botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice
botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice
botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(C) The Legal Status of the Island<br />
800. The provisions of Article 1 of the Special Agreement also ask the <strong>Cour</strong>t 'to <strong>de</strong>termine ...<br />
the legal status of the island'. In this context, the Submissions of both parties ask the <strong>Cour</strong>t to<br />
<strong>de</strong>clare that sovereignty in respect of Kasikili/Sedudu Island inheres, respectively, in<br />
Botswana or in Namibia.<br />
801. It is significant that neither party has proposed any alternative application of the phrase<br />
'legal status'. This is not very surprising. It is difficult to conceive of an alternative application<br />
of the phrase which would be compatible with the provisions of the Anglo-German<br />
Agreement of 1890.<br />
802. In Article 1 of the Special Agreement, the <strong>Cour</strong>t is asked to <strong>de</strong>termine the boundary 'on<br />
the basis of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1 July 1890 and the rules and principles of<br />
<strong>international</strong> law.' The presumption which this formulation creates is the primacy of the<br />
Anglo-German Agreement, which prescribes a boundary with the obvious function of<br />
separating two areas subject to British and German sovereignty respectively. Accordingly,<br />
both parties in their Submissions have asked the <strong>Cour</strong>t to <strong>de</strong>clare the sovereignty of the party<br />
concerned in respect of Kasikili/Sedudu Island. In the words of the Namibian Submissions:<br />
"The legal status of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is that it is a part of the territory un<strong>de</strong>r the<br />
sovereignty of Namibia'. (Namibian Memorial, p.141).<br />
(D) Conclusion<br />
803. In the opinion of the Government of Botswana the task of the <strong>Cour</strong>t is clearly <strong>de</strong>fined in<br />
the Special Agreement as the <strong>de</strong>termination of the 'the boundary between Namibia and<br />
Botswana around Kasikili/Sedudu Island', and inclu<strong>de</strong>s a <strong>de</strong>termination of the precise location<br />
of the boundary and not only the i<strong>de</strong>ntification of the 'main channel'.<br />
__________<br />
SUBMISSIONS<br />
Having regard to the consi<strong>de</strong>rations set forth in the Memorial and Counter-Memorial<br />
presented on behalf of the Republic of Botswana and maintaining without change the<br />
submissions presented in the Memorial,<br />
May it please the <strong>Cour</strong>t to adjudge and <strong>de</strong>clare that:<br />
(1) The northern and western channel of the Chobe River in the vicinity of Kasikili/Sedudu<br />
Island constitutes the 'main channel' of the Chobe River in accordance with the provisions of<br />
Article III(2) of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1890; and that:<br />
(2) Consequently, sovereignty in respect of Kasikili/Sedudu Island vests exclusively in the<br />
Republic of Botswana.