Master's Thesis from the year 2018 in the subject Law - Miscellaneous, grade: A, University of Buea (faculty of laws and political science), course: LLM, language: English, abstract: The purpose of this research is to critically examine the resolution of interstate border disputes in Africa. In doing so, the disputes between Sudan and South Sudan over the Abyei and Heglig zones and the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea over Badme will be the main focus of the study. The main research question is: How effective are the laws and mechanisms put in place to resolve interstate border disputes in Africa? Africa as a continent is covered with a lot of interstate border disputes. It is true that international law has always considered as one of its fundamental purposes the maintenance of peace. Disputes are inevitable and no matter their nature, they are often accepted as a regular part of human relations. The major problem is always how to resolve them. The history of the African continent is characterized by interstate border disputes, which usually occurs around the border between two states, but also involve many other states. Most of the interstate disputes occur after the states become independent, when each becomes eager to know and secure its territorial boundaries with neighbours.

Increased tensions along the Ethiopian- Eritrean border —in a context of internal political turmoil in Ethiopia, increasing political repression in Eritrea, and recent developments in Somalia —raise concerns of expanding instability in the strategically important Horn of Africa. Avoiding Conflict in the Horn of Africa urges the United States to take the risks and spend the resources necessary to resolve the Ethiopia-Eritrea border conflict and thereby reduce tension in the region. It argues that Washington should pressure Ethiopia to demarcate the border and Eritrea to lift restrictions on the UN peacekeeping mission that monitors the border. Washington must also make clear to both countries the costs of continuing to suppress internal dissent —and highlight the benefits of initiating real internal reform and regional cooperation. In addition, the administration should be prepared to cut bilateral assistance programs and enact sanctions if political conditions deteriorate further. Finally, the United States, international donors, and organizations should support long-term peace-building initiatives.

The study utilises the UN's past role in both diplomatic and peacekeeping operations in the region, barriers that have been erected to the resolution of the border dispute, and efforts that the UN made to overcome these barriers. The Ethiopian-Eritrean border dispute in the Horn of Africa continues to significantly impede civil stability in the region. Despite multidimensional efforts made by the United Nations (UN), peace has yet to be brokered between the disputants. This study utilised an analysis of the border dispute in an effort to explore the effectiveness of the UN in conflict resolution, affording particular respect to the longstanding instability of the Horn of Africa region. Wholly qualitative in nature, the study used primary and secondary sources in its analysis of the UN's peacekeeping efforts and apparent barriers to those efforts; among these barriers was an inaccurate understanding of the socio political and socioeconomic landscape of the region. Economic instability in conjunction with cultural tensions supplement the enduring political conflicts in the Horn of Africa, thereby warranting attention to these variables when resolving conflicts and maintaining peace. The ability of civil unrest in the Horn of Africa to quickly escalate to disastrous, humanitarian crises is strong, and this study explored how the UN can avoid such unfortunate outcomes in the future through a better understanding of conflict-supporting variables unique to the Horn of Africa. The study examined both the diplomatic and peacekeeping role of the UN in resolving the Ethiopian-Eritrean border dispute before exploring barriers to resolution and UN efforts to surmount such barriers. The evidence clearly suggests that the UN should seek to empower regional organisations and adopt a more indirect role in border-conflicts, as the UN-created Boundary Commission fostered increasing hostilities toward international intervention. This study concludes by positing that the UN should reframe its role in civil disputes in the Horn of Africa region in order to empower, financially, politically, and otherwise, regional organisations such as the AU in brokering and maintaining peace.

Africa has experienced a number of territorial disputes over land and maritime boundaries, due in part to its colonial and post-colonial history. This book explores the legal, political, and historical nature of disputes over territory in the African continent, and critiques the content and application of contemporary International law to the resolution of African territorial and border disputes. Drawing on central concepts of public international law such as sovereignty and jurisdiction, and socio-political concepts such as colonialism, ethnicity, nationality and self-determination, this book interrogates the intimate connection that peoples and nations have to territory and the severe disputes these may lead to. Gbenga Oduntan identifies the major principles of law at play in relation to territorial, and boundary disputes, and argues that the predominant use of foreign based adjudicatory mechanisms in attempting to deal with African boundary disputes alienates those institutions and mechanisms from African people and can contribute to the recurrence of conflicts and disputes in and among African territories. He suggests that the understanding and application of multidisciplinary dispute resolution mechanisms and strategies can allow for a more holistic and effective treatment of boundary disputes. As an in depth study into the legal, socio-political and anthropological mechanisms involved in the understanding of territorial boundaries, and a unique synthesis of an African jurisprudence of international boundaries law, this book will be of great use and interest to students, researchers, and practitioners in African and Public International Law, International Relations, and decision-makers in need of better understanding the settlement of disputes over territorial boundaries in both Africa and the wider world.

Shows how regional and international interventions, combined with piracy, have compounded pre-existing tensions in the Horn of Africa.

The Horn of Africa, comprising Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia, is the most conflict-ridden region in Africa. This book explores the origins and impact of these conflicts at both a intra-state and inter-state level and the insecurity they create.The contributors show how regional and international interventions have compounded pre-existing tensions and have been driven by competing national interests linked to the "war on terror" and acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia. The Horn of Africa outlines proposals for multidimensional mechanisms for conflict resolution in the region. Issues of border demarcation, democratic deficit, crises of nation and state building, and the roles of political actors and traditional authorities are all clearly analyzed.

Master's Thesis from the year 2018 in the subject Social Studies (General), grade: 3.68, Addis Ababa University, language: English, abstract: The problem of cross border farmland conflict along the Ethio-Sudan border has been an alarming issue but it has never got scholars' attention. Therefore, the study aimed to investigate cross border land-based conflict in Metema woreda along the Ethio-Sudan border. Specifically, the study investigated the underlying causes of cross border land-based conflict, the role of the border in the conflict, its consequences and conflict resolution mechanisms. Therefore, to achieve the aforementioned aims, the study employed a qualitative research method of data collection which includes informal and semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, case studies and non-participant observation. The study finding shows, Ethiopian farmers who seasonally come from different areas of the Amhara region to the Ethio-Sudan contested borderland is among the causes of the conflict. In addition, the biased nature of the recent Metema woreda landholding reform process and the present Ethiopian government investment-led agricultural policy are also the reasons behind the conflict in the area. Further, the conflict has been intensified by the proliferation of illegal firearms in the borderland. Moreover, the prevalence of unclear and contested international borders has made the conflict to be worse. As a result, the conflict results in death, revenge, property destruction and creates an adverse impact on cross border socio-economic interactions of people in the borderland. In order to resolve the stated conflict, an official centered conflict resolution approach has been highly used in the area. However, occasionally local elders are invited by borderland officials to be involved in resolving the conflict. Generally, the contested nature of the Ethio-Sudan border has an adverse impact on the cross border land-based conflict. Pertaining to its