ICJ defines Peru-Chile maritime border

On 27 January the UN court at The Hague delivered its eagerly awaited verdict on the bitter Peru-Chile maritime dispute. Judges at the ICJ awarded parts of the Pacific Ocean to Peru, the claimant in this case, while keeping considerable, rich fishing waters within Chile’s borders. The disputed territory amounted to 38,000 km² of some of the world’s richest fishing grounds, invaluable to these two Latin American nations, both of whom being the world’s biggest exporters of fishmeal.

Following Peru’s application to the ICJ in 2008, the Court yesterday allocated 20,000 km² to the claimant, with control over an additional 28,000 km² of Pacific international waters. The Peruvian President, Ollanta Humala, said that he was pleased with the outcome and would “take the required actions and measures immediately for its prompt implementation". Lima wanted the maritime boundary to extend out in a south westerly direction, contiguous to the land border.

Santiago disagreed with this interpretation, believing instead that the boundary should lie parallel to the equator, based on bilateral treaties signed in the 1950s. “Its position throughout the proceedings was that the Parties had already delimited the whole maritime area in dispute, by agreement, in 1952, and that, accordingly, no maritime delimitation should be performed by the Court,” the judges said.  Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet said she would begin implementing the ruling gradually, despite citing it as a “painful loss”.

In its final ruling, the Court “defined the course of the maritime boundary between the Parties without determining the precise geographical co-ordinates. Moreover, the Court has not been asked to do so in the Parties’ final submissions. The Court expects that the Parties will determine these co-ordinates in accordance with the present Judgment, in the spirit of good neighbourliness.” However, it did say that the boundary should begin at the same point that it does now. 

Continuing tension along the Israel-Lebanon borders

Lebanon has filed a complaint against Israel at the UN after a border incident on Monday (1 August) which involved an exchange of fire. An Israeli Defence Force (IDF) patrol is alleged to have entered Lebanese territory at Wazzani. Reports vary, but the extent of the incursion is put at a matter of metres (between 15 and 70).

Reports also vary as to the supposed sequence of events. Some sources claim that the presence of IDF soldiers on Lebanese territory prompted Lebanese forces to fire at them; others counter that Israeli forces were not on Lebanese territory but that they did return the fire of the Lebanese forces.

Neither side sustained any casualties during the incident. In its complaint Lebanon argues that the the Israeli incursion represented a violation of its sovereignty, a breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, Lebanon argues that the incursion breached UN Security Council resolution 1701 which ended the month-long war of 2006 end extended the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mandate.

Israel made its own complaint to the UN, on Tuesday (2 August), about shots fired (by a Lebanese soldier at an IDF patrol) from across the border. Ron Prosor, the Israeli ambassador to the UN has argued that incidents such as this potentially threaten the ceasefire that currently holds between the two states; another similar event has allegedly taken place in the last two weeks.

This notwithstanding, the low-level conflict that characterises the formal ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has been interpreted in news sources as indicative of comparative calm along the land border. The focus in recent weeks has been on the maritime border between the two states, and a disputed area of approximately 850 square kilometres which, potentially, is rich in oil and gas deposits.

Neither side is willing to modify its stance, the Lebanese claiming a maritime boundary that runs several kilometres to the south of the line approved by the Israeli cabinet on 10 July. International parties are pushing for a negotiated settlement to the dispute, but as the states are technically at war they will not negotiate. Compounding the problem is Lebanon's non-recognition of Israel. It has therefore proposed that the UN resolve the matter. The UN, for its part, says it cannot because UNIFIL holds no mandate to deal with maritime boundaries. Therefore, perhaps the most satisfactory course of action is for both parties to permit a mediation process to begin—face-to-face negotiations are, at best, unlikely and probably impossible—while the states explore for oil and gas outside of the disputed area. It has been argued that the continued uncertainty over the maritime boundaries will cause international investors to stay away from the Levantine Basin but, arguably, this is not clear cut. Energy companies are, for example, involved in exploration and exploitation activities in a number of disputed areas including the disputed waters off Morocco and Western Sahara.

Indeed, both parties are free to explore areas of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) that are undisputed. However, Lebanon, which perhaps has the stronger case in international law, has not yet begun any exploration of its own. Hezbollah plays an important role in the new Lebanese cabinet; its leader, Hassan Nazrallah, has warned Israel—which has carried out exploratory work—to stay away from Lebanon's offshore resources.

Sources: Channel News Asia, Daily Star (Lebanon), Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post

Migrant misery at Yemeni-Saudi border

A Saudi border guard looking into Yemen

Thirty migrants stranded on Yemen's border with Saudi Arabia have died in recent weeks, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Thousands of migrants are stranded in the Yemeni border town of Haradh, either still attempting to cross the border into Saudi Arabia, or having been deported out of the country and left at Harahdh with nothing more than the clothes on their back.

Most of the migrants are from Ethiopia, Somalia or Sudan, and have undertaken the long and dangerous journey across the Gulf of Aden, with the hope of settling in Saudi Arabia or other parts of the Middle East. Yemen is the major transit route for people from the Horn of Africa, and many of them are dehydrated, malnourished and in bad health by the time they reach Haradh.

Every day hundreds of illegal migrants are caught and sent back to Yemen, Saudi officials say. The Yemeni-Saudi border has historically been very porous. It was only officially demarcated in 2000 and until 2009 many villages dotted the border.

