The International Court of Justice, the highest jurisdiction of the United Nations, has traced a new maritime boundary near that, rich in fish and potential hydrocarbons, claimed by Somalia. Kenya rejected the decision.
Le Monde with AFP
Nairobi and Mogadishcio have been opposed for years on the route of their maritime boundary, both claiming sovereignty on a vast maritime zone that may shelter oil and gas deposits. By giving Somalia most of this area of the Indian Ocean rich in fish and potential hydrocarbons, the Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ) has put an end to the procedure launched in 2014 by Mogadishi and which regularly envoy The already tumultuous relations between the two neighbors of East Africa.
The highest jurisdiction of the United Nations has ruled on Tuesday 12 October that there was “no agreed maritime boundary” and traced a new frontier close to that claimed by Somalia. Kenya retains part of the contested water triangle between the two countries, which extends over more than 100,000 square kilometers.
Kenya “does not recognize the conclusions”
The President of Somalia asked Kenya to “respect international law” after the decision of the ICJ. “We are waiting for the neighboring country, Kenya, which it respects international law and gives up its ambition,” said Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, says Farmajo, adding that Somalia “conformed” to this decision.
But President Kényan, Uhuru Kenyatta, then indicated that the government “rejects totally and does not recognize the conclusions” of the ICJ. He described the decision of “zero-sum game, which will hurt the relations between the two countries” and “will potentially aggravate the situation of peace and security in the fragile region of the Horn of Africa”, reiterating the Nairobi call to work in place for a negotiated settlement.
Upstream of the decision, Kenya had accused the jurisdiction of bias and already indicated that he did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court, created in 1946 to resolve disputes between Member States. The decisions of the ICJ are imposed on the parties and are without appeal, but the Court does not have binding means to enforce them. However, it can refer violations to the United Nations.
Somalia, located east of Kenya, asserted that its maritime boundary with Kenya had to be delimited in the extension of its terrestrial border towards the south-east. For its part, Kenya believed that the border at sea is traced in a straight line to the east, giving it more maritime territory.
“Obvious and inherent partiality”
Nairobi maintains sovereignty over the disputed area since 1979, when Kenya has set the limits of its exclusive economic zone. In particular, the Kenya has granted three oil exploration permits in the area concerned with the Italian company ENI, contested by Somalia.
In 2009, the two neighbors had agreed to settle their dispute by bilateral negotiations. But the latter did not succeed. In 2014, Somalia seized the ICJ, which, despite Kenya’s challenges, was competent in February 2017. Tensions between the two neighbors reached a peak in February 2019 when Nairobi recalled his ambassador to Mogadishu, accusing Somalia for bidding oil and gas deposits in the disputed area.
In March, Nairobi stated that he no longer attended the court hearings after the court’s refusal to authorize new delays in this case. Friday, Kenya has announced this time that he no longer recognized the skill of the ICJ. The Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the jurisdiction of “obvious and inherent partiality”. “In addition to withdrawing his participation in the current case, Kenya (…) has also joined many other United Nations members to withdraw his recognition from the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court,” he has declared last week.
