in the matter of an arbitration before a tribunal constituted

286 Pages·2009·3.1 MB·English

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN AND THE
SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT/ARMY
ON DELIMITING ABYEI AREA

- and -

THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION OPTIONAL RULES
FOR ARBITRATING DISPUTES BETWEEN TWO PARTIES
OF WHICH ONLY ONE IS A STATE

- between -

THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN

- and -

THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT/ARMY

FINAL AWARD

The Arbitral Tribunal:
Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy (Presiding Arbitrator)
H.E. Judge Awn Al-Khasawneh
Professor Dr. Gerhard Hafner
Professor W. Michael Reisman
Judge Stephen M. Schwebel

Registry:
Permanent Court of Arbitration

The Peace Palace, The Hague
July 22, 2009
AGENTS, COUNSEL, AND
OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES

GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION
MOVEMENT/ARMY
(cid:1) Ambassador Dirdeiry Mohamed Ahmed, (cid:1) Dr. Riek Machar Teny, Vice President,
Dirdeiry & Co., Khartoum, Sudan, as Government of Southern Sudan and
Agent Deputy Chairman, Sudan People’s
(cid:1) Dr. Faisal Abdel Rahman Ali Taha, Liberation Movement, Juba, Sudan, as
Permanent Boundaries Committee, Abu Agent
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, as Co- (cid:1) Dr. Luka Biong Deng, Minister of
Agent Presidential Affairs, Government of
(cid:1) Dr. Abdelrahman Ibrahim Elkhalifa, Southern Sudan, Juba, Sudan, as Agent
Khartoum, Sudan, as Co-Agent (cid:1) Mr. Gary Born, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
(cid:1) Professor James Crawford, Q.C., SC, Hale and Dorr LLP, London, United
F.B.A., Whewell Professor of Kingdom, as Counsel
International Law, University of (cid:1) Ms. Wendy Miles, Wilmer Cutler
Cambridge, member of the Institut de Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
droit international, as Counsel and United Kingdom, as Counsel
Advocate (cid:1) Professor Paul R. Williams, Public
(cid:1) Dr. Nabil Elaraby, former Judge of the International Law & Policy Group,
International Court of Justice, Director of Arlington, Virginia, USA, as Counsel
the Cairo Regional Centre for (cid:1) Ms. Vanessa Jiménez, Public
International Commercial Arbitration, as International Law & Policy Group,
Counsel and Advocate Arlington, Virginia, USA, as Counsel
(cid:1) Professor Alain Pellet, University of Paris (cid:1) Mr. Charlie Caher, Wilmer Cutler
Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, member and Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
former Chairman of the International Law United Kingdom, as Counsel
Commission, associate member of the (cid:1) Ms. Kate Davies, Wilmer Cutler
Institut de droit International, as Counsel Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
and Advocate United Kingdom, as Counsel
(cid:1) Mr. Rodman Bundy, avocat à la Cour (cid:1) Ms. Anna Holloway, Wilmer Cutler
d’appel de Paris, Member of the New Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
York Bar, Eversheds LLP, Paris, as United Kingdom, as Counsel
Counsel and Advocate (cid:1) Ms. Daisy Joye, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
(cid:1) Ms. Loretta Malintoppi, avocat à la Cour Hale and Dorr LLP, London, United
d’appel de Paris, Member of the Rome Kingdom, as Counsel
Bar, Eversheds LLP, Paris, as Counsel (cid:1) Ms. Inken Knief, Wilmer Cutler
and Advocate Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
(cid:1) Ms. Angelynn Meya, avocat à la Cour United Kingdom, as Counsel
d’appel de Paris, Member of the New (cid:1) Mr. Timothy Lindsay, Wilmer Cutler
York and Connecticut Bars, Eversheds Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
LLP, Paris, as Legal Advisor United Kingdom, as Counsel
(cid:1) Mr. Jacques Hartmann, Research (cid:1) Mr. Oliver Spackman, Wilmer Cutler
Associate, Lauterpacht Centre for Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
International Law, University of United Kingdom, as Counsel
Cambridge, as Legal Advisor (cid:1) Ms. Anna-Maria Tamminen, Wilmer
(cid:1) Ms. Céline Folsché, Member of the New Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
York Bar, Researcher at the Centre de London, United Kingdom, as Counsel
Droit International (University of Paris (cid:1) Ms. Lisa Tomas, Wilmer Cutler
Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense), as Legal Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
Advisor United Kingdom, as Counsel
(cid:1) Mr. Paul Baker, Trainee Solicitor, (cid:1) Mr. Jason Fisher, Wilmer Cutler
Eversheds LLP, Paris, as Legal Advisor Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, London,
(cid:1) Mr. Charles Alexander, Research United Kingdom, as Counsel
Assistant, Lauterpacht Centre for (cid:1) Ms. Bridget Rutherford, Public
International Law, University of International Law & Policy Group,
Cambridge, as Legal Advisor Arlington, Virginia, USA, as Counsel
(cid:1) Mr. Alastair Macdonald, former Director (cid:1) Ms. Meghan Stewart, Public International
of Surveys and Production, former acting Law & Policy Group, Arlington, Virginia,
Director General at the Ordnance Survey USA, as Counsel
of Great Britain, former Member of (cid:1) Ms. Courtney Nicolaisen, Public
Council of the Royal Geographical International Law & Policy Group,
Society and former President of Arlington, Virginia, USA, as Assistant
Commission IV of the International Counsel
Society of Photogrammetry and Remote (cid:1) Mr. Anand Shah, Public International
Sensing, as Expert Law & Policy Group, Arlington, Virginia,
(cid:1) Mr. Martin Pratt, Director of Research, USA, as Assistant Counsel
International Boundaries Research Unit, (cid:1) Professor Martin Daly, Maine, USA
Durham University, UK, as Technical (cid:1) Dr. Peter Poole, Quebec, Canada
Advisor (cid:1) Professor John Anthony Allan, Professor
(cid:1) Ms. Eleanor Scudder, Research of Geography at King's College, London,
Associate, International Boundaries United Kingdom
Research Unit, Durham University, UK, (cid:1) Mr. Richard Schofield, Senior Lecturer in
as Technical Advisor Boundary Studies, Department of
(cid:1) Mr. Abdel-Rasul El-Nour, Former Geography, King's College, London,
Governor of Kordofan United Kingdom and Director of Menas
(cid:1) Professor Yousif Fadl Hasan, Professor of Borders Limited
Arab and Islamic History, Former Vice (cid:1) Mr. Scott Edmonds, President,
Chancellor, University of Khartoum International Mapping
(cid:1) Dr. Hasan Abdin, Associate Professor of (cid:1) Mr. Alex Tait, Vice-President,
African History, University of Khartoum, International Mapping
Former Under-Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
(cid:1) Dr. Mohamed Osman El-Sammani,
Associate Professor of Geography and
Environmental Studies, University of
Khartoum
(cid:1) Dr. Suliman El-Debailo, Associate
Professor, Gerzira University
(cid:1) Mr. Mohamed Nimir Babu Nimir,
Advocate and Commissioner, Sudan Bar
(cid:1) Mr. El-Amin Mohamed Bannaga,
Surveyor
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF MAPS..........................................................................................................................i
GLOSSARY OF NAMES..........................................................................................................ii
CHAPTER I – PROCEDURAL HISTORY..............................................................................1
A. The Arbitration Agreement.....................................................................................1
B. Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.......................................................................2
C. Commencement and Timing of Arbitration Proceedings........................................4
D. Preliminary Procedural Meeting.............................................................................4
E. Deposits and the PCA Financial Assistance Fund..................................................6
F. Written Pleadings Phase of the Proceedings...........................................................7
G. Tribunal’s request for Certain Documents; Access to the Archives of Sudan......10
H. Allegations of Witness Intimidation......................................................................16
I. Request For Funding.............................................................................................17
J. Appointment of Experts........................................................................................19
K. Oral Pleadings Phase of the Proceedings..............................................................21
L. Rendering of the Final Award...............................................................................28
CHAPTER II – INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................32
A. Geography.............................................................................................................32
1. The Republic of Sudan.................................................................................32
2. Northern Sudan............................................................................................34
3. Southern Sudan............................................................................................35
4. The Abyei Location, the Ngok Dinka, and the Misseriya...........................35
B. Historical Context..................................................................................................37
1. First and Second Civil Wars........................................................................37
2. Negotiations for Peace.................................................................................38
(a) Machakos Protocol 2002....................................................................38
(b) The Abyei Protocol.............................................................................38
(c) The Abyei Appendix..........................................................................39
(d) Comprehensive Peace Agreement......................................................40
(e) Interim National Constitution.............................................................40
3. ABC Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure......................................40
4. ABC Experts’ Report...................................................................................41
5. Abyei Road Map and Arbitration Agreement..............................................45
CHAPTER III – SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS.......................................47
A. Excess of Mandate.................................................................................................47
1. “Excess of Mandate” Conceptions...............................................................47
2. Procedural Excess of Mandate Arguments..................................................48
(a) Preliminary Argument: Procedural Excesses as a Basis for
Claiming Excess of Mandate..............................................................48
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................48
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................49
(b) The ABC Experts Allegedly Took Evidence from Ngok Dinka
Informants without Procedural Safeguards and without
Informing the GoS..............................................................................51
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................51
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................52
(c) The ABC Experts Allegedly Unilaterally Sought and Relied on
the Millington E-mail, without Notice to the GoS, to Establish
Their Interpretation of the Formula....................................................54
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................54
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................55
(d) The ABC Experts Allegedly Failed to Act through the
Commission, and to Seek Consensus, in Reaching Their
Decision..............................................................................................56
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................56
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................57
3. Substantive Excess of Mandate Arguments.................................................58
(a) Introduction........................................................................................58
(i) GoS Argument...........................................................................58
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................59
(b) The ABC Experts Allegedly Refused to Decide the Question
Asked..................................................................................................60
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................60
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................61
(c) The ABC Experts Allegedly Answered a Different Question
Than That Asked................................................................................61
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................61
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................62
(d) The ABC Experts Allegedly Ignored the Stipulated Date of 1905....63
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................63
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................64
(e) The ABC Experts Allegedly Allocated Grazing Rights.....................65
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................65
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................66
4. Violation of Mandatory Criteria in carrying out the Mandate.....................67
(a) Introduction........................................................................................67
(b) The ABC Experts Allegedly Failed to Provide Reasons Capable
of Forming the Basis of a Valid Decision..........................................68
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................68
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................70
(c) The ABC Experts Allegedly Decided Based On “Equitable
Division”/Taken Ex Aequo Et Bono...................................................71
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................71
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................72
(d) The ABC Experts Allegedly Applied Unspecified Legal
Principles In Determining Land Rights..............................................73
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................73
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................73
(e) The ABC Experts Allegedly Took into Account the Location of
Oil Fields in Deciding on the Transferred Area.................................74
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................74
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................75
5. Admissibility of Excess of Mandate Claims................................................76
(a) The GoS Allegedly Waived its Objections to the ABC Experts’
Report.................................................................................................76
(i) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................76
(ii) GoS Arguments.........................................................................77
(b) The GoS is Allegedly Bound by the Principles of Presumptive
Finality...............................................................................................78
(i) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................78
(ii) GoS Arguments..........................................................................78
B. Delimitation of the Abyei Area.............................................................................78
1. The scope of the Tribunal’s mandate under Article 2(c) of the
Arbitration Agreement.................................................................................79
(a) GoS Arguments..................................................................................79
(b) SPLM/A Arguments..........................................................................80
2. The interpretation of the definition of the Abyei Area as set out in the
Abyei Protocol and the Arbitration Agreement...........................................80
(a) The plain language and grammatical interpretation of the
Formula set out in Section 1.1.2 of the Abyei Protocol and
Article 2(c) of the Arbitration Agreement..........................................81
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................81
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................84
(b) The purposes underlying the definition of the Abyei Area set out
in Section 1.1.2 of the Abyei Protocol and Article 2(c) of the
Arbitration Agreement.......................................................................86
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................86
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................88
(c) The drafting history of the Abyei Protocol.........................................89
(i) GoS Arguments..........................................................................89
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments..................................................................91
3. The relevance of the Kordofan/Bahr el Ghazal boundary to the
delimitation of the area transferred in 1905.................................................93
(a) Did the Bahr el Arab constitute a precise and proclaimed
provincial boundary between Kordofan and Bahr el Ghazal and
the northern limit of the area transferred in 1905?.............................93
(i) The state of Condominium knowledge and administration
of the Abyei region in 1905......................................................93
(x) GoS Arguments...............................................................93
(y) SPLM/A Arguments........................................................94
(ii) The extent of the confusion regarding the location of the
Bahr el Arab..............................................................................95
(x) GoS Arguments...............................................................95
(y) SPLM/A Arguments........................................................97
(iii) The Bahr el Arab as the alleged definitive boundary
between Kordofan and Bahr el Ghazal prior to 1905...............99
(x) GoS Arguments...............................................................99
(y) SPLM/A Arguments......................................................101
(iv) The alleged description in the 1905 transfer documents of
the provincial boundary as the northern limit of the
transferred area........................................................................102
(x) GoS Arguments.............................................................102
(y) SPLM/A Arguments......................................................103
(b) Post-1905 depictions of the alleged boundary and transferred
area...................................................................................................104
(i) GoS Arguments........................................................................104
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments................................................................106
4. The location of the nine Ngok Dinka Chiefdoms in 1905.........................107
(a) The location of the Ngok Dinka prior to 1905.................................107
(i) The migration to, and settlement in, the Abyei region of the
Ngok Dinka in the 18th and 19th century.................................107
(x) GoS Arguments.............................................................107
(y) SPLM/A Arguments......................................................108
(ii) The effects of the Mahdiyya on the Ngok Dinka and
Misseriya.................................................................................108
(x) GoS Arguments............................................................108
(y) SPLM/A Arguments......................................................109
(iii) The location of the Ngok Dinka from the late 19th century
through 1905...........................................................................110
(x) Alleged limitations affecting the pre-1905
documentary record.................................................................110
(1) GoS Arguments.....................................................110
(2) SPLM/A Arguments.............................................110
(y) Location of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms in the
documentary record from the late 19th century through
1905 .......................................................................................112
(1) GoS Arguments....................................................112
(2) SPLM/A Arguments............................................113
(iv) Alleged Centrality of Abyei Town Prior to the 1905
Transfer...................................................................................116
(x) GoS Arguments............................................................116
(y) SPLM/A Arguments.....................................................117
(b) The location of the Ngok Dinka after 1905......................................118
(i) GoS Arguments........................................................................118
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments................................................................122
(c) The relevance of post-1905 demographic, cultural and
environmental evidence to the location of the Ngok Dinka in
1905..................................................................................................128
(i) GoS Arguments........................................................................128
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments................................................................130
(d) The probative value of post-1905 witness evidence based on oral
tradition in relation to early 20th century events...............................134
(i) GoS Arguments........................................................................134
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments................................................................136
(e) Probative Value of the SPLM/A “Tribal Maps” and Community
Map...................................................................................................138
(i) GoS Arguments........................................................................138
(ii) SPLM/A Arguments................................................................139
CHAPTER IV – ANALYSIS OF THE TRIBUNAL.............................................................140
A. The Tribunal’s Task pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement..............................140
1. The Two Stages of Review Under the Arbitration Agreement..................140
2. The Tribunal’s Task pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Arbitration
Agreement is Limited................................................................................141
(a) The Sequence of Article 2 Prohibits a de novo Review of the
ABC’s Findings under Article 2(a)..................................................141
(b) Legal Principles of Institutional Review Suggest that the
“Correctness” of a Decision Is Beyond Review...............................142
(c) Conclusion........................................................................................146
3. The Scope of the Tribunal’s Authority under Article 2 to Declare an
Excess of Mandate Respecting Certain Parts of the ABC Experts’
Report, while Retaining the ABC Experts’ Core Conclusions..................147
(a) The Arbitration Agreement, Properly Interpreted, Permits Partial
Nullity Under Appropriate Circumstances.......................................147
(b) Relevant General Principles of Law and Practices Permit Partial
Nullity Under Appropriate Circumstances.......................................148
4. The Applicable Law Governing these Proceedings...................................153
B. Initial Matters: Alleged Procedural Violations; waiver, estoppel, res judicata
Issues...................................................................................................................156
1. Alleged Procedural Violations by the ABC Experts..................................156
2. Waiver, Estoppel, and Res Judicata Arguments........................................159
C. Characterization of the ABC...............................................................................161
1. The Non-uniform Nature of Boundary Commissions...............................162
2. The ABC’s Singular Characteristics..........................................................163
(a) The Positions of the Parties..............................................................163
(b) The ABC’s Composition..................................................................164
(c) The ABC’s Procedural Framework..................................................165
(d) The ABC’s Function within the Sudanese Peace Process................167
3. Fact-Finding Powers and the Decision-Making Powers............................168
(a) The ABC’s Function Went Beyond That of Historical Fact-
Finding Bodies.................................................................................168
(b) The ABC’s Role in the Peace Process Required a Final and
Binding Decision..............................................................................169
(c) The ABC’s Composition Does Not Exclude a Decision-Making
Function............................................................................................170
4. Conclusion.................................................................................................171
D. Reasonableness is the Applicable Standard for Reviewing the Interpretation
and Implementation of the ABC Experts’ Mandate............................................172
1. Standard of Review Regarding the ABC’s Interpretation of Its
Mandate......................................................................................................172
(a) The Parties’ Positions.......................................................................172
(b) The Tribunal’s Interpretation of Article 2(a) of the Arbitration
Agreement........................................................................................174
(i) The Wording and Structure of Article 2..................................174
(ii) The ABC Experts Had the Authority to Interpret Their
Mandate...................................................................................175
(iii) The Tribunal Must Defer to the Interpretation of the ABC
Experts, as Long as that Interpretation Is Reasonable............177
2. Standard of Review Regarding the ABC’s Implementation of Its
Mandate......................................................................................................180
(a) Review for “Substantive Errors” is Outside the Tribunal’s
Competence......................................................................................180
(b) Failure to State Reasons for a Decision May Lead to an “Excess
of Mandate”......................................................................................182
(i) The ABC’s Mandate Included the Duty to State Reasons.......182
(ii) Lack of Any Reasons or Obviously Contradictory or
Frivolous Reasons Would Amount to an Excess of
Mandate...................................................................................184
3. Conclusion.................................................................................................188
E. Assessing the reasonableness of the ABC Experts’ interpretation of the
Formula...............................................................................................................188
1. The ABC Experts’ Interpretation of the Formula......................................190
(a) The Parties’ Interpretation of the Mandate Before the ABC in its
Proceedings......................................................................................190
(b) The SPLM/A’s Interpretation Before the ABC................................190
(c) The GoS’s Interpretation Before the ABC.......................................192
(d) The Parties’ Criticism of the Other Side’s Interpretation of the
Mandate Presented to the ABC Experts...........................................193
2. The ABC Experts’ Interpretation of the Mandate......................................195
(a) The Provincial Boundary Was Not the Determining Factor in the
Experts’ Analysis of the Formula.....................................................195
(b) The ABC Experts’ Emphasis on the Tribal Dimension of the
Transfer............................................................................................196
3. The Tribunal’s Appreciation of the Reasonableness of the ABC
Experts’ Interpretation...............................................................................199
4. “Chiefdoms” as the Appropriate Object of the Transfer...........................200
(a) Textual Interpretation of the Formula..............................................200
(b) The Object and Purpose of the Formula Within the Meaning of
Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention...........................................203
(c) The Context of the Formula.............................................................208
(d) The Drafting History of the Abyei Protocol.....................................209
5. The Predominantly Tribal Interpretation of the Formula is Reasonable
in Light of the Historic Facts of 1905........................................................214
(a) The Uncertainty of the Provincial Boundary....................................214
(b) The lack of effective administration.................................................217
(c) Limited Knowledge of the Extent of Territory Used and
Occupied by the Ngok Dinka...........................................................220
(d) The Reasons for the 1905 Transfer Effectuated by the
Condominium Administration..........................................................221
6. The Interpretation of the Formula in Light of the 2008 Negotiation
and Signing of the Arbitration Agreement.................................................227
7. Respect for the Date of 1905.....................................................................229
8. Reasonableness of the Predominantly “Territorial” Interpretation of
the Formula................................................................................................232
F. Failure to state reasons in the implementation of the mandate...........................235
1. The Northern Boundary of the Abyei Area...............................................235
(a) The ABC Has Provided Sufficient Reasons for Its
Determination of the Area of Permanent Ngok Dinka Habitation...235
(i) The Rejection of the Bahr el Arab and the Ragaba ez Zarga...235
(ii) The Adoption of 10°10’N as the Limit of Ngok Dinka
Permanent Settlements............................................................236
(b) The Line Along Latitude 10°35’N Is Unsupported By Sufficient
Reasons.............................................................................................238
(c) Conclusion........................................................................................241
2. The Southern Boundary of the Abyei Area...............................................241
3. The Eastern and Western Boundaries of the Abyei Area..........................242
G. The Tribunal’s Determination of the Abyei Area’s Eastern and Western
Boundaries pursuant to Article 2(c) of the Arbitration Agreement.....................245
1. Preliminary Remarks on the Appreciation of the Evidentiary Record......246