Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Sudan boundaries with Egypt and Kenya : a question of state succession to international boundaries
Author: Ahmed, M. A. M.
Awarding Body: University of Cambridge
Current Institution: University of Cambridge
Date of Award: 1998
Availability of Full Text:
Full text unavailable from EThOS.
Please contact the current institution’s library for further details.
This thesis is an attempt to examine and analyse two distinct, but related, territorial disputes involving Sudan and two of its neighbours. They concern the area between the administrative boundary and the so-called political boundary between Sudan and Egypt, and the area between the international boundary and the administrative boundary between Sudan and Kenya. The Egyptian claims to the administrative area in 1958 and again in 1992, apparently rests on two main arguments. Firstly, that Egypt possesses immemorial sovereign rights over the disputed areas. Secondly, that the 1899 Agreement between Great Britain and Egypt is the only international boundary agreement resulting from an international instrument, and therefore, could not have been revised by the unilateral Egyptian ministerial decrees of 1899 and 1902. Additionally, Egypt argues that the cession of the disputed areas of Sudan was for administrative reasons only, with Egypt retaining full sovereign rights. Hence, upon independence, Sudan was obliged to return the areas to sovereign, Egypt. It will be argued, that the essence of an international boundary agreement is that it separates two distinct sovereignties. As for the Sudan-Kenya dispute, the boundary was defined by Great Britain in 1914 with the consent of Egypt. It constitutes a straight line to Lake Rudolf to compensate the Sudan for the Mahagi strip ceded to Uganda at the same time. The final analysis is that Kenya has an administrative, not sovereign right, over the Ilemi Triangle. Furthermore, the re-definition of the line in 1947 and 1951, upon Kenya’s request, to include more areas, north and east of the 1938 line, under Kenyan administration supports the argument that the agreement between the two countries was an administrative agreement not a cession of sovereignty. The view of Great Britain as a former colonial power, as well as the corresponding agreement between Sudan and Kenya before 1938 up till Sudan’s independence in 1956, supports this argument.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available