Revisting the Kasikili-Sedudu island Territorial Dispute Between Namibian and Bostwana.docx (original) (raw)
Related papers
A New Approach to the Territorial Dispute Involving a Former Colonizer-Colony Pari
Korea Observer
Given that most states in the international system were once ruled as colonies or other dependencies of at least one foreign power, many scholars have examined the effects of colonialism. We study one such topic, territorial dispute between a former colony and its former colonial ruler. In particular, we look at one such pair, Japan and Korea, with the territorially disputed islet of Dokdo-Takeshima. Until now, both policy-makers and scholars alike have emphasized the importance of past history and international law. In this paper, we argue that plausible historical and legal arguments are not adequate for explaining the current deadlock and predicting the future outcome of the dispute, an important element of social science research. In this paper, we see the territorial dispute as a strategic issue based on citizens' utilities/preferences over the dispute. With that in mind, we introduce two different types of utility Japan and Korea have over Dokdo-Takeshima and show how the disputed islet can be valued differently depending upon the weights of these two different types of utility. Utilizing two different types of utility functions and a bargaining model, we predict the most likely outcome of the dispute, which is (very close to) the Status Quo. Given the current state of the relative importance of the two different types of utilities in Japan and Korea, any kind of negotiated settlement between the two countries is unlikely. Successful bargaining on the issue of the islet will only be possible when the preferences of the citizens of these countries undergo a fundamental change about what is important and what is not. We conclude by discussing some scenarios in which preferences of Japan and Korea over the disputed islet may change.
South African Land Restitution, White Claimants and the Fateful Frontier of Former KwaNdebele
Journal of Southern African Studies
South African land restitution, through which the post-apartheid state compensates victims of racial land dispossession, has been intimately linked to former homelands: prototypical rural claims are those of communities that lost their rights in land when being forcibly relocated to reserves, and they now aspire to return to their former homes and lands from their despised 'homelands'. However, white farmers, who were also dispossessed (although usually compensated) by the apartheid state in its endeavour to consolidate existing homelands, have lodged restitution claims as well. While the Land Claims Court has principally admitted such restitution claims and ruled upon the merits of individual cases, state bureaucrats, legal activists, and other members of the public have categorically questioned and challenged such claims to land rights by whites. Focusing on white land claimaints affected by the consolidation of former KwaNdebele, this article investigates the contested field of moral entitlements emerging from divergent discourses about the true victims and beneficiaries of apartheid. It pays particular attention to land claims pertaining to the western frontier of KwaNdebele-the wider Rust de Winter area, which used to be white farmland expropriated in the mid-1980s for consolidation (which never occurred) and currently vegetates as largely neglected no-man's-(state-)land under multiple land claims. Being the point of reference for state officials, former white farmers, Ndebele traditionalists, local residents, and other citizens and subjects, this homeland frontier is hence analysed as a fateful zone of contestation, in which the terms of a new South African moral community are negotiated.
Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan
This paper investigates how international law helped Nigeria and Cameroon settle their territorial dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula from 1999 to 2008. The study utilized the case study research design with a qualitative approach which enabled data to be derived from various sources, including documentary records and semi-structured elite interviews. The findings showed that the ICJ’s ruling in October 2002 did not address urgent and immediate compliance. All subsequent attempts at arbitration were guided by the law established by the dispute resolution in the form of an award. Every diplomatic tactic employed was modified to follow the court’s ruling, resulting in a peaceful conclusion of the conflict and enhancing the continued importance of law in international interactions between states.
Development and Change, 2014
Based on a case study of the so-called 'Kafferskraal' land claim, this article scrutinizes the ongoing land restitution process in post-apartheid South Africa with regard to its capacity to provide a transition towards 'justice'. After sketching the legal and institutional setup of land restitution, the justice of the actual restitution process is explored with reference to conflicting interpretations by various actors involved in this exemplary case. Here, a focus on divergent understandings of what historically constituted valid rights in land as well as forms of past compensation reveals continuing discrepancies regarding the legitimacy of various property regimes. These differences, leading to divergent evaluations of 'the justice' of this claim's final outcome, are shown to be ultimately rooted in incompatible logics of exceptionality and the ordinary, which conceive of land restitution in terms of either 'law making' or 'law preserving'. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of such a configuration of land restitution as a measure of transitional justice.
Anthropology in the World Court: The 1966 South-West Africa Case
2004
The 1966 International Court of Justice's refusal to hear a complaint against South Africa for not administering SouthWest Africa according to the League of Nations Mandates charter might be a minor blimp in the Court's history, but it generated an exceptional amount of mental and intellectual effort and energy. The source of the conflict lay in South Africa's refusal to recognize the United Nations as the legal successor to the League of Nations. Thus, South Africa refused to hand over its Mandated Territory of SouthWest Africa to the United Nations to be administered as a Trusteeship Territory, and continued to administer SouthWest Africa as if it were still a Mandate. Six years before, in 1960, Liberia and Ethiopia, two countries that had been members of the League of Nations and thus had the necessary locus standi in judicio, had taken South Africa to the World Court. Charging that the United Nations was the legal successor to the League of Nations, Liberia and Ethiopia had demanded that the Mandate awarded to South Africa by the League to administer South West Africa be revoked on the grounds that South Africa had acted in bad faith by neglecting to fulfill Article 2 of the Mandate-"To promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory." South Africa's rejoinder was that the ultimate end it was pursuing in the Territory-Apartheid-was in accordance with enlightened and liberal opinion.