJ on 1 May 2013. The first of these, relating to environmental damage, was declared “without object”. The second and third claims, in which Nicaragua requested greater sovereignty and free navigation rights, were ruled inadmissible. Finally, the fourth claim, alleging that Costa Rica did not implement the provisional measures set out by the ICJ on 8 March 2011, was deemed not necessary to entertain, as it will be further examined in the upcoming proceedings.

The first proceedings were instituted by Costa Rica against Nicaragua in 2010, over the alleged occupation of Costa Rican territory in relation to dredging of the San Juan River by Nicaragua. They argue that this activity violated their territorial rights, as spelled out in the 1858 Cañas-Jerez Treaty and the 1888 Cleveland Award, which awarded ownership of the River to Nicaragua, although commercial navigation rights were afforded to Costa Rica.

The second proceedings were instituted by Nicaragua against Costa Rica in December of the following year, citing “major environmental damages” in its territory resulting from major works, namely the construction of a road on the Costa Rican side of the border. Then, on 6 August 2012, Nicaragua filed four counter-claims in the first case, which were raised objectionably by Costa Rica to the ICJ, as well as Managua's request that the two cases be joined.

Bolivia seeks entry into Chile-Peru ICJ case

The maritime border dispute between Chile and Peru got a lot more complicated last week, when Bolivia announced its intention to get involved in the case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Monday 11th July.


A press statement from Bolivia's Ministry of Foreign relations said “Bolivia's main goal regarding the maritime dispute is to inform the ICJ regarding its views on a subject of vital interest for the Bolivian person, which is its right to sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.”

Bolivia has been landlocked since 1884, when it was defeated by Chile in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). Previously, Bolivia had sea access through what is now northern Chile.

Gaining Bolivia sea access has been one of the driving issues of President Evo Morales' time in office. He announced in March that he intended to sue Chile at the ICJ for sovereign sea access. He has already created a maritime claim organisation to prepare legal actions for a future Bolivia-Chile ICJ case.

While Chile will undoubtedly be unhappy about Bolivia's interest in its case with Peru, how Peru will react is not yet clear. In 2010 Peru granted Bolivia access to the Pacific through a 99-year lease on a small strip of land in the south of the country.

For many Bolivians, however, this is not enough, and while some critics say Morales should focus on domestic issues, the loss of Bolivia's sea access in 1884 remains an issue of national outrage.

Peru took Chile to the ICJ over their maritime border is 2007. Peru, which also lost territory to Chile in the War of the Pacific, argues that the maritime border should follow the downward curve of the land border, which would give it control of an additional 37,900 square kilometres of ocean territory.

Chile, however, argues that the border should follow longitudinal lines.

A decision is not expected until 2013, however, if Bolivia's request to intervene is granted, a decision could take significantly longer to reach.

Sources: Santiago Times, UPI

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

ICJ issues provisional ruling on Cambodia-Thailand temple case

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a ruling on provisional measures in the Cambodia-Thailand Preah Vihear temple case, on Monday 18th July.

The Court, the UN's highest body, ordered both sides to immediately withdraw their military personnel from a newly defined provisional demilitarised zone.

It also ruled that Thailand should not obstruct Cambodia's free access to the Preah Vihear temple, prevent it from providing supplies to non-military personnel, and should restart talks though ASEAN.

The Court unanimously rejected Thailand's request for the case, which was introduced by Cambodia, to be thrown out.

Both sides appear to have accepted the ruling. Thailand's acting foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, said the Thai government would comply with the order, and that he was pleased that the order applied to both countries, rather than just Thailand as Cambodia had hoped for.

Cambodia's Foreign Minister Hor Namhong also viewed the ruling as a victory. “It will be tantamount to the cessation of aggression of Thailand against Cambodia,” he was quoted in the New York Times as saying.

At the heart of the dispute is the eleventh century Preah Vihear temple. In 1962, the ICJ ruled that the temple lay within Cambodian territory, based on a 1907 French-Thai map. But the territory around the temple was not demarcated, and has caused problems ever since.

Cambodia won unilateral UNESCO World Heritage Status for the temple in 2008, which sparked a brief border conflict. There have been further clashes since, and over 30 people have died in a series of border clashes in 2011 alone.

Monday's decision is the first in what promises to be a lengthy and complicated judicial process, according to the BBC.

Sources: BBC News, ICJ, MCOT, New York Times

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Border dispute blocks Heritage's progress in Malta

Heritage's Area 7 is claimed by Libya and Malta

Border disputes got the attention of UBS this week, as it cuts its stock price target for Heritage Oil in a research note on Tuesday 21st June due to the continuing border dispute between Malta and Libya.

Heritage Oil, which operates Area 2 and Area 7 in the waters lying south of Malta, is contractually obliged to drill at least one well by the end of 2011, however this is looking unlikely as ownership over Area 7 continues to be disputed.

UBS's research note said “As the Libyan crisis shows little sign of abating we view it as unlikely the company can resume discussion between the two countries in the near term, and therefore assume a low probability that Heritage will drill in the next 12 months.”

The border dispute between Malta and Libya dates back to 1974, when Valetta awarded Texaco four blocks that lay north of the median line between Malta and Libya. When Texaco spudded their first well in 1980, Tripoli sent in a gunboat, and forced exploration activities to a halt.

The dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1982 and in 1985 it was decided that the border would lie 18' north of the median line in order to take into account the disparity in length of Libya and Malta's coastlines.

While both sides accepted the agreement, it only applied to a narrow strip of water and so border disputes have continued since. Area 7 lies to the east and south of the designated border, and as such, Libya considers it to be in its territory.

Soon after Heritage received the block in 2008, Libya's then National Oil Company head, Dr Shukri Ghanem sent a letter to Heritage's CEO Tony Buckingham, informing him that Area Seven lies within the Libyan continental shelf and was under contract with the Sirte Gulf Oil Company.

The dispute has not progressed since, and with civil war in Libya continuing, it is unlikely to get much attention anytime soon. As such, UBS decided Heritage was unlikely to drill within the next year and so removed the Malta prospect from their net asset value assessment for Heritage, which resulted in a stock target price of 230p, down from 280p.

Heritage released an operational update on 20th June, in which it said, “a seismic vessel has been mobilised to start acquisition of a 1,400 kilometre 2D seismic survey in Area 7 over the large Caravaggio target. Acquisition is expected to begin within two weeks. Processing and interpretation of this date, during the second half of 2011, will help define a precise drilling location.”

Sources: Citywire, Dow Jones, Heritage Oil, the Independent, Malta Today

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

ICJ hears Cambodia-Thailand border temple case

Cambodia has taken Thailand to the ICJ over recent border clashes

The initial rounds of public hearings on the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand finished at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Tuesday 31st May.

The two southeast Asian neighbours have long disputed the territory around the eleventh century Hindu Preah Vihear temple, which was awarded to Cambodia by the ICJ in 1962.

Thailand sought to have the temple jointly listed as a World Heritage Site because much of the access to the temple lies in Thai territory, but Cambodia succeeded in convincing UNESCO to give it a unilateral listing in 2008.

Period military clashes have occurred since, causing dozens of deaths, displacing thousands and even causing damage to the temple.

Cambodia submitted a request to the ICJ for interpretation of the 1962 Judgement in April. They also made an urgent request for the court to order an "immediate and unconditional withdrawal" of all Thai forces from Cambodian territory in the temple's vicinity.

Thailand said that it had accepted and complied with the 1962 Judgement and that as a result the court had no jurisdiction to judge on Cambodia's request.

Both sides blame each other for the fighting that has taken place in recent years.

Cambodia's lead delegate and foreign minister Hor Namhong claimed Thai forces had mounted "murderous armed incursions" into Cambodia's territory.

Thailand's ambassador to the Netherlands, Virachai Plasai, hit back by saying that unprovoked Cambodian attacks on Thai territory amounted to "a blatant and deliberate violation" of the rules of war.

"This portrayal of Thailand as a big bad wolf bullying the lamb of Cambodia is totally wrong," Plasai was quoted in the Washington Post as saying.

The result of the hearing on Cambodia's request for provisional measures should be known within a few weeks, but the larger case could take a number of years if the court decides it does have jurisdiction on the matter.

Thailand and Cambodia are continuing to hold talks through other channels, and held a meeting on 25th-26th May at UNESCO, which was mediated by UNESCO's Director-General Irina Bokova.

Thailand is trying to ensure UNESCO's World Heritage Committee (WHC) understands its position before the WHC annual meeting starts on 19th June, when it will assess a Preah Vihear management plan proposed by Cambodia.

Thailand's representation Suwit Khunkitti, who is also the Thai minister of natural resources and environment, argued that the WHC should postpone consideration of the plan until boundary negotiations are finalised.

Thailand argues that Cambodia wants to include Thai territory in its management plan.

Thailand has long argued in favour of bilateral negotiations as a way of resolving the dispute, whereas Cambodia has pushed for third party interventions. Talks mediated by Indonesia's president in May failed to achieve a lasting cease-fire.

 

10 people were killed in fighting near Preah Vihear in February, and new clashes broke out in April west of the the temple which left 18 dead and some 85,000 displaced.

Sources: Bangkok Post, International Court of Justice, MCOT, Washington Post

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Ecuador and Peru settle maritime boundary

Ecuador and Peru's maritime boundary will be a straight horizontal line

Peru and Ecuador signed an historic agreement on Monday 2nd May, settling their maritime border, but raising tension with Chile.

The agreement, proposed by Ecuador in March, establishes the maritime border on a horizontal line from the land terminal point at Boca de Capones. Any islands to the north of the line will belong to Ecuador, while those south of the line will be Peruvian.

This new agreement will supersede previous maritime treaties signed by Ecuador, Peru and Chile in 1952 and 1954, which will now be relegated to fishing agreements.

The agreement was approved by Peru's President Alan García and Foreign Minister José Antonio García Belaunde of Peru and their counterparts President Rafael Correa and Ricardo Patiño of Ecuador.

This agreement, while positive, has deeper political implications relating to border principles in the Pacific as Peru and Chile are currently contesting a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on their maritime border.

In it, Chile has argued in favour of a horizontal or parallel line extending from the coastline, whereas Peru has argued that the maritime border should follow the downward curve of the land border. That Peru has now accepted a boundary based on logic they are contesting at the ICJ is being seen as hypocrisy by Chile.

