botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

entrepreneur to construct a tourist centre on the Island, and had no relation to the alleged
interest of people from the Caprivi to cultivate.
98. It may be recalled that the previous diplomatic episodes of 1948 to 1951 and 1984 to 1986
did not involve any issue relating to the use of the Island for agricultural purposes. The firstmentioned
concerned an application by the Zambezi Transportation and Trading Company to
use the northern channel for transporting timber by barges. The episode of 1984 to 1986
resulted from an incident involving South African Defence Forces and the Botswana Defence
Forces completely unrelated to use of the island for agricultural purposes.
99. The result of the informal initiative of the Namibian Deputy Minister on 6 March 1992
appears to have been the sending of the Honourable Dr. Gaositwe Chiepe, the Foreign
Minister of Botswana, as a Special Envoy to meet the President of Namibia. The Foreign
Minister was introduced by a letter dated 3 April 1992 in which the President of Botswana
affirmed the sovereignty of Botswana in respect of Kasikilu/Sedudu Island (Botswana
Counter-Memorial, Annex 45). The Court will note that in doing so, the President of
Botswana relied upon the Pretoria Agreement of 1984 and the resulting Joint Survey Report.
(Botswana Memorial, Annex 48).
100. Eventually the Governments of Botswana and Namibia agreed to accept the mediation of
His Excellency Robert G. Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the three Heads of State met at Kasane
on 24 May 1992. In the result it was agreed that the boundary question should be submitted
for decision by a Joint Team of Technical Experts: see the Official Communique issued at
Kasane on 24 May 1992 (Botswana Memorial, Annex 55).
(J) Conclusion
101. From this history the following features emerge:
First: there was no dispute in existence before 1948.
Secondly: the dispute emerged in the diplomatic correspondence between the British and
South African Governments in the period 1948 to 1951 and was identified as a dispute
concerning the identification of the main channel of the Chobe River for the purposes of
Article III of the Anglo-German Agreement.
Thirdly: the outcome of the correspondence in the period 1948 to 1951 was a clear and formal
reservation of legal rights by the British Government, a position which, as a matter of general
principle, Botswana inherited at the time of independence in 1966.
Fourthly: at no stage did Botswana relinquish the title inherited at independence or acquiesce
in any competing claim.
Fifthly: in 1984 the Governments of South Africa and Botswana entered into a legally binding
agreement to settle the dispute by means of a Joint Survey conducted by experts appointed by
the two Governments. In this context the dispute was again characterised in terms of the
identification of the main channel of the Chobe River for the purposes of the Anglo-German
Agreement. As the Report of the Joint Survey states under the heading 'Authority for Survey':