Why India cannot disturb Manipur Boundary of 1947?
Uti possidetis juris
- Part 2 -

Professor (Dr.) N. Sanajaoba *

Manipur Map

The international obligation of the state of India towards Manipur has been clearly stipulated article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which India has subscribed to, two years before her official independence. The Manipur state had existed for two millennia and her independent status has been given international recognition since 1726 A.D. and 1826 A.D. onwards with the emergence of the modern state systems in the world. She had her defined territory, population, successive governments for two millennia, external relations with neighbours, economic centralisation, common official language, common ancestry for two millennia even before the colonial British had recently coined terms like Kuki, Naga and others and above all, a full-fledged constitutional system, equipped with judicial mechanisms. Any claimant to territory should have these parameters.

Government of India's Charter obligations towards respecting territorial integrity of Manipur emanates from article 2(4) of the Charter, "All members (sic. India) shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (sic. Manipur), or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations".

The same article is equally applicable to Indian as well. Even the great super powers can not pose a threat to India. The state practices in the matter of freezing colonial boundaries or borders at the moment of independence of colonial countries are very clear for anybody not to misread the consistent practices, that ultimately led to the framing of the 'Uti Possidetis Juris'. The borders and boundary of Manipur that existed at the lapse of British paramountcy is fully protected by this principle even for the sake of triggering off counter productive, wanton fratricidal wars. Government of India in particular has the international obligation not to violate the "Uti Possidetis" under all circumstance without risking hostile responses for her irresponsible behaviour. Brownlie and Shaw's latest edition of International law, among other, demonstrate the details.

The International Court of Justice has laid down the principle in a series of disputes bearing the similar context. The ICJ in Libya-Chad Case announced that, "once agreed, the boundary stands, for any other approach would vitiate the fundamental principle of the stability of boundaries, the importance of which has been repeatedly emphasised by the Court". (ICJ reports, 1994, Shaw p. 685; hereafter references are made to Shaw).

The ICJ Reports, 1992 in 'Land' Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador Honduras) case proclaims that the administrate limits are invested as international boundaries and the Uti Possidetis is a retrospective principle. The ICJ in Burkina Faso, Republic of Mali (ICJ reports, 1986) laid down the norm- 'Intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonisation for settlement of disputes. The Uti Possidetis principle laid down by ICJ is (excerpt):

"The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle Uti Possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term". (op. cit. p. 357).

The ICJ reports relating to Latin America (Reports, 1959, 1960) has framed the Principle in early 1960; "When the common sovereign power was withdrawn, it became indispensably necessary to agree on a general principal of demarcation, since there was a universal desire to avoid to resort to force, and the principle adopted was colonial Uti possidetis; that is, the principle involving the preservation of the demarcation under the colonial regimes corresponding to each of the colonial entitles that was constituted as a State." (Bronlie, p. 137 ). The Asian Governments including Government of India and tribunal for cases like Rann of Kutch (Award, 1968) have adopted the principle in order to preserve pre-independence boundaries, established by law.

In the significant western Sahara Case, the ICJ in 1975 while admitting that historical ties exited between tribes of Morocco and Mauritania, rendered the extensive Moroccan claims over Mauritania, Western Sahara and parts of Algeria as irrelevant and of political nature.

Application of Uti Possidetis

In the event of boundaries among the break-up independent states, the Minsk Agreement of 8 December, 1991 (see author's Oppressed Nations, p. 325) followed by Alma Ata Declaration of 21 December, 1991 clearly stipulates, "The high contracting parties recognise and respect one another's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders within the common wealth" (article 5 of Minsk).

Even in the context of the most mind-boggling, blood-letting Balkan crisis the like of which the history has not witnessed before, similar territorial issues or claims have been easily settled without any noise-pollution in the neighbourhood- environment. The arbitration commission, installed by the European Conference on Yugoslavia in its option 2 solemnly proclaimed that "Whatever the circumstances the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the same time of independence (Uti Possidetis Juris) except were states concerned agree otherwise". In option 3, the existing boundaries became international boundaries after the independence of several states from the republic of Yugoslavia in 1991-1992. But for the universal states that emerged from Yugoslavia would never rid themselves of permanent, fratricidal wars and their independence might have been postponed for several decades.

Besides, the unacceptable 'doctrine of contiguity', doctrine of forefathers has been invoked in the case of Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. The United Nations rejected the mistaken historical argument of Iraq and throttled her till the Iraqis eject out Kuwait from gobbling up. (see author's, Oppressed Nations p. 115-117, Security Council Resolutions). The USA since 1856 had adopted the elementary norm of UTI POSSIDETIS, when the Secretary of state proclaimed that with the termination of European colony in Americas, the independent states succeed to the territorial limits of the colonial period.

The Organisation of American Unity also has adopted in 1964 the principle that the emerging states would follow the colonially defined territory. The principle has been so firmly established in all the continents that even rogue states of Idi Amin dare not violate the universal principle. However, among the African tribes, fratricidal and internecine wars led to near-total decimation of rival tribal populations. When these futile, mutual genocides have concluded, they are back to square one only to belatedly comply with the Uti Possidetis spectacular in 1990s and commands utmost respect and compliance by existing as well as emerging sovereign states, which would have a political and economic space in the comity of nations by dint of their strict adherence to this Uti Possidetis rule.

Self-Determining Units

Colonial declaration 1960, Declaration relating Friendly relation 1970 stipulate the exercise of the right to self-determination by legitimate people; but it cannot be put into improper use territorial aggrandizement of the self-determination unit. The Uti Possidetis principle has been used in the context of de-colonisation of colony and non self-governing territory subject to the pre-independence colonial administrative boundaries. The reason is simple political instability and fratricidal wars will often ensue in the event of dilution of the principle. It could also be possible that the world community can hold up recognition of emerging states, which fail to comply with this norm and create threat to peace and security in parts of the world. The non-self-governing people in the region cannot but honour this rule to their advantage.

Context

The territorial integrity of Manipur has been fairly established for half a millennium, as one can verify easily it from Henry Yule's Map of Manipur in 1500 A.D., down to James Johnstone's Map in 19th century (p. 34 of his Manipur and the Naga Hills) and to Surveyor General of India's map of Manipur, 1984 AD (see p. 542, Manipur Past and Present Vol. III). They have been corroborated and recognised by other countries in their official maps and records. The boundary had so firmly established as to reduce any baseless claim to a heap of mockery and puerile absurdity.

What is more significant that the corroboration, and recognition of the Manipur* territorial areas for half a millennium is the moment at which the British paramountcy lapsed in regard to Manipur, for the application of the universal rule of Uti POSSIDETIS JURIS to Manipur and the neighbouring areas or states. (see details in the author's book Manipur Puwaari, 1997 and his other volumes). The pre-independence territorial integrity of Manipur has been exactly sustained on the 14th and 15th August, 1947 _ which is material for the purpose of the universal principle, as cited. No ambiguity whatsoever remains about Manipur in all the British, K.W., Indian, Burmese and Manipur State official records. The room for comparing any adverse document records or official maps could be given only when the contrary could be proved with sufficient historical and official records, issued by independent states, governments and their plenipotentiary.

The government of India and for that matter, any other member state of the UN or international protectorate within the UN system and recognised states in the comity of nations are under Charter and international obligations to literally comply with the UTI POSSIDETIS rule. This universal rule after having been fully assimilated into the uninterrupted state practices for such a long time in all the continents has transformed into customary international law with profound implications for municipal law jurisdictions in equal terms. The self-determining units can not claim exception to this rule after considering the 1960 Colonial declaration and 1970 Friendly Relations declaration. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 affirms the concept of established boundary, which cannot be altered except by mutual consent.

Concluded...