Moreover, Ecuador based its line on the 1952 treaty, which is something that Peru has specifically rejected in its dealings with Chile, arguing it, and the 1954 treaty, are merely fishing agreements.

According to national media in Chile, government authorities believe Peru complied with Ecuador's proposal so that Ecuador would not support Chile at the ICJ. Chile had hoped Ecuador would side with it and uphold the treaties of 1952 and 1954, but Ecuadorian involvement will now not occur.

Ecuador has certainly put pressure on Peru and the agreement is being seen as a victory for Ecuador's President Correa. In recent months, Correa has publically called on his Peruvian counterpart García to accept their borders map, or Ecuador would be 'obliged' to take them to court, according to Chile's Santiago Times.

Despite the loss of potential ally Ecuador, Chile will take some positives from Ecuador and Peru's agreement, especially in regards to the legitimacy of its preferred methods of border delimitation.

Peru, however, is also seeing the agreement as strengthening its ICJ case and has defended itself against Chile's complaints.

Peruvian foreign minister García Belaunde told reporters, "The Santiago Declaration of 1952 is very clear. Only in the case of islands should a parallel maritime boundary be considered, which is not the case of the maritime border with Chile."

Peru said that Ecuador's proposed limits were accepted based on the 1952 treaty, which allows for a demarcation line to be established through a parallel 200 miles away when there are islands close to the border. Peru said that there are no islands close to its border with Chile, and so the treaty does not apply.

Garcia Belaunde said the new agreement "is important because it ratifies the premise that Peru has always held up that the agreements of 1954 and 1952 are fishing (accords), and that will strengthen our position at The Hague."

The agreement between Ecuador and Peru still needs to be ratified by the parliaments of both countries, although this is not thought likely to be problematic. After the agreement is ratified, the 1952 and 1954 agreements will be considered only fishing accords.

The Chile-Peru maritime dispute dates back to the War of the Pacific, from 1879-1883, in which Peru and Bolivia lost territory to Chile. Peru and Chile both claim 14,500 square miles of sea, rich is fish, which Chile controls.

In January 2007, Peru began proceedings against Chile at the ICJ. A ruling is not expected until 2013.

Sources: Americas Quarterly, Living in Peru, Santiago Times, UPI

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

New fighting on Cambodian-Thai border brings death toll to 18

A Cambodian soldier sits near that Cambodia-Thailand border in late April

A Thai soldier was killed in renewed fighting with Cambodian troops on late Monday, 2nd May or early Tuesday, 3rd May, bringing the death toll from the border dispute of the two south Asian neighbours to 18.

The fighting began on 22nd April in the border region around two disputed temples, named Ta Kwai and Ta Muen in Thai and Ta Krabey and Ta Moan in Khmer. On 26th April, the fighting spread to spread to the highly controversial Preah Vihear temple, which lies about 150km to the east.

Much of the border between Thailand and Cambodia has never been demarcated, due to disputes and the prevalence of land mines, which makes demarcation difficult. Thailand says the 12th century Ta Kwai and Ta Muen temples are situated in its Surin province, according to a 1947 map. Cambodia argues that they are in its Oddar Meanchey province. Until hostilities broke out 12 days ago, the area was jointly patrolled, largely without incident.

Tension has been high between the countries since 2008, but it has been related to Preah Vihear temple. UNESCO awarded the temple World Heritage Status in 2008, under Cambodian jurisdiction. Thailand accepts that the temple itself is in Cambodian territory, as an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling dictated in 1962, but it claims much of the territory around the temple. As such, it wanted the temple to be jointly listed. In particular, there is a 4.6 square kilometer area that is disputed.

Clashes broke out in February between the two sides, which led to 10 deaths and to Preah Vihear being slightly damaged. Exactly what led to the violence at the two temples in April is not clear, although predictably both sides have blamed each other.

Many analysts see political manoeuvring as being behind the violence, and both governments in the past have resorted to stoking nationalist fervour to deflect attention away from domestic political problems.

Thailand, for example, is expected to hold an election in July, and the government is worried about looking weak in its relations with Cambodia. Some analysts have suggested that the clashes may be a pretext for Thai generals, allied with ultra-nationals, to stage a coup to prevent the elections from taking place.

International condemnation of the violence was quick to come. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a ceasefire and said the neighbours should undertake 'serious dialogue' to resolve the dispute. Indonesia's Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, who is currently head of ASEAN and has been heavily involved in the Thailand-Cambodia dispute since the February clashes, also called for a ceasfire. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton urged both sides to exercise restraint and to take immediate steps to defuse the tension.

Despite both sides agreeing to a cease-fire on Thursday, 28th April, clashes have yet to stop, although they have decreased from their early intensity. Both sides said the other first broke the ceasefire, and they have both considerably increased their military presence in the border region.

Cambodia has consistently appealed for international mediation for the border disputes, but Thailand maintains they can be solved through bilateral dialogue. On Friday, 29th April, Cambodia announced that it had asked the ICJ to clarify its 1962 ruling. It also requested provisional measures, including the removal of Thai forces from the temple area.

Indonesia has tried to facilitate talks and to send military observers to the border. Thailand has, however, delayed the Indonesian observers, and it seems likely that this is what prompted Cambodia's ICJ appeal.

Some 100,000 people were forced to flee the border areas due to the clash, however many have started to return. Eight Thai troops, one Thai civilian and nine Cambodian soldiers have been killed, and some homes have been damaged on both sides.

Thailand recently admitted to using internationally–banned cluster munitions in the fighting in February. Cambodia's Defence Ministry said that in the most recent clashes, Thailand has used shells 'loaded with poisonous gas', a claim Thailand has denied. Cambodia has also said that Thailand has fired artillery shells on civilian villages.

Sources: BBC News, Christian Science Monitor, Financial Times, RTE, AFP, Al Jazeera, Seattle Times

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Google Maps changes Costa Rica-Nicaragua border depiction

Google Maps' depiction of the border region in October 2010

Google Maps' depiction in April 2011

Google Maps has changed its portrayal of the controversial Costa Rica-Nicaragua border, giving Isla Calero back to Costa Rica.

In autumn 2010, Google Maps found itself at the centre of a border dispute, when its maps were highlighted by Nicaraguan politician and former military leader Eden Pastora as proof that his troops did not invade Costa Rica by occupying Isla Calero.

While the problem of a state relying on a private company like Google to supply information of its territorial claims were clear to see, the dispute took off over other, related issues of ownership in the region, and Costa Rica eventually took Nicaragua to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague.

The ICJ made its preliminary ruling on 8th March, when it ordered both countries to withdraw all troops and personnel from the disputed area. The exception to this is that Costa Rican civilians are allowed in the area for the purpose of environmental protection. The ICJ ruled that Costa Rica should consult with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, which governs wetlands, and inform Nicaragua prior to taking action.

The Nicaraguan government complained on Sunday 3rd April that Costa Rica had violated this part of the ruling, and said it would file a complaint with the ICJ on Monday. Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry official Cesar Vega said that in March, Costa Rican civilian staff had entered the conflict zone accompanied by Ramsar Convention representatives to verify environmental damage caused by Nicaragua along the San Juan River.

While seemingly in line with the ICJ ruling, Nicaragua considered this a violation of the decision because they were not informed prior to the visit and have yet to receive an official Ramsar report describing the inspection.

While it is true that the infraction by Costa Rica seems minor, communication between the two sides is crucial in maintaining decent relations. Costa Rica has accused Nicaragua of acting in 'bad faith' over the incident, but the same could certainly be said of Costa Rica. The ICJ ruling was clear on the issue, and it is up to both sides to uphold the ruling in every way.

Sources: Xinhua, UPI, Inside Costa Rica

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Costa Rica deploys border police force

New Costa Rican border police force Source: Tico Times

Army-less Costa Rica has garnered substantial international sympathy throughout the course of its dispute with Nicaragua. But it looks like the Central American country isn't willing to play the victim much longer, as it has activated its first border police unit as of Wednesday 30 March.

Costa Rica's President Laura Chinchilla and Public Security Minister José María Tijerino attended a ceremony inaugurating the new police unit in the rural community of Los Chiles in Costa Rica's Northern Zone, just a few kilometres from the Nicaragua border.

Chinchilla said that the 153 men will be tasked with ensuring "Costa Rica's flag will never be lowered by foreign troops", a reference to the dispute over Isla Calero where the Nicaraguans allegedly raised their flag.

Tijerino said at the ceremony that the border police would be there to fight the “trafficking of drugs, people, currency and weapons, as well as providing for the protection of national sovereignty.”

“Costa Rica doesn't need an army. Costa Rica has not denounced its pacifist approach. Costa Rica doesn't envy its neighbors. And Costa Rica is satisfied with protecting its borders, having a police force that identifies with its people and is willing to guarantee the peace and tranquility of its residents,” Tijerino said.

The unit will be present at both the Nicaragua and Panama borders. A second police unit is also being trained and will be deployed in coming months.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua have been in dispute since October 2010, when Costa Rica accused Nicaragua of occupying its territory and working to divert the San Juan River in order to increase their territory.

The dispute is currently at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. A preliminary ruling on 8th March saw both sides ordered to keep troops and police away from the disputed area.

Sources: Tico Times, Inside Costa Rica

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Oil interests behind Costa Rica-Nicaragua case

The current dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica has been constructed in a number of ways. First of all, it was the story of Nicaragua the aggressor, moving by stealth onto undefended Costa Rican territory, aided by dodgy maps produced by Google.

Then the story of environmental damage came about, and questions arose about whether Nicaragua was trying to claim more land by dredging – and therefore rerouting to a certain extent – the San Juan River.

But now, as the case sits with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, a new narrative is emerging; one where Isla Calero is not being seen as valuable in its own right, but rather as an opportunity for both sides to make claims to potentially oil-rich maritime territory.

According to the Argentinian daily, La Nación, the dispute is really about access to the Caribbean coast and where each territory's claim ends on the coast. The preliminary judgement issued by the ICJ on 8th March states:

'Costa Rica asserts that Nicaragua is seeking to divert the flow of the San Jan river to what the State erroneously describes as its “historic channel” by cutting a canal which would join the seaward course of the river to the Laguna los Portillos'.

In other words, because the boundary between the two neighbours is understood to be the right bank of the San Juan river, Costa Rica claimed that Nicaragua was trying to cut this canal in an effort to grab some of Costa Rica's land.

La Nacion says this is to increase their access to Block 11, an area discovered in the 1980s by Costa Rica's state refinery, the Refinadora Costarricense de Petroleo (RECOPE), which covers some 523 sq km of the Caribbean Sea.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua currently don't have a formal maritime boundary agreement and so oil exploration off of their coasts has been problematic. Where the land border terminates is crucial to determining maritime territory claims, and this perhaps explains why there has been such a fuss over such a small marshy area.

If the line is drawn from where Costa Rica believes the border to be, Punta Castilla, then Block 11 falls completely within Costa Rican waters. If the boundary follows Nicaragua's claims, they own part of the block, and can therefore claim some of its oil.

Nicaragua published a map in 2002 which featured petroleum blocks - including Block 11 - and border demarcation markings. Costa Rica disputed the map. According to Bloggings by Boz, in 2008 Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega gave two contracts to an unnamed US firm to explore the area for oil, to which Costa Rica, unsurprisingly, protested.

Last March, the dispute also came to involve UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, when Nicaragua disputed a note sent to Ban by Costa Rica regarding the border definition. The situation really kicked off in October, when Nicaragua moved onto the Isla Calero, citing drug trafficking concerns, and sparking the dispute that has resulted in the ICJ case currently underway.

The ICJ made its preliminary judgement on 8th March, which ordered both countries to keep military and police authorities out of the disputed area. It did not, however, order Nicaragua to completely stop its dredging programme. The court will likely take three or four years to reach its final verdict.

Sources: Tico Times, Inside Costa Rica, ICJ, Blogging by Boz

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Cameroon and Nigeria agree on joint oil exploration in Bakassi region

Bakassi Peninsula (source: Stratfor)

Cameroon and Nigeria have initiated talks to jointly exploit oil overlapping borders around the Bakassi peninsula, chief mediators of both countries told Dow Jones Newswire on Friday 11th March.

The decision to begin joint oil exploration was made at a meeting of a joint commission of the two countries set up by the UN following the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the Bakassi peninsula.

After years of dispute, Cameroon took Nigeria to the ICJ in 1994 over various territorial issues including that of the Bakassi region. Nigeria argued that the peninsula should be awarded to it because of its 'historical claim'. Nigeria had been administering the peninsula and most of its inhabitants were Nigerian fishermen and their families.

Despite this, the Court ruled in 2002 that the peninsula belonged to Cameroon based largely on early twentieth century Anglo-German correspondence which established that the boundary lay to the west of the peninsula.

The ruling was not easily accepted by many within Nigeria, but in 2008, they ceded the peninsula to Cameroon. A commission was established to demarcate the border between the two countries as per the ICJ ruling and it appears that good progress is being made.

Cameroon's chief negotiator, the country's Vice Premier Ali Ahmadou, said: "Work is complete on our maritime demarcation, but this is not the case with exploitation of the oil wells crossing the borders. This is an important issue which we've to pursue and reach a level of agreement for joint exploitation of the oil reserves by our two countries."

The chief Nigerian negotiator, Prince Bola Ajibola, sounded positive on the agreement reached. "This time around, there's been cooperation and good understanding between our two countries to come together and jointly exploit the hydrocarbons deposits that we've on our common borders."

"The exploited hydrocarbons will be for the mutual benefits of both of us,” said Ajibola, adding "we think such exploitation will become faster, cheaper and easier when both of us have one company to do the operations."

Canadian exploration company, Addax Petroleum, has been tipped to do the cross border oil drilling. The Dow Jones Newswire quoted an unnamed Cameroonian official familiar with the negotiations as saying, "Addax Petroleum is likely to do the crossborder oil drilling for us and our brotherly nation, Nigeria. You know, Addax operates both in Cameroon and Nigeria and knows the territory very well."

Exploration is likely to start this year.

Sources: Dow Jones Newswire, Wall Street Journal, AllAfrica

Menas Borders worked on the 2002 ICJ court case. For more information on the case, please see our website, here.

Wikileaks cable renews Peru-Chile tensions

A new pair of confidential US Embassy cables released on Friday 18th February by whistle blowing website WikiLeaks has reopened the political quarrels between Peru and Chile over their ongoing maritime border dispute.

The cables focus on Peru's decision to take the border dispute case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The two countries have no formal treaty designating marine borders, although Chile considers the matter settled after two treaties in 1952 and 1954 addressed fishing rights in the Pacific Ocean.

Peru argues the maritime border should follow the downward curve of the land border, rather than the current configuration, which stretches out from the coast along longitudinal lines. Their interpretation of the maritime border area would give Peru control of an additional 37,900 square kilometers of the Pacific Ocean. The claim is backed by 99 per cent of Peruvians, according to Peruvian newspaper El Comercio.

In the January 2008 cables sent from the US Embassy in Lima to embassies across Latin America and to Washington, the Peruvian perspective repeatedly discusses the case in The Hague as 'not an unfriendly action' and reaffirms a desire for continued dialogue to improve bilateral relations.

According to the cables, the Peruvian government sees their case in The Hague as a way to depoliticize the border dispute, which has been a source of tension between the two countries since the War of the Pacific (1879-84). The case was initiated by former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, and current President Alan Garcia informed the Chilean government that while the issue would not be a priority for his administration, they would see the case through.

The cables however, also report that the border dispute with Chile is used as a political tool domestically by Peruvian politicians to improve their poll positions. For example, the cable says, "In 2004 then-President Alejandro Toledo, as his poll numbers dropped to single digits, stirred up the border dispute by publicly calling on Chile to open negotiations."

According to the leaked cables, Chilean officials felt 'betrayed' when Peru took the border dispute to The Hague, although they admitted that the Peruvians had kept them well-informed of the situation. While they remain confident over their legal claims, the officials concede that once the case arrived at The Hague 'anything can happen.'

In particular, a Chilean official, unnamed in the cable, said his government had been more concerned that the Hague could grant concessions to Peru after a unanimous Court decision in late 2007 to adjudicate a similar maritime dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua.

"That decision could effectively invalidate a bilateral agreement demarcating the territory, according to XXXXXXXXXXXX , on the grounds that only a full treaty can make such demarcations. XXXXXXXXXXXX feared this argument would provide a small window for Peru's contention that the 1952 and 1954 fishing accords were not legally sufficient to settle the boundary," the cable said.

Chile officials also expressed their opinion that Peru's lawsuit was hypocritical, as Peru benefits from their northern maritime boundary with Ecuador that follows longitudinal lines rather than the path of the land border.

General observations are made by the cables' author or authors, among them a suggestion that Chile might sacrifice the northernmost city of Arica, close to the Peruvian border, in favor of creating a military strong line further south at Iquique, in the case of military advances across the border.

Chilean officials have reacted fiercely to the leak. Jorge Tarud, a congressman of the Party of Democracy (Partido por la Democracia-PPD), and member of the Chilean congress Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, accused Peru's Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 'manipulating' the WikiLeaks cable published in Peru's El Comercio newspaper.

Tarud said “Among the dozens of cables that were written by the U.S. embassy in Lima, the majority of them favour Chile.” He did not show any evidence to sustain what he said though.

Alberto van Klaveren, Chile's representative to The Hague in the dispute with Peru said to Chilean newspaper El Mercurio that Peru's media was giving the cable a 'very biased interpretation'. He added “if there is something quite clear is that the court will always respect the supremacy of the treaties, and those treaties are obviously giving the reason to Chile.”

The case in the Hague is ongoing.

Sources: Living in Peru, Santiago Times

For more information, see the Menas Borders website, here.

The cables can be found at the Wikileaks website, here.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua present border cases at ICJ

The Costa Rican delegation at the ICJ

Costa Rica and Nicaragua have made their opening arguments regarding their border dispute over the San Juan River to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

The hearings started last Tuesday, 11th January, when Costa Rica accused Nicaragua of engangering the stability and peace between the two countries and asked the court to rule that Nicaragua must remove their troops from their 'illegitimate' occupation of the Isla Calero. The Costa Rican contingent, headed by foreign minister Rene Castro, also asked the court to rule that Nicaragua must cease the 'imminent and irreparable environmental damage' being caused by Nicaragua in the border region.

Nicaragua responded in the afternoon of the 11th, arguing that Costa Rica 'creates a dispute' every time Nicaragua begins work on the San Juan River. Nicaragua's ambassador to the Netherlands and main representative at the hearing, Carlos Arguello, also attempted to discredit the claims that Nicaragua 'invaded' Costa Rican territory by arguing that the dispute was caused by a lack of well-defined borders.

This is not the first dispute between the Latin American neighbours over the San Juan River. In 2009 the ICJ ruled that while the San Juan River was Nicaraguan territory, with the bank constituting the border, Costa Rica had the right to free navigation.

Both sides are claiming they have the upper hand in the dispute. Foreign minister Castro said on Tuesday that he was feeling very confident. “There has been irrefutable damage done to Costa Rican territory and we feel the court has heard our argument. Our presentation is very consistent, as it has been since this issue began.”

Costa Rica's President Laura Chinchilla echoed Castro's words. Speaking to the press on Tuesday afternoon, she said, “We are very pleased with the results of the proceedings this morning and the case presented by Costa Rica at The Hague.”

“The more the world knows about this situation, the more the world will favor Costa Rica,” she added.

Castro has remained in Europe, and is said to be making the rounds of a number of European cities to garner support for Costa Rica's position.

The Nicaraguans, however, are feeling similarly confident. Well-known Nicaraguan conservationist and presidential advisor Jaime Incer said Cost Rica was surprised by the 'brilliant' presentation made by Arguello.

“The arguments presented by Nicaragua were overwhelming and well presented and made Costa Rica's foreign minister doubt his own belligerent position,” the Tico Times reported Incer as saying.

“I think that in the first round, Nicaragua refuted Costa Rica's phantom arguments, and that gives us lots of hope.”

Nicaraguan representative Arguello has been quoted as saying he was sure that the Court would not approve the provisional measures requested by Costa Rica, and noted that Costa Rica itself was not positive about it.

Hearings took place from Tuesday January 11th to Thursday January 13th. The court is now deliberating, and a decision is expected sometime this week.

