botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

552. Upon appropriate analysis, it appears that this passage asserts that, of the 41 serial maps
referred to by its cartographic expert Mr. D. Rushworth, only four, the Seiner map of 1909,
the British map of 1933, the South African map of 1949, and the UN map of 1985, place
Kasikili/Sedudu Island in Namibian territory.
553. The Court is respectfully requested to bear in mind four general propositions when
appraising the maps upon which Namibia seeks to rely.
Proposition (i): Only a Line placed in the river itself can indicate the boundary
554. The core issue, to which, if the map evidence is to be of any service, it must relate, is
which of the two channels encircling the Island is the main channel in accordance with Article
III of the 1890 Agreement. The location of Kasikili/ Sedudu Island can at best be of indirect
relevance. Only, therefore, a boundary drawn on one or other of the channels will be of
assistance to the Court in its task of determining the 'main channel' in accordance with Article
III. It is misleading, therefore, to assert, as Namibia does, as cited above, that "Maps of the
area, produced by all parties in interest, with substantial uniformity, portray Kasikili Island as
being located in Namibian territory" (Namibian Memorial, para.334). Namibia phrases its
assertion in this cautious manner, so that it may include, in its count of four maps in its
favour, those which depict the boundary as running along the bank, rather than the centre of
the river. Neither the 1933 nor the 1985 UN map show any boundary along the Chobe River,
and as discussed below, it is doubtful whether any boundary in the river is shown in the
Seiner map. This leaves the South African 1949 map which, as already stated, was published
after the dispute crystallised and is hence of a self-serving nature.
Proposition (ii): Maps drawn at too small a scale are not relevant
555. The majority of the available maps are drawn at too small a scale to represent accurately
the configuration and size of Kasikili/Sedudu Island and its northern and southern channel.
556. A proper awareness of scale is essential in appraisal and assessment of the relevance of
maps as evidence of boundaries. Mr Rushworth, as the cartographic expert employed by
Namibia, prefaces his Report with the warning:-
"2. In general maps of smaller scale than 1:1000,000 (sic 5) do not have sufficient detail to
affect this case, but some have been included because they have other properties or are part of
the developing story of the mapping of the area". (Namibian Memorial, Annex 102, p.31).
[5 Presumably a typographic error. It would seem Mr. Rushworth intended to restrict relevant maps to a scale of
1:100,000 or larger.]
557. The total area in dispute is less than 4 kilometres square. No map of scale smaller than
1:100,000 or 1 centimetre to 1 kilometre can provide an accurate portrayal of the geographical
features in relation to international boundaries. This offers a ready method by which to
identify the most relevant maps. Applying it, it is to be noted that the four maps, listed in
paragraph 551 above, on which Namibia relies, are all of smaller scale than 1:100,000. The
Seiner map and the 1933 British map are to a scale of 1:500,000, the UN map to 1:1,000,000.
Only the 1949 South African map is of a larger scale, and it is still only 1; 250,000.6
[6 The following maps are all of the required scale or larger: