Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:45:55.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Succession to Treaties and International Fluvial Law in Africa: the Niger Regime*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

T. Maluwa
Get access

Extract

International fluvial law is one branch of international law that presents thestudent of international law with a seemingly irreconcilable paradox. On the one hand, judging from the scanty treatment often given to the issue in the standard treatises (and its almost complete absence from college syllabi), one could easily conclude that international fluvial law is only to be located on the periphery of international law; that it is a fringe subject, just as air law and space law were regarded only half a century ago. But, on the other hand, a more patient enquiry into the history and development of international law soon reveals that, in fact, international law has been concerned with the regulation of international watercourses (lakes, rivers, etc.,) for a long time, with individual pronouncements by publicists dating back to the writings of the acclaimed ‘fathers’ of international law: Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel. Viewed from this angle, then, international fluvial law, or the law of international watercourses, lies at the very core, rather than on the fringes, of the historical development of international law. Indeed, it is apt to observe that the history of the modern international organization, and thus the advent of the law of international institutions, dates back to the establishment of the various international commissions by European States in respect of some of the major international rivers in Europe between 1815 and 1866: the Rhine Commission (1815), the European Commission for the Danube (1856) and those dealing with the Elbe (1821), the Douro (1835), the Po (1849) and the Pruth (1866).

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 1986 , pp. 334 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For text of the treaty, see Hertslet, E., Commercial Treaties, vol. 17 (1890) p. 62Google Scholar.

2. The obvious exceptions here were the two States of Ethiopia and Liberia which, although acknowledged as ‘European-style’ sovereign States, were nevertheless not invited to take part in the Berlin West Africa Conference, nor had they ever been regarded and accepted as legitimate participants in the existing international legal order. As to the forceful argument regarding the international legal personality of the pre-colonial ‘traditional’ African States, see Elias, T.O., ‘African Law’, in Larson, A. et al. , eds., Sovereignty Within the Law (1965) p. 220Google Scholar; see also, Okoye, E.C., International Law and the New African States (1971) pp. 4–5Google Scholar, and Alexandrowicz, C.H., The European-African Confrontation (1973) pp. 9–13Google Scholar.

3. See, ILC Yearbook 1971, vol. 2 part 1, p. 350. The term ‘international watercourse’, which was adopted by the ILC, is thought preferable to ‘international river’ by the majority of modern writers on the subject. The concept is one that includes the international river itself, its tributary streams and rivers, and lakes and canals constituting part of a system. See, for example, Article II of the Helsinki Rules on ‘The Uses of the Waters of International Rivers’ in Rep. of 52nd Conf. of the ILA (Helsinki 1966) p. 477 et seq.

4. The Act and the Agreement were signed on 26 October 1963 and 25 November 1964, respectively.

5. See, Maluwa, T., ‘The Origins and Development of International Fluvial Law in Africa: a Study of the International Legal Regime of the Congo and Niger Rivers from 1885 to 1960’, 29 NILR (1982) p. 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. 2 BFSP, p. 52.

7. Martens, G.F. de, in NRG, vol. 9, p. 252Google Scholar.

8. Ibid. vol. 15, p. 770; see also, Israel, E., ed., Major Treaties of Modern History 1648–1967, vol. 3 (1967) p. 947Google Scholar.

9. De Martens, , loc. cit. n. 7, vol. 16 part 2, p. 75Google Scholar.

10. Ibid., 2nd series, vol. 1, p. 117.

11. Ibid., 2nd series, vol. 1, p. 143.

12. Ibid., 2nd series, vol 10, p. 294.

13. For text of General Act and Declaration, see 82 BFSP, p. 55.

14. 8 LNTS, p. 26.

15. 83 BFSP, p. 19.

16. See text in 64 RGDIP (1960) p. 878, also in 15 Revue Egyptienne de droit international (1959) p. 321.

17. 93 LNTS, p. 43; also, 160 BFSP, p. 106; Cmnd. 3348; for negotiations relating to the conclusion of the treaty, see Cmnd. 3050.

18. PCIJ Series A/B No. 63 (1934).

19. Ibid., p. 80.

20. Ibid., p. 135.

21. Ibid., p. 150.

22. Verzijl, J.H., International Law in Historical Perspective, vol I (1968) pp. 79–80Google Scholar, and see also the same author's Jurisprudence of the World Court, vol. I (1965) p. 395 et seq.Google Scholar

23. 99 BFSP, p. 968.

24. 130 BFSP, p. 265.

25. Hudson, M.O., International Legislation, vol. IV (1928–1929) p. 2378 at p. 2383Google Scholar.

25. 29 AJIL (1935) Supp., p. 657 at p. 661.

27. 8 ILM (1969) p. 679; see also, 63 AJIL (1969) p. 875.

28. de Gourcel, M., L'influence de la conference de Berlin de 1885 sur le droit colonial (1935) p. 354Google Scholar; Pinto, R., ‘La prescription en droit international’, 87 Hague Recueil (1955) p. 387 at p. 432Google Scholar. See also, ‘Congo Treaties in Disrepair’, in The Economist (25 June 1955).

29. De Gourcel, , op. cit. n. 28, pp. 329–330Google Scholar.

30. 74 BFSP, p. 86, also in Hertslet, E., A Collection of Treaties and Conventions etc., vol. 25 (1910) p. 880Google Scholar.

31. See O'Connell, D.P., State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, vol. II (1967) p. 37Google Scholar; see also F.O. Conf. 371/877, 26687/988/10/12; Gooch, G.P. and Temperley, H.W., Documents (British) on the Origins of the War (1898–1914) vol. VIII (1926) p. 492Google Scholar.

32. 26 LNTS, p. 173.

33. List of Commercial Treaties with Foreign Powers (HMSO Publication, 1940) p. 55Google Scholar.

34. See, Gorove, S., Law and Politics of the Danube (1964) p. 130Google Scholar.

35. G.F. de Martens, in NRG, 3rd series, vol. 37, part 3, p. 741.

36. Treaties in Force (US Dept. of State Publication, 1977) p. 257Google Scholar.

37. See,Maluwa, , loc. cit. n. 5, pp. 371–372Google Scholar.

38. The situation was given legislative recognition in the 1931 Statute of Westminster which declared, in respect of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, that no Act of the imperial Parliament could henceforth extend to the dominions without their own legislative consent. See generally, Fawcett, J.E.S., The British Commonwealth in International Law (1963)Google Scholar.

39. See, Anene, J., The International Boundaries of Nigeria, 1885–1960 (1970)Google Scholar; see also, Obichere, B., West African States and European Expansion (1971)Google Scholar.

40. Dareste, 1913, B.175 cited by O'Connell, D.P., ‘Independence and Succession to Treaties’, 38 BYIL (1962) p. 84Google Scholar at p. 112; see also, Bull. Civ. 1 No. 427.

41. Okoye, , op.cit. n. 2, p. 58Google Scholar.

42. Some of the leading scholarly works in this respect in the English language are: O'Connell, op. cit. n. 31, and his ‘Independence and Succession to Treaties’, 38 BYIL (1962) p. 84Google Scholar, and ‘Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States’, 130 Hague Recueil (1970) p. 95Google Scholar; Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 3rd edn. (1979) pp. 651–673Google Scholar; Udokang, O., Succession of New States to International Treaties (1972)Google Scholar; Verzijl, J.H., International Law in Historical Perspective, vol. VII (1974)Google Scholar; Jennings, R.Y., ‘General Course on Principles of International Law’, 121 Hague Recueil (1967) p. 437Google Scholar. As regards the position of African States in particular, see Okoye, , op. cit. n. 2, pp. 62–80Google Scholar; see also the extensive literature cited by D.P. O'Connell and I. Brownlie, ibid.

43. See generally, O'Connell, , op. cit. n. 3, vol 1, p. 9Google Scholar et seq. Although this theory reached its apogee only in the early 19th century, it had been imported into international law by the classical authorities: Grotius, H., De Jure Belli ac Pads, II Ch. 9, 10 (1925)Google Scholar; Pufendorf, S., De Jure Naturae et Gentium, II Ch. 9 s. 6 (1934)Google Scholar; Vattel, E., Le droit des Gens, II Ch. 12, p. 160 (1916)Google Scholar (all the editions referred to here were published as part of the ‘Carnegie Classics of International Law’).

44. Brownlie, , op. cit. n. 42, pp. 665–666Google Scholar. This is the notion of the unfettered will of all sovereigns.

45. See, for instance, Brownlie, , op.cit. n. 42Google Scholar; Hershey, A.S., The Essentials of International Public Law and Organization (1927) pp. 216–228Google Scholar; Fenwick, C.G., International Law (1965) pp. 173–175Google Scholar; Brierly, J.L., Law of Nations, 6th edn. (1963) p. 153Google Scholar. See also, Greig, D.W., International Law, 2nd edn. (1976) p. 15 and p. 512 et seq.Google Scholar

46. McNair, A.D., The Law of Treaties (1961) p. 605Google Scholar.

47. Adopted on 22 August 1978. This Convention still awaits the final (15th) instrument of ratification before it can enter into force, and like the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) it is not retroactive in effect. See, The Work of the International Law Commission, UN Pub. Sales No. E.80.V.11. p. 299; also 17 ILM (1978) p. 1488.

48. O'Connell, , op. cit. n. 31Google Scholar.

49. Brownlie, , op. cit. n. 42, pp. 666–667Google Scholar.

50. Hall, W.E., Treatise on International Law (1924) p. 115Google Scholar; McNair, , op. cit. n. 46, pp. 655–664Google Scholar; Brierly, , op. cit. n. 45, p. 153Google Scholar.

51. See commentary on Arts. 11 and 12 in ILC Yearbook 1974, vol. 2, p. 183.

52. LNOJ Special Supp. No. 3 (1920) p. 3.

53. Cmnd. No. 1214; see also, 384 UNTS (1961) p. 209.

54. O'Connell, , op. cit. n. 31, p. 371Google Scholar; but see also the views of Lauterpacht, E., ‘State Succession and Agreements for the Inheritance of Treaties’, 7 ICLQ (1956) p. 514CrossRefGoogle Scholar;Panhuys, H.F. van, ‘La succession de l'lndonél'Indonésie aux accords internationaux conclus par les Pays-Bas avant l'indépendence de rindon&ie’, 2 NILR (1955) p. 67Google Scholar.

55. ILC Yearbook 1962, vol. II, p. 122.

56. See similar view in Udokang, , op. cit. n. 42, p. 203Google Scholar.

57. See U.D. Doc. A/CN.4/150 p. 31 para. 87.

58. Ibid., p. 114.

59. See n. 55 supra.

60. Vattel, , op. cit. n. 43, p. 178Google Scholar.

61. Lester, A.P., ‘State Succession to Tl-eaties in the Commonwealth’, 12 ICLQ (1963) p. 475 at pp. 496–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. Okoye, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 52.Google Scholar

63. For this view see Keith, A.B., The Theory of State Succession with Reference to English and Colonial Law (1907) p. 22Google Scholar. But Westlake, J. also used the term ‘transitory’ as a synonym for ‘dispositive’: see his International Law (1904) pp. 60–62Google Scholar.

64. The Nile Waters Question (Publication of the Sudanese Ministry of Irrigation and Hydro-Electric Power, 1955) pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

65. 596 H.C. Deb. 5th sen, col. 342, 26 November 1958.

66. Bardonnet, D., Annales Malgaches, vol. 1 (1964) p. 2Google Scholar.

67. The Times (London, 9 11 1959) p. 11Google Scholar.

68. See,O'Connell, , op. cit. n. 31, p. 247Google Scholar.

69. Cmnd. 9132, 9642; see also British Treaty Series (1954) no. 30.

70. But these States were Belgian colonies, so that the question of the UK-Egypt Treaty devolving upon them does not even arise.

71. See Parry, C., in Consolidated Treaty Series, vol. 201, p. 182Google Scholar.

72. Martens, G.F. de, in Recueil de Traités, vol. 1, p. 104Google Scholar.

73. Malloy, W.M., Treaties, Conventions, International Acts (etc.) between the USA and other Powers, 1776–1909, vol. I (1910) p. 586Google Scholar.

74. Reid, H., International Servitudes in Law and Practice (1932) p. 157Google Scholar.

75. For this view, see Reid, ibid., p. 158.

76. Basdevant, J., Traités et conventions en vigueur entre la France et les Puissances itrangeres, vol III (1922) p. 352Google Scholar.

77. Ibid., p. 356.

78. Ibid., p. 357.

79. de Martens, G.F., in NRG, 3rd series, vol. 21, p. 460Google Scholar.

80. La Documentation francaise, Notes et etudes documentaires (1951) no. 1425, p. 9Google Scholar; also in 18 Rev. Jur. et Pol. (1964) p. 185.

81. Annuaire Francois (1962) p. 112. Text also available in Decree No. 73-NG, 17 March 1955, Congo Bao Viet-Nam, 1955, p. 670 at p. 701.

82. O'Connell, , op. cit. n. 31, p. 308Google Scholar.

83. Oppenheim, L.F., International Law, vol. 1, 8th edn. (1958) p. 536Google Scholar.

84. Among these critics are: McNair, A.D., ‘So-called State Servitudes’, 6 BYIL (1925)Google Scholar; Keith, op. cit. n. 63; Crusen, G., ‘Les servitudes Internationales’, 22 Hague Recueil (1928) p. 31Google Scholar. See also, Jennings, , loc. cit. n. 42, p. 442Google Scholar.

85. See, for example, O'Connell, , op. cit. n. 31, p. 19Google Scholar.

86. Brownlie, , op. cit. n. 42, p. 667Google Scholar; Castren, E.J., ‘La Succession d'Etats’, 78 Hague Recueil (1951) p. 385Google Scholar.

87. It may be noted in passing that some writers on the subject are of the mistaken view that the abrogation of the Convention of St. Germain and the other pre-1963 treaties is contained in Art. 9 of the Act of Niamey. See, for example, Fisseha, F., ‘State Succession and the Legal Status of International Rivers’, in Caflisch, L. and Zacklin, R., eds., The Legal Regime of International Rivers and Lakes (1981) pp. 177–202Google Scholar at p. 191 and pp. 175–200. These writers would appear to mistake Art. 9 of the proposed statute, which originally contained the provision abrogating these treaties, for the actual Art. 9 finally adopted in the Act of Niamey on 26 October 1963. The present Art. 9 of the 1963 Act in fact concerns the registration of the treaty with the Secretary General of the United Nations in accordance with Art. 102 of the UN Charter.

88. See Elias, T.O., ‘The Berlin Treaty and the Niger River Commission’, 57 AJIL (1963) p. 873 at p. 880CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89. Note by American Ambassador Stevenson at the United Nations to Secretary of State Rusk, A-1511, 20 March 1963, MS Dept. of State, file Pol. 4, cited by Whiteman, M.M., Digest of International Law, vol. 2 (1963) pp. 1002–1003Google Scholar.

90. See n. 36 supra. See also previous issues of publication under reference since 1963.

91. Although this area of the law is still both uncertain and controversial, the various United Nations Resolutions on the matter can be said to provide a reasonable guide. The starting point is General Assembly Resolution 523 (VI) of 12 January 1952 which was followed by Resolution 626 (VII) of 21 December 1952. Later resolutions relating to this matter include Resolutions 1314 (XIII) of 12 December 1958 and 1515 (XV) of December 1960. See also resolution entitled ‘Right to Exploit Freely Natural Wealth and Resources’ (Resolution 626 (VII) of 14 December 1962).

92. E/C. 7/2/add.6.

93. See, for example, Official Records of ECOSOC, 52nd sess., Supp. No. 5 (E/5097 and corr. 1) para. 20; also 54th sess., supp. No. 4 (E/5247) paras. 114, 129–137; and see further, 44th sess., supp. No. 3 (E/4177) part III. See also an early statement by the UN Secretary-General to this end: Survey of International Law, document A/CN.4/1/Rev. 1 (UN Pub. Sales No. 1948. V.I.(l)) p. 34 para. 57.

94. 8 ILM (1969) p. 679.

95. O'Connell, D.P., ‘Independence and Problems of State Succession’, in O'Brien, W.V., ed., The New Nations in International Law and Diplomacy (1965) p. 14Google Scholar.

96. Piedelievre, M., Précis de droit international public ou droit des Gens (1894) p. 165Google Scholar.

97. 79 BFSP, p. 18.

98. See Elias, loc. cit. n. 88.