For more information on the dispute, see the Menas Borders website, here.

Help offered, but progress slow on Nicaragua-Costa Rica border dispute

Nicaraguan President Daneil Ortega

Another country has joined the queue of parties offering to mediate between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. On 12th December, Costa Rica's vice-chancellor Carlos Roverssi and Ecuador's Ministro de Defensa Javier Ponce confirmed that Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has contacted both Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla several times to offer his mediation.

The dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica dates back to October this year, and is centred on their border along the San Juan River. Nicaragua, who has sovereignty over the river, began a river dredging project in October, and was accused of dumping silt from the river onto Costa Rican land. Costa Rica also complained that the way it was being dredged would encourage the river to change course and move into Costa Rican territory. Nicaragua also stands accused of militarily occupying an island on the river.

Costa Rica, which does not have a military, asked the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) to intervene, and, in November, the organization twice requested that Nicaragua removed its troops, but Nicaragua refused. The case has now been referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, whose ruling on the matter will be binding.

With the case now in the hands of the ICJ, President Ortega seems to have given up on talks. Costa Rica's foreign minister, Rene Castro, said on 10th December, that the government of Nicaragua has rejected their proposal for dialogue. Costa Rica had apparently proposed a series of talks in Liberia, Costa Rica, for 20th December, but Ortega has said that now that the case is referred to the ICJ, he had no business attending Costa Rican-mediated talks.

Contradicting reports say that Ortega has agreed to have a dialogue with Chinchilla in the presence of 'friendly' nations and without conditions. On 10th December, Ortega said, "I am ready today to go anywhere presidenta Laura Chinchilla says, without any conditions."

It seems to be the question of conditions that is the sticking point. It was Chinchilla who apparently proposed the talks for 20th December, but said she would only attend them if Ortega had his troops removed from the disputed territory, and if OAS officials could act as mediators. Ortega is refusing to be restricted by any conditions whatsoever. He has said, however, that he is interested in carrying out the talks with 'friendly' nations as witnesses.

Costa Rica, however, argues that Ortega is being disingenuous. "President Correa proposes a commission of friend countries, but Nicaragua has refused. For that, the position of president Ortega is a lie: because President Correa has offered his country as well as Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico as guarantors to the discussion or solution and Nicaragua rejected it", Roverssi said. Spain and the US have also offered their help in solving the dispute.

According to Roverssi, however, "There is nothing pending, the subject is frozen".

Sources: InsideCostaRica, Fortuna Times

For more information on the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border dispute, see the menas borders website.

Nicaragua and Costa Rica in border row over Google maps

The 'Bing' map with the 'Google' map inset

Google maps has been in the news again, this time at the centre of a dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The events have played out curiously over the last week, receiving huge media attention, and it is not yet clear how it will be resolved.

The dispute centres around the San Juan River, which starts in Lake Nicaragua, and becomes the natural border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica for much of its 120 mile course to the sea. For more than a century, the countries have sparred over navigation and fishing rights on the river, although the issues were largely settled by an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 2009.

The ICJ decision regarded that Costa Rica has navigational rights on the river, but that Nicaragua maintains the power of regulation. In essence, they ruled that in the regions under dispute, the border lay, not in the middle of the river, but on the Costa Rican bank. The river itself is in Nicaraguan territory.

The problem with boundaries based on natural features like rivers is that they can change, sometimes naturally and sometimes due to human intervention. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega started a dredging project in the river in October this year, and it is this that caused the dispute to flare up.

The dredging project aimed to remove the river sediment that makes it hard to navigate the water; it was also however, hoped that deepening the river would redirect the water back up to Nicaragua, after heavy sedimentation had driven the flow into Costa Rican territory for the last 20 mile stretch toward the Caribbean.

The Costa Ricans, unsurprisingly, were not happy about the plan, especially when Security Minister Jose Maria Tijerino revealed photos showing that the river sediment was being dumped on Costa Rican territory. Ortega had communicated his plans to San Jose, of course, but the Costa Ricans accused the Nicaraguans over breaking promises.

“We had a guarantee,” Costa Rican Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Roverssi, told reporters Tuesday 26th October. “They were going to conduct only a small dredging that wouldn't affect Costa Rican territory. But what happened is a violation of our national sovereignty … that changes the circumstances.”

Farmers on the Costa Rican side have also alleged that a group of armed men have invaded their land, harassed workers and killed livestock.

It is this land invasion that has gotten Google in trouble; it is also the point in which most media coverage starts, ignoring the crucial background to the story. The leader of the dredging project is Sandista revolutionary hero Eden 'Comandante Cero' Pastora, a close ally of the Nicaraguan president. Upon being accused of crossing the border, setting up camp on a disputed island and replacing a Costa Rican flag with a Nicaraguan one, he blamed Google Maps, saying he was in territory that internet giant had said was Nicaraguan. Many commentators have pointed out that it would be worrying if any government was that reliant on Google Maps, and have suggested that the Nicaraguans are using the map to justify a land grab.

Costa Rica put up a fuss, Google admitted the map was incorrect and blamed the US State Department for providing it with information that put the border 1.7 miles away from where it should be. On Friday 5th November Google geopolicy analyst Charlie Hale said in a Google blogpost that the State Department had provided a corrected version and "we are now working to update our maps."

