Suchergebnisse

This Article identifies a new trend in the adjudication of international boundary disputes and examines it from a historical and normative perspective. For many years, the resolution of international land boundary disputes was governed exclusively by the principle of the stability and continuity of boundaries. Under this paradigm, the main role of international adjudicators was to determine the exact location of historical boundary lines that had been set forth in colonial-era treaties or decrees. Once these lines were ascertained, they were strictly enforced, and any attempt to challenge them was dismissed. In recent years, however, international adjudicators have been increasingly inclined to deviate from historical boundaries in order to promote "human-oriented" goals such as the protection of borderland populations or the bolstering of peace efforts. After demonstrating this development in several cases, the Article evaluates its normative implications. For that purpose, the Article turns to Critical Border Studies (CBS), an emerging field within political geography that critically explores the sources, functions, and effects of borders. CBS sheds light on the power asymmetries that underlie the traditional paradigm and points to the need to adopt a more dynamic and equitable approach to boundary delineation. Drawing on CBS insights, as well as on recent boundary jurisprudence, the Article maps out several types of human-oriented considerations that international adjudicators should take into account when deciding boundary disputes and examines ways to balance them with the principle of the stability of boundaries. Beyond its contribution to the study and development of international boundary law, this Article demonstrates the broader potential of marrying international law with critical geography, which has, so far, mostly been overlooked.

Peace agreements can bring about serious injustices. For example, they may establish oppressive regimes, provide for the transfer of populations, or allocate natural resources in an inequitable manner. This Article argues that third-party facilitators--states and international organizations that act as mediators, donors, or peacekeepers--should have a responsibility to prevent such injustices. While the primary duty to ensure the justice of peace agreements resides with the governments that negotiate and sign them, directing regulation efforts only at those governments may prove insufficient in protecting human rights under the politically constrained circumstances of peacemaking. It is therefore necessary to complement the primary duties of negotiators with the secondary duties of facilitators, who can afford to contemplate long-term justice and sustainability considerations and often have considerable influence on negotiator decisions. This Article presents a novel theory of sovereign authority that provides a normative basis for holding facilitators responsible to help prevent peace-related injustices. In accordance with this theory, the governments of all the world's countries should collectively bear the responsibility for ensuring the compatibility of peace agreements with human rights norms. Peace facilitators, however, should be singled out to discharge this collective responsibility in view of their potential contribution to peace injustices and their special ability to prevent them. This Article explores ways to translate facilitator responsibilities into concrete legal obligations. The potential contribution of such obligations to promoting just and sustainable peace is demonstrated through a critical analysis of the treatment of justice issues in past peace negotiations in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan.