The Convention on the High Seas
4.2 Treaties Concluded in Africa
Almost all of sub-Saharan Africa became independent after 1956; until then, only Liberia and Ethiopia were independent. Until 1956, most bilateral agreements were between colonial powers seeking free access to the sea for their colonies; for instance, aTreaty signed between Great Britain and Portugal on November 14, 1890,
493In the same time period, under the auspices of the Customs Coordination Council and with the help of the International Bureau of Chamber of Commerce, the ATA Convention was concluded on July 6, 1961. This Convention, which entered into force in 1963, estab-lished a carnet system to facilitate procedures for temporary duty-free imports of goods.
Seefor a brief introduction, Kishor Uprety, ATA: An International Convention for Tempo-rary Export,45 Law Bulletin 42–50 (Nepal Law Society 1991).
494Marion,supra n. 170, at 465. This Convention was revised in 1975 to take into account practical experience in operating the system and to give effect to technical advances and changing customs and transportation requirements. See generally, The TIR Transit System, ECE/Trans/TIR2 UN, 2 (United Nations 1991).
guaranteed free navigation on the Zambezi.495In Article 3 of this Agreement, the King of Portugal agreed to improve the means of communication between Portuguese ports and territories that were in the British zone of influence. A similar example is the Treaty of March 15, 1921, between Great Britain and Belgium,496 dealing with the measures taken to facilitate Belgian trade in the East African terri-tories by allowing access to British ports on the Indian Ocean.
Ethiopia, at the time the only independent African LLS, concluded an agree-ment with Italy on August 2, 1929,497that dealt with construction of a route link-ing Assab to Dessia. Italy granted Ethiopia a free zone in the port of Assab where Ethiopia could construct warehouses. Another agreement, signed on May 15, 1902, in Addis Ababa and concerning the demarcation of boundaries between Ethiopia and Sudan,498had already granted Great Britain the right to construct a railway through Ethiopian territory to link Sudan and Uganda.
The convention of June 17, 1950, between Great Britain and the Republic of Portugal concerned the port of Beira (now in Mozambique).499This agreement ensured access to the sea for the British colonies of Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Bechuanaland (Botswana), Swaziland, and Basutoland (Lesotho). The contract-ing States also agreed to avoid any discrimination in applycontract-ing railway tariffs within these territories.
After decolonization began, the African LLS began signing their own bilateral agreements with transit neighbors. A great number of these concerned overland public transport500and applied to transport of both goods and passengers.
With regard to port installations, Mali and Senegal501on June 8, 1963, signed an agreement that seems to be highly significant. It stated that the port installations
495Agreement between Great Britain and Portugal, recording a modus vivendiRespecting the Spheres of Action of the two Countries in Africa. For the text, seeEdward Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty vol. 3, 1014–16 (Harrison and Sons 1909).
4965 L.T.S. 319.
497See The Report of the Secretariat of the ECE, Problems of Transit of East African LLS, Document E/CN 14/INR/44, at 12; see alsofor a detailed discussion of several agree-ments, Jean Grosdidier de Matons, Facilitation of Transport and Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of International Legal Instruments(The World Bank 2004).
498See Article V, Treaties Between Great Britain and Ethiopia and Between Great Britain, Italy and Ethiopia, Relative to the Frontiers Between the Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, signed at Addis Ababa on May 15, 1902. For the text, see I. Brownlie, African Boundaries.
A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia 866–67 (C. Hurst & Company 1979).
499537 U.N.T.S. 167.
500Agreement of July 26, 1968 Between Mali and Upper Volta; Agreement of October 10, 1966 Between Niger and Upper Volta SeeDocument UNO A/AC 138/37, June 11, 1971.
Note: Upper Volta officially changed its name to Burkina Faso on August 4, 1984.
501U.N. Doc., A/AC, 138/37, 1971.
of Dakar and Kaolack for transit of goods to or from Mali form distinct free zones within these ports, with the customs authorities of both states supervising entry and exit. By creating a free zone for an LLS in the port of a transit State, the agree-ment seems more generous than the bilateral agreeagree-ments that merely provide warehousing facilities. A more recent example is the Protocol between Rwanda and Kenya regarding warehousing facilities at Maritini (Mombasa).502
502See Agreement dated February 26, 1992, between the Rwandese Republic and the Republic of Kenya, Rwanda Gazette Officielle (1994). An interesting example of con-structive cooperation in Africa relates to a petroleum development and pipeline project for Chad and Cameroon. In order to develop the oil fields at Doba in southern Chad, includ-ing construction of a 1,070-kilometer pipeline to offshore oil-loadinclud-ing facilities on Cameroon’s Atlantic coast, Chad (landlocked) and Cameroon (transit) entered into a bilat-eral treaty in 1996 (Accord entre le Gouvernement de la République du Tchad et le Gou-vernement de la République du Cameroun Relatif à la Construction et à l’exploitation d’un Système de Transport des Hydrocarbures par Pipeline) (Treaty on file with author).
This Treaty, signed on February 8, 1996, made clear and unambiguous references in its preamble to the GATT, the spirit of the 1965 Convention on Transit Trade of Landlocked States, and UNCLOS III.
The recitals in its preamble are clear.
«Rappelant les dispositions pertinentes de 1’Accord Général sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce du 30 octobre 1947 et de 1’Accord Général sur les Tarifs Douaniers et le Commerce annexe à 1’Accord du 15 avril 1994 instituant l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce;»
«Ayant présentes a 1’esprit les dispositions de la Convention de New York du 8 juillet 1965 relative au commerce en transit des Etats sans littoral;»
«Rappelant également les dispositions pertinentes de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le Droit de la Mer du 10 décembre 1982, en particulier sa partie X portant d’une part, sur le droit d’accès des Etats sans littoral à la mer et depuis la mer et en liberté de transit, et d’autre part le droit des Etats de transit dans l’exercice de leur pleine sou-veraineté, de préserver leurs intérêts légitimes (see the recitals of the preamble);»
Furthermore, Chapter 3 deals with the right of access to the sea and the freedom of tran-sit. Its Article 3 reads:
«1. La République du Cameroun reconnaît et octroie à la République du Tchad, Etat sans littoral, un droit d’accès à la mer et une liberté de transit pour l’exportation par pipeline des hydrocarbures produits sur son territoire, conformément aux disposi-tions pertinentes de la Convention des Nadisposi-tions Unies sur le Droit de la Mer du 10 décembre 1982.»
«2. Les Expéditeurs des hydrocarbures produits en République du Tchad bénéficient également du droit d’accès à la mer de la République du Tchad spécifie a l’alinéa 1) ci-dessus.»
In the same vein, Article 4 of the Treaty reads:
«La République du Cameroun pour l’exercice du droit d’accès à la mer et de la liberté de transit reconnus et octroyés à la République du Tchad à l’article 3 ci-dessus s’en-gage à prendre les mesures relevant de sa compétence afin d’éviter les retards et les difficultés, notamment à caractère technique ou administratif, dans la conception, la construction, l’exploitation et l’entretien du Système de Transport et l’acheminement du trafic en transit. Les Etats Contractants coopèrent le cas échéant afin d’éliminer dans les meilleurs délais toute cause de retard ou de difficultés.»
Besides bilateral agreements, a number of international organizations, gener-ally regional or subregional, facilitate exchange between African States. Most of these were created as instruments of economic cooperation among States in the area. Within these institutions have been created organizations facilitating transit among member States. Such African organizations have been perceived as less efficient than the European ones, perhaps simply because they are of more recent origin.