The problem could have been solved there, except that the Nicaraguan government spoke up, saying the current Google map was actually correct. A further issue has possibly arisen too, with unconfirmed sources saying that Pastora has denied the Google connection. Apparently, he says that he was on Nicaraguan territory as prescribed by the Canas-Jerez Treaty of 1858.

The dispute has become so serious that the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS) Jose Miguel Insuza has flown to the region to help solve the conflict. He is expected to report on his progress on 9th November. On Saturday 6th November, Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla said she was prepared to take the dispute to the UN Security Council if the OAS could not find a solution.

"Costa Rica is seeing its dignity smeared and there is a sense of great national urgency [to resolve this problem]," Chinchilla said after meeting Insulza.

There is no easy answer to this dispute. The 2009 ICJ decision relied heavily on the 1858 treaty, but there was great difficulty in determining the exact meaning of the treaty. It is interesting that both sides have claimed that the treaty will prove their view of the border region to be correct. Hale, for example, said Google was going to use the First Award of Arbitration of 1897, which affirmed the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, to redraw its border based on the Costa Rican request, while Pastora has said that the Treaty gives him the right be where he was. The situation will not descend into war – Costa Rica lacks an army – but both sides have increased official presence in the area. What Google will do awaits to be seen.

Sources: Globalpost, AFP, Google Blog, The Galloping Beaver Blog

Border Focus: Indonesia and Malaysia

What is disputed?

Indonesian and Mayalsia have several border disputes, but the most important relates to an area called the Ambalat region in the Sulawesi sea.

Why is the area disputed?

The area is believed to be rich in hydrocarbons, and both countries have offered exploration blocks to IOCs. The area is also rich in sealife and has great tourism potential. The maritime boundary was not delimited during the colonial period.

What is the history of the dispute?

The roots of the dispute lie in a 1979 map issued by Malaysia, which outlined its territorial waters and continental shelf. The map drew Malaysia's maritime boundary running in a southeast direction in the Sulawsi sea, from the easternmost point of the land border on Sebatik Island, an island off the eastern coast of Borneo. The map included large parts of the Ambalat region inside its territory, and Indonesia and other surrounding countries quickly protested to the map.

What is considered to be each country's 'basepoints' is crucial in determining the limits of their maritime claim. In the 1979 map, Malaysia took the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan to be its basepoints, despite the fact that Indonesia had claimed them since 1959. The two countries took the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in Malaysia's favour in 2002, based on its 'effective occupancy' (effectivités).

While the ICJ decision had no bearing on the Ambalat block itself, Indonesia was forced to amend its baselines, removing Sipadan and Ligatan islands as basepoints. In 2008, Indonesia redrew its baselines and as a result, the Ambalat Block was no longer entirely inside Indonesian internal waters.

 

How serious is the dispute?

The dispute over the Ambalat block has continued throughout this decade, with both sides awarding the blocks to oil companies. There are two blocks that are the major disagreement point: what Indonesia calls Ambalat Block and East Ambalat Block, and what Malaysia calls Block ND6 and ND7. The blocks are not identical, but they have large overlapping areas.

The deep sea blocks are estimated to contain at least 62 million barrels of oil and 348 cubic meters of natural gas. In 1999 Indonesia awarded Ambalat Block to ENI, and in 2004 it awarded Unocal the East Ambalat Block. In 2005, however, Malaysia's Petronas awarded Production Sharing Contracts to Shell and Petronas Carigali for both blocks.

There have also been skirmishes between navies, and on numerous occasions one side's fishing vessels have been arrested by patrol boats and accused of being in the other's territory. Both countries have a heavy naval presence in the area.

What are the possible solutions?

Malaysia said in 2009 that it would not refer the dispute to the ICJ, preferring diplomatic channels, which is positive. 2010 has seen both countries commit themselves to negotiations, and it seems that discussions will go ahead despite the fact that Malaysia is currently in dispute with Singapore over claims to Batu Puteh Island. The case has been referred to the ICJ, and while Malaysia previously said it could not resolve its dispute with Indonesia until it had resolved its dispute with Singapore, it looks like this issue has been circumvented.

In August 2010, Indonesia said it was looking into the possibility of temporarily turning the disputed border areas with Malaysia into a jointly managed territory to avoid more border incidents. The two countries have already established joint patrols in the Malacca Strait. This would be a positive first step, and could lead, ultimately, to the establishment of a joint development area in the Ambalat block. Joint Development Zones have been used successfully in other regions where resources straddle the border. Ultimately, until the maritime boundary is definitively established, both sides will lose out on the economic prosperity the Ambalat Block promises.

Cultural and political tensions continue to hind progress however. In 2009, there was uproar in Indonesia when a Malaysian tourism advert on the Discovery Channel featured a traditional Balinese dance called Pendet. One Indonesian politician even suggested they declare war on Malaysia as a result. Malaysia and Indonesia have a rich shared history – there was even a time when the idea of a pan-Malay region was floated – and it is unfortunate that the colonial experience, which created the two nations, and the demands of modern nationalism, which forces the cultures to delineate themselves so rigidly, has caused so many seemingly avoidable problems.

For the full article, please visit the Menas Borders website, here