Since 2009, however, Saudi authorities have stepped up efforts to prevent unwanted border crossings, targetting not only migrants, but also drug smugglers and Yemen-based Al-Qa'ida opertives. Saudi authorities embarked on a multibillion dollar effort to strengthen the border. They evacuated dozens of villages straddling the border and built an elaborate defence network to keep intruders out.

Even with earthern berms, layers of barbed wire, floodlights and thermal cameras present, some still get through. “They adapt very quickly to every strategy we have,” Lt. Muhammad Qahtani, a Saudi border patrol veteran told the New York Times. Migrants wear their shoes backward to confuse trackers or strap sponges to their soles to prevent leaving footprints.

Migrants typically put up little resistence when caught, often too weak from the journey. “Some of them say, 'If you give me something to eat, I will go back,'" Qahtani says. Drug smugglers are a different story: many are heavily armed, and according to Qahtani will fight to the death when surrounded, knowing that drug traffickers are usually beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

The price of greater security in Saudi Arabia, however, is misery for the migrants. With no means of either continuing their journey or returning home, the migrants sleep out in the open, trying to survive on whatever scraps of food they can find.

The IOM works with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the UN to help the migrants, and have, since November this year, targeted 2,000 migrants in the area. Since 13th November, IOM have assisted 785 of the migrants to voluntarily return home after providing medical, shelter and food assistance, and they say that by early December, that number will have risen to over 1000.

“We are seeing a dramatic increase in migrants needing help. Over the past week, the number of migrants being referred to IOM has jumped to about 76 a day,” says the IOM's operations officer in Haradh, Bill Lorenz.

The IOM has received funds from the UN's Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to help migrants. They have established a centre in Haradh where they can provide shelter and basic health services to migrants wanting to return to Ethiopia. But with political instability and economic hardship continuing in the Horn of Africa, more migrants will continue to arrive.

Sources: ReliefWeb, New York Times

Border Focus: Eritrea and Djibouti

What is disputed?

At the centre of the dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti is a tiny strip of land at their border. The greater Horn of Africa region, however, has numerous border disputes.

What is the history of the dispute?

The accepted border is a result of a 1900 boundary agreement between colonial powers France (French Somaliland, now Djibouti) and Italy (Eritrea). They agreed that the international boundary starts at Cape Doumeira (Ras Doumeira) at the Red Sea and runs for 1.5km along the watershed devide of the peninsula. The 1900 protocol also specified that the Doumeira Island (Ile Doumeira), which lies just offshore, would not be assigned sovereignty and would remain demilitarised.

The border at Ras Doumeira was, however, never demarcated. The area itself is a hill, and it was simply agreed that the northern slopes of hill were Italian, the southern slopes, French. Upon independence, Eritrea and Djibouti accepted this arrangement.

The first major post-colonial dispute arose when, in April 1996, a Djibouti official accused Eritrea of shelling Ras Doumeira, and the two countries narrowly avoided going to war.
Problems arose again in 2008, when the Eritreans occupied the hilltop. The circumstances surrounding this event are somewhat disputed. Djiboutian sources report that in January, Eritrea requested to cross the border in order to get sand for a road, but instead occupied the territory, set up fortifications and dug trenches on both sides of the Djiboutian border. Djibouti also claimed that Eritrea had put out new maps showing Ras Doumeira as Eritrean territory.

Eritrean sources, however, note that Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki, met twice with Djiboutian officials, informing them that his country intended to build a demarcation on Ras Doumeira hill. It was not clear why Eritrea wanted to build such a demarcation, but it has been speculated that it might be connected to boundary disputes it has with other neighbours, including Ethiopia, Yemen and Somalia. It might also reflect Eritrea's discomfort with the presence of American and French bases in Djibouti; the main American base, 'Seven Sea' is less than 10km south of the hill.

Both sides fortified the hill and manned it with military personnel, and clashes between the two sides broke out in June 2008. Despite the military might of Eritrea, Djibouti's backing by the majority of the international community, including former colonial master France, meant that it was able to withhold the Eritrean forces. Still, 35 people died in the clashes and dozens of others were wounded.

After Djibouti requested UN intervention, a UN fact-finding mission was sent to the region. It was welcomed by Djibouti, but blocked by Eritrea, who refused to meet with it or with any envoy of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

In January 2009, the UN Security council adopted Resolution 1862, which demanded that Eritrea pulled its forces from the disputed area, and welcomed Djibouti's withdrawal of its forces to its positions before the dispute. A further resolution, 1907, imposed an arms embargo on Eritrea, admonishing the country for its lack of progress on resolving the border dispute with Djibouti, and for arming Somali insurgents such as Al-Shabaab.

Resolution options?

In June 2010, the two countries agreed to a Qatar-led mediation process, a move that was warmly welcomed by the African Union and the UN, although Ethiopia questioned Eritrea's sincerity.

The fact that Eritrea agreed to Qatar's mediation effort is a positive sign that it wants to reintegrate into the world community. Eritrean President Afewerki was instrumental in starting the talks, and 2010 has seen him striking more conciliatory tones towards neighbours.

In September 2010, Isaias welcomed UN special representative for Somalia to Asmara for talks, and voiced his full support for a peaceful solution to Somalia's problems. Eritrea has also tried to forge friendships with Qatar, Iran, Israel and Egypt.

Eritrea is on the brink of a potentially lucrative gold mining boom, and seems to be worried about being isolated. Ethiopia used to use Eritrean ports for Red Sea access, but in recent years has preferred Djibouti. The potential revenues from shipping could be another incentive to improve its global reputation.

For more information on this dispute, including consideration of the regional context, see the full Border Focus, here.